Nehemiah 12:40

Authorized King James Version

So stood the two companies of them that gave thanks in the house of God, and I, and the half of the rulers with me:

Word-by-Word Analysis

וַֽתַּעֲמֹ֛דְנָה

H5975

So stood

to stand, in various relations (literal and figurative, intransitive and transitive)

שְׁתֵּ֥י

H8147

the two

two; also (as ordinal) twofold

הַתּוֹדֹ֖ת

H8426

companies of them that gave thanks

properly, an extension of the hand, i.e., (by implication) avowal, or (usually) adoration; specifically, a choir of worshippers

בְּבֵ֣ית

H1004

in the house

a house (in the greatest variation of applications, especially family, etc.)

הָֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים

H430

of God

gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme god; occasionally applied by way of

וַֽאֲנִ֕י

H589

וַֽחֲצִ֥י

H2677

and I and the half

the half or middle

הַסְּגָנִ֖ים

H5461

of the rulers

a prfect of a province

עִמִּֽי׃

H5973

adverb or preposition, with (i.e., in conjunction with), in varied applications; specifically, equally with; often with prepositional prefix (and then

Analysis

This verse develops the kingdom of God theme central to Nehemiah. The concept of divine sovereignty reflects the development of kingdom of God within biblical theology. The divine name or title here functions within biblical literature contributing to the canon's theological witness to establish theological authority and covenantal relationship. The original language emphasizes careful word choice that would have carried specific theological weight for the original audience, providing deeper understanding of the author's theological intention.

Historical Context

The literary and historical milieu of the literary conventions and historical circumstances of biblical literature shapes this text's meaning. The historical development of kingdom of God within the theological tradition of Nehemiah Understanding the ancient worldview that shaped the author's theological expression helps modern readers appreciate why the author emphasizes divine sovereignty in this particular way.

Questions for Reflection

How might the original audience's understanding of divine sovereignty differ from modern interpretations, and what bridges can be built between ancient meaning and contemporary application?
In what ways does this verse's emphasis on divine sovereignty address the apparent delay of Christ's return and God's justice, and how should the church respond?
In what ways does understanding divine sovereignty in its original context challenge or deepen contemporary Christian thinking about kingdom of God?