Chapter 6

1 Sanballat practiseth by craft, by rumours, by hired prophecies, to terrify Nehemiah. 15 The work is finished to the terror of the enemies. 17 Secret intelligence passeth between the enemies and the nobles of Judah.

The Province of Judah in Nehemiah’s Time

1. Sanballat. Concerning the three leaders of the conspiracy, see on ch. 2:10, 19.

I had not set up. This may appear to contradict ch. 3:1, 3, 6, 13, etc. But the account of ch. 3 outlines the entire reconstruction project, with the object of indicating who were responsible for the various sections, not the time when the work was completed. Chronologically, chs. 4–6 are, in the main, parallel to ch. 3, and relate events that occurred while the wall was in process of being built. The hanging of the gates was, of course, the last thing to be done.

Upon the gates. Literally, “in the gates.”

2. Sanballat and Geshem. Tobiah is not mentioned. It is possible that only two of the enemies of Nehemiah were willing to go so far as to indulge in personal violence. It may be that Tobiah had reasons for declining to be a party to the plot, since he was related to some Jewish leaders.

Ono. Now Kefr ФAnaµ, about 7 mi. southeast of Jaffa. With the cities of Lod (Lydda) and Hadid, it formed a Jewish district virtually surrounded by Samaritan and Philistine areas. This Jewish district was chosen as the proposed meeting place, thus to mislead Nehemiah by giving him a false sense of security. It would be easy for them to attack him on the road as he crossed Samaritan territory in order to reach Ono.

Do me mischief. The character of the harm intended cannot be determined from the very general Hebrew word translated “mischief,” but it is difficult to conceive of any other purpose than personal violence.

3. I cannot come. Nehemiah replies cordially to the invitation of neighboring fellow governors, but his reply gives them no reason to hope that he will weaken. He does not even deign to disclose his suspicions, possibly his definite knowledge, of their evil plans.

5. An open letter. Why Sanballat changed from oral messages to a written document is not made clear. A written message may have appeared more official, and thus presumably more effective. The letter was probably written on a sheet of papyrus, a writing material commonly in use at that time in Palestine. Such a letter was ordinarily rolled up and the two ends of the roll folded back toward the middle. A string was then tied around the roll and a clay seal affixed to the knot so that it could not be opened without breaking the seal. The outside usually bore the address. To send an open letter accusing an officer of the Persian crown not only violated the laws of courtesy but was highly offensive. An “open letter” invited all to read its contents, and the object in sending it unsealed must have been to create alarm among the Jews and to incite them against Nehemiah. Compare the conduct of Sennacherib’s ambassadors (2 Kings 18:27–36).

6. Gashmu. Another form of the name Geshem (see on ch. 2:19). Sanballat apparently means to say that the supposed rumor about Nehemiah’s planned rebellion now circulating in the surrounding nations had come to Geshem’s notice, and he in turn had transmitted it to Sanballat. Sanballat, posing as a friend, is anxious to warn Nehemiah of the grave charge made against him. In some respects this charge is similar to the report the Jews threatened to make to Caesar regarding Pilate (John 19:12, 13).

7. Appointed prophets. Sanballat has little esteem for the high calling of a prophet. He had found so-called prophets ready to cooperate with him against Nehemiah, for pay (see vs. 12, 14), and he apparently thought of all prophets as being mercenary like his own (see Amos 7:12). Possibly also Sanballat had had access to prophecies such as those of Zechariah, and either misunderstood or purposely misconstrued them (see Zech. 1:16; 2:5; 6:11; 9:9, 10; 12:9; 14:9; etc.).

Take counsel together. By sending heavy accusations against him in an “open letter,” that is, one that might be read by everyone, Sanballat thought Nehemiah would seek to clear himself from suspicion by joining in the proposed interview.

9. Now therefore, O God. The words “O God” are not in the Hebrew, but seem to be correctly supplied by the translators. These words are part of a prayer.

10. Shemaiah. Nothing further is known of this prophet Shemaiah. At least five other men by this name are mentioned as living in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, but none of the others can be identified with this Shemaiah, the son of Delaiah.

Who was shut up. This phrase cannot mean that Nehemiah visited Shemaiah in his house because the latter could not come to him, on account of being either ceremonially unclean or restrained by the hand of the Lord or otherwise. That such an interpretation is incorrect is apparent from Shemaiah’s proposal to Nehemiah to accompany him to the house of God. It follows, therefore, that Shemaiah had shut himself in his house, as if to intimate to Nehemiah that he felt his own life in danger. He sought thus to induce Nehemiah to agree to his proposal that they should both escape the snares laid for them by fleeing to the Temple. It is also possible that Shemaiah intended his self-imposed imprisonment as a symbolic act designed to reinforce his supposed message from God (see Eze. 4:1–10; Eze. 12:3–9; etc.). Both views are possible.

Within the temple. As distinguished from the “house of God,” “temple” means the sanctuary, and not simply a room in some building within the Temple area. Of course, no layman was allowed to enter the Temple (see Ex. 29:33), and Nehemiah would have aroused the displeasure of God and the priests had he followed the advice. Doors separated the holy place from the porch of the Temple of Solomon (1 Kings 6:33, 34), and this was no doubt the case with the restored Temple also. Shemaiah suggested the shutting of these doors for greater security.

11. To save his life. Literally, “and live” (RSV). Nehemiah probably had in mind the command of Num. 18:7, that “the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.” The very fact that Shemaiah proposed a course of action contrary to the revealed will of God was sufficient evidence that he was a false prophet (see Gen. 3:1–5; Matt. 4:3–10).

12. I perceived. Nehemiah was not aware of Shemaiah’s motive in sending the invitation to visit him at his home. However, the nature of the message revealed Shemaiah to be a false prophet, and Nehemiah recognized him now as an impostor. Compare the experience of the “old prophet” of 1 Kings 13:11–19.

Had hired him. That Tobiah is here mentioned before Sanballat instead of after him (chs. 2:10, 19; 4:7; 6:1) may imply that this particular scheme had been arranged by Tobiah, with the support of Sanballat. At other times Sanballat had been the more aggressive foe.

13. An evil report. For Nehemiah to enter and secrete himself within the holy place would have been a grave desecration of the house of God. It would have given his enemies occasion to cast suspicion upon him as one who lightly esteemed God’s commands. Thus his standing in the eyes of the people would be undermined (see on v. 11). The least indication of fear on Nehemiah’s part at this critical time would have been fatal to the morale of the people. The influence of Nehemiah depended on his character. One false step, and he would have been lost, his influence would have been gone, and the work on which his heart was set would have come to nought.

14. Noadiah. This prophetess is not mentioned elsewhere. By mentioning her along with other unnamed prophets and Shemaiah (vs. 11–13), Nehemiah implies that the incident related in vs. 10–13 is but one of several of the kind, and that false prophets were again busy among the people as in the period preceding the captivity, seeking to seduce them and their leaders from listening to the voice of the true prophets. For the work of false prophets in the pre-exilic period see Isa. 9:15; 28:7; Jer. 27:9, 10; 28:9, 15–17; 29:24–32; Eze. 13:2, 17; Micah 3:5–11.

15. The wall was finished. Though the year is not mentioned here, the 20th year of Artaxerxes is clearly intended (see on ch. 2:1). This agrees with the other chronological statements of this book. In Nisan (the 1st month) Nehemiah had received permission from the king to go to Jerusalem. According to chs. 5:14 and 13:6 he was governor in Jerusalem from the 20th year onward and must therefore have set out for that place immediately after receiving royal authorization for his plans. If so, he arrived in Jerusalem during the fourth month. After three days he surveyed the wall, and soon thereafter called a public assembly to present his plan for rebuilding the wall and to enlist their cooperation (ch. 2:11–17). All this may have taken place in the course of the fourth month, so that the beginning of the work could actually have taken place either before the end of the 4th month or in the beginning of the 5th. It is not clear from Nehemiah’s words how he computed the 52 days during which the wall was in process of reconstruction. He could have reckoned the period from the day of resuming the work until it was finished, including the weekly Sabbaths, so that the number of working days would be only 44 or 45; or he could have meant that there were 52 working days. Thus the period of activity would cover about 60 days. In the first case the beginning of the work would have fallen in the early days of Ab (the 5th month), in the latter case in the last part of Tammuz (the 4th month). According to the Jewish calendar followed by Nehemiah, Elul 25 in the 20th year of Artaxerxes was approximately September 21, 444 b.c.

Some commentators have contended that 52 days do not provide enough time to rebuild the wall. They have preferred to accept the two years and four months given by Josephus (Antiquities xi. 5. 8) as a more reasonable length of time. However, there is no need to reject the Bible figure in favor of Josephus because: (1) Nehemiah’s work was not a complete rebuilding of the wall, but in many parts only repair work (see on ch. 1:3); (2) it was carried out in great haste in the face of threatened attack; and (3) the completion of the wall in such a short time was so incredible to the enemies of the Jews that they considered it a miracle (ch. 6:16).

16. Our enemies. Sanballat and the Samaritans, Tobiah and the Ammonites, Geshem and the Arabians, and the Ashdodites (see ch. 4:7) are the special “enemies” here meant. The “heathen that were about” the Jews were other nations living in Palestine, Transjordan and Syria. Even some of these were unfriendly and disliked any advancement of Jewish power and prosperity. The hatred against the Jews that existed in certain circles during the time of Xerxes, as indicated by the events described in the book of Esther, was still alive, and, as history reveals, has never died.

17. Many letters. Further light is here thrown on the desperate attempts of Tobiah to overthrow Nehemiah and bring his labors to a halt, and on the disloyalty of certain men of the nobility, already hinted at in ch. 3:5. A vigorous correspondence was carried on between Tobiah and those high in Jewish affairs, with the object of frightening Nehemiah (v. 19). Such correspondence could not remain unknown to Nehemiah, for the majority were loyal to him. Furthermore, it may be that no attempt was made to keep it secret.

18. Many in Judah. Through marriage connections with two Jewish families, Tobiah had made many among the nobility his “sworn” friends, who used their influence to carry out his policies.

Shechaniah. Tobiah’s father-in-law, Shechaniah the son of Arah, was a respectable Jew of the family of Arah, mentioned in Ezra 2:5. Although the name Shechaniah was common at this period of Jewish history, this particular person seems otherwise not to be mentioned in the book of Nehemiah. Meshullam, who had become father-in-law of Tobiah’s daughter, appears among those who shared in the work of rebuilding the wall (ch. 3:4, 30). According to ch. 13:4, Tobiah was also related to the high priest Eliashib, but it is possible that this relationship was not formed until after Nehemiah’s first governorship. The fact that both Tobiah and his son Johanan have genuine Jewish names, with the abbreviated form of Yahweh as part of each name, leads to the conclusion that they were descendants of Israelites of the old northern kingdom, the ten tribes, and had joined the Ammonites (see on ch. 2:10).

19. They reported. The Hebrew text has a play on Tobiah’s name, which means “Goodness of Yahweh,” with the reporting of “good” deeds to Nehemiah by Jewish friends. The sarcasm is evident. The purpose of all this was to make Nehemiah think well of Tobiah. These efforts were therefore in line with those of the false prophet Shemaiah (vs. 10–13), their purpose being to confuse Nehemiah with advice that appeared to be friendly.

Letters. Probably similar in content to that of Sanballat (vs. 5, 6).

Ellen G. White comments

1–19PK 653–660

1–3PK 653

3     Ev 691; PK 659; 1T 123; 3T 38, 570; 5T 616

3–53T 574

4–8PK 654

10   PK 655

11   PK 656

12   PK 655

13   PK 656

15–18PK 657

19   PK 658