Nehemiah 6:12

And, lo, I perceived that God had not sent him,.... Because he advised to that which was against the cause of God and true religion: but that he pronounced the prophecy against me; for by fleeing, as

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. No JFB commentary on these verses.

I perceived; partly, by considering the sinful nature and pernicious consequence of this counsel; partly, by the suggestion of God’ s Spirit, whose counsel and help I sought in this matter; and partly, by the event, which discovered that there was no such danger from the approach of the enemy as was pretended.

Nehemiah 6:12 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.Ver. 12. And, lo, I perceived that God had not sent him] By my spiritual sagacity I smelt him out; as having my inward senses habitually exercised to discern good and evil, Hebrews 5:14. Doth not the ear try words, as the mouth tasteth meat? Job 12:11. What though we have not received the spirit of the world (we cannot cog and comply as they can, yet), we have received a better thing, the Spirit of God, the mind of Christ, 1 Corinthians 2:12; 1 Corinthians 2:16. But that he pronounced this prophecy against me] To make my righteous soul sad with his lies, Ezekiel 13:22, and to bring me to disgrace and danger. Luther was wont to advise preachers to see that these three dogs did not follow them into the pulpit: pride, covetousness, and envy. For Tobiah and Sanballat had hired him] A mere mercenary he was then, and had Linguam Venalem; he could call good evil, and evil good, justify the wicked for a reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him, Isaiah 5:20. Such false prophets were Dr Shaw and friar Pinket in Richard III’ s time, who made use of them as his studges to obtrude bastardy on his brother, King Edward IV, and so to disable his children for the crown, that he might settle it upon his own head (Dan. Hist.). What became of Pinker I know not, but Shaw (as ashamed of his sermon at Paul’ s Cross) disconsolately departed, and never after that was publicly seen. Like unto these were Bishop Bourn and Cardinal Pole in Queen Mary’ s days. The cardinal, hired with the archbishopric of Canterbury, took for his text, Isaiah 66:8, and applied it to England, as then happily reduced to the pope’ s obedience. Bourn, for the bishopric of Bath, preached such stuff at Paul’ s Cross, that the people were ready to tear him in pieces. They flung a dagger at him in the pulpit. Phlugius and Sidonius, authors of the Popish book published in Germany by the name of Interim, Chrisma et oleum pontificium defendebant, ut ipsi discederent unctiores, defended chrism and extreme unction, as being liquored in the fists, and promoted to fat bishoprics (Melch. Adam). But a minister, as he should have nothing to lose, so he should have as little to get; he should be above all price or sale. Nec prece, nec pretio, neither request nor reward, should be his motto.

12. And lo, I perceived that] R.V. And I discerned, and, lo. The R.V. gives the verb the requisite sense of ‘recognition’ as in Genesis 27:23, ‘he discerned him not.’ Not as some commentators ‘I considered.’ Of a sudden, as it were, Nehemiah distinguishes the man’s object. The interjection ‘and, lo,’ follows after the recognition of Shemaiah’s character and intent. God had not sent him] The emphasis lies on ‘God,’ i.e. it was not God that sent him, but Sanballat and his party. Cf. Jeremiah 23:21, ‘I sent not these prophets, yet they ran: I spake not unto them, yet they prophesied.’ Nehemiah’s words probably refer to the Deuteronomic law about the false prophet that ‘speaketh rebellion against God’ and seeketh ‘to draw thee away from the Lord thy God’ (Deuteronomy 13:5; Deuteronomy 13:10). he pronounced this prophecy against me] i.e. his prophecy was not on behalf of God to declare a divine message, but to oppose Nehemiah. for (R.V. And) Tobiah and Sanballat] The clause is not a parenthetical explanation, but gives the third point which Nehemiah ‘discerned’ in Shemaiah’s action. He had ‘discerned’ (1) that Shemaiah’s message was not of God, (2) that its purpose was hostile to himself, (3) that it was the result of bribery on the part of Tobiah and Sanballat. This is the first statement that Tobiah and Sanballat were in communication with a party in Jerusalem itself hostile to Nehemiah, cf. Nehemiah 6:17-19; Nehemiah 13:4; Nehemiah 13:28. ‘Tobiah and Sanballat.’ The usual order of the names is inverted, it has been suggested, because ‘Tobiah was the immediate briber, Sanballat only finding the funds’ (Pulpit Comm.). More probably, however, his name stands first in this passage because in intrigues with the Jews of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 13:4 ff.) he was the more active and dangerous. hired] Cf. Ezra 4:5.

The existence of a party among the Jews who sided with Sanballat and lent themselves to his schemes, is here for the first time indicated. Compare Nehemiah 6:14, Nehemiah 6:17-19; Nehemiah 13:4-5, Nehemiah 13:28.

12. God had not sent him — Nehemiah soon perceived that Shemaiah was a false and lying prophet. This prophecy — Any utterance of advice, counsel, or warning, given by a professed man of God, is in Old Testament usage a prophecy.