6:1–4 With only the doors left to hang at the gates, the opponents change tactics by pressing Nehemiah directly. Sanballat and Geshem the Arab, likely representing Tobiah and all the opposition, request a meeting with Nehemiah (v. 2).120 Sanballat is probably governor of Samaria at this time (cf. comment on 2:9–10). Neither the purpose of the meeting nor the precise location of “Hakkephirim” is known.121 Its setting in the “plain of Ono” (cf. Ezra 2:33//Neh. 7:37; 11:35) would place it outside the province of Judah near its northwest border, surrounded by the hostile provinces of Samaria and Ashdod.122 To get there, Nehemiah would have to leave the work that remains and “come down” (6:3), likely referring to a geographical descent from the higher elevation of Jerusalem. Nehemiah’s states unequivocally that the opponents are up to no good (v. 2). His evaluation would not be difficult given the past behaviors of these men and the distance of the suggested meeting location. Why not meet in Jerusalem?

Nehemiah’s diplomatic but terse response does not reject the offer directly (v. 3). Instead, he emphasizes the work that would stop in his absence. He refuses to allow a meeting with these men to deter his course of action, despite their ongoing attempts (v. 4). Completing the wall is the very reason he was authorized to return (2:8; 5:16). Nehemiah considers his calling a “great work,” referring to its size (cf. 4:19), and elsewhere a “good work,” since it advances only due to God’s goodness (2:18).

6:5–8 The phrase “in the same way” (v. 5)123 leads us to expect a similar attempt. Instead, an alternative approach is adopted. The stated goal of this fifth letter, “Let us take counsel together,” shows that Sanballat still seeks an audience with Nehemiah (v. 7b; cf. v. 2). However, to compel that meeting, he writes an “open” (i.e., unsecured) letter. Typically, official documents, written on leather or papyrus, were tied up and impressed with a clay seal to protect their contents and indicate authenticity. Because an unsecured letter would encourage rumors, it would naturally prompt Nehemiah to wonder how far its contents were publicly known. Sanballat feigns concern to coerce Nehemiah to meet him by raising the specter that Artaxerxes will hear about the contents of the letter (v. 7b). These contents include allegations of Nehemiah’s sedition rumored “among the nations” and confirmed by the important figure Geshem124 (v. 6). “Nations” refers here to the provincial adversaries surrounding Judah (4:7; 5:9).

Three times Sanballat uses the pronoun “you” (6:6) to identify Nehemiah as the very one who, according to reports, is inciting rebellion and seeking kingship for himself. It is these items, Sanballat suggests, that provide the reason for “why you are building the wall” (cf. 2:19). Nehemiah understands the underlying threat: Artaxerxes may hear these interpretations of his wall building and assume they are true. Sanballat is likely aware of the alleged Jewish rebellion made known to Artaxerxes in an earlier letter. Those prior accusations had ended wall construction (Ezra 4:13, 16, 21–22). Sanballat now hopes for the same.

These “reports” also claim that Nehemiah has “set up” (i.e., appointed or designated) prophets to proclaim his royal status (Neh. 6:7). Though unstated, perhaps this rumor plays on prophetic promises of messianic kingship (Hag. 2:20–23; Zech. 6:12–13). In his unambiguous denial, Nehemiah accuses Sanballat of complete fabrication of these charges, “inventing them out of your own mind” (Neh. 6:8; cf. 1 Kings 12:33). Clearly Nehemiah is loyal to Artaxerxes and, with no known Davidic heritage, has neither claim to nor desire for the throne.

6:9 The key word “fear” makes its first appearance (vv. 9, 13, 14, 19; 7:2). Nehemiah quickly perceives that this fear’s ultimate purpose is to make “their hands . . . drop.” This figurative language means “to discourage” or “to demoralize” (cf. Ezra 4:4). The enemies hope the hands of the wall builders will weaken and the work cease. It is clear from earlier attempts that Sanballat and company will stop at nothing to see this happen (Neh. 4:7–9, 11). Throughout, Nehemiah and his community trust the Lord for his protection (2:4; 4:4–5, 9; 6:14). All this encourages us to see Nehemiah’s final request, “strengthen my hands,” as a prayer to God, countering discouragement and showing his implicit trust in the Lord.125

6:10–13 Tobiah and Sanballat shift strategy by hiring Shemaiah to pronounce a prophecy against Nehemiah (v. 13). Several uncertainties arise in the introduction (v. 10). Apart from his lineage, nothing is known of Shemaiah. Whether he is a priest or an otherwise unknown prophet is uncertain. His name is relatively common, even within Ezra-Nehemiah.126 The prophetic connection seems more likely, given the prophetic focus that follows (vv. 12, 14). Likewise, no explanation is given for why Nehemiah enters Shemaiah’s house nor why Shemaiah is “confined to his home” or by whom (cf. Jer. 36:5). However one interprets this restriction,127 Shemaiah suggests that they “meet together in the house of God” (cf. Neh. 6:2).

What follows is more apparent. For impact, Shemaiah twice repeats that Nehemiah’s life is under threat of assassination, although by whom he does not specify. The assumed suspects must include Sanballat, Geshem, and Tobiah. Refuge can be found at the horns of the altar (1 Kings 1:50–53; 2:28), but this is located in the open courtyard, not within the temple itself. Likewise, Nehemiah is not in a situation in which sanctuary law would apply (cf. Ex. 21:12–14). Rather, Shemaiah is suggesting that Nehemiah hide out “within the temple” itself, that is, in the very sanctuary.

Nehemiah responds by means of two rhetorical questions (Neh. 6:11). First, to “run away” to the temple for refuge would be contrary to his character and calling as governor. It would fly in the face of the authority granted him by Artaxerxes (5:14) and the clear evidence of God’s gracious approval (2:8, 20). Nehemiah has capable armed defenders if he is actually under threat (2:9; 4:23). With the second rhetorical question, Nehemiah addresses the danger of entering the temple. Entering as a layman would profane the sanctuary and place him under a legal threat of death (cf. Num. 18:1–7). Additionally, contact with a holy God could lead to death (Ex. 33:20; Deut. 5:24–25).128 Nehemiah views the whole act—both fleeing and defiling the sanctuary—as “sin” (Neh. 6:13), a lack of trust in God.

Like the earlier attempts to deceive (vv. 8–9), Nehemiah immediately perceives that “God had not sent him” (v. 12; cf. Jer. 14:14–15; 28:15). According to Sanballat, prophets had proclaimed “concerning you” (Neh. 6:7). From this prior event, Nehemiah infers that Shemaiah too has been hired to make prophetic pronouncement “against me” (v. 12).129 He further explicates the complex logic. Fear is the goal of the false prophets (vv. 13–14); however, it is not an end in itself. It is hoped that fear would initiate flight, and flight would end in Nehemiah’s cowering in the sanctuary and violating standards of holiness. This “sin,” if committed, would provide a final glorious opportunity for enemies to deride Nehemiah’s good name (cf. 2:17, 19; 4:1–5; 5:9). Public shame would then weaken community support and further delay or stall wall completion.

6:14 Refusing retaliation, Nehemiah prays his second “remember” prayer (cf. 5:19; 13:14, 22, 29, 31). In spite of their deceptive web, Nehemiah trusts God by placing Tobiah and Sanballat in the Lord’s hand, entreating his vengeance (cf. 4:4; Jer. 11:18–20).130 Under this prayer he also incorporates their allies: numerous false prophets, including a prophetess named Noadiah (cf. Ezek. 13:17–19), although why she is singled out is unknown. The key word closes the paragraph: all of these persons “wanted to make me afraid” (Neh. 6:14; cf. v. 9).

6:15–16 “The wall was finished” in only 52 days—in Elul, the sixth month (August/September). Now for the final time “our enemies heard” (v. 16).131 These enemies were once the purveyors of contempt and fear. Finally the tables are turned. They now experience the fear and the discouragement they had once hoped to instill in Israel.132 The fear of these adversaries increases all the more since all this has happened “with the help of our God”; through prayer, enemy taunts have fallen back upon their own heads (4:4–5). God’s expressed “good” (Hb. tobah; cf. comment on 6:17–19) toward Jerusalem and the resulting fear among the nations again fulfills his word through the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 33:9; cf. Ezra 1:1).

6:17–19 The phrase “in those days” suggests these verses pertain to the state of affairs throughout the period. The building project clearly had the support of some nobles (4:14, 19).133 The important official “Meshullam the son of Berechiah” (6:18) had also shown enthusiasm for the project (3:4, 30). Others leaders may have shifted allegiance under the threatened rumors (6:6–7). Some “nobles of Judah” are singled out for their ongoing correspondence with Tobiah (v. 17; cf. 13:17), although the content of these letters is unspecified. Evidently Tobiah, along with his son, is socially well-connected with important families in Jerusalem.134 Exactly how the explicit marital links to Shecaniah (cf. 3:29; 7:10) and Meshullam caused those in Judah to be “bound by oath” to Tobiah is uncertain. This “oath” may indicate agreements made with him by those who desire a more open trade policy or may point to other kinds of business associations that would favor Tobiah’s economic interests.135

It is possible to view the nobles’ actions positively or negatively. Positively, the exchange of letters between the nobles and Tobiah may indicate their attempts to mediate reconciliation with Nehemiah.136 The nobles therefore attempt to sway Nehemiah’s opinion of Tobiah by speaking of “his good deeds” (Hb. tobotayw).137 Negatively, the letters may actually function to keep Nehemiah’s adversaries aware of his strategies, plans, and actions. Indeed, if Tobiah is so interested in the “good” (tobah) of Jerusalem, why was he initially so displeased at Nehemiah’s presence (2:10)? Whatever the motive of the nobles, Tobiah’s goal has always remained the intimidation of Nehemiah (6:19), a purpose consistent with the rest of the chapter (cf. vv. 9, 16).

7:1–4 The final paragraph expresses Nehemiah’s concern for the security and repopulation of the city. The paragraph is treated here with 6:1–19 rather than 7:5–73a for several reasons. First, it repeats that the wall was built, adding new information about the reset doors (cf. 6:1, 15). Second, the key verb “fear” is used for the final time (7:2). Third, what follows in 7:5–73a is separated by being labeled a “genealogy,” a repeated list of persons that encloses the entire second section (Ezra 2:1–Neh. 7:73a). In particular, verses 1–3 hold together with the theme of “appointment.”

First, gatekeepers, singers, and Levites (Neh. 7:1; cf. Ezra 2:70//Neh. 7:73a; Ezra 7:7; Neh. 10:28; 12:47; 13:5) are appointed, although by whom and for what purpose is unstated.138 Typically the mention of gatekeepers, along with musicians and Levites, suggests those gatekeepers who secure the temple. However, the context here suggests their role in guarding the gates of the city. Their work is augmented by the presence of singers and Levites who join in securing the city (13:22). The mention of the latter hints at the ongoing need for temple worship within a secured “holy city” (11:1).

Nehemiah also gives two men charge “over Jerusalem” (7:2). Hanani, Nehemiah’s brother, was among those who first brought him news of the broken-down wall (1:2). It is therefore fitting that he is found again at its completion. A second man, Hananiah, is identified as “governor of the castle.” The term “governor” here refers not to a political appointment, since Nehemiah is governor of Judah at this time (5:14).139 Instead this refers to Hananiah’s role as a commander of the fortress (i.e., “castle”) probably associated with the temple (cf. 2:8; 3:1). His selection is based on both his superior reverence for God and his evident trustworthiness (cf. Ex. 18:21).

The second half of Nehemiah 7:3 refers to a final appointment of city residents who would guard at particular posts along the wall and at locations near their own homes (cf. 3:23, 28, 29). That much is clear. The interpretation of the first half of the verse is less certain, although the verbs “opened” and “shut” clearly concern some kind of atypical practice. It appears that Nehemiah commands Hanani and Hananiah not to open Jerusalem’s gates at dawn, as would be typical, but to delay for several hours later until the sun grew hotter (cf. 1 Sam. 11:9, 11). Then, at day’s end, he calls for complete securing of doors combined with a call for guards to remain on duty.140

The final verse succinctly covers three topics: city size, population, and housing. Evaluating the walled city as one that is “wide and large,” i.e., spacious (Judg. 18:10; 1 Chron. 4:40), must be relative to the reduced population “within it.” Recent analysis suggests that settlement during the Persian period included only the enclosed City of David, with a population estimated at between 400 and 500. At this time the Western Hill was unoccupied.141 Clearly, some already inhabited the city in their own homes (Neh. 7:3; cf. 3:23, 28, 29), so that the final clause (“no houses”) must indicate that additional housing is still needed. Perhaps the few inhabitants provide the rationale for institution of unique security measures.142 In any event, the genealogy that follows intimates that Jerusalem’s rebuilding will include repopulation (cf. ch. 11).