Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
Nehemiah 4:1-6
Sanballat Arouses The Neighbours Of The Jews To Ridicule Their Attempts To Rebuild The Walls, But Without Effect (Nehemiah 4:1).
We note here the deepening of the already revealed opposition to the Jews and to the building of the walls. Notice the growth in the antagonistic attitude of those who were opposed to them, each time expressed in accordance with a pattern:
o 2:10 ‘And when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, heard of it, it grieved them greatly, in that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the children of Israel.'
o 2:19 ‘But when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian, heard it, they laughed us to scorn, and despised us, and said, “What is this thing that you do? Will you rebel against the king?”
o 4:1 ‘But it came about that, when Sanballat heard that we were building the wall, he was furious, and took great umbrage, and mocked the Jews, and spoke before his brothers and the army of Samaria.'
o 4:7-8 ‘But it came about that, when Sanballat, and Tobiah, and the Arabians, and the Ammonites, and the Ashdodites, heard that the repairing of the walls of Jerusalem went forward, that the breaches began to be stopped, then they were very angry, and they conspired all of them together to come and fight against Jerusalem, and to cause confusion in it.'
Notice the pattern, ‘and when they/he heard of it', and the growth in feeling, ‘it grieved them greatly', ‘they laughed us to scorn, and despised us', ‘he was furious, and took great umbrage', ‘they conspired to come and fight against Jerusalem'.
We may also notice the growth in Nehemiah's response:
o In Nehemiah 2:10 he simply carried on with his purpose.
o In Nehemiah 2:20 he responded by pointing out that the God of Heaven was with them, and that they had no part in it.
o In Nehemiah 4:4 he specifically calls on God to deal with them severely.
o In Nehemiah 4:9 he prays to God and sets up a watch against them.
‘But it came about that, when Sanballat heard that we were building the wall, he was furious, and took great umbrage, and mocked the Jews.'
In his attempts to thwart the work an angry Sanballat, who was probably already governor of the district of Samaria, turned to insults, mocking the attempts of ‘the Jews' (the returnees and those who had involved themselves with them in the pure worship of YHWH). The significance of the building of the walls is brought out by his fury. It was no light matter. It represented a new political force arising in the area, and one which was separatist based on its exclusive Temple worship (see Ezra 4:1). It thus represented the weakening of his authority, and was an affront to his own particular views. For he saw himself as a Yahwist, and was angry that the Jews would not accept him as such.
There is in fact no more potent weapon than ridicule when used against those who want to be well thought of. It can turn half-hearted people from their purposes, and prevent others from joining them. Many a Christian's progress has been halted by such methods. But in this case it failed because ‘the people had a mind to work'. They were confident that they were doing the work of God. And it consequently only left the alternative of violence (Nehemiah 4:7). The mockery was indirect (Nehemiah 4:2), although it certainly reached Nehemiah's ears. The aim was to build up a huge feeling of contempt concerning the activities of the Jews. It was also aimed at bolstering his own self-esteem.
‘And he spoke before his allies (brothers) and the army of Samaria, and said, “What are the feeble Jews doing? Will they fortify themselves? Will they sacrifice? Will they make an end in a day? Will they revive the stones out of the heaps of rubbish, seeing they are burned?”
The word ‘brothers' almost certainly means ‘allies' (compare Amos 1:9), those in brotherly union with him as adversaries of the Jews. The army of Samaria would be a local military contingent such as a governor would necessarily require as a kind of police force (compare Ezra 4:23). The mention of the latter is significant as preparing for the intended violence that will follow. Sanballat thus makes his views widely known among those who have some authority, and those who will enforce his decisions. He is bolstering them up as well as himself.
His questions are clearly derogatory, based on his contemptuous view of their weakness and feebleness. What did such feeble people really think that they could achieve? As we know they had been constantly struggling against hard times and had been finding life difficult (Nehemiah 1:3), something partly due to Sanballat and his cronies. The question brings home how necessary the powerful leadership of Nehemiah, combined with the strength of his escort, was to the ailing Jews. They provided some kind of backbone.
The first two questions can be seen as referring to their attempts to make themselves secure, ‘will they fortify themselves?' or ‘depend on themselves?' (ensuring their own protection)), ‘will they sacrifice?' (thus ensuring God's protection). The second set of questions then demonstrates that he saw that as a vain hope based on inadequate foundations. They may be seen as a chiasmus:
A ‘Will they fortify themselves?' (Or ‘will they leave it to themselves?').
B ‘Will they sacrifice?'
B ‘Will they make an end (of their problems) in a day?' (by calling on God).
A ‘Will they make renewed stones out of the heaps of burned rubbish?'
In this case ‘fortifying themselves' or ‘leaving it to themselves' is paralleled by ‘making the burned stones live', in other words relying on themselves and hoping for a miracle as they use inadequate materials for their fortifications. Sacrificing is paralleled with anticipating instantaneous results as a response. In this last there may be an echo of Zechariah 3:9, ‘I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day'. Did they really think that offering sacrifices could remove their sin in one day?
On the other hand we may see them as two couplets:
o ‘Will they leave themselves (in the hands of God), will they sacrifice?'
o ‘Will they make an end (of building) in a day, will they make burned stones live?'
The overall picture is the same. His claim is that they are relying on themselves and on an inadequate God, and are anticipating the achievement of a quick fix while relying on inadequate materials. Among other things he has in mind how long the building of such walls could be expected to take, especially given their lack of expertise, and the uselessness of using burned limestone, which would easily crumble, for building purposes. He considers that they are just not aware of the problems. The writer knows, of course, that his readers are aware that it has meanwhile been accomplished satisfactorily.
The regular meaning of ‘azab is to ‘leave, abandon'. Thus the translation ‘will they (vainly) leave themselves (in the hands of God)?' (compare Psalms 10:14), or ‘will they leave (it to) themselves?'. This is then followed by ‘will they (vainly) sacrifice?' But at Ugarit a secondary meaning for ‘azah was found which translates as ‘to build, renovate, restore'. Thus the translation, ‘Will they fortify themselves?' In other words, ‘will they make a vain attempt to render themselves secure using inadequate materials?' This latter would then indicate that by ‘will they sacrifice?' he is also indicating the uselessness of their sacrifices which are also inadequate. He probably saw their version of Yahwism as lacking in depth and quality, with its failure to unite Him with other gods (in contrast with the heretical Jews at Elephantine). Thus overall he is stressing that they are relying on inadequate things: on their own feeble activity, on their equally feeble sacrifices, on their confidence that they could complete the work quickly against all odds, and on their confidence that they could make useless materials useable. They were hoping for the impossible.
‘Now Tobiah the Ammonite was by him, and he said, “Even what they are building, if a fox go up, he will break down their stone wall.”
Tobiah, who was standing by him, joined in the derision claiming that if even a fox were to climb on the walls it would cause them to break down. He too has in mind the inadequacy of the materials, the shortage of time and the lack of expertise of the builders. He considers that they are incapable of achieving their purpose.
“Hear, O our God, for we are despised. And turn back their reproach on their own head, and give them up for a spoil in a land of captivity, and do not cover their iniquity, and do not let their sin be blotted out from before you, for they have provoked (you) to anger before (in front of) the builders.”
Nehemiah's response emphasises the fact that Sanballat's questions were intended to be an insult against the God of the Jews, as well as a reproach on His people. He calls on God to hear what has been said. They have despised His people, and have provoked Him to anger in front of His people. Thus he prays that what had previously happened to God's own people because they had despised God, should now be done to these equally sinful people. Let their sin not be overlooked. Let them too be taken into exile.
Some modern translations have ignored the preposition ‘before', translating ‘have provoked the builders to anger'. But this is to alter the clear significance of the text. ‘Before' cannot be ignored, nor can it be taken adverbially. But there are a number of examples where ‘provoke to anger' refers to God even when He is not mentioned (e.g. 1 Kings 21:22; 2 Kings 21:6; 2Ki 23:19; 2 Chronicles 33:6; Psalms 106:29; Hosea 12:14).
‘And do not cover their iniquity, and do not let their sin be blotted out from before you.' Compare Psalms 109:14; Jeremiah 18:23, which demonstrate that his prayer in such circumstances was on a parallel with that of other godly men. For the idea of having iniquity ‘covered' (casah) see Psalms 85:2. (The word casah means to put a cover over, but it is not the word that usually signifies atonement which is caphar). For to ‘have sins blotted out' see Psalms 51:1; Psalms 51:9; Isaiah 43:25; Isaiah 44:22. These benefits were the prerogatives of God's redeemed people when they came to God in God's way.
But while recognising that Nehemiah falls short of the ideal of Christ's teaching (‘love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you'), we should note in his defence that Nehemiah was not praying that they would never find true forgiveness. He was praying rather that they would receive what their sins deserved while they remained in their present condition. For by their very attitude they were revealing that they had no true knowledge of YHWH (a knowledge that they claimed) and therefore had no rights to the benefits that they claimed through their own sacrificial system. These words are the negative side of ‘turn back their reproach on their own head, and give them up for a spoil in a land of captivity'. He was not seeking to remove their right to forgiveness if they approached God on God's terms (by renouncing idolatry and truly submitting to YHWH and His covenant), only praying that they would not find ‘easy forgiveness' through their own ritual. Let them, in their unrepentant state, receive the due reward for their sins (we can compare the cry of the martyred saints in Revelation 6:10).
‘For they have provoked (You) to anger before the builders.' And his grounds for his prayer were that they had by their behaviour provoked God to anger. Their sin had not been against man, but against God. This need not mean that Sanballat and his cronies had actually openly spoken in front of the builders. Only that what they had been propagating had reached the ears of the builders. The builders had been made aware of the general mockery that accompanied their work, shaming them and thus provoking YHWH to anger because it was His work that they were doing.
‘So we built the wall, and all the wall was joined together to half its (height), for the people had a mind to work.'
‘So we built the wall.' In the face of the opposition, and with confidence in the One to Whom Nehemiah had prayed, the work on the walls continued apace until within a comparatively short time Jerusalem was encircled by a wall which was overall half the height of that finally intended. This would provide some defence in itself. No longer could people creep in anywhere at will. (The full height would be revealed by those parts of the wall which had survived the catastrophe). And this was the result of the exertions of men who were determined to get the job done, and had laboured accordingly.