Matthew Henry on Nehemiah 13:1-9
It was the honour of Israel, and the greatest preservation of their holiness, that they were a peculiar people, and were so to keep themselves, and not to mingle with the nations, nor suffer any of them to incorporate with them. Now here we have,
I. The law to this purport, which happened to be read on that day, in the audience of the people (Neh 13:1), on the day of the dedication of the wall, as it should seem, for with their prayers and praises they joined the reading of the word; and though it was long after that the other grievances, here mentioned, were redressed by Nehemiah's power, yet this of the mixed multitude might be redressed then by the people's own act, for so it seems to be,…
Read the whole note in the consoleJamieson-Fausset-Brown on Nehemiah 13:6
But in all this was not I at Jerusalem--Eliashib (concluding that, as Nehemiah had departed from Jerusalem, and, on the expiry of his allotted term of absence, had resigned his government, he had gone not to return) began to use great liberties, and, there being none left whose authority or frown he dreaded, allowed himself to do things most unworthy of his sacred office, and which, though in unison with his own irreligious character, he would not have dared to attempt during the residence of the pious governor. Nehemiah resided twelve years as governor of Jerusalem, and having succeeded in repairing and refortifying the city, he at the end of that period returned to his duties in Shushan. H…
Read the whole note in the consoleAdam Clarke on Nehemiah 13:6
Was not I at Jerusalem - Nehemiah came to Jerusalem in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and remained there till the thirty-second year, twelve years: then returned to Babylon, and staid one year; got leave to revisit his brethren; and found matters as stated in this chapter.
John Gill on Nehemiah 13:6
But in all this time was not I at Jerusalem,.... Nehemiah, who was absent all the while these things were done by Eliashib, or otherwise they would not have been suffered:
for in the thirty second year of Artaxerxes, king of Babylon, came I unto the king from Jerusalem; after he had governed there twelve years, to whom he came to give an account of affairs there; this was not Xerxes, as some (b) have thought, for he reigned but twenty one years; but Darius Hystaspis, who reigned thirty six years, according to Ptolemy's canon, and with which Herodotus (c) agrees; he is called king of Babylon, because that, with the whole empire, was in the hands of the king of Persia, as it had been from the…
