Nehemiah 3:30

• This final group of workers completed the repairs at the Sheep Gate, where the work had begun (Nehemiah 3:1).

• Horse Gate: See 2 Chronicles 23:15; Jeremiah 31:40.

• East Gate: See 1 Chronicles 26:14, 17; 2 Chronicles 31:14; Ezekiel 10:19; 40:21–22.

These verses describe how they built the new eastern wall.

This summary describes the people who rebuilt Jerusalem's walls. It moves in a circle around the city, starting at the northeast corner, then going west, south, east, and north.

the Nethinims--Not only the priests and the Levites, but the common persons that belonged to the house of God, contributed to the work. The names of those who repaired the walls of Jerusalem are commemorated because it was a work of piety and patriotism to repair the holy city. It was an instance of religion and courage to defend the true worshippers of God, that they might serve Him in quietness and safety, and, in the midst of so many enemies, go on with this work, piously confiding in the power of God to support them [BISHOP PATRICK].




Next: Nehemiah Chapter 4

The best way to know how to divide this chapter is to observe how the work was divided among the undertakers, that every one might know what he had to do, and mind it accordingly with a holy emulation, and desire to excel, yet without any contention, animosity, or separate interest. No strife appears among them but which should do most for the public good. Several things are observable in the account here given of the building of the wall about Jerusalem: -
I. That Eliashib the high priest, with his brethren the priests, led the van in this troop of builders, Neh 3:1. Ministers should be foremost in every good work; for their office obliges them to teach and quicken by their example, as well as by their doctrine. If there be labour in it, who so fit as they to work? if danger, who so fit as they to venture? The dignity of the high priest was very great, and obliged him to signalize himself in this service. The priests repaired the sheep-gate, so called because through it were brought the sheep that were to be sacrificed in the temple; and therefore the priests undertook the repair of it because the offerings of the Lord made by fire were their inheritance. And of this gate only it is said that they sanctified it with the word and prayer, and perhaps with sacrifices perhaps, 1. Because it led to the temple; or, 2. Because with this the building of the wall began, and it is probable (though they were at work in all parts of the wall at the same time) that this was first finished, and therefore at this gate they solemnly committed their city and the walls of it to the divine protection; or, 3. Because the priests were the builders of it; and it becomes ministers above others, being themselves in a peculiar manner sanctified to God, to sanctify to him all their performances, and to do even their common actions after a godly sort.
II. That the undertakers were very many, who each took his share, some more and some less, in this work, according as their ability was. Note, What is to be done for the public good every one should assist in, and further, to the utmost of his place and power. United force will conquer that which no individual dares venture on. Many hands will make light work.
III. That many were active in this work who were not themselves inhabitants of Jerusalem, and therefore consulted purely the public welfare and not any private interest or advantage of their own. Here are the men of Jericho with the first (Neh 3:2), the men of Gibeon and Mizpah (Neh 3:7), and Zanoah, Neh 3:13. Every Israelite should lend a hand towards the building up of Jerusalem.
IV. That several rulers, both of Jerusalem and of other cities, were active in this work, thinking themselves bound in honour to do the utmost that their wealth and power enabled them to do for the furtherance of this good work. But it is observable that they are called rulers of part, or the half part, of their respective cities. One was ruler of the half part of Jerusalem (Neh 3:12), another of part of Beth-haccerem (Neh 3:14), another of part of Mizpah (Neh 3:15), another of the half part of Beth-zur (Neh 3:16), one was ruler of one half part, and another of the other half part, of Keilah, Neh 3:17, Neh 3:18. Perhaps the Persian government would not entrust any one with a strong city, but appointed two to be a watch upon each other. Rome had two consuls.
V. Here is a just reproach fastened upon the nobles of Tekoa, that they put not their necks to the work of their Lord (Neh 3:5), that is, they would not come under the yoke of an obligation to this service; as if the dignity and liberty of their peerage were their discharge from serving God and doing good, which are indeed the highest honour and the truest freedom. Let not nobles think any thing below them by which they may advance the interests of their country; for what else is their nobility good for but that it puts them in a higher and larger sphere of usefulness than that in which inferior persons move?
VI. Two persons joined in repairing the old gate (Neh 3:6), and so were co-founders, and shared the honour of it between them. The good work which we cannot compass ourselves we must be thankful to those that will go partners with us in. Some think that this is called the old gate because it belonged to the ancient Salem, which was said to be first built by Melchizedek.
VII. Several good honest tradesmen, as well as priests and rulers, were active in this work - goldsmiths, apothecaries, merchants, Neh 3:8, Neh 3:32. They did not think their callings excused them, nor plead that they could not leave their shops to attend the public business, knowing that what they lost would certainly be made up to them by the blessing of God upon their callings.
VIII. Some ladies are spoken of as helping forward this work - Shallum and his daughters (Neh 3:12), who, though not capable of personal service, yet having their portions in their own hands, or being rich widows, contributed money for buying materials and paying workmen. St. Paul speaks of some good women that laboured with him in the gospel, Phi 4:3.
IX. Of some it is said that they repaired over against their houses (Neh 3:10, Neh 3:23, Neh 3:28, Neh 3:29), and of one (who, it is likely, was only a lodger) that he repaired over against his chamber, Neh 3:30. When a general good work is to be done each should apply himself to that part of it that falls nearest to him and is within his reach. If every one will sweep before his own door, the street will be clean; if every one will mend one, we shall be all mended. If he that has but a chamber will repair before that, he does his part.
X. Of one it is said that he earnestly repaired that which fell to his share (Neh 3:20) - he did it with an inflamed zeal; not that others were cold or indifferent, but he was the most vigorous of any of them and consequently made himself remarkable. It is good to be thus zealously affected in a good thin; and it is probable that this good man's zeal provoked very many to take the more pains and make the more haste.
XI. Of one of these builders it is observed that he was the sixth son of his father, Neh 3:30. His five elder brethren, it seems, laid not their hand to this work, but he did. In doing that which is good we need not stay to see our elders go before us; if they decline it, it does not therefore follow that we must. Thus the younger brother, if he be the better man, and does God and his generation better service, is indeed the better gentleman; those are most honourable that are most useful.
XII. Some of those that had first done helped their fellows, and undertook another share where they saw there was most need. Meremoth repaired, Neh 3:4. and again, Neh 3:21. And the Tekoites, besides the piece they repaired (Neh 3:5), undertook another piece (Neh 3:27), which is the more remarkable because their nobles set them a bad example by withdrawing from the service, which, instead of serving them for an excuse to sit still, perhaps made them the more forward to do double work, that by their zeal they might either shame or atone for the covetousness and carelessness of their nobles.
Lastly, Here is no mention of any particular share that Nehemiah himself had in this work. A name-sake of his is mentioned, Neh 3:16. But did he do nothing? Yes, though he undertook not any particular piece of the wall, yet he did more than any of them, for he had the oversight of them all; half of his servants worked where there was most need, and the other half stood sentinel, as we find afterwards (Neh 4:16), while he himself in his own person walked the rounds, directed and encouraged the builders, set his hand to the work where he saw occasion, and kept a watchful eye upon the motions of the enemy, as we shall find in the next chapter. The pilot needs not haul at a rope: it is enough for him to steer.

The horse gate - The place through which the horses passed in order to be watered; It was near the temple. Some rabbins suppose that in order to go to the temple, a person might go on horseback to the place here referred to, but then was obliged to alight, as a horse could pass no farther. Horses were never very plentiful in Jerusalem.

After him repaired Hananiah the son of Shelemiah, and Hanun the sixth son of Zalaph, another piece,.... This last man had six sons; but only his youngest son wrought at this work, which is observed to his great commendation:

after him repaired Shelemiah the son of Berechiah, over against his chamber; the same as in Nehemiah 3:4 who having finished what he engaged in there, took his part where his chamber was, and repaired over against that.

Or, chambers; the singular number for the plural.

The wall of Ophel and the eastern side of the temple area. - Neh 3:28 Above the horse-gate repaired the priests, each opposite his own house. The site of the horse-gate appears, from Ch2 23:15 compared with Kg2 11:6, to have been not far distant from the temple and the royal palace; while according to the present verse, compared with Neh 3:27, it stood in the neighbourhood of the wall of Ophel, and might well be regarded as even belonging to it. Hence we have, with Thenius, to seek it in the wall running over the Tyropoean valley, and uniting the eastern edge of Zion with the western edge of Ophel in the position of the present dung-gate (Bab el Mogharibeh). This accords with Jer 31:40, where it is also mentioned; and from which passage Bertheau infers that it stood at the western side of the valley of Kidron, below the east corner of the temple area. The particular מעל, "from over," that is, above, is not to be understood of a point northwards of the horse-gate, but denotes the place where the wall, passing up from Zion to Ophel, ascended the side of Ophel east of the horse-gate. If, then, the priests here repaired each opposite his house, it is evident that a row of priests' dwellings were built on the western side of Ophel, south of the south-western extremity of the temple area.
Neh 3:29
Zadok ben Immer (Ezr 2:37) was probably the head of the priestly order of Immer. Shemaiah the son of Shecaniah, the keeper of the east gate, can hardly be the same as the Shemaiah of the sons of Shecaniah entered among the descendants of David in Ch1 3:22. He might rather be regarded as a descendant of the Shemaiah of Ch1 26:6., if the latter had not been enumerated among the sons of Obed-Edom, whose duty was to guard the south side of the temple. The east gate is undoubtedly the east gate of the temple, and not to be identified, as by Bertheau, with the water-gate towards the east (Neh 3:26). The place where Shemaiah repaired is not more precisely defined; nor can we infer, with Bertheau, from the circumstance of his being the keeper of the east gate, that he, together with his subordinate keepers, laboured at the fortification of this gate and its adjoining section of wall. Such a view is opposed to the order of the description, which passes on to a portion of the wall of Ophel; see rem. on Neh 3:31.
Neh 3:30
אחרי here and in Neh 3:31 gives no appropriate sense, and is certainly only an error of transcription arising from the scriptio defect. אחרו. Hananiah the son of Shelemiah, and Hanun the sixth son of Zalaph, are not further known. The name of Meshullam the son of Berechiah occurs previously in Neh 3:4; but the same individual can hardly be intended in the two verses, the one mentioned in Neh 3:4 being distinguished from others of the same name by the addition ben Meshezabeel. שׁני for שׁנית (Neh 3:27, Neh 3:24, and elsewhere) is grammatically incorrect, if not a mere error of transcription. נשׁכּתו נגד, before his dwelling. נשׁכּה occurs only here and Neh 13:7, and in the plural הנּשׁכות, Neh 12:44; it seems, judging from the latter passage, only another form for לשׁכּה, chamber; while in Neh 13:7, on the contrary, נשׁכּה is distinguished from לשׁכּה, Neh 13:4-5. Its etymology is obscure. In Neh 13:7 it seems to signify dwelling.
Neh 3:31
הצּרפי is not a proper name, but an appellative, son of the goldsmith, or perhaps better, member of the goldsmiths' guild, according to which הצּרפי does not stand for hatsoreep, but designates those belonging to the goldsmiths. The statements, (he repaired) unto the house of the Nethinim, and of the merchants opposite the gate המּפקד, and to the upper chamber of the corner, are obscure. This rendering is according to the Masoretic punctuation; while the lxx, on the contrary, translate according to a different division of the words: Malchiah repaired as far as the house of the Nethinim, and the spice-merchants (repaired) opposite the gate Miphkad, and as far as the ascent of the corner. This translation is preferred by Bertheau, but upon questionable grounds. For the objection made by him, that if the other be adopted, either the same termination would be stated twice in different forms, or that two different terminations are intended, in which case it does not appear why one only should first be mentioned, and then the other also, is not of much importance. In Neh 3:24 also two terminations are mentioned, while in Neh 3:16 we have even three together. And why should not this occur here also? Of more weight is the consideration, that to follow the Masoretic punctuation is to make the house of the Nethinim and of the merchants but one building. Since, however, we know nothing further concerning the edifice in question, the subject is not one for discussion. The rendering of the lxx, on the other hand, is opposed by the weighty objection that there is a total absence of analogy for supplying החזיקוּ ואחריו; for throughout this long enumeration of forty-two sections of wall, the verb החזיק or החזיקוּ, or some corresponding verb, always stands either before or after every name of the builders, and even the אחריו is omitted only once (Neh 3:25). To the statement, "as far as the house of the Nethinim and the merchants," is appended the further definition: before (opposite) the gate המּפקד. This word is reproduced in the lxx as a proper name (τοῦ Μαφεκάδ), as is also הנּתינים בּית, ἕως Βετηὰν Νατηινίμ); in the Vulgate it is rendered appellatively: contra portam judicialem; and hence by Luther, Rathsthor. Thenius translates (Stadt, p. 9): the muster or punishment gate. מפקד does not, however, signify punishment, although the view may be correct that the gate took the name המּפקד from the הבּית מפקד mentioned Eze 43:21, where the bullock of the sin-offering was to be burnt without the sanctuary; and it may be inferred from this passage that near the temple of Solomon also there was an appointed place for burning the flesh of the sin-offering without the sanctuary. In Ezekiel's temple vision, this הבּית מפקד is probably to be sought in the space behind the sanctuary, i.e., at the western end of the great square of five hundred cubits, set apart for the temple, and designated the Gizra, or separate place. In the temples of Solomon and Zerubbabel, however, the place in question could not have been situate at the west side of the temple, between the temple and the city, which lay opposite, but only on the south side of the temple area, outside the court, upon Ophel, where Thenius has delineated it in his plan of Jerusalem before the captivity. Whether it lay, however, at the south-western corner of the temple space (Thenius), or in the middle, or near the east end of the southern side of the external wall of the temple or temple court, can be determined neither from the present passage nor from Ezekiel's vision. Not from Eze 43:21, because the temple vision of this prophet is of an ideal character, differing in many points from the actual temple; not from the present passage, because the position of the house of the Nethinim and the merchants is unknown, and the definition נגד, (before) opposite the gate Miphkad, admits of several explanations. Thus much only is certain concerning this Miphkad gate, - on the one hand, from the circumstance that the wall was built before (נגד) or opposite this gate, on the other, from its omission in Neh 12:39, where the prison-gate is mentioned as being in this neighbourhood in its stead, - that it was not a gate of the city, but a gate through which the מפקד was reached. Again, it is evident that the עליּה of the corner which is mentioned as the length of wall next following, must be sought for at the south-eastern corner of the temple area. Hence the house of the temple servants and the merchants must have been situate south of this, on the eastern side of Ophel, where it descends into the valley of Kidron. הפּנּה עליּת, the upper chamber of the corner, was perhaps a ὑπερῷον of a corner tower, not at the north-eastern corner of the external circumvallation of the temple area (Bertheau), but at the south-eastern corner, which was formed by the junction at this point of the wall of Ophel with the eastern wall of the temple area. If these views are correct, all the sections mentioned from Neh 3:28 to Neh 3:31 belong to the wall surrounding Ophel. This must have been of considerable length, for Ophel extended almost to the pool of Siloam, and was walled round on its western, southern, and eastern sides.
Neh 3:32
The last section, between the upper chamber of the corner and the sheep-gate, was repaired by the goldsmiths and the merchants. This is the whole length of the east wall of the temple as far as the sheep-gate, at which this description began (Neh 3:1). The eastern wall of the temple area might have suffered less than the rest of the wall at the demolition of the city by the Chaldeans, or perhaps have been partly repaired at the time the temple was rebuilt, so that less restoration was now needed.
A survey of the whole enumeration of the gates and lengths of wall now restored and fortified, commencing and terminating as it does at the sheep-gate, and connecting almost always the several portions either built or repaired by the words (ידם) ידו על or אחריו, gives good grounds for inferring that in the forty-two sections, including the gates, particularized vv. 1-32, we have a description of the entire fortified wall surrounding the city, without a single gap. In Neh 3:7, indeed, as we learn by comparing it with Neh 12:29, the mention of the gate of Ephraim is omitted, and in Neh 3:30 or Neh 3:31, to judge by Neh 12:39, the prison-gate; while the wall lying between the dung-gate and the fountain-gate is not mentioned between Neh 3:14 and Neh 3:15. The non-mention, however, of these gates and this portion of wall may be explained by the circumstance, that these parts of the fortification, having remained unharmed, were in need of no restoration. We read, it is true, in Kg2 25:10 and Kg2 25:11, that Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard of Nebuchadnezzar, burnt the king's house and all the great houses of the city, and that the army of the Chaldees broke down or destroyed (נתץ) the walls of Jerusalem round about; but these words must not be so pressed as to make them express a total levelling of the surrounding wall. The wall was only so far demolished as to be incapable of any longer serving as a defence to the city. And this end was fully accomplished when it was partially demolished in several places, because the portions of wall, and even the towers and gates, still perhaps left standing, could then no longer afford any protection to the city. The danger that the Jews might easily refortify the city unless the fortifications were entirely demolished, was sufficiently obviated by the carrying away into captivity of the great part of the population. This explains the fact that nothing is said in this description of the restoration of the towers of Hananeel and Hammeah (Neh 3:11), and that certain building parties repaired very long lengths of wall, as e.g., the 1000 cubits between the fountain-gate and the dung-gate, while others had very short portions appointed them. The latter was especially the case with those who built on the east side of Zion, because this being the part at which King Zedekiah fled from the city, the wall may here have been levelled to the ground.
From the consideration of the course of the wall, so far as the description in the present chapter enables us to determine it with tolerable certainty, and a comparison with the procession of the two bands of singers round the restored wall in Neh 12:31-40, which agrees in the chief points with this description, it appears that the wall on the northern side of the city, before the captivity, coincided in the main with the northern wall of modern Jerusalem, being only somewhat shorter at the north-eastern and north-western corners; and that it ran from the valley (or Jaffa) gate by the tower of furnaces, the gate of Ephraim, the old gate, and the fish-gate to the sheep-gate, maintaining, on the whole, the same direction as the second wall described by Josephus (bell. Jud. v. 4. 2). In many places remains of this wall, which bear testimony to their existence at a period long prior to Josephus, have recently been discovered. In an angle of the present wall near the Latin monastery are found "remains of a wall built of mortice-edged stones, near which lie blocks so large that we are first took them for portions of the natural rock, but found them on closer inspection to be morticed stones removed from their place. A comparatively large number of stones, both in the present wall between the north-west corner of the tower and the Damascus gate, and in the adjoining buildings, are morticed and hewn out of ancient material, and we can scarcely resist the impression that this must have been about the direction of an older wall." So Wolcott and Tipping in Robinson's New Biblical Researches. Still nearer to the gate, about three hundred feet west of it, Dr. Wilson remarks (Lands of the Bible, i. p. 421), "that the wall, to some considerable height above its foundation, bears evidence, by the size and peculiarity of its stones, to its high antiquity," and attributes this portion to the old second wall (see Robinson). "Eastward, too, near the Damascus gate, and even near the eastern tower, are found very remarkable remains of Jewish antiquity. The similarity of these remains of wall to those surrounding the site of the temple is most surprising" (Tobler, Dritte Wand. p. 339). From these remains, and the intimations of Josephus concerning the second wall, Robinson justly infers that the ancient wall must have run from the Damascus gate to a place in the neighbourhood of the Latin monastery, and that its course thence must have been nearly along the road leading northwards from the citadel to the Latin monastery, while between the monastery and the Damascus gate it nearly coincided with the present wall. Of the length from the Damascus gate to the sheep-gate no certain indications have as yet been found. According to Robinson's ideas, it probably went from the Damascus gate, at first eastwards in the direction of the present wall, and onwards to the highest point of Bezetha; but then bent, as Bertheau supposes, in a south-easterly direction, and ran to a point in the present wall lying north-east of the Church of St. Anne, and thence directly south towards the north-east corner of the temple area. On the south side, on the contrary, the whole of the hill of Zion belonged to the ancient city; and the wall did not, like the modern, pass across the middle of Zion, thus excluding the southern half of this hill from the city, but went on the west, south, and south-east, round the edge of Zion, so that the city of Zion was as large again as that portion of modern Jerusalem lying on the hill of Zion, and included the sepulchres of David and of the kings of Judah, which are now outside the city wall. Tobler (Dritte Wand. p. 336) believes that a trace of the course of the ancient wall has been discovered in the cutting in the rock recently uncovered outside the city, where, at the building of the Anglican Episcopal school, which lies two hundred paces westward under En-Nebi-Dad, and the levelling of the garden and cemetery, were found edged stones lying scattered about, and "remarkable artificial walls of rock," whose direction shows that they must have supported the oldest or first wall of the city; for they are just so far distant from the level of the valley, that the wall could, or rather must, have stood there. "And," continues Tobler, "not only so, but the course of the wall of rock is also to a certain extent parallel with that of the valley, as must be supposed to be the case with a rocky foundation to a city wall." Finally, the city was bounded on its western and eastern sides by the valleys of Gihon and Jehoshaphat respectively.