_BUILDING THE WALLS._
NEHEMIAH iii.
The third chapter of the Book of Nehemiah supplies a striking
illustration of the constructive character of the history of the Jews
in the Persian period. Nor is that all. A mechanical, Chinese industry
may be found side by side with indications of moral littleness. But
the activity displayed in the restoration of the city walls is more
than industrious, more than productive. We must be struck with the
breadth of the picture. This characteristic was manifest in the
earlier work of building the temple, and it pervades the subsequent
religious movement of the shaping of Judaism and the development of
The Law. Here it is apparent in the fact that the Jews unite in a
great common work for the good of the whole community. It was right
and necessary that they should rebuild their private houses; but
though it would appear that some of these houses must have been in a
very ruinous condition, for this was the case even with the governor's
residence,[166] the great scheme now set on foot was for the public
advantage. There is something almost socialistic about the execution
of it; at all events we meet with that comprehensiveness of view,
that elevation of tone, that sinking of self in the interests of
society, which we should look for in true citizenship.
[166] Neh. ii. 8.
This is the more noteworthy because the object of the Jews in the
present undertaking was what is now called "secular." The earlier
public building operations carried out by their fathers had been
confessedly and formally religious. Zerubbabel and Jeshua had led a
band of pilgrims up to Jerusalem for the express purpose of rebuilding
the temple, and at first the returned exiles had confined their
attention to this work and its associated sacrificial rites, without
revealing any political ambition, and apparently without even coveting
any civic privileges. Subsequently some sense of citizenship had begun
to appear in Ezra's reformation, but every expression of it had been
since checked by jealous and hostile influences from without. At
length Nehemiah succeeded in rousing the spirit of citizenship by
means of the inspiration of religious faith. The new enthusiasm was
not directly concerned with the temple; it aimed at fortifying the
city. Yet it sprang from prayer and faith. Thus the Jews were feeling
their way to that sacredness of civic duties which we in the freer air
of Christianity have been so slow to acknowledge.
The special form of this activity in the public interest is also
significant. The process of drawing a line round Jerusalem by
enclosing it within the definite circuit of a wall helped to mark the
individuality and unity of the place as a _city_, which an amorphous
congerie of houses could not be, according to the ancient estimate,
because the chief distinction between a city and a village was just
this, that the city was walled while the village was unwalled. The
first privilege enjoyed by the city would be its security--its
strength to withstand assaults. But the walls that shut out foes shut
in the citizens--a fact which seems to have been present to the mind
of the poet who wrote,--
"Our feet are standing
Within thy gates, O Jerusalem;
Jerusalem, that art builded
As a city that is compact together."[167]
[167] Psalm cxxii. 2, 3.
The city is "compact together." City life is corporate life. It is not
at all easy for us to appreciate this fact while our idea of a city is
only represented by a crowd of men, women, and children crammed into a
limited space, but with scarcely any sense of common life and aims;
still less when we look behind the garish splendour of the streets to
the misery and degradation, the disease and famine and vice, that make
their nests under the very shadow of wealth and pleasure. Naturally we
turn with loathing from such sights, and long for the fresh, quiet
country life. But this accidental conglomerate of bricks and human
beings is in no sense a city. The true city--such a city as Jerusalem,
or Athens, or Rome in its best days--is a focus of the very highest
development of life known to man. The word "civilisation" should
remind us that it is the city which indicates the difference between
the cultivated man and the savage. Originally it was the _civis_, the
citizen, who marched in the van of the world's progress. Nor is it
difficult to account for his position. Intercommunication of ideas
sharpening intelligence--"as iron sharpeneth iron,"--division of
labour permitting the specialisation of industry, combination in work
making it possible for great undertakings to be carried out, the
necessity for mutual considerateness among the members of a community
and the consequent development of the social sympathies, all tend to
progress. And the sense of a common life realised in this way has
weighty moral issues. The larger the social unit becomes, the more
will people be freed from pettiness of thought and selfishness of aim.
The first step in this direction is made when we regard the family
rather than the individual as the true unit. If we pass beyond this in
modern times, we commonly advance straight on to the whole nation for
our notion of a compact community. But the stride is too great. Very
few people are able to reach the patriotism that sinks self in the
larger life of a nation. With a Mazzini, and even with smaller men who
are magnetised by the passion of such an enthusiast in times of
excitement, this may be possible. But with ordinary men in ordinary
times it is not very attainable. How many Englishmen leave legacies
for the payment of the National Debt? Still more difficult is it to
become really cosmopolitan, and acquire a sense of the supreme duty of
living for mankind. Our Lord has come to our aid here in giving us a
new unit--the Church; so that to be a citizen of this "City of God" is
to be called out of the circle of the narrow, selfish interests into
the large place where great, common duties and an all-comprehensive
good of the whole body are set before us as the chief aims to be
pursued.
In rebuilding the city walls, then, Nehemiah was accomplishing two
good objects; he was fortifying the place, and he was restoring its
organic unity. The two advantages would be mutually helpful, because
the weakness of Jerusalem was destroying the peculiar character of her
life. The aristocracy, thinking it impossible to preserve the
community in isolation, had encouraged and practised intermarriage
with neighbouring people, no doubt from a politic regard to the
advantage of foreign alliances. Although Nehemiah was not yet prepared
to grapple with this great question, his fortification of Jerusalem
would help the citizens to maintain their Jewish separateness,
according to the principle that only the strong can be free.
The careful report which Nehemiah has preserved of the organisation of
this work shows us how complete it was. The whole circuit of the walls
was restored. Of course it was most necessary that nothing less should
be attempted, because, like the strength of a chain, the strength of a
fortress is limited to that of its weakest part. And yet--obvious as
it is--probably most failures, not only in public works, but also in
private lives, are directly attributable to the neglect of this
elementary principle of defence. The difficulty always is to reach
that kind of perfection which is suggested by the circle, rather than
the pinnacle--the perfection of completeness. Now in the present
instance the completion of the circuit of the walls of Jerusalem
testifies to the admirable organising power of Nehemiah, his tact in
putting the right men in the right places--the most important and
difficult duty of a leader of men, and his perseverance in overcoming
the obstacles and objections that must have been thrust in his
path--all of them what people call secular qualities, yet all
sustained and perfected by a noble zeal and by that transparent
unselfishness which is the most powerful solvent of the selfishness of
other people. There are more moral qualities involved in the art of
organisation than they would suppose who regard it as a hard,
mechanical contrivance in which human beings are treated like parts
of a machine. The highest form of organisation is never attained in
that brutal manner. Directly we approach men as persons endowed with
rights, convictions, and feelings, an element of sympathy is called
for which makes the organising process a much more delicate concern.
Another point calls for remark here. Nehemiah's description of his
organisation of the people for the purpose of building the walls links
the several groups of men who were responsible for the different parts
with their several districts. The method of division shows a
devolution of responsibility. Each gang had its own bit of wall or its
own gate to see to. The rule regulating the assignment of districts
was that, as far as practicable, every man should undertake the work
opposite his own house. He was literally to "do the thing that lay
nearest" to him in this business. It was in every way a wise
arrangement. It would prevent the disorder and vexation that would be
excited if people were running about to select favourite
sites--choosing the easiest place, or the most prominent, or the
safest, or any other desirable spot. Surely there is no principle of
organisation so simple or so wise as that which directs us to work
near home in the first instance. With the Jews this rule would commend
itself to the instinct of self-interest. Nobody would wish the enemy
to make a breach opposite his own door, of all places. Therefore the
most selfish man would be likely to see to it that the wall near his
house was solidly built. If, however, no other inducements had been
felt in the end, the work would have failed of any great public good,
as all purely selfish work must ultimately fail. There would have
been gaps which it was nobody's interest in particular to fill.
Next it is to be observed that this building was done by "piece work,"
and that with the names of the workmen attached to it, so that if any
of them did their work ill the fact would be known and recorded to
their lasting disgrace; but also so that if any put an extra amount of
finish on their work this too should be known and remembered to their
credit. The idle and negligent workman would willingly be lost in the
crowd; but this escape was not to be permitted, he must be dragged out
and set in the pillory of notoriety. On the other hand, the humble and
devoted citizen would crave no recognition, doing his task lovingly
for the sake of his God and his city, feeling that the work was
everything--the worker nothing. For his own sake one who labours in
this beautiful spirit seems to deserve to be sheltered from the blaze
of admiration at the thought of which he shrinks back in dismay. And
yet this is not always possible. St. Paul writes of the day when
_every_ man's work shall be made manifest.[168] If the honour is
really offered to God, who inspires the work, the modesty which leads
the human agent to seek the shade may be overstrained, for the servant
need not blush to stand in the light when all eyes are directed to his
Master. But when honour is offered to the servant also, this may not
be without its advantages. Rightly taken it will humble him. He will
feel that his unworthiness would not have permitted this if God had
not been very gracious to him. Then he will feel also that he has a
character to maintain. If it is ruinous to lose a reputation--"the
better part of me," as poor Cassio exclaims in his agony of
remorse--it must be helpful to have one to guard from reproach. "A
good name is rather to be chosen than great riches,"[169] not only
because of the indirect advantages it brings from the consideration of
the world--its mere purchasing power in the market of human favour;
this is its least advantage. Its chief value is in the very possession
of it by one whose honour is involved in living worthily of it.
[168] 1 Cor. iii. 13.
[169] Prov. xxii. 1.
From another point of view the record of the names of people who have
rendered good service may be valuable. It will be a stimulus to their
successors. The Early Church preserved the names of her confessors and
martyrs in the diptychs which were expressly provided for use in
public worship, that God might be praised for their noble lives, and
that the living might be stimulated to follow their example. Here is
one of the great uses of history. We cannot afford to forget the loyal
service of the past, because out of it we draw inspiration for the
present. The people with a great history have come into a rich
heritage. To be a child of a really noble house, to spring from a
family truly without reproach--a family all whose sons are pure and
all whose daughters are brave--surely this is to receive a high
commission to cherish the good name unsullied. As the later Jews gazed
at the towers of Jerusalem and marked well her bulwarks, with the
thought that this massive strength was the fruit of the toil and
sacrifice of their own forefathers--so that the very names of
individual ancestors were linked with exact spots on the grey
walls--they would hear a call to loyal service worthy of their noble
predecessors.
To proceed, we may observe further that the groups of builders fall
into several classes. The first place is given to the priestly
order--"the high-priest and his brethren the priests."[170] This is
quite in accordance with the sacerdotal spirit of the times, when the
theocracy was emerging into power to take the place left vacant by the
decay of the house of David. But the priests are not only named first.
Nehemiah states that they were the first to respond to his appeal.
"_Then_"--_i.e._, after he had addressed the assembled Jews--"Then
Eliashib the high-priest _rose up_," etc. This man--the grandson of
Jeshua, from whom so much was expected by Zechariah--was the first to
set his hand to the tremendous task. First in honour, he was first in
service. The beauty of his action lies in its silence. Not a word is
recorded as spoken by him. But he was not satisfied to sanction the
work of humbler men. He led the people in the best possible way, by
beginning the work himself, by directly taking upon him his share of
it. In this noble simplicity of service Eliashib was followed by the
priesthood generally. These men put forth no claims to immunity from
the obligation of civic duties or secular occupations. It never
occurred to them to object that such employments were in the least
degree inconsistent with their high office. The priestly order was
hampered by the strictest rules of artificial separation; but the
quaint notion--so common in the East, and not quite unknown in the
West--that there is something degrading in hard work did not enter
into them.
[170] Neh. iii. 1.
There are two points to be noticed in the special work of the priests.
First, _its locality_. These ministers of the temple set up the
"Sheep Gate," which was the gate nearest to the temple. Thus they made
themselves responsible for their own quarters, guarding what was
especially entrusted to their care. This was in accordance with the
plan observed all round the city, that the inhabitants should work in
the neighbourhood of their respective houses. The priests, who have
the honour of special connection with the temple, feel that a special
charge accompanies that honour; and rightly, for responsibility always
follows privilege. Second, _its consecration_. The priests
"sanctified" their work--_i.e._, they dedicated it to God. This was
not in the sacred enclosure--the _Haram_ as it is now called.
Nevertheless, their gate and wall, as well as their temple, were to be
reckoned holy. They did not hold the strange modern notion that while
the cemetery, the city of the dead, is to de consecrated, the city of
the living requires no consecration. They saw that the very stones and
timbers of Jerusalem belonged to God, and needed His presence to keep
them safe and pure. They were wise, for is He not "the God of the
living" and of all the concerns of life?
The next class of workmen is comprised of men who were taken according
to their families. These would probably be all of them citizens of
Jerusalem, some present by right of birth as descendants of former
citizens, others perhaps sprung from the inhabitants of distant towns
not yet restored to Israel who had made Jerusalem their home. Their
duty to fortify their own city was indubitable.
But now, as in the earlier lists, there is another class among the
laity, consisting of the inhabitants of neighbouring towns, who are
arranged, not according to families, but according to their residence.
Most likely these men were living in Jerusalem at the time; and yet
it is probable that they retained their interest in their provincial
localities. But Jerusalem was the capital, the centre of the nation,
the Holy City. Therefore the inhabitants of other cities must care for
her welfare. In a great scheme of religious centralisation at
Jerusalem Josiah had found the best means of establishing unity of
worship, and so of impressing upon the worshippers the idea of the
unity of God. The same method was still pursued. People were not yet
ripe for the larger thoughts of God and His worship which Jesus
expressed by Jacob's well. Until that was reached, external unity with
a visible centre was essential if a multiplex division of divinity was
to be avoided. After these neighbours who thus helped the metropolis
we have two other groups--the temple servants and the trade guilds of
goldsmiths and merchants.
Now, while on all sides ready volunteers press forward to the work,
just one painful exception is found to mar the harmony of the scene,
or rather to lessen its volume--for this was found in abstention, not
in active opposition. To their shame it is recorded that the nobles of
Tekoa "put not their necks to the work of their Lord."[171] The
general body of citizens from this town took part. We are not told why
the aristocracy held back. Did they consider the labour beneath their
dignity? or was there a breach between them and the townsfolk? The
people of Tekoa may have been especially democratic. Ages before, a
herdsman from this same town, the rough prophet Amos, had shown little
respect for the great ones of the earth. Possibly the Tekoites had
vexed their princes by showing a similar spirit of independence. But
if so, Nehemiah would regard their conduct as affording the princes no
excuse. For it was the Lord's work that these nobles refused to
undertake, and there is no justification for letting God's service
suffer when a quarrel has broken out between His servants. Yet how
common is this miserable result of divisions among men who should be
united in the service of God. Whatever was the cause--whether it was
some petty personal offence or some grave difference of opinion--these
nobles go down the ages, like those unhappy men in the early days of
the Judges who earned the "curse of Meroz," disgraced eternally, for
no positive offence, but simply because they left undone what they
ought to have done. Nehemiah pronounces no curse. He chronicles the
bare fact. But his ominous silence in regard to any explanation is
severely condemnatory. The man who builds his house on the sand in
hearing Christ's words and doing them not, the servant who is beaten
with many stripes because he knows his lord's will and does not
perform it, that other servant who buries his talent, the virgins who
forget to fill their vessels with oil, the people represented by goats
on the left hand whose sole ground of accusation is that they refused
to exercise the common charities--all these illustrate the important
but neglected truth that our Lord's most frequent words of
condemnation were expressed for what we call negative evil--the evil
of harmless but useless lives.
[171] Neh. iii. 5.
Happily we may set exceptional devotion in another quarter over
against the exceptional remissness of the nobles of Tekoa. Brief as is
his summary of the division of the work, Nehemiah is careful to slip
in a word of praise for one Baruch the son of Zabbai, saying that
this man "_earnestly_ repaired" his portion.[172] That one word
"earnestly" is a truer stamp of worth than all the honours claimed by
the abstaining nobles on grounds of rank or pedigree; it goes down the
centuries as the patent of true nobility in the realm of industry.
[172] Neh. iii. 20.