Nehemiah Chapter 6

The Walls Completed
A. Nehemiah is attacked in three phases.

1. (Nehemiah 6:1–4) The snare of the enemy’s friendship.

Now it happened when Sanballat, Tobiah, Geshem the Arab, and the rest of our enemies heard that I had rebuilt the wall, and that there were no breaks left in it, though at that time I had not hung the doors in the gates, that Sanballat and Geshem sent to me, saying, “Come, let us meet together among the villages in the plain of Ono.” But they thought to do me harm. So I sent messengers to them, saying, “I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down. Why should the work cease while I leave it and go down to you?” But they sent me this message four times, and I answered them in the same manner.

a. Our enemies heard that I had rebuilt the wall: The report that the wall was rebuilt and that there were no breaks left marked a decisive moment in the work. Though the doors had not yet been hung, the defensive integrity of Jerusalem was essentially restored. For Nehemiah’s enemies, this was the last realistic opportunity to stop the project through deception rather than force. Their opposition now shifts from open ridicule and intimidation to subtle manipulation, because once the work was completed, their influence in the region would be permanently diminished.

b. Come, let us meet together among the villages in the plain of Ono: Sanballat and Geshem proposed what appeared to be a friendly meeting, framed as cooperation or reconciliation. The location is significant, as the plain of Ono lay some distance from Jerusalem, away from the protection of the city and its guards. The invitation likely carried the appearance of goodwill, diplomacy, and even rest from constant labor. This is a classic tactic of spiritual opposition, cloaking hostility in the language of peace and cooperation.

c. But they thought to do me harm: Nehemiah discerned the true intent behind the invitation. He understood that friendliness from those who had consistently opposed the work could not be taken at face value. The danger was not merely physical harm but the derailment of God’s work through compromise, delay, or distraction. Nehemiah’s clarity here reflects spiritual alertness, not suspicion for its own sake, but sober judgment grounded in experience and reverence for God.

i. Redpath rightly observes that those in Christian leadership will often face false friendliness from individuals who secretly desire their failure. This principle applies broadly, as opposition frequently presents itself with smiles, flattering words, and appeals to unity, while concealing destructive intent.

d. But they thought to do me harm: Nehemiah’s response reveals that he possessed discernment, a critical quality for anyone entrusted with God’s work.

i. Discernment is the ability to evaluate situations according to God’s perspective rather than outward appearance. Scripture reminds us, “For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” Discernment allows a believer to see beyond surface-level impressions and recognize motives, timing, and spiritual implications.

ii. Discernment must not be confused with negativity or cynicism. A discerning person is not one who automatically assumes the worst, but one who judges carefully, weighing actions and words against the character and purposes of God. True discernment can recognize genuine good just as readily as it can expose hidden evil.

iii. The church often suffers because discernment is neglected. Many follow leaders or embrace teachings based on charisma, presentation, or emotional appeal rather than faithfulness to the whole counsel of God. Nehemiah’s discernment likely flowed from his familiarity with Scripture. Wisdom literature such as “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” would have reinforced the danger of trusting appearances over substance.

iv. Discernment develops in several ways. First, it is cultivated through consistent exposure to God’s Word, which trains the mind to think biblically. Second, it grows with spiritual maturity, as believers learn through obedience and experience. Third, discernment may be granted as a spiritual gift by the Holy Spirit, and therefore should be sought earnestly in prayer.

v. Without discernment, believers may mistake danger for opportunity, presumption for faith, or personal desire for divine direction. They may elevate individuals who appear impressive but ultimately harm God’s people. Nehemiah avoided these traps by remaining anchored to God’s purpose and calling.

e. Why should the work cease while I leave it and go down to you: Nehemiah’s discernment protected him not only from harm but also from distraction. He refused to allow the mission God had given him to be interrupted by side issues, regardless of how reasonable or polite they appeared.

i. Distraction is one of the enemy’s most effective weapons. If God’s people can be pulled away from their primary calling, even by seemingly good activities, the work suffers. When majors become minors and minors become majors, spiritual effectiveness is lost.

ii. The persistence of the enemy is also evident. The invitation was repeated four times, yet Nehemiah remained steadfast. Consistency in discernment is essential, because repeated pressure often causes people to compromise what they initially recognized as dangerous.

f. I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down: Nehemiah’s discernment gave him clarity and focus. He understood both the greatness of the work and the priority of obedience to God’s calling. Because of this, he would not be drawn away by distractions that were not appointed by the Lord.

i. Anyone engaged in God’s work will face countless good opportunities and noble causes. Many of these may indeed be worthwhile, but they are not always what God has called that person to do at that moment. Discernment enables a believer to say no to good things in order to remain faithful to the best thing, namely the specific work God has entrusted to them.

2. (Nehemiah 6:5–9) The subtlety of the enemy’s slander.

“Then sent Sanballat his servant unto me in like manner the fifth time with an open letter in his hand; Wherein was written, It is reported among the heathen, and Gashmu saith it, that thou and the Jews think to rebel, for which cause thou buildest the wall, that thou mayest be their king, according to these words. And thou hast also appointed prophets to preach of thee at Jerusalem, saying, There is a king in Judah, and now shall it be reported to the king according to these words. Come now therefore, and let us take counsel together. Then I sent unto him, saying, There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart. For they all made us afraid, saying, Their hands shall be weakened from the work, that it be not done. Now therefore, O God, strengthen my hands.”

a. It is reported among the heathen, and Gashmu saith it: Sanballat escalates his attack by moving from private invitation to public accusation. The open letter was intentional, designed so that its contents could be read by anyone along the way. This is how slander often operates, it cloaks itself in rumor, anonymity, and alleged consensus. Phrases like “it is reported” and “so and so says” create the illusion of widespread concern while avoiding accountability. Vague accusations are dangerous precisely because they are hard to refute, yet powerful enough to plant suspicion.

i. Vague accusations commonly sound like, “Everyone is saying,” or, “People are talking.” Such language gives the impression of credibility without evidence, and it pressures the target to respond emotionally rather than wisely.

ii. The truth of a claim is not determined by how many repeat it. Even if a thousand voices echo a lie, it remains a lie. Popular slander is not truer than private slander, though it is often more destructive.

b. The Jews think to rebel… that thou mayest be their king… thou hast also appointed prophets: These accusations strike directly at Nehemiah’s integrity and faithfulness. He had labored under royal authority, prayed earnestly for God’s favor before the king, and deliberately refused personal gain to avoid even the appearance of self interest. To be accused of rebellion and self exaltation would have been deeply offensive, especially given the personal sacrifices Nehemiah had made to prove the opposite.

i. This reveals a consistent tactic of the enemy. Accusations are often crafted to target a believer’s strongest commitments. Lies are shaped to strike at known convictions. The enemy knows which accusations will sting the most, and he uses them strategically. While we cannot prevent such attacks, we can prepare to respond to them biblically.

c. These matters will be reported to the king. Come now therefore, and let us take counsel together: Here the slander becomes an open threat. Sanballat implies that unless Nehemiah complies, he will be reported as a traitor. Since Nehemiah could not be lured away through false friendship, intimidation through accusation is now attempted. The goal is no longer persuasion but fear.

d. There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart: Nehemiah’s response is measured, direct, and restrained. He does not over explain, defend himself point by point, or attempt to win Sanballat’s approval. He simply states the truth and returns to the work God gave him.

i. Nehemiah understood that men like Sanballat are not persuaded by facts. They are driven by outcomes. To engage endlessly in self defense would only serve the enemy’s purpose by delaying the work.

ii. Sanballat did not care whether he was exposed as a liar. His only objective was to stop the work. Nehemiah’s steadfast refusal to engage on those terms prevented the enemy from gaining ground.

e. For they all made us afraid: Nehemiah accurately identifies fear as the true weapon being used. Slander is effective only if it produces fear, distraction, or paralysis. The enemy cannot force fear upon God’s people, he can only attempt to persuade them to choose it.

i. Many believers become immobilized by concern over what others say or might say. This fear is a form of bondage. In such situations, the wisest course is often to continue faithfully in obedience and allow God to vindicate in His time.

ii. Benjamin Franklin wisely observed that if a man cannot govern his own tongue, he certainly cannot govern the tongues of others. The desire to control public opinion is futile and spiritually exhausting.

iii. As Redpath noted, no one can lead God’s work if he allows public opinion to govern his decisions. Counsel, prayer, and godly advice are essential, but leadership collapses when popularity replaces obedience.

f. Now therefore, O God, strengthen my hands: Nehemiah responds to slander with prayer. He does not pray for revenge, vindication, or the destruction of his enemies, but for strength to continue the work. He understood that perseverance under pressure requires divine enablement. The work of God cannot be sustained by human resolve alone, but only through God’s empowering grace.

3. (Nehemiah 6:10–14) The scandal of the enemy’s religion.

“Afterward I came unto the house of Shemaiah the son of Delaiah, the son of Mehetabeel, who was shut up, and he said, Let us meet together in the house of God, within the temple, and let us shut the doors of the temple, for they will come to slay thee, yea, in the night will they come to slay thee. And I said, Should such a man as I flee? and who is there, that, being as I am, would go into the temple to save his life? I will not go in. And, lo, I perceived that God had not sent him, but that he pronounced this prophecy against me, for Tobiah and Sanballat had hired him. Therefore was he hired, that I should be afraid, and do so, and sin, and that they might have matter for an evil report, that they might reproach me. My God, think thou upon Tobiah and Sanballat according to these their works, and on the prophetess Noadiah, and the rest of the prophets, that would have put me in fear.”

a. Afterward I came unto the house of Shemaiah: Shemaiah is presented as a prophet, yet Nehemiah quickly discerns that he is not sent by God. His counsel appears spiritual, cautious, and even compassionate. He proposes sanctuary within the temple as a place of safety. On the surface, this advice seems reasonable and even biblical. Scripture speaks often of God as a refuge, and religious language is used to cloak the deception. This phase of attack is especially dangerous because it employs spiritual authority to promote disobedience.

i. Such counsel can sound persuasive, particularly when fear is involved. One could easily misuse Scripture to justify it. “I will abide in thy tabernacle for ever: I will trust in the covert of thy wings.” This kind of language could be twisted to make fear driven disobedience appear like faith.

b. Should such a man as I flee: Nehemiah’s response reveals his deep understanding of God’s character and God’s law. He recognizes that fear based decisions often lead to disobedience. Shemaiah’s message was designed to make Nehemiah afraid and then to justify sin as a means of self preservation.

i. Only priests were permitted to enter the temple proper, and Nehemiah was not a priest. To enter would have been a direct violation of God’s law. Scripture gives a sobering example in 2 Chronicles 26, where King Uzziah unlawfully entered the temple and was immediately struck with leprosy. Nehemiah knew that no threat to his life justified disobedience to God.

ii. Redpath accurately describes this tactic as an invitation to an easy, compromising religion, one that avoids danger, avoids suffering, and avoids obedience when obedience is costly. It is religion governed by fear rather than faith.

c. Let us meet together in the house of God: Shemaiah’s language is saturated with religious vocabulary, yet it is still a trap. This reveals that not all religious speech is godly, and not all spiritual counsel comes from God. If Nehemiah had accepted this advice, he would have sinned and given his enemies legitimate grounds to accuse and discredit him publicly.

d. I perceived that God had not sent him: Discernment again proves decisive. God exposes Shemaiah’s true motive, showing that he was hired by Tobiah and Sanballat. The plan was not merely to frighten Nehemiah, but to destroy his moral authority. If he sinned, his enemies could point to his disobedience and undermine his leadership before the people.

e. My God, think thou upon Tobiah and Sanballat: Nehemiah does not retaliate. He does not argue with Shemaiah, nor does he attempt to defend himself publicly against every false prophet involved. Instead, he entrusts the matter to God’s justice. He understands that the same God who preserved him in obedience is fully capable of dealing rightly with false prophets and corrupt leaders.

i. Nehemiah’s response to these three coordinated attacks, false friendship, slander, and corrupted religion, marks him as a mature and godly leader. Yet the pattern ultimately points beyond Nehemiah to Christ Himself.

ii. Nehemiah was told, “Come down to the plain of Ono.” Jesus was told, “Come down from the cross.” Nehemiah refused because he was doing a great work. Jesus refused because He was accomplishing the greatest work of all, the redemption of sinners.

iii. Nehemiah was slandered and did not mount a self centered defense. He spoke truth and trusted God. Jesus likewise was falsely accused, reviled, and mocked, yet “when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.”

iv. A false prophet offered Nehemiah an escape rooted in fear and disobedience. Nehemiah rejected it. Satan likewise offered Jesus a shortcut, promising all the kingdoms of the world in exchange for worship. Jesus refused, choosing obedience, suffering, and the will of the Father.

B. Completion of the wall.

1. (Nehemiah 6:15–16) The wall is completed in fifty-two days.

“So the wall was finished in the twenty and fifth day of the month Elul, in fifty and two days. And it came to pass, that when all our enemies heard thereof, and all the heathen that were about us saw these things, they were much cast down in their own eyes, for they perceived that this work was wrought of our God.”

a. So the wall was finished in the twenty and fifth day of the month Elul, in fifty and two days: The speed of completion is extraordinary. Jerusalem’s walls had lain in ruin for well over a century, a visible symbol of reproach, weakness, and vulnerability. Yet what had remained undone for generations was accomplished in just fifty-two days. The issue had never been awareness of the problem. Many before Nehemiah saw the broken walls, understood their consequences, and even desired restoration. What was missing was godly leadership combined with decisive obedience.

i. For more than one hundred years, the people lived with the shame and danger of broken walls. They lamented the condition, spoke about it, and perhaps even prayed generally about it, yet no one moved beyond wishing. The work waited until God raised up a man who would not merely observe the problem but take responsibility for it.

ii. Nehemiah did far more than wish things were different. He grieved over Jerusalem’s condition, fasted and prayed, planned carefully, asked boldly, acted courageously, endured opposition, encouraged others, stood firm under pressure, and persevered until the work was complete. Importantly, he was not alone. God surrounded him with men and women whose hearts were also stirred to labor and sacrifice.

iii. This account rebukes our small expectations. God used one obedient man to resolve a century-old crisis in less than two months. That same God still reigns in heaven and delights to work through willing servants today.

b. In fifty and two days: The contrast between preparation and execution is instructive. Nehemiah prayed approximately four months before a single stone was laid, yet the actual labor took less than two months. This demonstrates that the true battle was spiritual before it was physical.

i. Nehemiah invested more time in prayer than in construction. This reveals that success in God’s work is rooted in dependence upon Him rather than frantic activity. The spiritual conflict was greater than the material challenge, even though the physical work was demanding.

ii. This principle is often affirmed in theory but neglected in practice. God’s work advances most powerfully when prayer prepares the way.

c. They were much cast down in their own eyes: The completion of the wall had a profound psychological and spiritual effect on the enemies of God’s people. Their confidence collapsed. They were discouraged, not merely because the wall stood firm, but because their opposition had failed.

i. The work had been difficult. Threats, mockery, internal conflict, fatigue, and fear all pressed in. Yet perseverance produced victory, and victory produced a visible reversal. Those who sought to discourage God’s people became discouraged themselves.

d. For they perceived that this work was wrought of our God: The decisive factor was not architectural success but divine attribution. Even Israel’s enemies recognized that God was behind the work. The evidence was unmistakable.

i. When God accomplishes a work, it bears His unmistakable imprint. Human effort alone may impress people, but it does not unsettle the powers of darkness. Angels and demons alike know the difference between human achievement and divine accomplishment.

ii. A restored and secure Jerusalem became a testimony to the surrounding nations. Likewise, when God rebuilds broken spiritual walls in the lives of His people, others notice. Many believers live unnoticed lives because their spiritual walls remain broken. When the LORD builds, the world takes note.

2. (Nehemiah 6:17–19) The work is finished despite compromise among some leaders.

“Moreover in those days the nobles of Judah sent many letters unto Tobiah, and the letters of Tobiah came unto them. For there were many in Judah sworn unto him, because he was the son in law of Shechaniah the son of Arah, and his son Johanan had taken the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah. Also they reported his good deeds before me, and uttered my words to him. And Tobiah sent letters to put me in fear.”

a. Moreover in those days the nobles of Judah sent many letters unto Tobiah: Tobiah had consistently opposed the work of God. From the moment Nehemiah arrived, Tobiah was disturbed, mocking, angry, and actively hostile to the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls. Yet despite this well documented opposition, influential leaders within Judah maintained ongoing communication and friendship with him.

b. For there were many in Judah sworn unto him: The reason for this compromise was relational and practical. Tobiah had married into prominent Jewish families, creating alliances that blurred spiritual discernment. Because of these ties, the nobles were willing to overlook his actions and intentions.

i. These leaders likely did not witness Tobiah’s hostility firsthand and therefore minimized the danger. Familiarity bred complacency. They judged him by personal experience rather than by the fruit of his actions against God’s work.

ii. Unlike Nehemiah, they lacked a shepherd’s heart. Nehemiah was called to guard God’s people and God’s purposes, so he watched with vigilance. Others, focused on comfort and convenience, did not perceive the threat.

iii. Self interest also played a role. Their sworn agreements were likely business arrangements strengthened through marriage alliances. Financial and social benefit dulled spiritual clarity. As Kidner notes, these binding agreements were probably trading contracts facilitated by family connections.

c. They reported his good deeds before me, and uttered my words to him: The nobles attempted to act as mediators, portraying Tobiah as virtuous while simultaneously feeding him information about Nehemiah. From their perspective, Nehemiah appeared harsh and unreasonable.

i. Nehemiah had to accept being viewed as the bad guy in order to remain faithful. He understood that Tobiah’s public kindness did not negate his private hostility. While Tobiah was being praised, he was also sending letters intended to frighten Nehemiah. Those threatening letters were conveniently omitted from the nobles’ reports.

ii. These men functioned as a fifth column, promoting Tobiah’s interests internally while acting as an intelligence channel for him. Yet Nehemiah remained unmoved.

d. And Tobiah sent letters to put me in fear: Nehemiah records this fact without drama and moves on. He neither launches a counterattack nor demands loyalty tests. He simply continues the work God gave him.

i. Nehemiah understood his mission. His calling was to rebuild the walls, not to chase down every compromised leader or enemy sympathizer. As long as the work of God advanced, he entrusted the Tobiahs to God’s judgment.