Abstract
Nehemiah 6.1–15 abounds with questions: Why do Sanballat and Geshem insist — not once, but five times — that Nehemiah should meet them outside of Jerusalem? Why are we told that Shemaiah is ‘shut in at his house’, yet he demands to have a meeting in the temple? How does Nehemiah know that Shemaiah is a false prophet, such that ‘God had not sent him’ (6.12)? The present study is an attempt to answer these questions. The author suggests that the key to understand this passage lies in Ezra-Nehemiah’s understanding of the ‘house of God’. This article argues that in both meetings, the enemies of Nehemiah try to frighten Nehemiah outside and inside God’s house. The ‘house of God’ also plays an important role in Nehemiah’s response to his antagonists and how Nehemiah can discern the authenticity of Shemaiah’s oracle.
Scheduling meetings can be a challenge. This is especially true when both parties cannot agree on the location of the meeting. In Nehemiah 6.1–15, two parties try to secure meetings with Nehemiah. In the first instance, Sanballat and Geshem request to meet Nehemiah in `one of the villages on the plain of Ono’ (Nehemiah 6.2). 1 However, Nehemiah turns down the meeting. According to the governor of Judah, he is involved in a ‘great project’ (6.3); therefore, he cannot afford the time to travel to ‘one of the villages on the plain of Ono’. 2 Despite four more attempts at rescheduling, the meeting fails to take place.
In the second instance, when Nehemiah is in the house of Shemaiah, Shemaiah requests to have a meeting with Nehemiah inside ‘the house of God’ with the doors closed (6.10). This is because ‘men are coming to kill you (Nehemiah)’ (6.10). Despite Shemaiah’s attempt to coerce Nehemiah to meet with him, Nehemiah refuses. He reasons, ‘Should a man like me run away? Or should someone like me go into the temple to save my life? I will not go!’ (6.11).
Nehemiah 6.1–15 raises several questions. For example, why is the location of the meetings important? Why do Sanballat and Geshem insist – not once, but five times – that Nehemiah should meet them outside of Jerusalem in ‘one of the villages on the plain of Ono’? What is wrong with meeting in Jerusalem? When Nehemiah refuses to attend the meeting, is his excuse that he is busy ‘carrying on a great project’ a mere ‘excuse to avoid an unwanted meeting’? 3 Why are we told that Shemaiah is ‘shut in at his house’, and yet he demands to have a meeting in the temple? If Shemaiah is shutting himself inside his home, how can he meet Nehemiah in the temple at night? How does Nehemiah know that Shemaiah is a false prophet, such that ‘God had not sent him’ (6.12)? In both instances, Nehemiah tells us that the enemies are trying to ‘frighten’ him (6.9 and 13); how do the enemies try to instil fear in Nehemiah? What is the relationship between the creation of fear and the construction of the house of God in Neh. 6?
The purpose of this article is to attempt to answer these questions. I would like to suggest that the key to understanding this passage lies in Ezra-Nehemiah’s understanding of the ‘house of God’ (בית האלהים) (Neh. 6.10). 4 It will be argued that in both meetings, the enemies of Nehemiah try to frighten Nehemiah outside and inside God’s house. The ‘house of God’ also plays an important role in Nehemiah’s response to his antagonists and how Nehemiah is able to discern the authenticity of Shemaiah’s oracle.
1. The Construction of Fear Outside the House of God (Nehemiah 6.1–9)
In Neh. 6.1–15, the construction of the city’s wall is on the brink of completion. Verse one states the wall has been rebuilt save for the installation of the ‘doors in the gates’. According to Mircea Eliade, gates are the threshold between the sacred and the profane; the mention that the doors have yet to be fixed could be the narrator’s hint that opposition has yet to be eliminated. 5 Immediately in the next verse, we have the first of two specific instances in which the enemies of the Jews try to hinder the building of the wall. They will try to accomplish this by instilling fear in Nehemiah. Both of their attempts are concluded with the note that they try to make Nehemiah ‘afraid’ (מיראים) (6.9, and 14). 6 Gregory Goswell argues, ‘The key word of the chapter is “frighten” … Each of the three paragraphs of this chapter concludes with the note that the enemy tried to make Nehemiah afraid.’ 7 The word ‘frighten’ (מיראים) is used three times in the chapter (6. 9, 14 and 19); in all three cases, the Piel stem of the Hebrew root ירא is used. 8 According to Bob Becking, this has a factitive force, suggesting that the fear imposed on Nehemiah and Jews is intended to get them to walk away from their efforts to rebuild the wall. 9
In the first instance, Sanballat and Geshem seek to secure a meeting with Nehemiah. They demand, ‘Come, let us meet together in one of the villages on the plain of Ono’ (6.2). Ono is a city northwest of Jerusalem (Ezra 2.33; Neh. 7.37; 11.35; 1 Chron. 8.12), and ‘the plain of Ono’ is presumably nearby. 10 Meanwhile, ‘Hakkephirim’ is probably the name of the villages on this plain. It would be more than a day’s walk for Nehemiah to travel from Jerusalem to Hakkephirim. 11
1.1. The ‘House of God’ in Ezra-Nehemiah
Why do the enemies of Nehemiah choose to meet Nehemiah outside the city of Jerusalem? I assume because the city of Jerusalem is regarded in Ezra-Nehemiah as the ‘house of God’. The theme of the building of the ‘house of God’ (בית האלהים) pervades the pages of Ezra-Nehemiah. William J. Dumbrell writes, ‘This temple emphasis, in fact, is maintained throughout the entire Ezra-Nehemiah complex.’ 12 Beginning at Ezra 3.1, the narrator is clear that the reason for the people’s journey to Jerusalem is to rebuild the ‘house of God’. Ezra 1–6 is taken up with explaining the process of how the temple is built amidst the opposition of the Persian authorities and the people of the land. 13
However, as the book progresses, the expression ‘house of God’ encompasses more than just the temple. It also includes the city and the walls. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi argues, ‘For Ezra-Nehemiah, the house of God is not simply the Temple but rather comes to encompass the city as a whole.’ 14 Tremper Longman III and Raymond Dillard concur, saying, ‘[T]he house of God is not built once the temple is finished (Ezra 6.15); it continues as more of Jerusalem is built.’ 15
We begin to see this broader definition of the “house of God’ already in Ezra 3.8. Here the narrator tells us that under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Joshua, the people have returned to the ‘house of God’ (Ezra 3.8). However, in the time of Ezra 3, the temple has not yet been rebuilt. Therefore, the ‘house of God’ in this case must refer to the city of Jerusalem. Similarly, in the correspondence between Artaxerxes and the Jews, when the building of God’s house is discussed, it also includes the building of the city and its walls (Ezra 4.12, 13, 16).
When we cross over to Nehemiah, the whole city is perceived as the ‘house of God’, in that it is regarded as holy as the temple is. Neh. 3.1, for example, informs us that after Eliashib the high priest and his fellow priests have built the sheep gate, they ‘consecrated’ (קדשוהו) it. Likewise, after the doors are set, we are told for a second time that they ‘consecrated’ (קדשוהו) the door. 16 Many scholars are puzzled as to why cultic language is used to describe the city’s gates and doors. 17 Jacob Myers has even gone so far as to translate קדשוהו as ‘repaired’, whereas the NIV opts for the word ‘dedicated’. 18
However, such a use of cultic language is not strange when we consider that Ezra-Nehemiah regards the entire city as holy. This also explains why temple gatekeepers, cultic singers, and Levites are appointed to guard the city gates in Neh. 7.1–3. 19 Eskenazi surmises, ‘The city as a whole is now guarded by those who previously guarded the temple (Neh. 7.1).’ 20 Moreover, the city is designated as ‘the holy city’ twice in Nehemiah 8. 21 When the city is being dedicated, the priests and Levites ‘purified the people, the gates and the wall’ (Neh.12.30). Then in Neh. 13.22, Levites are commanded by Nehemiah to purify themselves so that can ’go and guard the gates in order to keep the Sabbath day holy’.
1.2. The Construction of Fear Outside the ‘House of God’
Because the city of Jerusalem is as heavily guarded as the temple is, it would be difficult for Sanballat and Geshem to frighten Nehemiah into abandoning his project of rebuilding the walls. Moreover, with the city being designated as the house of God, this would mean the city itself is protected by Yahweh, the God of Israel. This adds another dimension to the enemies’ challenge of trying to frighten Nehemiah.
Given his past dealings with Sanballat and Geshem, wherein the two men once mocked, despised, and falsely accused Nehemiah and the Jews (Neh. 2.19), Nehemiah knows that such a meeting will not be to his advantage. Therefore, Nehemiah responds, ‘I am carrying on a great project and cannot go down. Why should the work stop while I leave it and go down to you?’ (6.3). Because the building of the wall is close to completion, save for the doors of the gates, Williamson reckons that Nehemiah’s reason for turning down the gathering is just ‘an excuse to avoid an unwanted meeting’. 22 David Clines agrees, saying, ‘Nehemiah showed a nice wit in making his work the excuse for not coming when he knew quite well that the intention of the invitation was to stop the work.’ 23
However, such a reading misses the gravity of Nehemiah’s answer. As Goswell points out, Nehemiah’s use of the word ‘work’ (מלאכה) (6.3) is poignant within Ezra-Nehemiah. 24 The word מלאכה is used twenty-two times in the book. 25 Five times, מלאכה refers to Levites offering supervision over the building of God’s house, such as the temple (Ezra 2.69; 3.8, 9; 6.22; 10.13). Four times, מלאכה is used to refer to the cultic ‘work’ of the priests and the Levites (Neh. 10.33 [Heb. 10.34]; 11.12, 16, 22; 13.10). Only twice in Ezra-Nehemiah is מלאכה used to refer to the building of the temple (Neh. 7.70 and 71). The remaining usages of מלאכה refer to the rebuilding of the wall (Neh. 2.16, 5.16 [x2], 6.3 [x2], 9, 16 and seven times in Nehemiah 4).
By using מלאכה to describe what he does, Nehemiah does not see his task as a mere wall construction supervisor. Rather, he sees his ‘work’ as holy, as his identity is bound up with the sacred construction of God’s ‘holy city’. 26 Moreover, the completion of the wall does not mean the end of Nehemiah’s work. If his work (מלאכה) is to build the entire ‘holy city’ (Neh. 8.1, 11), Nehemiah has still to purify and dedicate the people, the walls, and the city. Therefore, when Nehemiah says he is not able to leave Jerusalem because he is ‘carrying on a great project’, he is not exaggerating.
1.3. The Construction of Fear Through Letter Writing
After their plan of trying to secure a meeting fails, Sanballat changes his tactic. This time he sends an ‘opened’ letter, containing malicious rumours, to Nehemiah. The fact that it is ‘opened’ means that its content is available for everyone to read. 27 Just as with the meeting outside of the city, the letter is another attempt to ‘frighten’ (6.9) Nehemiah without having to engage Nehemiah physically in the house of God.
However, why does Sanballat resort to letter writing as a means of frightening Nehemiah? Careful readers of Ezra-Nehemiah will remember that the only time the enemies are able to delay the building of the house of God is through the use of letters in Ezra 4. 28 Thinking that history will repeat itself, Sanballat sends out a defamatory letter to frighten Nehemiah (Neh. 6.9) with the hopes that Nehemiah will stop building the house of God.
Ezra 4, in fact, bears striking similarities to Nehemiah 6 in at least six respects: First, both passages deal with the opposition to the building of God’s house. Second, those who opposed God’s house are designated as ‘enemies’ (צרי) (Ezra 4.1; Neh. 6.1). Third, the tactics used by the enemies share the same template, namely, in both cases, the enemies start off with a friendly or an innocuous offer. In Ezra 4.2, the enemies begin by offering their help to build the temple. Whereas in Neh. 6.2, Sanballat and Geshem begin by trying to meet with Nehemiah. It is only after the failure of their first attempts that these enemies begin showing their true colours and their opposition to the building of the house of God. 29
Fourth, the sending of letters is the next strategic step. Nehemiah 6.5–7 recalls Ezra 4.8–22 with respect to the detailing of the content of the letters in the texts. Fifth, the opposition in Ezra 4 is not a one-time act of persecution. Rather, it spans a period of time and includes numerous attempts. With five attempts to coerce Nehemiah to meet, the issue of the discriminatory letter, and Shemaiah’s attempt to lock Nehemiah in the temple, the opposition in Nehemiah is also incessant. Sixth, in both accounts, the enemies used hired help. Ezra 4.5 tells us that enemies ‘bribed’ the Persian officials to work against the Jews. 30 Likewise, in Neh. 6.12, Tobiah and Sanballat ‘hire’ Shemaiah to stop Nehemiah from building the house of God.
Why then are the two accounts patterned after each other with such similarities? It is the narrator’s way of reminding his readers that despite the ingenuity of the enemies’ tactics, the plans will not succeed. Despite the numerous attempts of the enemies from the reign of Xerxes to that of Artaxerxes in Ezra 4, the plans ultimately meet with failure. Likewise, the well-laid plans of Sanballat and his cohorts will ultimately be aborted. Further, just as the content of the letter in Ezra 4.12–16 cannot be trusted, so too Sanballat’s letter in Neh. 6.6–7 is replete with treachery. 31 Both the letters in Ezra 4.11–16 and Neh. 6.6–7 make the accusation that the Jews and Nehemiah are fomenting rebellion against the Persians with their reconstruction of the temple and the wall, respectively.
Moreover, in Neh. 6.6–7, Nehemiah is also indicted for trying to assume Judah’s vacant throne by setting up ‘prophets’ (נביאים) to proclaim himself as king. 32 Why does Sanballat mention the prophets? This is because in Ezra-Nehemiah, the prophets play an important role in building the house of God. In Ezra 1–6, the prophets are the ones who say the construction of the house of God can move forward. As I have previously pointed out, Ezra 1–6 chronicles the progress of the rebuilding of the temple. 33 Four times the progress (or lack thereof) is documented: it starts (1:1), stops (4.1), starts again (5.1), and then it finally is completed (6.13–15). 34 Each time the project progresses it is preceded by the words of the prophets. In Ezra 1.1, the initial impetus for the rebuilding of the house of God comes in the form of the prophecy of Jeremiah. Ezra 1.1 informs us that to fulfill the word of the Lord, Yahweh stirs the heart of Cyrus to proclaim an edict so that the Jews could return to Jerusalem. Similarly, it is the preaching of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah that propel the work of the temple to continue after a period of hiatus in Ezra 5.1. To assert the importance of the prophets for the building of God’s house, the word ‘prophet/prophecy’ is repeated three times in the first half of 5.1–2. 35
Moreover, Bob Becking has pointed out that Shemaiah is not the only prophet who works in service of Sanballat and his associates. 36 In Nehemiah 6:14, we read of the prophetess Noadiah. Together, Shemaiah and Noadiah function as the counterpart to Haggai and Zechariah. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer concurs, saying, ‘She (Noadiah) functions in the wider text of Ezra-Nehemiah as a counterpart to Haggai and Zechariah. While the latter two prophets supported the protagonists Joshua and Zerubbabel, Noadiah (as well as Shemaiah) are in the service of Nehemiah’s enemies.’ 37
Therefore, the prophets function as the authoritative figures who approve the rebuilding of God’s house. By appealing to the prophets, Sanballat is giving the impression that Nehemiah’s reconstruction project aligns with Ezra’s, in that both are attempts to rebel against the Persians. Moreover, prophets often play a seminal role in the installation of a king in the HB. 38 Nathan (1 Kings 1), Ahijah (1 Kings 11, 14) and Elisha (2 Kings 9) are a few examples that come to mind. Therefore, in fabricating the support of the prophets, Sanballat’s accusation that Nehemiah seeks to be the king of Judah appears even more valid. In response to such an accusation, Nehemiah denies the charges and accuses Sanballat of fabricating the whole thing.
In light of the preceding discussion, we can draw a few conclusions. In the first of the two instances in which the enemies try to ‘frighten’ (מיראים) Nehemiah to keep him from rebuilding the city’s walls, they try to lure Nehemiah out of the city. This is because within Ezra-Nehemiah, the city and its walls are all part the ‘house of God’, protected by God, his priests, his Levites and the Jewish community. When Nehemiah refuses to meet with the enemies, Sanballat sends him a venomous letter to ‘frighten’ the governor of Judah. The letter serves two purposes: first, letter writing has previously succeeded in delaying the work of rebuilding God’s house, as seen in Ezra 4. Second, the letter prevents Sanballat from having to engage Nehemiah face-to-face within the city.
2. The Construction of Fear Within the House of God (Nehemiah 6.10–15)
The second incident designed to deter Nehemiah from his mission is far more subtle. Nevertheless, the two episodes use similar strategies. First, as with the initial attempt, the purpose of this scheme is to isolate Nehemiah so that they can ‘frighten’ him (Neh. 6.13). However, this time the plan is not to trap Nehemiah outside the house of God but within. Second, both schemes revolve around the notion of the ‘house’ (בית). Neh. 6.10 begins with Nehemiah’s visit to the ‘house’ of Shemaiah. We are told the purpose of Nehemiah’s visit. However, given Shemaiah’s close contact with the temple (cf. 13.4–9) and city personnel (cf. 6.17–19), it is not unusual for Nehemiah to visit Shemaiah at his home.
2.1. The Meaning of Shemaiah’s Lockdown
Upon arrival, Nehemiah finds Shemaiah in something of a lockdown, in that Shemaiah is shut within the confines of his ‘house’ (בית). Derek Kidner reckons that the reason Shemaiah is unable to leave his house is because he has become ritually unclean. 39 However, such an interpretation seems unlikely considering Shemaiah wants to meet Nehemiah inside the temple that very same night (6.10).
More probable is the reading proffered by Goswell. 40 Shemaiah’s confinement is part of a pretence to mimic a prophetic oracle. In light of Ezek. 3.25 where the prophet binds himself with ropes and shuts himself in his house, Shemaiah is delivering a prophetic oracle. Moreover, the oracle is delivered in the poetic form reminiscent of the many prophetic oracles in the HB. The oracle is arranged in the classical structure of a biblical qina or dirge of three stressed words in the first poetic line and only two stressed words in the second. 41 Williamson concurs, stating, ‘Metrically, the lines may be analyzed as 3 + 2; 3 + 2; 3. This is the rhythm normally associated with the lament, which Shemaiah perhaps deemed appropriate to the substance of his message.’ 42
By shutting himself in his own house (בית), Shemaiah is telling Nehemiah to follow suit. Nehemiah should shut himself in the ‘house’ (בית) of God ‘because men are coming to kill you – by night they are coming to kill you’ (6.10). Shemaiah’s suggestion for Nehemiah to find refuge in the temple is not unusual. In the time of Jeremiah, many Israelites have already accepted the inviolability of the temple (Jer. 7.10) as an axiom of life because of Yahweh’s promises to David (2 Sam. 7) and Yahweh’s choice to reveal himself to his people in Jerusalem. 43 To make the oracle even more threatening, Shemaiah adopts a few rhetorical devices. First, he repeats the phrase ‘kill you’ twice in verse 10. Second, by not identifying the assailants, Shemaiah heightens the mystery of the threat. Third, by placing the phrase ‘at night’ at the beginning of the oracle, Shemaiah may imply that Nehemiah is about to meet his demise that night if he refuses to isolate himself.
2.2. The Rational Behind Shemaiah’s Oracle
Before we discuss Nehemiah’s response, it is important to examine the rationale behind the oracle. Why does Shemaiah want to confine Nehemiah in the temple? What good does such a lockdown for Nehemiah achieve for Shemaiah? Two suggestions have often been suggested. The first reason has been postulated by Williamson who suggests that Shemaiah wants Nehemiah to violate the laws regarding the sanctity of the temple. 44 In Williamson’s opinion, Shemaiah wants Nehemiah to take sanctuary in the temple. Taking asylum at the temple is something the law recognizes (cf. Exod. 21.13–14). However, such asylum can only be taken at the altar in front of the sanctuary itself (1 Kgs. 1.50), where only priests are allowed to enter. If Nehemiah, who is not a priest, seeks asylum in the temple, then he could be in danger of encroaching upon the priestly precincts (Num. 18.7; 2 Chron. 26.16ff). Moreover, Fensham believes that Nehemiah is a eunuch, and such status would increase the gravity of his encroachment. 45
However, such a view is untenable on four grounds. First, as David Shepherd points out, logically it makes no sense for Shemaiah to offer Nehemiah a means of escaping a death warrant, only to run headlong into another death penalty. 46 Second, it is quite plausible that the word used for temple (ההיכל) may refer to the general area of the temple, which may not be out of bounds for a non-priest. 47 ההיכל does not have to refer to the sacred precincts reserved just for the priests. Third, Neh. 13.8 records how Nehemiah can freely access the temple precincts and evict Tobiah on his return to Jerusalem. 48 If Nehemiah has such free access to the house of God, it does not make any sense to try to convict him of trespassing by entering it.
Finally, the temple, within the book of Ezra-Nehemiah, is often depicted as a house open to all of Israel and not an exclusive location reserved for the priests. Nehemiah 12.40–43 is the most obvious example. The passage depicts how the priests as well as the lay people march into the temple. 49 Starting with two parading lines, with priests, Levites, and the laity, the people march into the city via the city gates. Neh. 12.40 tells us that the two choirs, Nehemiah, half the officials, and some of the priests “took their places in the house of God.”
Some scholars are uncomfortable with the idea that both priests and laity are allowed to enter the house of God. Clines, for instance, believes that the assembly meets outside the temple, after which, the priests parted company with the laity just before entering the temple. He writes, ‘The two choirs apparently took up their position in the temple, but Nehemiah, the lay leaders and the instrumentalists must have stood outside (cf. on 6.11.)’ 50 Fensham adopts a similar position when he comments, ‘With the dedication ceremony in the temple the laity is separated from the clergy. We may derive this from vv. 40 and 41.’ 51
But Ezra-Nehemiah makes no such distinction. The text specifically tells us in Neh. 12.30 that both the laity and the priest stand in the house of God. Deirdre Fulton points out, ‘Neh. 12.30 specifies that everything, including the gates, walls, and people are purified. Thus, it is clear that in order for this procession to take place, it is necessary to make the entire community “holy.”’ 52 With Ezra-Nehemiah’s view that the house of God is the hub for both priests and lay people, it is not very likely that trespassing on the sacred sphere would be an issue. 53
The second suggestion as to why Shemaiah wants Nehemiah to lock himself in the temple comes from Alfred Ivry. 54 Ivry argues that Shemaiah is trying to play upon Nehemiah’s struggle to gain support within Jerusalem. By taking over the temple and turning it into to a fortress, Nehemiah can consolidate his power, and he may even be perceived as a king. Ivry opines, ‘Of course with the soldiers and their commander present, the character of the temple would be altered, the priests’ status would be diminished, and Nehemiah’s prestige and power would rise. The priestly class would thus be neutralized politically, without any changes being necessary.’ 55 Moreover, if Nehemiah were to turn the temple into a fortress and set himself up as king, he would be guilty of doing what had been insinuated by the letter in Neh. 6.6, 7, which accuses Nehemiah of staging a rebellion against the Persians.
However, such an interpretation is not likely. First, if Shemaiah is suggesting that Nehemiah should stage a coup d’etat, Nehemiah would need the support of the Jewish community for it to be successful. If this is Shemaiah’s intention, he would have included the Jewish community in the development of his scheme. Yet, the double-complot in Nehemiah 6 is directed specifically to Nehemiah alone. Second, Nehemiah’s response in verse 11, ‘Should a man like me run away? Or should someone like me go into the temple to save his life?’ suggests that Nehemiah understands Shemaiah’s suggestion to imply the avoidance of danger rather than a proactive action to fight against the assailants. 56 Moreover, the building of a fortress takes time. Shemaiah’s threat seems to suggest that the assailants are coming after Nehemiah the very same night.
Why then does Shemaiah want Nehemiah to shut himself inside the temple? How does Nehemiah’s lockdown benefit Shemaiah? With the threat that there are men trying to kill Nehemiah, Shemaiah’s hope is that fear will cause Nehemiah to lock himself inside the house of God. If Nehemiah were to be confined in the house of God, then progress of the wall’s construction would be delayed.
2.3. Nehemiah’s Response to Shemaiah’s Oracle
Without falling victim to Shemaiah’s subterfuge, Nehemiah responds, ‘Should a man like me run away? Or should someone like me go into the temple to save his life? I will not go!’ (6.11). Afterward, Nehemiah gives his reasons for rejecting Shemaiah’s oracle, saying, ‘I realized that God had not sent him, but that he had prophesied against me because Tobiah and Sanballat had hired him’ (6.12). As Tiemeyer rightly observes, ‘Nehemiah portrays himself as being a shrewd man who is able to see through lies easily, as well as being a brave man who refuses to hide away in times of danger but instead is resolved to see his projects through to the very end.’ 57
Nehemiah’s reasoning raises a couple of questions. How does Nehemiah know that Shemaiah is not a true prophet, such that ‘God had not sent him’? Further, how does Nehemiah know Shemaiah has been hired by Tobiah and Sanballat?
Allow me to suggest three clues as to how Nehemiah concludes that Shemaiah is a counterfeit seer. First, twice within Nehemiah 6, Nehemiah tells us that his job is more than just a supervisor at a construction project. Rather, he sees himself as one doing the great ‘work’ of building the house of God (6.3 and 9). As we have argued earlier in this article, Nehemiah understands his work as ‘holy’, commissioned by Yahweh. When Shemaiah presents an oracle that contests Nehemiah’s calling and conviction, it is obvious to Nehemiah that ‘God had not sent him’ (6.12).
Second, prophets do not appear frequently in Ezra-Nehemiah. Robert Carroll is right when he remarks, ‘Prophets are (only) alluded to a number of times in the Ezra-Nehemiah literature. Most notably in Ezra 5,1–2, 6,14 and Neh. 6, 7, 10–14, various prophets are referred to, especially by name.’ 58 Prior to Nehemiah 6, prophets are predominantly mentioned in Ezra 1–6. Each time they are alluded to, they are encouraging the returning Jews to rebuild the house of God. Jeremiah leads the proceedings when his prophecy is what propels God to stir the heart of Cyrus to issue the edict for the Jews to return to Jerusalem. Likewise, Haggai and Zechariah have been positive in regard to the rebuilding of the house of God (Ezra 5.1–2, 6.14). Therefore, Shemaiah’s oracle urging Nehemiah to run away and lock himself up seems to be out of step with the message the prophets have been advocating. In this regard, according to Nehemiah, Shemaiah’s prophecy not only is at odds with the message of the other prophets but also is sinful and destructive to Nehemiah’s credibility. Nehemiah puts it forthrightly in verse 13, stating, ‘He (Shemaiah) had been hired to intimidate me so that I would commit a sin by doing this, and then they would give me a bad name to discredit me.’
Third, Nehemiah knows that Shemaiah is not a true prophet, because he has had dealings with false prophets before. Prayers occupy a special place within Ezra-Nehemiah. 59 Prayers not only allow the characters to lay their concerns before Yahweh, they often also reveal the inner thoughts of the person praying. In his prayer, Nehemiah reveals that Shemaiah is not the only false prophet to have had crossed paths with him. In 6.14, Nehemiah reveals that prior to Shemaiah, Noadiah and the ‘rest of the prophets have been trying to intimidate me’ (6.14). Therefore, Nehemiah’s previous interactions with false prophets may have equipped him to discern what authentic prophecy looks like.
3. Conclusion
From our preceding discussion, we can see that Nehemiah 6.1–15 is a well-structured passage, comprising two carefully nuanced attempts to delay the rebuilding of the wall. 60 Both schemes revolve around the ‘house of God’ and the enemies’ attempts to instil fear in Nehemiah. The first scheme in trying to ‘frighten’ Nehemiah involves luring Nehemiah out of the ‘house of God’, such as the city, which is heavily protected by God, the priests, Levites, and the Jewish community. Even when the plan fails, Sanballat resorts to letter writing as a way of discrediting Nehemiah. Letter writing is the chosen means because it was the only ammunition able to halt the rebuilding the ‘house of God’ in the past (Ezra 4).
While the first subterfuge revolves around getting Nehemiah out of the ‘house of God’, the intent of the second ploy is to lock Nehemiah inside so that the progression of the reconstruction of the wall is disrupted. The use of prophecy (albeit false) to deceive Nehemiah via Shemaiah is the chosen tactic. This is because the enemies realize that the words of the prophets are extremely influential in relation to the construction of God’s house, as evidenced in Ezra 1–6. However, Nehemiah is able to discern the falsity of Shemaiah’s oracle because what Shemaiah is suggesting is at odds with the progress of his work and the positive attitude the earlier prophets had towards the rebuilding of the house of God. Moreover, from Nehemiah’s prayer in 6.4–15, we can assume that Shemaiah is not the first to use this scheme of prophecy to mislead Nehemiah.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Gregory Goswell for always encouraging and helping me in my writing endeavours. Special thanks need to go to my brother Terence Yap for his invaluable feedback on this article. I would like to dedicate this paper to the memory of my late uncle, Mr. Lim Hong Leng, who is dearly missed.
