On 31 October 1517, Martin Luther wrote to Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, protesting the sale of indulgences. Luther objected to a saying attributed to Johann Tetzel that "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs." He insisted that, since forgiveness was God’s alone to grant, those who claimed that indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation were in error. Christians, he said, must not slacken in following Christ on account of such false assurances. He enclosed in his letter a copy of his "Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences," which came to be known as The 95 Theses, which were posted on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. He saw his disputation as an objection to church practices. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_Day)
When facing opposition, how do you respond. Do you run in fear, respond in likeminded hostility or become paralyzed in fear or apathy. In Nehemiah 3, Nehemiah lead the people of God to stand firm against the opposition from without, the fear and lethargy from within, and even from naive people of faith.
The Book of Nehemiah continues the story of the Jewish exiles who returned to their homeland after the Babylonian Captivity. As told in the Book of Ezra, a group of about 50,000 returned to Judah in the first year of Cyrus, conquerer of Babylon (538 B.C.). Ezra himself led about 1,500 more back some 80 years later (458 B.C.). It was only 12 years after Ezra’s return that Nehemiah came to Judah. Nehemiah was a high official at the Persian court who, out of concern for Jerusalem, asked for and was given permission to serve as governor of that minor district. He served in Jerusalem 12 years, returned to Persia, and then came to Judah a second time to govern there. Unlike Ezra the priest, Nehemiah exercised political power. Yet his colorful and decisive leadership dealt with more than restoring respectability to Jerusalem by rebuilding its walls. Nehemiah also committed himself to purifying the lifestyle of God’s people and bringing them into conformity with God’s Law. The events recorded by Nehemiah took place some 12 years later (446 B.C.). Nehemiah came as a governor appointed to lead his people, with the express purpose of rebuilding the walls of the Holy City (Richards, L., & Richards, L. O. (1987). The teacher’s commentary (306). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.).
What we can learn from Nehemiah 4:1-14 is that in the face of internal, communal and external opposition, focus on the task at hand is critical for success. For God’s people we see their focus with 1) One Voice in Ridicule (Nehemiah 4:1-3), 2) One Voice in Response (Nehemiah 4:4-6), and finally: 3) One Voice in Reaction (Nehemiah 4:7-15)
1) One Voice in Ridicule (Nehemiah 4:1-3),
Nehemiah 4:1–6; in the Hebrew Bible is 3:33–38, and chap. 4 begins with our 4:7, for the reaction of the enemies is directly connected to the building activities. There is a kind of progression in the reaction of the enemies (Fensham, F. C. (1982). The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (179). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.).
Sanballat was called the Horonite because he came from the town of Beth Horon, about eight miles northwest of Jerusalem.
He was now governor of the fortified city of Samaria to the north and no doubt wanted to have Jerusalem within his jurisdiction. Sanballat is mentioned in the Elephantine Papyri (discovered in Egypt, dating from 408–407 BC), where he is said to have been the governor of Samaria and to have had two sons (James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), 492.).
When Sanballat and his friends first heard that the wall was actually being restored, the working parties formed, and the work taken in hand, they could scarcely bring themselves to believe it. At the end of chapter. 2 it looked as though the ridicule is from a position of contemptuous superiority and confidence that Nehemiah’s plans are a mere pipedream. Here, by contrast, the emphasis on his extreme anger indicates the start of desperation on his part that Nehemiah may, after all, succeed (Willamson, H. G. M. (2002). Vol. 16: Word Biblical Commentary : Ezra-Nehemiah. Word Biblical Commentary (216). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.).
Sanballat knew that a restored Jerusalem would lessen his influence in the area. Thus he was angry/greatly angered and intent on discouraging Nehemiah’s project, even though he knew that it had the approval of the Persian court.
• Anger will often be the world’s response to God’s work because it challenges worldviews and values. Much of the opposition to the project consisted of psychological warfare. The first opposition came in the form of ridicule, often sufficient to stifle the spirit and work of anyone (Breneman, M. (2001). Vol. 10: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (193). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.).
The progress indicates that the Jews were building. The participle (Heb. bônîm), means that the rebuilding was in progress, that they were busy working on it (Fensham, F. C. (1982). The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (179). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.).
• Often one of the worst things to do in a crises is excessive discussion and navel gazing. Instead of having lengthy discussions as to the threat to the Jews, they focused on the work at hand. God rewards faithfulness and be it in the personal or corporate sphere, when we focus on doing His tasks His way, obstacles seem to disappear, as we will see in our historical account in Nehemiah 4.
In verse 2 Sanballat said in the presence of his brothers/brethren. By “brothers/brethren” would seem to be meant his chief counsellors—probably Tobiah among them. To understand who is the army of Samaria, Psalm 83 is helpful. Ps. 83 belongs probably to David’s time; and as Samaria had doubtless its own native force of armed citizens, who were Sanballat’s subjects. The Persians would maintain a force in Damascus, but scarcely in Samaria; and any Persian soldiers that might have been there, would have been more likely to support a royal cupbearer than a petty governor with no influence at court. We can really only explain the disturbed state of things and approach to open hostility which appears in Nehemiah’s narrative, by the weakness of Persia in these parts, and the consequent power of the native races to act pretty much as they pleased—even to the extent of making war one upon another.
Sanballat began the campaign of ridicule, encouraging his colleagues to follow his example. He used rhetorical questions designed to drive home the opposition. The first one took advantage of a “truth” about which the Jews were sensitive, “those feeble Jews.” feeble/good for nothing/miserable (Heb. hayyəhûḏîm hāʾămēlalîm).
The Hebrew root ʿmll is occasionally used in the OT to denote the fading or withering of a plant (Isa. 16:8; 24:7; etc.). It is also used of people without any hope (Isa. 19:8; Hos. 4:3). It is employed here in Nehemiah to ridicule the Jews. They are a withering lot of people. How could they do anything worthwhile! (Fensham, F. C. (1982). The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (180). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.)
• If an effort can be robbed of hope, then it will be defeated before it is begun. Faith is believing in God often despite the outward appearance. If it is mere activity, then it is not going to succeed, for such an action would be a mere reward of human effort, instead of a supernatural faith in God, who desires to be honored with the success of a project or undertaking.
Then Sanballat asked, “Will they restore/repair/fortify the wall for themselves? He wanted to instill doubts about the wisdom of the project. They were fools, he chided, wasting effort on a hopeless project.
• Doubt will continue to rob a project of effort. With enough time before completion, it is like a hole in a cup that continues to drip until the contents are emptied.
The third rhetorical question, “Will they offer sacrifice?” ridiculed what he thought was a “pretended” trust in God. Did they think prayer and sacrifice could make the wall grow? Was their relation to God one of religion or faith? Was their prayer and sacrifice mere ritual or an expression of internal desire to communion with God? Will they finish up/make an end in a day? points to the question if the Jews will begin by offering a sacrifice to inaugurate their work.
• Part of being confident in the will of God is offering Him thanks for what He will do. Jesus often practiced this. It is not presumptuous if it is based on His already revealed word.
His final question, Will they revive the stones out of the heaps of rubbish, and burned ones points to the question if “they will take the stones that are burned out of the heaps of the rubbish” Will they do what is impossible—solidify and make into real stone the calcined and crumbling blocks which are all that they will find in the heaps of rubbish? If not, how are they to procure material?
• If we believe that we lack the material needed for a task then we either will not begin or not utilize what God has provided.
• One of the most amazing things of how God works is how He can use people and resources in ways that don’t seem possible on the surface. When He achieved what cannot seemly be done with the resources at hand, He is glorified for it becomes obvious that He achieved the results and not by sheer human effort.
In verse 3 we see the presence of Tobiah on this occasion. Tobiah was the governor of Ammon, which lay across the Jordan River to the east of Jerusalem. In the old days, several great trade routes went through Jerusalem on the way to Egypt, Persia, Arabia, or Asia Minor. Sanballat and Tobiah perceived correctly that if Jerusalem were rebuilt, much of this valuable trade would return to it and their provinces would be diminished proportionately (Boice, J. M. (2005). Nehemiah : An expositional commentary (50–51). Grand Rapids, Mich.: BakerBooks.).
Tobiah was obviously a close ally and friend of Sanballat, because at this important meeting he was at Sanballat’s side. His ridicule is clothed in a beautiful image. What kind of construction are they erecting? It would be useless. If a fox jumps against it, it will show a breach (Heb. pāraṣ). The quality of the construction will be so poor that even a touch of a fox’s paw will create a breach in the wall. This of course was not at all true, for archaeological excavations found Nehemiah’s wall to be about nine feet thick (Breneman, M. (2001). Vol. 10: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (194). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.).
We must keep in mind that in warfare a breach in a city wall could be made only after prolonged efforts with siege weapons. The accusation is that the wall of the Jews will be so poorly built that a fox can break it. This is the height of scorn and ridicule combined with contempt (Fensham, F. C. (1982). The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (180–181). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.).
• Too often this kind of ridicule is well deserved at the Church. In a misguided humility, the effort we undertake for the things of God is substantially less than we use in our jobs or even recreation. A focus to detail and excellence is throughout scripture. From the artisan craftsmanship in temple construction to self-sacrificial extended ministry such like the disciples on their missionary journeys, God expects that we fully use the gifts and talents that He has given us.
Illustration: (Making Shoes Right``)
Any task we do as Christians should be done with wholehearted dedication, for God is never satisfied with a halfhearted effort. H. A. Ironside learned this early in life while working for a Christian shoemaker. Young Harry’s job was to prepare the leather for soles. He would cut a piece of cowhide to size, soak it in water, and then pound it with a flat-headed hammer until it was hard and dry. This was a wearisome process, and he wished it could be avoided. Harry would often go to another shoeshop nearby to watch his employer’s competitor. This man did not pound the leather after it came from the water. Instead, he immediately nailed it onto the shoe he was making. One day Harry approached the shoemaker and said, “I noticed you put the soles on while they are still wet. Are they just as good as if they were pounded?” With a wink and a cynical smile the man replied, “No, but they come back much quicker this way, my boy!”
Young Harry hurried back to his boss and suggested that perhaps they were wasting their time by drying out the leather so carefully. Upon hearing this, his employer took his Bible, read Colossians 3:23 to him, and said, “Harry, I do not make shoes just for the money. I’m doing it for the glory of God. If at the judgment seat of Christ I should have to view every shoe I’ve ever made, I don’t want to hear the Lord say, ‘Dan, that was a poor job. You didn’t do your best.’ I want to see His smile and hear, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant!’” It was a lesson in practical Christian ethics that Ironside never forgot!
(Our Daily Bread, January 7, as recorded in Galaxie Software. (2002; 2002). 10,000 Sermon Illustrations. Biblical Studies Press.)
2) One Voice in Response (Nehemiah 4:4-6)
The first thing Nehemiah did was to turn to God in prayer. God’s people should always regard prayer not as a last resort but as our primary weapon against opposition. We are to start a task with Prayer, and not try to have it be some sanctified dedication later.
The plea Hear, O our God in verse 4 is a settled habit with Nehemiah (comp. ch. 5:19; 6:9, 14; 13:14, 22, 29, 31). He is asking God that He would Turn back their taunt/reproach on their own heads. Their actions was a taunt/reproach (herpâ) which can also be translated “ridicule,” “sneer,” or “insult.” (Fensham, F. C. (1982). The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (181). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.)
First, notice that Nehemiah prioritized prayer. When mocked, he did not shout back; he turned to God. Second, Nehemiah prayed honestly.
Please turn to 2 Kings 19
Nehemiah told God exactly what he wanted, with startling candor. A pretense of civility in prayer does not fool God, for He looks upon our hearts. Moreover, by screening everything we say in prayer, we miss the vitality and transforming power of honest conversation with God (Roberts, M., & Ogilvie, L. J. (1993). Vol. 11: The Preacher’s Commentary Series, Volume 11 : Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. The Preacher’s Commentary series (193–194). Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Inc.)
The whole prayer is reminiscent of the situation which Hezekiah faced when threatened by Sennacherib:
2 Kings 19:14-19 [14]Hezekiah received the letter from the hand of the messengers and read it; and Hezekiah went up to the house of the LORD and spread it before the LORD. [15]And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD and said: "O LORD, the God of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth. [16]Incline your ear, O LORD, and hear; open your eyes, O LORD, and see; and hear the words of Sennacherib, which he has sent to mock the living God. [17]Truly, O LORD, the kings of Assyria have laid waste the nations and their lands [18]and have cast their gods into the fire, for they were not gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone. Therefore they were destroyed. [19]So now, O LORD our God, save us, please, from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, O LORD, are God alone." (ESV)
• The key to Nehemiah`s prayer, like Hezekiah here and others like Jeremiah (Jeremiah 11:18–20; 15:15; 17:18; 18:19–23) and the Psalmists (Ps. 235, 58m 59, 69:22–28; 44, 74, 79:12; 109:6–20, 137. &c), is that it is all done focusing on God: concern for His reputation, and honor, not on individual pride, or personal revenge (Rom 12:14–21, KJV; cf. Matt 5:43–48; Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60; 1 Tim 2:1–4).
• We are to pray for and encourage justice. We should seek that God intervene in situations. Individually in a new covenant perspective we are not to take personal vengeance (cf. Rom 12:19–21)
• We are to “love our enemies,” and “bless those that cursed us” (Matt. 5:44). This does not exclude the civic responsibility of godly government to intervene in justice and use of the police and military (Rom. 13). For God Himself, God’s people can ask him to judge injustice and to thwart the plans of those who would hinder God’s work.
Quote: Today we should pray that our enemies and God’s enemies will come to repentance. But we must also pray that their attacks on God’s kingdom come to nothing. Martin Luther once wrote, “We cannot pray the Lord’s Prayer without cursing.” Every time we pray, “Hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done,” we are in a sense cursing. As Luther writes in his explanation of the Third Petition of the Lord’s Prayer: “God’s will is done when he breaks and defeats every evil plan and purpose of the devil, the world, and our sinful flesh, which try to prevent us from keeping God’s name holy and letting his kingdom come.” (Brug, J. F. (1985). Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. The People’s Bible (90). Milwaukee, Wis.: Northwestern Pub. House.)
The plea in verse 5 for God to Do not cover their iniquity, is very similar to David’s imprecations (Ps. 109:7, 14, 15, &c.), as also some of Jeremiah’s (Jer. 18:23). They have provoked thee to anger before the builders. It is not as if they had merely “thought scorn” of or insulted God before one or two. They have provoked God to anger in uttering their insult publicly, in the presence of the builders, so that it is known to the whole body of the builders. Therefore they deserve not to be forgiven. The prayer was thus not vindictive because the Jews were insulted, but appropriate because God’s commanded work (and thus God Himself) was ridiculed. Thus the prayer was religiously and not nationalistically motivated (Fensham, F. C. (1982). The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (182). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.).
• This would be similar to a public repudiation of faith, or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is not that God will not forgive faith, but for those who are so unrepentant to publically blaspheme, He will not forgive.
In verse 6 it shows that Insults and gibes had no effect on the builders, for they still built the wall. The result was that soon all the wall was joined together to half its height, meaning the whole continuous line of wall was completed to half the contemplated height. The reason for this is that the people had a mind to work. Literally, “there was a heart to the people to work.” Insult and gibe rather stimulated than daunted them.
Illustration: (Good Craftsmanship``) If you’re into bumper-sticker philosophy, you’ve probably seen the axiom, “I owe, I owe, so off to work I go.” For a vast portion of the workforce, that’s the best reason they can muster for going to the job each day. Few workers are satisfied with their jobs. In the first century, Christian slaves had even less reason to be enthusiastic about their work. But Paul gave them a way to grasp a glimpse of glory amid the grind. He wanted them to “adorn the doctrine of God,” that is, to show the beauty of their faith in Christ by how they work (Ti. 2:10).
A significant and often overlooked way that we serve God is in our everyday tasks. Martin Luther understood this when he wrote, “The maid who sweeps her kitchen is doing the will of God just as much as the monk who prays—not because she may sing a Christian hymn as she sweeps but because God loves clean floors. The Christian shoemaker does his Christian duty not by putting little crosses on the shoes, but by making good shoes, because God is interested in good craftsmanship.”
(Our Daily Bread, September 5, 1994 as recorded in Galaxie Software. (2002; 2002). 10,000 Sermon Illustrations. Biblical Studies Press.)
3) One Voice in Reaction (Nehemiah 4:7-15)
In verse 7 a new group, the Ashdodites, on the west. Since the time of the Assyrian conquest of Palestine, the Philistine territory had been a separate province and was called Ashdod (Breneman, M. (2001). Vol. 10: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (196). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.).
This means that the Jewish community is completely surrounded by enemies: Ashdod (east, on the Phoenician coast); Ammon (west, in the Transjordan); Sanballat of Samaria (north), and Geshem the Arab (south and southwest) (Holmgren, F. C. (1987). Israel alive again : A commentary on the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. International theological commentary (107). Grand Rapids; Edinburgh: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.; Handsel Press.).
• If the opposition could be united in attack, how much more should God`s people realize their unity in Christ, and work together.
It came to pass, that Sanballat, and Tobiah, and the Arabians, and the Ammonites, and the Ashdodites, in their respective residences, heard that the repairing of the walls of Jerusalem was going forward. The “repairing/restoration of the walls” is referred to by way of a metaphor derived from the healing of a wound. We can see it is something of Nehemiah’s intense concern for the health and well-being of the city (Willamson, H. G. M. (2002). Vol. 16: Word Biblical Commentary : Ezra-Nehemiah. Word Biblical Commentary (225). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.).
• The purpose of the repairing/restoration of the walls was to protect the people of God and keep out harmful elements.
• The spiritual health and well-being of God`s people is not only a powerful witness to outsiders, it enables them to function as God intends. Either through apathy or laziness, when God`s tasks remain unaccomplished by God`s people, they are neither a witness to outsiders nor spiritually healthy.
Nehemiah notes “that the (entire) wall of Jerusalem was of a (good) height,” and that the breaches were beginning to be closed, they were very angry. Observe that Tobiah is here quite separated from the nation of the Ammonites, and in no way represented as their leader. The Jealousy of Jerusalem on the part of the Ammonites and Philistines is quite natural; and, if the Arabs are the Edomites, their opposition would be equally a matter of course (Ps. 137:7; Ezek. 25:12; Amos 1:11; Obad. 10, 14); but the Edomites are not called Arabs in Scripture, nor do Arabs appear very often among the enemies of the Jews. It has been suggested that the “Arabians” here mentioned are the descendants of a colony which Sargon planted in Samaria itself. This, of course, is possible; but they may perhaps have been one of the desert tribes, induced to come forward by the hope of plunder (Ewald), and influenced by the Ammonites, their neighbours.
In verse 8 it notes that they all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem to cause confusion/to hinder/hurt it. The word used is a rare one. According to Gesenius, it has the two senses of “error” and “injury.”
Quote: Notice how the opposition was a result of human plotting. Vos rightly cautions against attributing all opposition to Christian work to Satan:
It would be easy to blame all of Nehemiah’s difficulties on Satan’s opposition, but that is too simplistic.… Satan merely needed to exploit already existing concerns. It is easy for the people of God to blame all their woes on Satan... But the truth is that Satan... usually does not need to invent problems. He merely exploits or exacerbates existing conditions (Vos, Bible Study Commentary: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 100.).
In verse 9 it notes that they prayed to their God and set a guard/watch as a protection over against/opposite to them day and night. This guard was opposite the point from which they were expected to make their attack. The Jews exhibited a balance between faith in God and readiness, employing some of the wall builders as guards (MacArthur, J. J. (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed.) (Ne 4:9). Nashville: Word Pub.).
• Too often people mistake a faith in God to mean prayer without acting. When God illuminates the mind, provides various resources, it is often this provision is the result of God acting. He has provided resources to be used. He expects us to faithfully use what He has given, not wait around in the midst of these provisions.
In verse 10 we see a situation of internal unrest. A complaint is presented that the strength of those who bear the burdens is failing/ decayed, meaning that the drawing off of men from the working parties to act as guards, resulted in the work parties becoming so weakened that they could not continue the work, since the quantity of rubble/rubbish was so great. The rubble/rubbish refers to ruins of the prior destruction (586 B.C.), which they had to clear away before they could make significant progress on the rebuilding of the walls (MacArthur, J. J. (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed.) (Ne 4:10). Nashville: Word Pub.).
• Sin is the rubble in our lives that gets in the way of being used by God. We must first clear away the barrier of sin in confession to God in order to be effectively used by Him.
It seems as if the propaganda of the enemies had its effect. Of course, that is what the enemies intended. External pressure amplifies internal weakness. When difficulties arise, the internal contents are stirred up. It is like a murky pond. A thin layer on the surface covers the contents, but when stirred up, we see what is truly underneath.
Covering up internal problems with a simple smile, or casual association will never deal with fundamental problems. Instead of dealing with the source of their internal difficulties, the workers just sing about them. In the form of a song, in the lamentation or qinah rhythm, the Jews expressed their anxieties. It might have been a popular song of the workers. These verses show that the initial enthusiasm had died down under the onslaught of propaganda. It was a time of great uncertainty. The enemies could attack at any moment. Filled up with dust and rubble/rubbish the ruins of many years were becoming too much for the workers. Nehemiah was facing a crisis among his own people. This was the right moment for the enemies to spread fresh rumors and to dishearten the workers to such an extent that the work would stop. Then it would not be necessary to carry out the planned attack (Fensham, F. C. (1982). The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (185). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.).
• Notice the progression: the propaganda results in anxiety: we start believing the lies. When a clear vision is gone, the work originally undertaken with enthusiasm stops. With work stopping uncertainty about the future occurs and further disheartening results, until the entire work is abandoned.
In verse 11, the rumor is that the enemies will sneak into the city and kill the workers before they notice the attack. The Jews who lived near the enemy border witnessed their preparations for the attack on Jerusalem (Fensham, F. C. (1982). The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (185). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.).
Verse 12 notes that the Jews who dwelt in the outlying towns, in the neighbourhood of Ammon, Samaria, Ashdod, &c., came repeatedly to Jerusalem, and tried to draw off their contingents. Apparently the enemies were spreading rumors of attack to dishearten the people (cf. Josephus, Ant. 11.175). That the enemy spread these rumors “Ten times over” would suggest that these enemies constantly reiterated the rumors so the people in the villages would pass them on to their friends in Jerusalem (Breneman, M. (2001). Vol. 10: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (197). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.).
• Unfortunately, a lie unchallenged enough is implicitly accepted. That the neighboring Jews did not investigate the situation but assumed the accusations shows a weakness on their part.
• As Christians we have the duty in giving other people, especially other Christians, the benefit of the doubt, known as the `judgment of charity`(1 Cor.13).
That the Jews in the outlying towns said to the Jews trying to defend themselves “You must return to us” is saddening. Some believe it refers to Jews came repeatedly to Jerusalem and warned him of the enemy’s designs.
• Warning other Christians of a real danger is helpful and a sign of love, but in this case the Jews from the outlying towns, they failed to inquire of the situation. Sometimes well meaning friends and family unwittingly become tools of Satan in their uninformed best intentions. Like Peter, trying to dissuade Christ from going to the cross, we must act based on God`s informed will as defined in Scripture, over the emotions of the moment.
As we see it in verse 13, Nehemiah did the mustering of his army openly so that the informers of the enemy could see what was happening. The enemies should take notice that the Jews were prepared for them. Throughout the history of Israel swords were the principal weapons for close combat. Spears were used as a stabbing or thrusting weapon in close range combat. Finally, the composite bow with a range of about 700 yards, but accurate at 300 to 400 yards would be the first line of attack. (Y. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands I (New York: 1963), pp. 7–8, 10–11; R. Gonen, Weapons of the Ancient World (London: 1975), pp. 20ff.,29ff.,43ff.).
Nehemiah says that he stationed the people by their clans in the lowest parts of space behind the wall, in open spaces. Nehemiah means that in the less elevated places, where the wall was least strong by nature, he had his men posted on conspicuous spots within the walls, where they could be seen from a distance, and so deterred the enemy from advancing. He drew them up by their clans/after their families, that each man might feel he was fighting for his brethren, sons, &c. (ver. 14).
• The family is the first line of defence for the Church, the community and the society. When communication breaks down with families, Churches fall apart, communities become isolated and society no longer has the light from the Christian family that God intends.
Finally in verses 14-15 the men were assembled and Nehemiah looked at them or inspected them.
• We cannot fulfill our calling to one another if we are isolated and self-focused.
• We are called the Church of God because we are designed to be a collective assembled people. We live in an age of individualism, and contemporary spirituality has such an individualistic focus that we loose the strength that God has designed us to be together.
With the morale of his men low he had to give them fresh courage for their task. It was a time of crisis: from outside the enemies were fuming against the Jews; from inside his own people were frightened by the continuous propaganda of the enemies. Nehemiah, as a devout man, drew his companions’ attention to the real strength of the Jews, namely, their great God (cf. 1:5). Be not afraid of the enemies. Who are they anyhow? Trust in God. But it is not a trust in God without any action. It is not a mystical wait on him. It is trust and action. The Jews must defend their families and their property (Fensham, F. C. (1982). The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (186–187). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co)
The language of Nehemiah (“Do not be afraid”) is reminiscent of words of reassurance and victory from other leaders in Scripture (cf. Exod 14:13; Num 14:9; Deut 20:3; 31:6; Josh 10:25).
Exodus 14:13 [13]And Moses said to the people, "Fear not, stand firm, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will work for you today. For the Egyptians whom you see today, you shall never see again. (ESV)
Nehemiah looked, and arose, and spoke to the officials and to the rest of the people. The allies had joined their forces; the army was advancing; Nehemiah had obtained information of the quarter from which the attack was to be expected; he had posted his men (ver. 13). He most likely spoke as the enemy was coming up to the attack; with a short but stirring appeal. That no conflict followed would seem to show, that “when the enemy approached, and saw from a distance the whole people awaiting them in perfect equipment, order, and spirit,” they lost heart and “turned back” (Ewald, ‘History of Israel,’ vol. 5:p. 155).
(Format note: Some base commentary from The Pulpit Commentary: Nehemiah. 2004 (H. D. M. Spence-Jones, Ed.) (41–42). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
