In the last two chapters of Nehemiah we have seen three forms of opposition, each of which threatened to defeat Nehemiah’s plan to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. The first two were external and came from Nehemiah’s pagan enemies: 1) opposition by ridicule; and 2) opposition by the threat of violence. Nehemiah overcame these by faith in God, courage and practical wisdom. The third form of opposition was internal. It was caused by greed which resulted in oppression of the poor by Israel’s wealthy classes. Nehemiah overcame this problem by a procedure similar to the one outlined by Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17. He confronted the wrongdoers, first privately and then publicly, when they refused to listen.
With the internal dissension behind him, Nehemiah once again returned the workers to the walls and soon made such progress that within a short time the entire wall was completed to its full height. Only the gates remained to be constructed.
Suddenly, just when the work seemed about to be finished, a final phase of his enemies’ opposition unfolded. It was in three parts: 1) opposition by intrigue; 2) opposition by innuendo; and 3) opposition by intimidation. Each was subtle. That is, on the surface it appeared to be something other than it was. So part of the challenge to Nehemiah was to see the real situation clearly.
Another characteristic was that each attack was aimed at Nehemiah personally. This had not been true before.
At first this kind of opposition seems unwise and potentially useless, since attacking the leader is to attack the strongest rather than the weakest point of the opposing line. It is why opposition usually does not start at this point but rather with such easy things as ridicule and threats. Ah, but later on in the battle it is different. Leaders get tired too, and the stress of leading a great project takes its toll. At this point an attack on the leader is frequently effective. Yet they were not effective with Nehemiah. He held his ground. In noticing how he did it we uncover further qualities of leadership in this extraordinary man.
I wrote a moment ago that each of these final forms of opposition was characterized by its subtlety, that is, by appearing to be something other than it was. This was particularly true of the approach recounted in verses 1-4. “When word came to Sanballat, Tobiah, Geshem the Arab and the rest of the enemies that I had rebuilt the wall and not a gap was left in it—though up to the time I had not set the doors in the gates—Sanballat and Geshem sent me this message: ‘Come, let us meet together in one of the villages on the plain of Ono’” (vv. 1-2).
The reason this communication was subtle and therefore dangerous is that on the surface it sounded quite plausible. What is more, it was attractive. The wall was rebuilt; only the gates remained to be set in place. The project was finished—almost.
At such a time the invitation seemed to be something like a concession speech by a person who has just lost a political campaign. “Nehemiah, it is no use pretending that we have not been opposed to your project. But you have succeeded in spite of us, and now there is no use in our carrying on our opposition. So let’s be friends.” Since Nehemiah was already looking past the completion of the wall to further reforms, as the remainder of the book shows, an approach like this must have seemed both reasonable and attractive.
What was wrong with holding such a conference? Tomorrow we will seek to answer that question.
