This phrase is probably equivalent to “about that time.” According to v. 6, events in ch. 13 occurred during the second term of Nehemiah’s governorship after a period of absence from Judea.

 It is not clear whether this reading of the law was the one prescribed by law in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles (Deut. 31:10-13; see on Neh. 8:1, 8, 18), or whether Nehemiah ordered it because of the conditions he found in Judea, conditions that urgently needed correction.

 The content of this command, found in Deut. 23:3-5, is given in full, though slightly abbreviated in form.

 On Balaam see Num. 22 to 24. That his curses were turned into blessings is recorded in Num. 24:10.

 Heb. ‘ereb. This word is used in Ex. 12:38 of the “mixed multitude” of Egyptians who joined the Israelites. Here it is applied to non-Jews of various nationalities resident among the Israelites. A procedure similar to that carried out earlier under Ezra (Ezra 10:10-19) may have taken place. Since this action is referred to again in v. 30, and a severe rebuke for heathen marriages was administered (vs. 25-27), the process may not have been easy. Dealing with affairs people regard as their private business often arouses unpleasant feelings.

 Eliashib was high priest (see chs. 3:1; 12:10, 22; 13:28); Tobiah was the Ammonite enemy of Nehemiah who had sought to hinder the building of the wall during Nehemiah’s first governorship (ch. 2:10, 19; etc.). The alliance has usually been interpreted as referring to relationship established by marriage.

 As high priest Eliashib was in charge of the entire Temple area, and during Nehemiah’s absence assigned one of the best rooms of the Temple to Tobiah, who evidently used it as a place of residence (v. 8). During Nehemiah’s rule Tobiah kept up a correspondence with leaders in Jerusalem, but could not get into the city. Now that the governor was away he not only succeeded in entering the city, but actually took up residence in the Temple. Such a desecration was unheard of, the more so since this particular room, or “chamber,” had been set apart for the offerings and gifts of the people.

Literally, “And during all this,” that is, the affairs of Eliashib and Tobiah.

 See on ch. 5:14.

This title had been borne by Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I, and by Xerxes during the early years of his reign. It had been officially abolished by the latter after the two rebellions that occurred during his reign. Nehemiah probably uses the title by which he had been so long accustomed to call the king of Persia.

 Literally “at the end of days,” denoting a definite interval of time (see on Gen. 4:3). The view of some commentators that it means a year lacks evidence. The stay of Nehemiah at the court of Persia must have continued longer than a year, for it seems unlikely that so many illegal acts on the part of the Jewish community as Nehemiah discovered upon his return could have occurred in so short a time.

 It is from this passage only that we know of Nehemiah’s two terms as governor. His first term was for 12 years (ch. 5:14), but no indication is given of the length of his second term. It must have ended before 407 B.C., when, we know from an Elephantine letter, the governor of Judea was Bigvai (see on ch. 12:11).

The room Eliashib placed at Tobiah’s disposal was not in the main building of the Temple, but in one of the buildings adjacent to it, within the sacred precincts of the Temple area. This, no doubt, made the desecration less flagrant than it otherwise would have been, but far from justified the act.

It appears that Tobiah used the chamber as a dwelling when he visited Jerusalem from time to time.

 Previously only one “chamber” has been mentioned as being used by Tobiah (vs. 5, 7, 8), but the plural here seems to indicate that others in addition to the large room, or hall, of v. 5 were also involved. These other “chambers” may have been smaller, and were perhaps used by Tobiah for the members of his household or his retinue. These rooms had been polluted by their conversion into secular use, and a ceremonial cleansing was necessary. This might be performed in various ways, though usually by the symbolic ritual of blood or water (see Lev. 12; 14:4-32; 17:15, 16; etc.).

What Nehemiah saw was that the Levites were absent, and that the Temple service was neglected. On inquiry, he ascertained the reason for their absence— tithe had not been paid. Since the Levites lived from the tithe and the first fruits, and these were held back, they had to earn a living from the fields surrounding the towns and the villages where they lived.

While the guilt of profaning the Temple lay especially with the priestly class, that of withholding the tithes was mainly chargeable to the rulers and nobles. As the leaders they had apparently set a bad example to the people, and were especially to be blamed for the deplorable conditions Nehemiah found upon his return to Jerusalem.

 Once more the tithes began flowing into the Temple treasury (v. 12) for the support of the ministry. The problem that confronted Nehemiah was to make sure of an equitable distribution, so that each would have his just share, and none would be neglected (see Acts 6:1-5).

 Of the four treasurers, one was a priest, one a Levite, one a secretary, and one a layman of rank. In this way the main classes of the population were represented. The individuals mentioned cannot be identified, though several of the names occur elsewhere in Nehemiah. Shelemiahs are mentioned in Ezra 10:39, 41; Neh. 3:30, but probably none of them is the Shelemiah here mentioned. Pedaiah may have been the man mentioned in ch. 8:4, who explained the law with Ezra. Hanan was a common name (see Neh. 8:7; Neh. 10:10, 22), but the person here designated seems to be mentioned nowhere else. Three Zadoks are listed in Nehemiah (chs. 3:4, 29; 10:21), but it is uncertain that any of them can be identified with this “scribe.”

Heb. sopher, a “writer” or “secretary.”

 Similar requests by Nehemiah are recorded in chs. 5:19; 13:31; etc.

Rather, “observations,” as in the margin, or “service” (RSV).

 An indefinite time notation, as in chs. 12:44; 13:1. It probably points to a time which lay somewhat later than the events just described. Nehemiah may have made a tour of the country try to observe how the Sabbath was being kept.

 The treading of grapes in the wine press was the first step in the production of wine, and therefore a flagrant violation of the fourth commandment. The same was true of those who transported agricultural produce to the capital for sale. Some commentators have thought that the transport of grain was a necessity, so that it might be in the city early enough for the market on the next day. But the law made no provision for such an activity. That there was actual selling on the Sabbath is reported in v. 16. The last clause of v. 15 should therefore be understood to mean that Nehemiah warned them on the day, namely the Sabbath, on which they had transported the goods to Jerusalem and were actually selling them.

The law did not prohibit foreigners, from residing in Jerusalem, and Nehemiah does not object to the Tyrians as residents of the city.

 Fish was always a favorite article of food with the Israelites (Lev. 11:9; Num. 11:5; Deut. 14:9; Isa. 19:10; Matt. 15:34; Luke 24:42; etc.). Fish came chiefly from the Lake of Galilee and the Mediterranean.

As in the matter of the tithes, so in the matter of the Sabbath, the nobility seem to have been guilty, either because they had made no attempts to stop this trade or because they were engaged in it themselves.

 The desecration of the Sabbath is among the sins most strongly denounced by Jeremiah (ch. 17:21-27) and Ezekiel (chs. 20:13; 22:8, 26; 23:38). According to Amos (ch. 8:5) the Sabbath had been kept more in the letter than in the spirit. Nehemiah also reminds the Jews that the great catastrophes under Nebuchadnezzar had come as a result of the violation of the fourth commandment by their ancestors, as Jeremiah had predicted (ch. 17:27)a prophecy Nehemiah may have had in mind.

 Heb. salal, “grow shadowy.” Since creation the Bible day has begun at sunset (see on Gen. 1:5). The special feasts were kept “from even to even” (Lev. 23:32), and the weekly Sabbath likewise (see on Mark 1:32). Hence Nehemiah ruled that the gates of the city were to be shut some time before the actual beginning of the Sabbath.

In so doing he purposed to protect the “fringes” of the sacred hours of God’s holy Sabbath. It is a desecration of the spirit of the Sabbath to carry on secular pursuits to the last permissible moment.

 See chs. 4:16; 5:16.

It was probably permissible for people to come and go on legitimate Sabbath errands, but guards were set to prevent the transport of merchandise on the Sabbath.

 Arriving on the Sabbath and finding the gates shut, the merchants waited outside and there probably carried on the trade they would otherwise have carried on within the city. The shutting of the gates therefore resulted simply in the transfer of trading from the market place inside the city to the outside of the gate. For two Sabbaths this practice was carried on. Then Nehemiah took notice of it, and halted it by threatening to arrest merchants again found near the city with their wares on the Sabbath (v. 21).

 The assignment of his own servants to watch the gates (v. 19) on the Sabbath was probably temporary, while the more permanent charge was committed to those Levites whom Nehemiah had recently brought back to the city (v. 11). This duty had been entrusted to them when the gates were first set up (ch. 7:1), but had been neglected when the Levites, deprived of financial support, had left their duties in Jerusalem to make a living from the soil. After having engaged for some time in secular work, the Levites had to cleanse themselves before again attending to sacred duties.

 See on vs. 14, 31.

 Compare on v. 15. Nehemiah here records in detail what he had done in the matter of mixed marriages, as recorded in vs. 1-3. Upon his return to Jerusalem his watchful eye observed that many Jews had again fallen into the same sin with which Ezra had had to deal on his arrival at Jerusalem in 457 B.C. (Ezra 9 and 10), and which was especially mentioned in the covenant entered into soon after the beginning of his first term as governor (Neh. 9:38; 10:1, 30). As long as Nehemiah had remained in Judea there was probably no serious violation of the covenant, but as soon as he left Judea foreign wives were apparently once more taken into the families of the Jews.

 Philistine wives, of a race always hostile to Israel, and natives of a city that had recently been allied with Nehemiah’s bitter enemies (ch. 4:7).

 Compare Ezra 9:1 and Neh. 13:1.

If the marriages were contracted after Nehemiah’s departure, and he found born from those unions children who were able to talk, he must have been absent from Jerusalem for several years.

Some expositors have thought that the children spoke a jargon half Hebrew and half foreign. It is more likely that the word “half” refers to the children born of these foreign women, who may in many instances have been second wives. Thus in some families half the children would not speak Hebrew correctly. “The speech of Ashdod” may have been, not the original Philistine language, but Aramaic, now widely spoken throughout the Persian Empire. Nehemiah, who, as a Persian official certainly knew Aramaic, was probably not opposed to a knowledge of that language, but was indignant at finding that some of the youth were not able to speak Hebrew properly. The Moabite and Ammonite languages were dialects closely related to Hebrew, but the difference was nevertheless noticeable, and Nehemiah was distressed to find these foreign dialects gaining a foothold in Judea.

The seriousness of the cases, and the dangerous trend which they represented, weighed heavily upon Nehemiah, and led him to take the actions here described.

 Ezra had plucked off his own hair and beard as a sign of utter distress (Ezra 9:3). Plucking the hair of someone else seems to have been a recognized form of punishment (Isa. 50:6). The loss of the beard was in itself considered a great disgrace (2 Sam. 10:4).

 The example was more likely than any other to move the Jews. What the author of 1 Kings 11:3 had euphemistically referred to as turning aside of the heart, Nehemiah bluntly and openly call “sins.”

 Compare 1 Kings 3:12, 13; 2 Chron. 1:12.

 An allusion to 2 Sam. 12:24.

 See 1 Kings 4:1.

With this question Nehemiah tells the transgressors that he and those of like sentiments would neither adopt the practice these men recommend nor permit them to do so. The example of Solomon was a sufficient warning of the results of such a course.

 The offender could hardly be Johanan, or Jonathan (ch. 12:10, 11), the successor of Joiada, but must have been another son whose name is not given. Eliashib, the high priest, must have been an old man by this time to have a grandson old enough to marry. That a member of the high priestly family had made such an alliance with the archenemy of Nehemiah was most annoying and humiliating to Nehemiah.

 See on ch. 2:10. On Eliashib’s contemptible connections with the other enemy of Nehemiah, Tobiah, see ch. 13:4-9.

This probably means that Nehemiah forced the offender to leave the country and become an exile. We may suppose that he refused to repudiate his foreign wife, and preferred to take refuge with Sanballat in Samaria.

 Nehemiah considered such a marriage of a member of the high priest’s family a pollution of the priesthood, being opposed in principle, as it was, to the sacredness of the priestly office (see Lev. 21:7, 14).

 Not the covenant of the everlasting priesthood which God had granted to Phinehas (Num. 25:13), but the covenant God had concluded with the tribe of Levi and with Aaron and his descendants (Ex. 28:1). This covenant required the priests to be “holy unto their God” (Lev. 21:6, 8), who had chosen them to be ministers of His sanctuary and stewards of His grace.

 With the expulsion of Sanballat’s son-in-law from Jerusalem may be connected the building of the schismatic temple of the Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim. Josephus relates (Antiquities xi. 7. 2) that Manasseh, a brother of the high priest Jaddua, married Nikaso, a daughter of the satrap Sanballat, a Cuthite. When on that account the Jewish authorities excluded him from the priesthood, he established the temple and worship on Mt. Gerizim with the assistance of his father-in-law. Many other priests, presumably, made common cause with him. Josephus, however, places the story in the time of Alexander, about a century after Nehemiah. It is entirely possible that the story itself is true and that Josephus simply made a mistake in the time. We know that he places Sanballat 100 years too late (see p. 373). That Josephus calls the schismatic leader a brother of Jaddua, hence a grandson of Joiada, while the Bible calls him a son of Joiada, can easily be explained by assuming either that Josephus made a mistake, or that, as so often in the Bible, “one of the sons of Joiada” (v. 28) stands for “one of the grandsons of Joiada.”

 This refers to the measures described in vs. 1-3 and 23-29.

 That is, assigned duties to the various priests and Levites (see chs. 10:38, 39; 12:44-46; 13:13).

 Persons were appointed to oversee the collection of the wood offering (ch. 10:34), and of the first fruits (ch. 10:35-37).

 Nehemiah closes his book with an expression characteristic of his personality (see chs. 5:19; 13:14, 22, 29). One of the main features of Nehemiah’s life and work is his constant and intimate fellowship with the Source of all strength and wisdom. His prayers were the secret of his success (see chs. 1:4-11; 2:4; 4:4, 9; 5:19; 6:9, 14; 13:14, 22, 29).