2. And he spake before his brethren] Sanballat’s ‘brethren’ would be the chiefs of the Samaritan community.

and the army of Samaria] ‘the army’ (LXX. δύναμις): the word here used is the one generally employed for ‘armed forces,’ see Nehemiah 2:9; Ezra 8:22; Esther 1:3. The Samaritans seem to have hastily summoned their forces to consider whether it would be practicable to compel the Jews by a sudden onslaught to desist from an undertaking so menacing to Samaritan independence. ‘The army’ therefore is not equivalent to ‘an assembly (Vulg. frequentia),’ but to the population trained in war and capable of bearing arms, collected in face of a sudden emergency. Some have supposed that a body of regular Persian troops stationed at Samaria under a Governor (Nehemiah 2:7) is intended.

What do these feeble Jews?] The word rendered ‘feeble’ only occurs here in the O.T. It denotes the languor of weakness. It is akin to a word found in 1 Samuel 2:5, ‘And she that hath many children languisheth’ (A.V. ‘is waxed feeble’).

will they fortify themselves?] so R.V. text. R.V. marg. ‘Or, will they leave to themselves aught? Or, will men let them alone?’

This short interrogative clause has occasioned much difficulty, on account of the word rendered ‘fortify,’ the natural rendering of which (as in Nehemiah 3:8, where see note) would be ‘leave.’ The versions, LXX. ὄτι οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι οὗτοι οἰκοδομοῦσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν πόλιν, Vulg. Numbers dimittent eos gentes, fail to throw any light upon the passage.

(a) The rendering of the English versions gives a clear and intelligible meaning. But (1) the use of the word in the sense of ‘fortify’ belongs to late Hebrew and is very rare: (2) in Biblical Hebrew it can only be supported by the uncertain testimony of Nehemiah 3:8 : (3) there is no mockery in such a question, corresponding to the tone of the other queries.

(b) ‘will they leave to themselves aught?’ This rendering which preserves the usual meaning of the disputed word, is open to the two very strong objections that, (1) the point of the question is conveyed by a word which is not found in the text, i.e. ‘aught,’ (2) the full meaning, obtained from this rendering (i.e. ‘do they expect to survive such an attempt? the Persian Empire will extirpate a people of such presumption; and nothing will be left to them’), is read into the words rather than derived from them.

(c) ‘will men let them alone?’ i.e. will the Persian Government or the neighbouring races permit the Jews to carry out their design? Against this rendering, which gives a very intelligible meaning, it must be urged, that (1) it necessitates an awkward change of subject introducing a new subject between two clauses in which ‘the Jews’ are the subject, (2) it treats the Jewish project with serious indignation instead of with the contempt expressed in the other queries.

(d) ‘will they commit themselves unto them?’ i.e. will the Jews entrust themselves and so great a work to their leaders? But we should expect a greater definiteness of expression in a short scornful question.

(e) ‘will they on their own behalf (lit. for themselves) commit themselves (i.e. unto God)?’ According to this rendering Sanballat is quoting a cant Jewish phrase ‘to commit oneself,’ leaving his hearers to understand its special application. This use of the word may be illustrated from Psalm 10:14, ‘the helpless committeth (lit. leaveth) himself unto thee.’ The mockery of such a question is quite in harmony with the general tone of Sanballat’s question.

(f) But it is more probable that the great obscurity of the words arises from an early error in the text, a scribe omitting two syllables very similar to those which followed, and writing ‘lâhem’ = ‘to them’ for ‘lêlôheyhem’ = ‘to their God.’ The sense then would be, ‘Will they commit themselves to their God?’ The same textual error occurs in 1 Samuel 3:13 (see R.V. marg.). It may then be compared with Rabshakeh’s words in 2 Kings 18:30; 2 Kings 18:32; 2 Kings 18:35.

will they sacrifice?] A mocking question; equivalent to ‘do the Jews imagine that they have only to collect together and propitiate their God with sacrifices, and their work will be done?’

will they make an end in a day?] Is it to be all done so simply and so quickly? ‘In a day’ might be rendered ‘in the day,’ as if they said, ‘will they make a beginning and an end in this day?’ (LXX. σήμερον, Vulg. in una die).

will they revive …?] Are they going to work miracles? The LXX. renders ‘will they heal?’ (ἰάσονται). Cf. ‘the repairing’ (R.V.) in Nehemiah 4:7.

of the heaps of the rubbish which are burnt] R.V. out of the heaps of rubbish, seeing they are burned? The word ‘burned’ refers to ‘the stones.’ Compare on the accumulation of rubbish Sir C. Warren’s statements respecting the excavations at Jerusalem, e.g. in his paper ‘The site of the Temple of the Jews’ (Trans. Bibl. Arch. vol. vii. p. 320), ‘We … found that the old wall exists to the enormous depth of 125 feet below the rubbish, with stones of very great size.’

Verse 2. - Before his brethren. By "his brethren" would seem to be meant his chief counsellors - probably Tobiah among them. The army of Samaria. Some understand by this a Persian garrison, stationed in Samaria under its own commander, with which Sanballat had influence (Ewald, 'History of Israel,' vol. 5. p. 153), but there is no real ground for such a supposition. Psalm 83, belongs probably to David's time; and as Samaria had doubtless its own native force of armed citizens, who were Sanballat's subjects, it is quite unnecessary to suppose that he addressed himself to any other "army" than this. The Persians would maintain a force in Damascus, but scarcely in Samaria; and Persian soldiers, had there been any in that city, would have been more likely to support a royal cupbearer than a petty governor with no influence at court. We can really only explain the disturbed state of things and approach to open hostility which appears in Nehemiah's narrative, by the weakness of Persia in these parts, and the consequent power of the native races to act pretty much as they pleased - even to the extent of making war one upon another. Will they fortify themselves? No other rendering is tenable. Ewald ('History of Israel,' vol. 3. p. 154, note 5)defends it successfully. Will they sacrifice? Will they make an end in a day? The meaning seems to be, "Will they begin and make an end in a day?" It is assumed that they will begin by offering a sacrifice to inaugurate their work. Will they revive the stones out of the heaps of the rubbish which are burned? Rather, "Will they revive the burnt stones (the stones that are burned) out of the heaps of the rubbish?" Will they do what is im-possible-solidify and make into real stone the calcined and crumbling blocks which are all that they will find in the heaps of rubbish? If not, how are they to procure material? Nehemiah 4:2(Nehemiah 3:33-34)

The ridicule of Tobiah and Sanballat. - As soon as Sanballat heard that we were building (בּנים, partic., expresses not merely the resolve or desire to build, but also the act of commencing), he was wroth and indignant, and vented his anger by ridiculing the Jews, saying before his brethren, i.e., the rulers of his people, and the army of Samaria (חיל, like Esther 1:3; 2 Kings 18:17), - in other words, saying publicly before his associates and subordinates, - "What do these feeble Jews? will they leave it to themselves? will they sacrifice? will they finish it to-day? will they revive the stones out of the heaps that are burned?" עשׂים מה, not, What will they do? (Bertheau), for the participle is present, and does not stand for the future; but, What are they doing? The form אמלל, withered, powerless, occurs here only. The subject of the four succeeding interrogative sentences must be the same. And this is enough to render inadmissible the explanation offered by older expositors of להם היעזבוּ: Will they leave to them, viz., will the neighbouring nations or the royal prefects allow them to build? Here, as in the case of the following verbs, the subject can only be the Jews. Hence Ewald seeks, both here and in Nehemiah 4:8, to give to the verb עזב the meaning to shelter: Will they make a shelter for themselves, i.e., will they fortify the town? But this is quite arbitrary. Bertheau more correctly compares the passage, Psalm 10:14, אלהים על עזבנוּ, we leave it to God; but incorrectly infers that here also we must supply אלהים על, and that, Will they leave to themselves? means, Will they commit the matter to God. This mode of completing the sense, however, can by no means be justified; and Bertheau's conjecture, that the Jews now assembling in Jerusalem, before commencing the work itself, instituted a devotional solemnity which Sanballat was ridiculing, is incompatible with the correct rendering of the participle. עזב construed with ל means to leave, to commit a matter to any one, like Psalm 10:14, and the sense is: Will they leave the building of the fortified walls to themselves? i.e., Do they think they are able with their poor resources to carry out this great work? This is appropriately followed by the next question: Will they sacrifice? i.e., bring sacrifices to obtain God's miraculous assistance? The ridicule lies in the circumstance that Sanballat neither credited the Jews with ability to carry out the work, nor believed in the overruling providence of the God whom the Jews worshipped, and therefore casts scorn by היזבּחוּ both upon the faith of the Jews in their God and upon the living God Himself. As these two questions are internally connected, so also are the two following, by which Sanballat casts a doubt upon the possibility of the work being executed. Will they finish (the work) on this day, i.e., to-day, directly? The meaning is: Is this a matter to be as quickly executed as if it were the work of a single day? The last question is: Have they even the requisite materials? Will they revive the stones out of the heaps of rubbish which are burnt? The building-stone of Jerusalem was limestone, which gets softened by fire, losing its durability, and, so to speak, its vitality. This explains the use of the verb חיּה, to revive, bestow strength and durability upon the softened crumbled stones, to fit the stones into a new building (Ges. Lex.). The construction שׂרוּפות והמּה is explained by the circumstance that אבנים is by its form masculine, but by its meaning feminine, and that המּה agrees with the form אבנים.

Nehemiah 4:2 Interlinear
Nehemiah 4:2 Parallel Texts


Nehemiah 4:2 NIV
Nehemiah 4:2 NLT
Nehemiah 4:2 ESV
Nehemiah 4:2 NASB
Nehemiah 4:2 KJV

Nehemiah 4:2 Bible Apps
Nehemiah 4:2 Parallel
Nehemiah 4:2 Biblia Paralela
Nehemiah 4:2 Chinese Bible
Nehemiah 4:2 French Bible
Nehemiah 4:2 German Bible

Bible Hub