Nehemiah 5:1-13 - Exposition

1. Over-population (verse 2);

2. A recent famine (verse 3); and,

3. The weight of taxation, arising from the large amount annually demanded from the province by the Persians in the way of tribute (verse 4).

As there is no reason to suppose that the tribute had been augmented recently, this cause must be viewed as constant. The over-population may have arisen, in part, from the influx of immigrants, in part from the narrow extent of the territory which the returned tribes had been allowed to occupy. The famine, which has been attributed to the calling off of the people from their ordinary employments, can scarcely have had this as its main origin if the whole work was begun and ended, as Nehemiah tells us it was ( Nehemiah 6:15 ), in less than two months; but supposing that already there was a scarcity produced by bad harvests, as in Haggai's time ( Haggai 1:9-11 ), it may have been aggravated by this circumstance. The entire result was that the poorer classes were compelled, first of all, to mortgage their houses and such lands as they possessed (verse 3), and secondly to pledge the persons of their sons and daughters (verse 5), in order to raise money, with the near prospect of having to allow them to become slaves if they were unable to repay their creditor at the time appointed. Under these circumstances they appealed to the new governor, probably not long after his arrival, for relief. The appeal placed him in a position of great difficulty. He was not rich enough to take upon himself the whole burthen; and though he himself, and also his brothers and personal attendants, did lend freely, out of their private store, money and grain (verse 10, with comment), yet this was far from being enough—it did not go to the root of the evil Had he stopped at this point and done no more, the distress would have continued, and with it the discontent the mass of the population would have held aloof from him in sullen anger, and his whole undertaking might have been frustrated. On the other hand, it was impossible for him, under the Persian system of government, to carry matters with a high hand, as a Grecian lawgiver might have done, and order a general can-ceiling of debts. He could only have recourse to persuasion, argument, and per sonal influence. He therefore, first of all, spoke to the "nobles," who were the moneylenders, rebuked them, and endeavoured to induce them to desist from their malpractices (verse 7); but failing to produce in this way any considerable effect, he brought the matter before an assembly of the people ( ibid. ) . There, he first shamed the nobles by alleging his own contrary example, and then called on them, "for the fear of God and because of the reproach of the heathen," to restore the forfeited lands and houses to their former owners, repay all that they had received in the way of interest on the money lent, and give up the entire practice of lending money upon pledge or mortgage (verses 7-11). Moved by this public appeal, the nobles intimated their consent, whereupon he made them clench their promise by an oath (verse 12), adding on his own part a malediction if the oath were not observed, which was hailed with acclaim by the people. Thus the whole matter was brought to a happy conclusion—the promise made was kept—"the people," i.e. the whole nation, nobles included, "did according to this word" (verse 13).