Nehemiah 2

In the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when wine was brought for him, I took the wine and gave it to the king. I had not been sad in his presence before, Nehemiah 2:1

The month of Nisan was roughly equivalent to our April. It was the beginning of the new year for Israel and also for Persia. Since it was a time of celebration and a season when the king was known to do acts of generosity, Nehemiah may have chosen to present his cause before the king at this time. As we have mentioned, Nehemiah held the office of cupbearer to the king. [1] This post gave him much access to royalty. The Scottish divine Robert Jamieson describes the work of cupbearers: “Having washed the cup in the king’s presence and poured into their left hand a little of the wine, which they drank in his presence, he then handed the cup to him, not grasped, but lightly held with the tips of their thumb and fingers.” [2] However, on this occasion, Nehemiah was weighted down with sadness over Jerusalem and that sadness showed. He had been in sadness over Jerusalem with prayer and fasting for four months.

“so the king asked me, ‘Why does your face look so sad when you are not ill? This can be nothing but sadness of heart.’ I was very much afraid,” (2:2). We can be sure that Nehemiah’s fear was not exaggerated but very real. Sadness was not permitted in the presence of the king since a visit in his presence was to bring only joy. Also, “Sadness, after all, might suggest the dissatisfaction of a plotter…” [3] The presence of the king was an awesome place. We learn from the Book of Esther that one who even came before the king unbeckoned would be put to death (Esth. 4:11). To have the king point out one’s sadness was no doubt most terrifying.

“but I said to the king, ‘May the king live forever! Why should my face not look sad when the city where my ancestors are buried lies in ruins, and its gates have been destroyed by fire?’” (2:3). The expression “May the king live forever!” was the usual way to address the king. It was a prayer for the king’s well-being. This was normal court language. It was a prayer for the king’s continual health. [4] The cupbearer was especially anxious that the king live long and not be poisoned.

We immediately see here a masterful presentation by Nehemiah. He is careful not to mention the city of Jerusalem and to politicize the conversation. Instead, he speaks only of his father’s burial site and the deep sorrow he had that it was in ruins. Anders mentions, “Respect for ancestral burial sites was of great concern to ancient peoples, particularly imperial rulers…” [5] Pett adds: “Persian kings attempted to give their sepulchers the appearance of a house or palace, even when they were utilizing rock tombs.” [6]

Had Nehemiah mentioned Jerusalem he would have started off on a sour note since the king had sometime before made a ruling against the city and sided with the hateful Samaritans (Ezra 4:7-24). Nehemiah would have been on dangerous ground in asking favor for Jerusalem because the rulings of the Persian kings could not be changed (Dan. 6:8). Since the sepulcher of his father was in Jerusalem it is thought that Nehemiah was from the tribe of Judah. The early church leaders Eusebius and Jerome stated that he was.

“The king said to me, ‘What is it you want?’ Then I prayed to the God of heaven, and I answered the king, ‘If it pleases the king and if your servant has found favor in his sight, let him send me to the city in Judah where my ancestors are buried so that I can rebuild it’” (2:4-5). Anders says, “The king knew that, in the language of the court, Nehemiah had something in mind, so he asked, ‘What is it you want?’” [8] Nehemiah knew that he was at a critical moment and he sent one of those flash prayers up to God. Wiersbe says that these emergency prayers are OK especially if they are backed up by months of praying and fasting. [9] “It was only after speaking to the King of Kings that he was prepared to answer the king of Persia.” [10]

Daniel’s Mysterious Seventy Sevens

Again, Nehemiah does not say a word about Jerusalem. He speaks only of Judah and the burial places of his ancestors. However, Nehemiah does ask permission to rebuild the city. The words “rebuild” appear in the original and in almost all of the translations. This statement is prophetically important and connects with Daniel’s amazing prophecy in 9:24-27. In a mere four verses Daniel summarizes coming world history to the end of the age in terms of seventy ‘sevens,’ or seventy time periods of seven years each (490 years). That whole amazing period would begin with a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. Scholars feel that this second decree of Artaxerxes in 445 was that decree since it has the word “rebuild” in it. [11]

The angel Gabriel informed Daniel that from the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed ruler comes will be a combined period of seven ‘sevens’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ The initial period of seven ‘sevens’ seems to be related to the resettlement of the land and the rebuilding of the temple after the Babylonian captivity. The total period for our consideration will thus be sixty-nine ‘sevens’ or 483 years (Dan. 9:25). The final ‘seven’ is not included in our calculations.

After 62 ‘sevens’ the Messiah would come and die for his people. Apparently, around 69 ‘sevens’ the Romans would come and destroy the city and the temple. It seems that with Jerusalem and the temple being destroyed the divine time clock stopped. There is one ‘seven’ remaining and that seven years will bring the consummation of the age and the return of the Messiah. Interestingly, we have been in a suspended period of two-thousand years. For this reason, the early Christians believed they were living in the last hour (1 Jn. 2:18). In a real sense, the divine clock has stopped with seven minutes to midnight or a new day.

Daniel was then introduced to the final period of ‘seven.’ It will obviously come at the end of the age due to the presence of the Beast or Antichrist pictured in this period. At that time the covenant will be renewed with Israel for a short and turbulent period of seven years. This period may well be marked by the building of a new temple in Jerusalem and even by the renewal of animal sacrifices. In the middle of this period, the Beast or Antichrist who is spoken of in Daniel and Revelation will put an end to sacrifice and proclaim that he himself is God (cf. Matt. 24:15; 2 Thess. 2:4). He will set up the abomination of desolation in a wing of the temple, but then his awful reign will be brought to an end (Dan. 9:27).

There are many complexities related to this account. If we take the second decree of Artaxerxes in 445 BC (there were four different decrees to consider) we need to make some allowances. Daniel was probably speaking of lunar years with months of 30 days each. The lunar year was made up of 360 days. This would shorten the period by six or seven years. Lunar years are very common in the Bible and Israel still runs on a lunar calendar. If we recalculate based on lunar years it would bring us to around AD 31. That is an extremely significant time and very close to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

We can see how Nehemiah was working with the flow of prophecy. It was not just his idea but it was God’s idea and he had foretold it long before. We must give Nehemiah plenty of credit for his boldness and faith to make it happen. Derek Kidner, the British Old Testament scholar says: “Further, he will be asking the king to revise his policy, for the decision against Jerusalem had been official. True, the decree had left a loophole for change (see Ezr. 4:21)…” [12] Through all this, Nehemiah probably remembered the words of Proverbs 16:14, “A king’s wrath is a messenger of death…”

Nehemiah Gets His Answer

Then the king, with the queen sitting beside him, asked me, “How long will your journey take, and when will you get back?” It pleased the king to send me; so I set a time. Nehemiah 2:6

We can be sure that Nehemiah breathed a great sigh of relief as the king spoke. He knew the king and queen had accepted his proposal. We are told that the king was even pleased with it. Sometime before, the king had ruled against Jerusalem but as we mentioned, he left himself a loophole. He had said, “Now issue an order to these men to stop work, so that this city will not be rebuilt until I so order” (Ezra 4:21). Rulings of Persian kings could not be changed as we remember. While the king could not change a ruling, the King of Kings could change it. The Bible says the king’s heart is like a watercourse and the Lord can change it however he wills (Prov. 21:1).

We note that the queen was present at this festival. Commentators generally feel that this was a private festival since queens were not allowed to attend regular ones. We know from historical records that her name was Damaspia. Pett speculates: “The mention of the queen sitting by suggests that she may well have approved Nehemiah’s request and have added her voice to his.” [13] Anders adds: “Historians agree that Artaxerxes was greatly influenced by women, and Damaspia’s presence may have worked in Nehemiah’s favor.” [14]

We might wonder how God changed the king’s mind. Again, from historical records, we know that the Persian Empire had been threatened by some rebellions. There was a big problem of rebellion in Egypt as well as in the area described as Beyond the River. [15] The latter was the exact area where Nehemiah would be going. Nehemiah was one of the most trusted men in the kingdom. Who could better represent the king and his interests in such a turbulent time than Nehemiah?

The scripture tells us that Nehemiah served as Governor for 12 years (5:14). When asked by the king how long he would stay he surely did not say 12 years. It is likely that he might have returned after the wall was built, just a few months later. Kidner says, “He is more likely to have reported back after the dedication of the walls, within the year, and then to have had his appointment as governor renewed.” [16] At that time the king might have been anxious that he go back to Jerusalem and continue his stabilizing work. We learn from 5:14 that Nehemiah was appointed governor from the outset.

“I also said to him, ‘If it pleases the king, may I have letters to the governors of Trans-Euphrates, so that they will provide me safe-conduct until I arrive in Judah?’” (2:7). Nehemiah probably had done a lot of thinking, planning and praying regarding his request. Anders says, “Prayer and planning complement each other in working out God’s will.” [17] We know from scripture that some of these officials despised Jerusalem and had done everything in their power to destroy the city. Now they will have to actually assist Nehemiah in his work of building up the city. David Guzik, pastor and biblical writer, comments: “…Nehemiah didn’t ask because he wanted to take advantage of the king. Instead, he showed honor and respect to the king by inviting him to participate in a worthy work.” [18]

“‘And may I have a letter to Asaph, keeper of the royal park, so he will give me timber to make beams for the gates of the citadel by the temple and for the city wall and for the residence I will occupy?’ And because the gracious hand of my God was on me, the king granted my requests” (2:8). In his careful planning, Nehemiah had learned about Asaph who kept the royal trees. Asaph was a Hebrew name and it is possible that the forest was close to Jerusalem. The Persian word pardês is used here and it means forest or park. [19] It is interesting that “…this was the first mention of the controversial wall that lay in ruins because of Artaxerxes’s command.” [20]

The citadel by the temple that is mentioned is felt by several commentators to be the castle that protected and overlooked the temple. This structure was rebuilt later in Herod’s time and named Antonia. [21] J. G. McConville of Trinity College in England summarizes: “…a request for the fortification of any city in the realm was potentially suspicious…he had, at an unspecified earlier stage in his reign, put a stop to the very business of fortification which Nehemiah now wished to resume (cf. Ezra 4:7-23)…” [22] Who says that God cannot remove mountains? (Matt. 17:20). McGee chides, “The king, the priest, and the prophet actually failed to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and cleanse the temple, so God raised up Nehemiah, whom we designate a layman.” [23]

The Trip To Jerusalem

So I went to the governors of Trans-Euphrates and gave them the king’s letters. The king had also sent army officers and cavalry with me. Nehemiah 2:9

The trip to Jerusalem could take a couple of months but since Nehemiah was traveling with cavalry the trip could have been shorter. His immediate purpose was to touch base with the governors of Trans-Euphrates and deliver his credentials. Kidner says, “There was more than protection to be gained from the military escort. It meant an arrival in style, impressively reinforcing the presentation of credentials to the neighboring governors and making very plain the change of royal policy…” [24] Pett adds that it “would in itself speak volumes.” [25]

Some might wonder why Nehemiah had military protection while Ezra with a large company of exiles and very much treasure traveled without escort. Ezra certainly depended heavily on God. Nehemiah did too, but his office was much different that of Ezra’s. He was the new governor of the Jewish territory and the king would have had it no other way.

“When Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official heard about this, they were very much disturbed that someone had come to promote the welfare of the Israelites” (2:10). As Nehemiah delivered his credentials, he met two of the three culprits who would try their best to defeat his plans. These men were high officials of the Persian government. Sanballat was governor of Samaria and Tobiah was likely governor of Ammon. Although Sanballat was a Babylonian name his children had YHWHistic names. We know this from the Elephantine Papyri and the Samaritan Papyri. Sanballat was called the Horonite because he was likely from Beth-horon. [26] It may have been a name given him in contempt by Nehemiah. The YHWHistic names speak of the syncretism that both Ezra and Nehemiah dreaded.

Tobiah was a common Jewish name but Tobiah was not a common person. He was an official with great power, and probably was governor of Ammon. Although he also apparently involved in religious syncretism, he still had many connections in Jerusalem. He was likely trying to serve the true God while at the same time giving honor to the idols of the land. He was near of kin and allied to Eliashib, the high priest of Israel (13:4-9). With that connection he gathered a lot of inside information and passed it on to his cronies. [27] In a fit of holy rage Nehemiah would later throw all of Tobiah’s belongings out of the temple compound (13:7-8).

“That the returnees were thought of as ‘the children of Israel’ hints at the fact that the returnees now indeed saw themselves as the true Israel, something already made clear in Ezra 2:2; Ezra 3:8; Ezra 9:8…” [28] The other member of the terrible threesome, and one we will meet later in verse 19, was the Arab, Geshem. We will speak more about him when we arrive at that verse.

Guzik says, “Our spiritual enemies don’t mind as long as all we do is plan and pray and talk; but when God’s people start doing something, they take notice.” [29]

Nehemiah’s Night Ride

I went to Jerusalem, and after staying there three days I set out during the night with a few others. I had not told anyone what my God had put in my heart to do for Jerusalem. There were no mounts with me except the one I was riding on. Nehemiah 2:11-12

For three days Nehemiah rested from his long trip, just as Ezra had rested three days from his trip. After that, he got busy with his work. With Tobiah snooping around Jerusalem and with all the evil connections he had, we can understand why Nehemiah kept everything secret. The great Spurgeon said: “You will often find it best not to commit your plans to others. If you want to serve God, go and do it, and then let other people find it out afterwards. You have no need to tell what you are going to do, and, I may add, there is no need for you retelling what you have done, for very, very frequently God withdraws himself when we boast of what is being done.” [30]

Guzik continues saying: “There is no way he could have made this tour with a dry eye, knowing the extent of the damage and the fear, poverty, and insecurity the broken walls meant in the lives of the people.” [31] Scripture says, “Whoever has no rule over his own spirit is like a city broken down, without walls” (Prov. 25:28 NKJ).

“By night I went out through the Valley Gate toward the Jackal Well and the Dung Gate, examining the walls of Jerusalem, which had been broken down, and its gates, which had been destroyed by fire. Then I moved on toward the Fountain Gate and the King’s Pool, but there was not enough room for my mount to get through; so I went up the valley by night, examining the wall. Finally, I turned back and reentered through the Valley Gate” (2:13-15). There are several good maps drawn up by Bible scholars that mark out Nehemiah’s route. Probably one of the best is the map in The Macmillan Bible Atlas, Third Edition. [32] The authors, Yohanan Aharoni, Michael Avi-Yonah, Anson F. Rainey and Ze’ev Safari are all professors in the land of Israel. Three of them are Israeli professors and they all have long experience in the land.

These professors feel that Nehemiah primarily concerned himself with the Old City of David during his night ride. In Israel, we gave our tour groups a quick picture of the City of David while standing on the wonderful Talpiot viewpoint to the south. If one holds out the left fist in front, and sticks the thumb down, it would cover the City of David. It is the small portion running down in the valley to the south. The rest of the hand would cover Ophel, the Temple Mount and the upper city.

The Macmillan Atlas has Nehemiah leaving from the Valley Gate on the west side, near the top of David’s City. It has him traveling south on the west side of the city, past the Pool of Siloam and the Dung gate at the very bottom of the city. Then it has him traveling past the Fountain Gate and up the east side of the city which bordered the Kidron Valley. He was not able to travel all the way around because of the massive wreckage of the earlier walls and the very steep slopes. So he had to retrace his steps and once again go out through the Valley Gate. It is interesting that at present there are still massive ruins on the eastern side. Today this area is being excavated and is a very popular tourist attraction where one can see the remains of David’s City, Warren’s Water Shaft and even walk through Hezekiah’s Tunnel across the city to the Pool of Siloam. This excavation is called The City of David.

The Jackal’s Well he mentions can no longer be located. The Dung Gate was in a different place than the one with that name today. It was at the very bottom of David’s City and was the gate where garbage and rubbish were carried out. Nehemiah passed the Fountain Gate which may have led to the spring En Rogel. [33] It appears that on the east side, Nehemiah had to dismount and walk over the ruins. He never made it up to the Water Gate (Gihon Spring) or to the top of the city. When Nehemiah later finished his work he made the city smaller by moving the eastern wall further up on the slope. [34] He probably was trying to avoid dealing with all the wreckage on the eastern side. It is interesting that “The description of Nehemiah’s night-ride (vs. 13-15) affords incidental information, more than anywhere else in the Old Testament about the layout of ancient Jerusalem.” [35]

Both The Building And The Opposition Begin

The officials did not know where I had gone or what I was doing, because as yet I had said nothing to the Jews or the priests or nobles or officials or any others who would be doing the work. Nehemiah 2:16

Once again, we see the wisdom of Nehemiah in not telling anyone about his plans. We will note later that as soon as the plan was revealed the opposition began. The opposition was no minor thing but came from some of the most politically powerful people in the whole area.

“Then I said to them, ‘You see the trouble we are in: Jerusalem lies in ruins, and its gates have been burned with fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, and we will no longer be in disgrace” (2:17). Nehemiah was now speaking from personal experience and with much authority. Anders says, “The shambles of Jerusalem reflected badly upon their religious faith.” [36] The hundred-year-old problem desperately needed to be fixed. “Someone has defined leadership as ‘the art of getting people to do what they ought to do because they want to do it.’” [37] It is easy to see Nehemiah’s sterling quality of leadership shining through.

“I also told them about the gracious hand of my God on me and what the king had said to me. They replied, ‘Let us start rebuilding.’ So they began this good work” (2:18). The returnees had tried to build a wall more than once and had always failed. This time they had the king’s close representative who had come with plenty of political and spiritual power to do the job. “None in Israel could deny the direct providence of God in reversing Artaxerxes; decree of Ezra 4:23.” [38] Everyone present saw it all as a Godsend and the work began immediately.

“But when Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite official and Geshem the Arab heard about it, they mocked and ridiculed us. ‘What is this you are doing?’ they asked. ‘Are you rebelling against the king?’” (2:19). So far, we have introduced Sanballat and Tobiah but now we must introduce Geshem the Arab. “The evidence points to the ruler of an influential Arabian kingdom, the biblical Kedar which controlled the trade routes from Arabia to the Mediterranean and held sway over the coastal strip…” [39] Pett says of him: “Geshem was an important ruler over combined tribes of Arabians to the east and south of Judah, which at this time had good relations with the Persian Empire. His name has been found as ‘King of Qedar’ on a silver vessel… He was thus a formidable opponent. He was probably the Gashmu [some translations] mentioned in Nehemiah 6:6. His interest in opposing the building of the walls of Jerusalem may well have been his fear that Jerusalem would become a trading center that would rival his own trading activities. Trading rights were very carefully guarded.” [40]

It is more than amazing that as God began to draw the Jews back to the land the second time from the 1880s onwards (Isa. 11:11), it was the Arabs (descendants of Ishmael) who once more stood against the establishment of Israel and Jerusalem. This Arab struggle has now been going on for at least a hundred years. From the 1960s onward it has been supposedly a struggle for an Arab Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem. The land had been earlier divided with Arabs living mostly in Judea and Samaria (called the West Bank) and with Jews being crowded into coastal and desert areas. Three major wars have been fought with the Arabs along with many lesser wars and skirmishes. There have been thousands of terror attacks launched by Arabs. It is mostly Arab Moslems who have so bitterly opposed the return of the Jews. It seems that some things just never change.

When the threesome heard of Nehemiah’s plan they began with ridicule. Someone has called ridicule “the weapon of those who have no other.” [41] Their charge of rebelling against the king was a total bluff. Nehemiah had already delivered his credentials to them and they surely knew that he had the authority to rebuild Jerusalem.

“I answered them by saying, ‘The God of heaven will give us success. We his servants will start rebuilding, but as for you, you have no share in Jerusalem or any claim or historic right to it’” (2:20). It is interesting that several generations before, Zerubbabel had told the enemies almost the very same thing (Ezra 4:1-5). Both Ezra and Nehemiah would not allow even Jewish people who were syncretistic in their views and practices to join the holy work of building the temple or the city of Jerusalem.

Guzik says a similar thing about our spiritual enemies today. We need to say to them: “You have no heritage or right or memorial in me. I belong to Jesus Christ. You don’t belong here. You may as well move on because I’m not going anywhere.” [42] At this point it is interesting that Nehemiah does not base his authority on the king but on the King of Kings. There are some beautiful lines from the hymn writer John Newton that sum up our case very well. They are lines based upon Psalm 87. [43]

Savior, since of Zion’s city

I through grace a member am,

Let the world deride or pity,

I will glory in thy name:

Fading is the worldling’s pleasure,

All his boasted pomp and show;

Solid joys and lasting treasure

None but Zion’s children know.

Footnotes

1. Anders, g. ed. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Holman Old Testament Commentary, p. 144.

2. Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, & David Brown, Commentary on Nehemiah, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, 1871-78, v. 2:1. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/jfb/nehemiah-1.html.

3. D. Guthrie, J. A. Motyer, A. M. Stibbs & D. J. Wiseman, eds., The New Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), p. 405.

4. Pett, Commentary on Nehemiah, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 2:3.

5. Anders, g. ed. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Holman Old Testament Commentary, p. 145.

6. Pett, Commentary on Nehemiah, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 2:3.

7. Barnes, Commentary on Nehemiah, Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible, v. 2:3.

8. Anders, g. ed. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Holman Old Testament Commentary, p. 145.

9. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, OT, p. 756.

10. Anders, g. ed. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Holman Old Testament Commentary, p. 145.

11. Charles F. Pfieffer & Everett F. Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1979), p. 437.

12. Kidner, Ezra & Nehemiah, p. 80.

13. Pett, Commentary on Nehemiah, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 2:6.

14. Anders, g. ed. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Holman Old Testament Commentary, 145-146.

15. Mervin Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah & Esther, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), p. 169.

16. Kidner, Ezra & Nehemiah, p. 81.

17. Anders, g. ed. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Holman Old Testament Commentary, p. 150.

18. Guzik, Enduring Word Bible Commentary, Ezra, vs. 2:4-8.

19. Barnes, Commentary on Nehemiah, Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible, v. 2:8.

20. Anders, g. ed. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Holman Old Testament Commentary, p. 146.

21. Pfieffer & Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 437.

22. J. G. McConville, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985), p. 79.

23. McGee, History of Israel, Ezra Nehemiah, Esther, p. 71.

24. Kidner, Ezra & Nehemiah, p. 81.

25. Pett, Commentary on Nehemiah, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 2:9.

26. Dr. Bob Utley, Bible Lessons International, Nehemiah, v. 2:10 http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/old_testament_studies/VOL08OT/VOL08BOT_02.html

27. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, OT, p. 757.

28. Pett, Commentary on Nehemiah, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 2:10.

29. Guzik, Enduring Word Bible Commentary, Ezra, vs. 2:9-10.

30. Quoted in Guzik, Ibid., pp. 11-16.

31. Ibid.,

32. Yohanan Aharoni, Michael Avi-Yonah, Anson F. Rainey, and Ze’ev Sarrai. The Macmillan Bible Atlas, Third Edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993), 129.

33. Pett, Commentary on Nehemiah, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 2:13, 14.

34. Aharoni, et. al., The Macmillan Bible Atlas, Third Edition, p.129.

35. McConville, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, p. 83.

36. Anders, g. ed. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Holman Old Testament Commentary, p. 149.

37. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, OT, pp. 757-58.

38. Pfieffer & Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 437.

39. Anson F. Rainey, R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge, Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World (Jerusalem: Carta Jerusalem, 2006), p. 285.

40. Pett, Commentary on Nehemiah, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 2:19-20.

41. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, OT, p. 758.

42. Guzik, Enduring Word Bible Commentary, Ezra, v. 2:20.

43. Quoted in Kidner, Ezra & Nehemiah, p. 84.