Sermon Tone Analysis

Background

Nehemiah embarked on a mission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.

Up to that point God had done amazing things on Nehemiah’s behalf.

The Lord gave Nehemiah a vision for restoring the city, guided his planning, and made a way for him to go to Judah.

In Jerusalem he gained the support and help of priests, officials, and other Jews who eagerly started on the work.

Soon enough, however, the Jews encountered opposition that threatened to derail their efforts.

Let’s go to

; ;

Have you ever been mocked because of your faith?

Their actual causes here in this passage: (1) Dislike of the work and anger against the workers , and (2) Ignorance and unbelief.

(1) Dislike of the work and anger against the workers

These help to produce blindness as to the real facts of the case.

The world knows not the real resources of Christians, and cannot understand their motives.

It has no faith in the gospel or the Holy Ghost, in the precepts or promises which impel and inspirit Christian workers, or the Divine love which constrains them.

Hence cannot rightly estimate their conduct or the probabilities of their success.

What the world can see is manifestly insufficient, and it cannot see what renders success certain.

Look at ; ;

So how does Nehemiah respond and what can we learn from this?

Thus “the preaching of the gospel is to them that perish foolishness;” and those who preach it are sometimes regarded as either knaves or fools.

2. Their actual causes.

(1) Dislike of the work and anger against the workers (ver.

1).

These help to produce blindness as to the real facts of the case.

(2) Ignorance and unbelief.

The world knows not the real resources of Christians, and cannot understand their motives.

It has no faith in the gospel or the Holy Ghost, in the precepts or promises which impel and inspirit Christian workers, or the Divine love which constrains them.

Hence cannot rightly estimate their conduct or the probabilities of their success.

What the world can see is manifestly insufficient, and it cannot see what renders success certain.

(3) Felt paucity of solid grounds of objection.

Ridicule often used as a substitute for argument.

(1) Dislike of the work and anger against the workers (ver.

1).

These help to produce blindness as to the real facts of the case.

(2) Ignorance and unbelief.

The world knows not the real resources of Christians, and cannot understand their motives.

It has no faith in the gospel or the Holy Ghost, in the precepts or promises which impel and inspirit Christian workers, or the Divine love which constrains them.

Hence cannot rightly estimate their conduct or the probabilities of their success.

What the world can see is manifestly insufficient, and it cannot see what renders success certain.

(3) Felt paucity of solid grounds of objection.

Ridicule often used as a substitute for argument.

1. Ignore them.

It must be confessed that sometimes those engaged in religious enterprises invite ridicule, if not contempt; by manifest ignorance, by cowardly fears of advancing science, by clap-trap and worldly policy, by cant or weak sentimentalism, by glaring inconsistencies between their lofty professions and their actual conduct, &c.

It is one of the wholesome functions of raillery to banish such follies from good undertakings, and thus make the work truer and stronger.

2. Prayer.

Not like Nehemiah’s, for vengeance on the despisers; but forgiveness, and that God would “turn their reproach on their head” by granting signal success to the work.

3. Calm confidence.

In the assurance of that Divine favour and assistance of which the world takes little account, and thus of good success.

4. Steady, persevering toil.

All the more vigorous because of the opposition.

Thus Christian workers will live down contempt, even if, as in this case, it give place to violent hostility.

It may, however, be followed by applause when the work has proved itself good by results which even the world can appreciate.

Compare Sanballat and Tobiah to the ten spies in .

Similar purpose?

His second question, “Can they restore it by themselves (HCSB)?” gives voice to the enormity of the task.

Sometimes verbalizing an objective reveals its audacity.

The third question, Can they offer sacrifices? has a twofold effect: it points out the disconnection between the walls and the spiritual work of the temple, and mocks the devotion of the Jewish people.

There are those today who agree that the Church ought be concerned only about spiritual work and ignore tasks of a secular nature.

Fourth, with the question Can they finish in a day?

Sanballat misrepresented the time frame, again attempting to demoralize the people.

Many worthwhile projects cannot be completed in a day; God’s people must be on guard against an impatience that makes them unwilling to sustain a difficult task.

Finally, Sanballat wonders whether the Jewish people can build a wall using burned stones weakened by the fires of Nebuchadnezzar’s assaults.

Here he again misrepresents their challenge.

It was not as bad as that, with many available stones perfectly suitable for (re)use in the walls.

These questions bring to mind the spies’ initial report of Canaan, that its people were “giants,” or of the daily discouragement of the army of Israel when subjected to Goliath’s taunts.

Sanballat began by saying the returned number of Jewish people was too small (v.

2).

He now concludes by saying their task was too great.

Tobiah’s mockery in v. 3 undermines itself.

If the walls were so weak that even a small animal would topple them, then Jerusalem’s enemies should have no worries.

The concern of Sanballat, Tobiah, and others should have encouraged the Jewish builders that their labor was significant.

Neh

1. when Sanballat heard that we builded the wall, he was wroth—The Samaritan faction showed their bitter animosity to the Jews on discovering the systematic design of refortifying Jerusalem.

Their opposition was confined at first to scoffs and insults, in heaping which the governors made themselves conspicuous, and circulated all sorts of disparaging reflections that might increase the feelings of hatred and contempt for them in their own party.

The weakness of the Jews in respect of wealth and numbers, the absurdity of their purpose apparently to reconstruct the walls and celebrate the feast of dedication in one day, the idea of raising the walls on their old foundations, as well as using the charred and mouldering debris of the ruins as the materials for the restored buildings, and the hope of such a parapet as they could raise being capable of serving as a fortress of defense—these all afforded fertile subjects of hostile ridicule.

On to Nehemiah 4:6-9

4:1 This phrase emphasizes the extreme anger of Sanballat at the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls.

Verse 3

Ver.

2.—Before his brethren.

By “his brethren” would seem to be meant his chief counsellors—probably Tobiah among them.

The army of Samaria.

Some understand by this a Persian garrison, stationed in Samaria under its own commander, with which Sanballat had influence (Ewald, ‘History of Israel,’ vol.

v. p. 153), but there is no real ground for such a supposition.

belongs probably to David’s time; and as Samaria had doubtless its own native force of armed citizens, who were Sanballat’s subjects, it is quite unnecessary to suppose that he addressed himself to any other “army” than this.

The Persians would maintain a force in Damascus, but scarcely in Samaria; and Persian soldiers, had there been any in that city, 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.

Will they fortify themselves?

No other rendering is tenable.

Ewald (‘History of Israel,’ vol.

iii.

p. 154, note 5) defends it successfully.

Will they sacrifice?

Will they make an end in a day?

The meaning seems to be, “Will they begin and make an end in a day?”

It is assumed that they will begin by offering a sacrifice to inaugurate their work.

Will they revive the stones out of the heaps of the rubbish which are burned?

Rather, “Will they revive the burnt stones (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?

The Hebrew word used here, chayil, designates a group of powerful people.

As such, the term may refer to an army or to a retinue of wealthy nobles.

However, Sanballat more likely had military officers with him rather than the wealthy men of Samaria.

This phrase may indicate that Sanballat was in Samaria at the time (see 2:10 and note).

If he were in Jerusalem (see vv. 4–5), Sanballat would not have needed a report about the progress (v.