Nehemiah 5 commentary

EHEMIAH 5 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
ehemiah Helps the Poor
1 ow the men and their wives raised a great
outcry against their fellow Jews.
GILL, "And there was a great cry of the people, and of their wives,.... Those of
the poorer sort:
against their brethren the Jews; the rich that oppressed them; and this cry or
complaint was made to Nehemiah for redress.
JAMISO , "Neh_5:1-5. The people complain of their debt, mortgage, and bondage.
there was a great cry of the people ... against their brethren — Such a crisis
in the condition of the Jews in Jerusalem - fatigued with hard labor and harassed by the
machinations of restless enemies, the majority of them poor, and the bright visions
which hope had painted of pure happiness on their return to the land of their fathers
being unrealized - must have been very trying to their faith and patience. But, in addition
to these vexatious oppressions, many began to sink under a new and more grievous evil.
The poor made loud complaints against the rich for taking advantage of their necessities,
and grinding them by usurious exactions. Many of them had, in consequence of these
oppressions, been driven to such extremities that they had to mortgage their lands and
houses to enable them to pay the taxes to the Persian government, and ultimately even
to sell their children for slaves to procure the means of subsistence. The condition of the
poorer inhabitants was indeed deplorable; for, besides the deficient harvests caused by
the great rains (Ezr_10:9; also Hag_1:6-11), a dearth was now threatened by the enemy
keeping such a multitude pent up in the city, and preventing the country people bringing
in provisions.
K&D, "The people complain of oppression. - Neh_5:1 There arose a great cry of the
people and of their wives against their brethren the Jews, i.e., as appears from what
follows (Neh_5:7), against the nobles and rulers, therefore against the richer members
of the community. This cry is more particularly stated in Neh_5:2, where the
malcontents are divided into three classes by ‫שׁ‬ֵ‫י‬ְ‫,ו‬ Neh_5:2, Neh_5:3, Neh_5:4.

COFFMA , "Verse 1
EHEMIAH'S HA DLI G OF A SEVERE SOCIAL CRISIS
There are conflicting views of reputable scholars regarding the nature of this
chapter. Whitcomb labeled it "parenthetical";[1] but Williamson divided the
chapter into two sections, making ehemiah 5:1-13 a description of a crisis that
came during the building of the wall, but admitting the rest of the chapter as a later
parenthetical addition. Of the first section he wrote that, "The wives ... were more
conscious of the approaching calamity, because they were having to manage at home
while their husbands were engrossed in the wall-building."[2]
There are a number of reasons why this writer accepts the viewpoint that the whole
chapter is parenthetical and that it was included at this point in ehemiah's
memoirs for reasons which we believe will appear later in the narrative.
"This parenthetical chapter describes how ehemiah succeeded in stopping the
practice of usury, which resulted in extreme poverty and even bondage for many
Jews. There is also a record here of ehemiah's example of unselfishness and
generosity during his twelve years as governor."[3]
It seems to this writer that ehemiah might well have included this chapter just
here as an advance glimpse of the evil nobles who, along with the priests, would
eventually vigorously oppose ehemiah's reforms.
A MAJOR SOCIAL CRISIS CO FRO TS EHEMIAH
"Then there arose a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren
the Jews. For there were that said, We, our sons and our daughters, are many: let us
get grain that we may eat and live. Some also there were that said, We are
mortgaging our fields and our vineyards, and our houses: let us get grain, because
of the dearth. There were also those that said, We have borrowed money for the
king's tribute upon our fields and our vineyards. Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of
our brethren, our children as their children: and lo, we bring into bondage our sons
and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought into
bondage already: neither is it in our power to help it; for other men have our fields
and our vineyards."
There are three classes of protesters here: "These were (1) the landless who were
desperately short of food ( ehemiah 5:2), (2) the landowners who, because of famine
had been compelled to mortgage their properties ( ehemiah 5:3), and (3) those who
had been forced to borrow money at exorbitant rates to meet the Persian king's
property taxes ( ehemiah 5:4)."[4]
Man's inhumanity to man is tragically visible in the sad circumstances that
precipitated this uprising of the people.
There are also three causes of the situation, as enumerated by Rawlinson. "These
were over-population ( ehemiah 5:2), recent famine ( ehemiah 5:3), and heavy

taxation ( ehemiah 5:4)."[5]
"Because of the dearth" ( ehemiah 5:3). "Dearth is the usual word for famine, as in
Genesis 12:10, and in many other places."[6]
One reason for accepting this chapter as a record of events unrelated to the wall-
building, is this mention here of a widespread shortage of food, due to famine. There
was no hint of such a shortage during the building of the wall; besides that, "The
wall-building did not take long enough (less than two months) to cause widespread
suffering."[7]
"For other men have our fields and our vineyards" ( ehemiah 5:5). Keil explained
the tragic significance of these words: "Since our fields and vineyards belong to
others, what they produce does not come to us, and we are not in a position to be
able to put an end to the sad necessity of selling our sons and our daughters for
servants."[8]
BE SO , " ehemiah 5:1. There was a great cry of the people, &c. — Of the poor
against their rich brethren, who had oppressed them; for though the people in
general were cured of their idolatry by their captivity, yet they were not cured of
their other sins, but loved strange women, as we read before in the book of Ezra;
and were so covetous that they oppressed the poor and needy; and this at a time
when their enemies threatened the destruction of them all. This crime was the more
heinous, because the twentieth of Artaxerxes, when this was done, began about the
end of a sabbatic year, (as Dr. Alix observes,) which raised the cry of the poor to a
greater height against their creditors, who exacted their debts of them contrary to
the law, Deuteronomy 15:2; which was read to them publicly in such a year,
Deuteronomy 31:12.
TRAPP, " ehemiah 5:1 And there was a great cry of the people and of their wives
against their brethren the Jews.
Ver. 1. And there was a great cry] Such as seditious ones use to set up in their
outrageous uproars; or such as is the expression of great grief and anguish of heart.
Of the people] The ignobile common people, a most dangerous and heady water,
when once it is out.
And of their wives] Who being pinched with penury, made piteous outcries.
Invalidum omne, natura querulum. Significat clamorem vel querulum, vel
imperiosum, iracundum, minacem (Seneca).
Against their brethren the Jews] The richer sort, who oppressed them and drew
them before the judgment seats, as St James hath it of the Jews of his time; for they

were no changelings. Let the Philistines bind Samson, and he can bear it; but do not
you lay hands on me, saith he to his countrymen. Scipio had rather Hannibal should
eat his heart with salt than Laelius give him a cross word. Had it been mine enemy,
saith David, I could have digested it. So could these poor creatures far better have
borne the insolencies of strangers than the oppressions of fellow brethren. Tacitus
tells us, that in his time the Jews were very merciful to those of their own nation,
and cruel to all others, Misericordia in promptu apud suos, &c. But here their own
complain, and this was doubtless a great grief to good ehemiah.
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY, "USURY
ehemiah 5:1-19
WE open the fifth chapter of ehemiah with a shock of pain. The previous chapter
described a scene of patriotic devotion in which nearly all the people were united for
the prosecution of one great purpose. There we saw the priests and the wealthy
citizens side by side with their humble brethren engaged in the common task of
building the walls of Jerusalem and guarding the city against assault. The heartiness
with which the work was first undertaken, the readiness of all classes to resume it
after temporary discouragements, and the martial spirit shown by the whole
population in, standing under arms in the prosecution of it, determined to resist any
interference from without, were all signs of a large-minded zeal in which we should
have expected private interests to have given place to the public necessities of the
hour. But now we are compelled to look at the seamy side of city life. In the midst of
the unavoidable toils and dangers occasioned by the animosity of the Samaritans,
miserable internal troubles had broken out among the Jews and the perplexing
problems which seem to be inseparable from the gathering together of a number of
people under any known past or present social system had developed in the most
acute form. The gulf between the rich and the poor had widened ominously: for
while the poor had been driven to the last extremity, their more fortunate fellow-
citizens had taken a monstrously cruel advantage of their helplessness. Famine-
stricken men and women not only cried to ehemiah for the means of getting corn
for themselves and their families, they had a complaint to make against their
brethren. Some had lost their lands after mortgaging them to rich Jews. Others had
even been forced by the moneylenders to sell their sons and daughters into slavery.
They must have been on the brink of starvation before resorting to such an
unnatural expedient. How wonderfully, then, do they exhibit the patience of the
poor in their endurance of these agonies! There were no bread-riots. The people
simply appealed to ehemiah, who had already proved himself their disinterested
friend, and who. as governor, was responsible for the welfare of the city.
It is not difficult to see how it came about that many of the citizens of Jerusalem
were in this desperate plight. In all probability most of Zerubbabel’s and Ezra’s
pilgrims had been in humble circumstances. It is true successive expeditions had
gone up with contributions to the Jerusalem colony, but most of the stores they had
conveyed had been devoted to public works, and even anything that may have been

distributed among the citizens could only have afforded temporary relief. War
utterly paralyses industry and commerce. In Judaea the unsettled state of the
country must have seriously impeded agricultural and pastoral occupations. Then
the importation of corn into Jerusalem would be almost impossible while roving
enemies were on the watch in the open country, so that the price of bread would rise
as a result of scarcity. At the same time the presence of persons from the outlying
towns would increase the number of mouths to be fed within the city. Moreover, the
attention given to the building of the walls and the defence of Jerusalem from
assault would prevent artisans and tradesmen from following the occupations by
which they usually earned their living. Lastly, the former governors had
impoverished the population by exacting grievously heavy tribute. The inevitable
result of all this was debt and its miserable consequences.
Just as in the early history of Athens and later at Rome, the troubles to the state
arising from the condition of the debtors were now of the most serious character.
othing disorganises society more hopelessly than bad arrangements with respect to
debts and poverty. ehemiah was justly indignant when the dreadful truth was
made known to him. We may wonder why he had not discovered it earlier, since he
had been going in and out among the people. Was there a certain aloofness in his
attitude? His lonely night ride suggests something of the kind. In any case his
absorbing devotion to his one task of rebuilding the city walls could have left him
little leisure for other interests. The man who is engaged in a grand scheme for the
public good is frequently the last to notice individual cases of need. The statesman is
in danger of ignoring the social condition of the people in the pursuit of political
ends. It used to be the mistake of most governments that their foreign policy
absorbed their attention to the neglect of home interests.
ehemiah was not slow in recognising the public need, when it was brought under
his notice by the cry of the distressed debtors. According to the truly modern custom
of his time in Jerusalem, he called a public meeting, explained the whole situation,
and appealed to the creditors to give back the mortgaged lands and remit the
interest on their loans. This was agreed to at once, the popular conscience evidently
approving of the proposal. ehemiah, however, was not content to let the matter
rest here. He called the priests, and put them on their oath to see that the promise of
the creditors was carried out. This appeal to the priesthood is very significant. It
shows how rapidly the government was tending towards a sacerdotal theocracy. But
it is important to notice that it was a social and not a purely political matter in
which ehemiah looked to the priests. The social order of the Jews was more
especially bound up with their religion, or rather with their law and its regulations,
while as yet questions of quasi-foreign policy were freely relegated to the purely civil
authorities, the heads of families, the nobles, and the supreme governor under the
Persian administration.
ehemiah followed the example of the ancient prophets in his symbolical method of
denouncing any of the creditors who would not keep the promise he had extracted
from them. Shaking out his mantle, as though to cast off whatever had been
wrapped in its folds, he exclaimed, "So God shake out every man from his house,

and from his labour, that performeth not this promise, even thus be he shaken out,
and emptied." [ ehemiah 5:13] This was virtually a threat of confiscation and
excommunication. Yet the ecclesia gladly assented, crying "Amen" and praising the
Lord.
The extreme position here taken up by ehemiah and freely conceded by the people
may seem to us unreasonable unless we have considered all the circumstances.
ehemiah denounced the conduct of the money-lenders as morally wrong. "The
thing that ye do is not good," he said. It was opposed to the will of God. It provoked
the reproach of the heathen. It was very different from his own conduct, in
redeeming captives and supporting the poor out of his private means. ow, wherein
was the real evil of the conduct of these creditors? The primitive law of the
"Covenant" forbade the Jews to take interest for loans among their brethren.
[Exodus 22:25] But why so? Is there not a manifest convenience in the arrangements
by which those people who possess a superfluity may lend to those who are
temporarily embarrassed? If no interest is to be paid for such loans, is it to be
expected that rich people will run the risk and put themselves to the certain
inconvenience they involve? The man who saves generally does so in order that his
savings may be of advantage to him. If he consents to defer the enjoyment of them,
must not this be for some consideration? In proportion as the advantages of saving
are reduced the inducements to save will be diminished, and then the available
lending fund of the community will be lessened, so that fewer persons in need of
temporary accommodation will be able to receive it. From another point of view,
may it not be urged that if a man obtains the assistance of a loan he should be as
willing to pay for it as he would be to pay for any other distinct advantage? He does
not get the convenience of a coach-ride for nothing, why should he not expect to pay
anything for a lift along a difficult bit of his financial course? Sometimes a loan may
be regarded as an act of partnership. The tradesman who has not sufficient capital
to carry on his business borrows from a neighbour who possesses money which he
desires to invest. Is not this an arrangement in which lending at interest is mutually
advantageous? In such a case the lender is really a sort of "sleeping partner," and
the interest he receives is merely his share in the business, because it is the return
which has come back to him through the use of his money. Where is the wrong of
such a transaction? Even when the terms are more hard on the debtor, may it not be
urged that he does not accept them blindfold? He knows what he is doing when he
takes upon himself the obligations of his debt and its accompanying interest; he
willingly enters into the bond, believing that it will be for his own advantage. How
then can he be regarded as the victim of cruelty?
This is one side of the subject, and it is not to be denied that it exhibits a
considerable amount of truth from its own point of view. Even on this ground,
however, it may be doubted whether the advantages of the debtor are as great as
they are represented. The system of carrying on business by means of borrowed
capital is answerable for much of the strain and anxiety of modern life, and not a
little of the dishonesty to which traders are now tempted when hard pressed. The
offer of "temporary accommodation" is inviting, but it may be questioned whether
this is not more often than not a curse to those who accept it. Very frequently it only

postpones the evil day. Certainly it is not found that the multiplication of "pawn-
shops" tends to the comfort and well-being of the people among whom they spring
up, and possibly, if we could look behind the scenes, we should discover that lending
agencies in higher commercial circles were not much more beneficial to the
community.
Still, it may be urged, even if the system of borrowing and lending is often carried
too far, there are cases in which it is manifestly beneficial. The borrower may be
really helped over a temporary difficulty. In a time of desperate need he may even
be saved from starvation. This is not to be denied. We must look at the system as a
whole, however, rather than only at its favourite instances.
The strength of the case for lending money at interest rests upon certain plain laws
of "Political Economy." ow it is absurd to denounce the science of "Political
Economy" as "diabolical." o science can be either good or bad, for by its nature
all science deals only with truth and knowledge. We do not talk of the morality of
chemistry. The facts may be reprehensible, but the scientific co-ordination of them,
the discovery of the principles which govern them, cannot be morally culpable.
evertheless "Political Economy" is only a science on the ground of certain
presuppositions. Remove those presuppositions, and the whole fabric falls to the
ground. It is not then morally condemned, it is simply inapplicable, because its data
have disappeared. ow one of the leading data of this science is the principle of self-
interest. It is assumed throughout that men are simply producing and trading for
their own advantage. If this assumption is allowed, the laws and their results follow
with the iron necessity of fate. But if the self-seeking principle can be removed, and
a social principle be made to take its place, the whole process will be altered. We see
this happening with ehemiah, who is willing to lend free of interest. In his case the
strong pleas for the reasonableness, for the very necessity of the other system fall to
the ground. If the contagion of his example were universal, we should have to alter
our books of "Political Economy," and write on the subject from the new standpoint
of brotherly kindness.
We have not yet reached the bottom of this question. It may still be urged that,
though it was very gracious of ehemiah to act as he did, it was not therefore
culpable in others who failed to share his views and means not to follow suit. In
some cases the lender might be depending for a livelihood on the produce of his
loans. If so, were he to decline to exact it, he himself would be absolutely
impoverished. We must meet this position by taking into account the actual results
of the money-lending system practised by the Jews in Jerusalem in the days of
ehemiah. The interest was high-"the hundredth part of the money" [ ehemiah
5:11] -i.e., with the monthly payments usual in the East, equivalent to twelve per
cent annual interest. Then those who could not pay this interest, having already
pledged their estates, forfeited the property. A wise regulation of Deuteronomy-
unhappily never practised-had required the return of mortgaged land every seven
years. [Deuteronomy 15:1-6] This merciful regulation was evidently intended to
prevent the accumulation of large estates in the hands of rich men who would "add
field to field" in a way denounced by the prophets with indignation. {e.g. Isaiah 5:8}

Thus the tendency to inequality of lots would be avoided, and temporary
embarrassment could not lead to the permanent ruin of a man and his children after
him. It was felt, too, that there was a sacred character in the land, which was the
Lord’s possession. It was not possible for a man to whom a portion had been
allotted to wholly alienate it, for it was not his to dispose of, it was only his to hold.
This mystical thought would help to maintain a sturdy race of peasants- aboth, for
example-who would feel their duty to their land to be of a religious nature, and who
would therefore be elevated and strengthened in character by the very possession of
it. All these advantages were missed by the customs that were found to be prevalent
in the time of ehemiah.
Far worse than the alienation of their estates was the selling of their children by the
hard-pressed creditors. An ancient law of rude times recognised the fact and
regulated it in regard to daughters, [Exodus 21:7] but it is not easy to see how in all
age of civilisation any parents possessed of natural feeling could bring themselves to
consent to such a barbarity. That some did so is a proof of the morally degrading
effect of absolute penury. When the wolf is at the door, the hungry man himself
becomes wolfish. The horrible stories of mothers in besieged cities boiling and eating
their own children can only be accounted for by some such explanation as this. Here
we have the severest condemnation of the social system which permits of the utter
destitution of a large portion of the community. It is most hurtful to the characters
of its victims, it dehumanises them, it reduces them to the level of beasts.
Did Ezra’s stern reformation prepare the way for this miserable condition of
affairs? He had dared to tamper with the most sacred domestic ties. He had
attacked the sanctities of the home. May we suppose that one result of his success
was to lower the sense of home duties, and even to stifle the deepest natural
affections? This is at least a melancholy possibility, and it warns us of the danger of
any invasion of family claims and duties by the church or the State.
ow it was in face of the terrible misery of the Jews that ehemiah denounced the
whole practice of usury which was the root of it. He was not contemplating those
harmless commercial transactions by which, in our day, capital passes from one
hand to another in a way of business that may be equally advantageous to borrower
and lender. All he saw was a state of utter ruin-land alienated from its old families,
boys and girls sold into slavery, and the unfortunate debtors, in spite of all their
sacrifices, still on the brink of starvation. In view of such a frightful condition, he
naturally denounced the whole system that led to it. What else could he have done?
This was no time for a nice discrimination between the use and the abuse of the
system. ehemiah saw nothing but abuse in it. Moreover, it was not in accordance
with the Hebrew way ever to draw fine distinctions. If a custom was found to be
working badly, that custom was reprobated entirely, no attempt was made to save
from the wreck any good elements that might have been discovered in it by a cool
scientific analysis. In The Law, therefore, as well as in the particular cases dealt
with by ehemiah, lending at interest among Jews was forbidden, because as
usually practised it was a cruel, hurtful practice. ehemiah even refers to lending on
a pledge, without mentioning the interest, as an evil thing, because it was taken for

granted that usury went with it. But that usury was not thought to be morally
wrong in itself we may learn from the fact that Jews were permitted by their law to
practise it with foreigners, [Deuteronomy 15:3-6] while they were not allowed to do
any really wrong thing to them. This distinction between the treatment of the Jew
and that of the Gentile throws some light on the question of usury. It shows that the
real ground of condemnation was that the practice was contrary to brotherhood.
Since then Christianity enlarges the field of brotherhood, the limits of exactions are
proportionately extended. There are many things that we cannot do to a man when
we regard him as a brother, although we should have had no compunction in
performing them before we had owned the close relationship.
We see then that what ehemiah and the Jewish law really condemned was not so
much the practice of taking interest in the abstract as the carrying on of cruel usury
among brothers. The evil that lies in that also appears in dealings that are not
directly financial. The world thinks of the Jew too much as of a Shylock who makes
his money breed by harsh exactions practised on Christians. But when Christians
grow rich by the ill-requited toil of their oppressed fellow-Christians, when they
exact more than their pound of flesh, when drop by drop they squeeze the very life-
blood out of their victims, they are guilty of the abomination of usury in a new form,
but with few of its evils lightened. To take advantage of the helpless condition of a
fellow-man is exactly the wickedness denounced by ehemiah in the heartless rich
men of his day. It is no excuse for this that we are within our rights. It is not always
right to insist upon our rights. What is legally innocent may be morally criminal. It
is even possible to get through a court of justice what is nothing better than a theft
in the sight of Heaven. It can never be right to push any one down to his ruin.
But, it may be said, the miserable man brought his trouble upon himself by his own
recklessness. Be it so. Still he is our brother, and we should treat him as such. We
may think we are under no obligation to follow the example of ehemiah, who
refused his pay from the impoverished citizens, redeemed Israelites from slavery in
foreign lands, lent money free of interest, and entertained a number of Jews at his
table-all out of the savings of his old courtier days at Susa. And yet a true Christian
cannot escape from the belief that there is a real obligation lying on him to imitate
this royal bounty as far as his means permit.
The law in Deuteronomy commanded the Israelite to lend willingly to the needy, and
not harden his heart or shut up his hands from his "poor brother." [Deuteronomy
15:7-8] Our Lord goes further, for He distinctly requires His disciples to lend when
they do not expect that the loan will ever be returned-"If ye lend to them of whom
ye hope to receive," He asks, "what thanks have ye? even sinners lend to sinners, to
receive again as much." [Luke 6:34] And St. Paul is thinking of no work of
supererogation when he writes, "Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the
law of Christ." [Galatians 6:2] Yet if somebody suggests that these precepts should
be taken seriously and put in practice today, he is shouted down as a fanatic. Why is
this? Will Christ be satisfied with less than His own requirements?
PARKER, " ehemiah 5

"And there was a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren
the Jews" ( ehemiah 5:1).
ehemiah"s Hindrances
UP to this time ehemiah and such as were willing to work with him had been
engaged almost night and day in building the wall which he determined to
reconstruct. Things have been going on with some excitement, because there were
enemies among the heathen who were determined to do their very utmost to make
the work of ehemiah almost impossible. They tempted him, they threatened him,
they scorned him: they left undone nothing that they could do to trouble his course,
to foil his purposes, to cover his wishes and his plans with disappointment and
mortification. ehemiah , however, steadily pursued his way, with a sword in one
hand and a trowel in the other—the people kept on building—but in this chapter
there is a new tone in the history. So long as the opposition came from Sanballat and
Tobiah and Geshem the Arabian and the people who sympathised with them, all
belonging to the camp of heathenism, ehemiah went steadily forward, encouraging
his people to pursue their toil hopefully and resolutely. But now the opposition is not
from the enemy—there is sedition within the ranks of ehemiah"s own friends, or
in the ranks of those who ought to have been his patriotic co-operators.
"There was a great cry of the people and of their wives," not against the heathen,
not against Sanballat and Tobiah, "but against their brethren the Jews"—the
wealthier Jews, the stronger men amongst them who wanted to make profit out of
the difficulty of the case, who bought up the corn at one price and sold it at
another—who lent out money at usurious rates and oppressed the people in
demanding a heavy percentage on the loans which they had granted; so that there
was not only the heathen opposition, there was internal difficulty. Outward assault
ehemiah could manage, but this internecine strife, this domestic oppression, this
tyranny within the household line troubled him with a new difficulty, oppressed him
with a new discouragement. When a man"s foes are those of his own household, his
heart simply gives way. "For it was not an enemy," he might have said, "then I
could have borne it"—and it is the complaint of one that his familiar friend had
lifted up the heel against him. And of Christ it is said, "He came unto his own, and
his own received him not."
How difficult it is to permeate a whole nation with the spirit of high patriotism.
ehemiah will be faithful—a man here and a man there may be equal to the
occasion, but how difficult to inspire a nation with the common sentiment of distrust
of the enemy, with the common sentiment of mutual confidence. If an enemy were
assaulting England, there are men who would sacrifice all they had to defend their
paternal shores, and there are also Englishmen who would be within the lines
turning the occasion to selfish profit, building up their personal fortunes out of the
catastrophes of the empire. This is exactly what the wealthier and better-to-do Jews
did in the days of ehemiah: they oppressed the hireling, they added toil to the
labour of the weary man; their one purpose was to increase themselves, to

aggrandise their possessions, no matter what became of the name of the Jews or the
fortunes of Israel. How is it with us? How difficult it is to be public-spirited, to care
anything for the line that is beyond our own threshold. There are men in whom it is
impossible to awaken a public spirit. They are not necessarily bad men—they may
have many excellent virtues; they may be hospitable and kind: but rather than step
forward and utter their voices in an exclamation that could be heard, they would be
willing that the whole country should go down. Let us encourage them to take some
interest in questions that lie beyond the little nut-shell of their own houses. Let us
hear the younger people discussing great subjects, and we shall have hope of the
country; but if they can talk upon nothing but the most gossipy and trivial themes,
in that very fact we have a guarantee that the spirit of lofty self-sacrificing
patriotism must go down.
ehemiah was therefore discouraged by the brawling on one side and the
oppression on the other, and there is a tone in brave, good ehemiah"s voice that
we have not heard before. Up to this time it has been a good round voice—a mighty
bell with a mighty clapper—but now there is a wail in it, a threnody, a
mournfulness that is very pathetic. A man that can stand against a whole army of
heathen opponents may succumb when his own little child lifts its tiny fist against
him. Said the grand old Scipio, he would rather that Hannibal, his enemy, should
tear out his heart and eat it with salt, than that Lelias, his friend, should speak one
cross word to him. So we feel that to encounter all the argument, Song of Solomon -
called, and all the opposition and flippant chatter and miserable objections of
infidelity, is nothing: but when those who wear the king"s badge lift up the hand of
high treason or utter a word of sedition, then it is that the soldier"s heart reels,
trembles, dies: for if his friends turn against him, what will not his enemies do? Get
strength at home, constancy in the Church, unity in the redeemed fellowship, public
spiritedness in the commonwealth; then
So shall it be with the Church of God, if every member, from the oldest veteran to
her youngest child, shall be one and indissoluble and loving. Have we been faithless,
inconstant, sympathising with the enemy? Then let us repent of the high treason,
crawling as the traitor that ought not to be forgiven, and for the sake of the great
drops of blood that fell from us in our agony we shall have one more chance in the
Church.
PETT, "Verses 1-5
The Problems Facing The Poorer People ( ehemiah 5:1-5).
The three examples that follow are representative of a whole range of problems
rather than being specific, but underlying them are the problems that the poor
faced, especially when there was drought or famine. Compare the situation in the
time of Haggai over seventy years previously (Haggai 1:6; Haggai 1:10-11). These
poor consisted of day-labourers who had no land (see Matthew 20:1-15), and
subsistence farmers with meagre strips of land.
ehemiah 5:1

‘Then there arose a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brother
Jews.’
The taking of the adult males to work on the walls left many families, which were
already struggling to survive, in a parlous situation. (A similar situation would arise
during warfare). They would have to depend on the labours of their wives and
children. This would explain why the wives are particularly mentioned as being
vociferous. They were bearing the brunt of the situation. Thus the families were
complaining about the harshness of their fellow-Jews who were taking advantage of
the situation to increase their own wealth, rather than obeying the Law which said,
‘you shall surely open your hand to your brother, to your needy, and to your poor in
your land’ (Deuteronomy 15:11).
PETT, "Verses 1-13
One Unforeseen Consequence Of The Concentration On The Building Of The Wall
Proves ehemiah’s Worth ( ehemiah 5:1-13).
ehemiah is now revealed, not only as a great leader, but as a man of compassion.
Like many rich men he had probably not considered the effect on the poorer Jews of
the concentration of their menfolk as labourers on the building of the walls, no
doubt without payment. For many poor families, struggling to survive even before
this happened, losing their adult males for nearly two months was turning out to be
a catastrophe. There would be three types of people involved:
1) The landless Jews who depended on a daily wage for the existence of
themselves and their families at a very low level, eking out a living from day to day.
2) Jews with only a tiny amount of land struggling at subsistence level when
harvests were bad, and having in bad years to borrow in order to buy next year’s
grain, because they had had to consume all that had grown.
3) Jews with a larger amount of land who were being caught out by the Persian
taxes, who, because of the lack of productivity of their fields, were falling into debt.
For the first group, the requirement for their menfolk to work on the walls meant
that the poorest families had no income coming in from their normal work as
labourers on other people’s fields, apart from what the wives or children could earn
which was insufficient. In consequence they were having to sell their children into
debt slavery or worse, in order even to obtain food. For the second group failing
crops (‘because of the drought’ - ehemiah 5:3), and the lack of the adult males to
either wring from the fields what could be obtained, or work for others in order to
be able to earn food, was resulting in some having to mortgage their lands so that
they could afford to buy grain, both to eat and to be sown in the coming year in
order to continue to survive. Another poor harvest would also result in debt-slavery
for their children. For the third group there was the problem that shortage of
harvest had meant that they had to borrow money to pay their taxes. This could
bring them under a continual debt burden and eventually they also could be in
danger of losing their land if harvests continued to be bad. Their plight was the least
of the three, but it was serious non-the-less.

This was another side to the problems described in chapter 4. There it was problems
without. Here it is problems within. For these people morale, which was already
low, had become even lower.
With great vigour ehemiah deals with the problem. He calls on the wealthier Jews
to treat their fellow-Jews as brothers, remembering that they are all YHWH’s
servants (Leviticus 25:53; Leviticus 25:55), and providing for their needs rather
than exacting from them as much as they could. And he himself supplies the
example.
PULPIT, "I TER AL DIFFICULTIES, A D EHEMIAH'S MODE OF
MEETI G THEM ( ehemiah 5:1-13). While the building of the wall was in
progress, but not, so far as it is stated, in direct connection with the employment of
the mass of the people in unremunerative labour, internal evils showed themselves
which demanded prompt attention and remedy. Complaints were made to
ehemiah by large numbers of the lower orders, both men and women—the shrill
voices of the latter rising to the intensity of a "great cry" (verse 1)—to the effect that
the oppression of the rich and great, combined with some other permanent or
temporary causes, was depriving them of their houses and plots of land, and forcing
them to sell their sons and their daughters into slavery (verses 2-5). According to the
existing text, the primary causes of the general poverty were three:—
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
ehemiah tells us it was ( ehemiah 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).
ehemiah 5:1
A great cry. Compare ehemiah 5:6, where the "cry" is distinguished from the
"words." The Oriental habit of shrill lamentation must be borne in mind it is
always shrillest when the women have a part in it, as on this occasion. Their wives.
Mothers, whose children had been sold into slavery, or who anticipated losing them
in this sad way speedily ( ehemiah 5:5). Their brethren the Jews. i.e. the richer
Jews, who had adopted the practice of lending upon pledge.
2 Some were saying, “We and our sons and
daughters are numerous; in order for us to eat
and stay alive, we must get grain.”
BAR ES, "Are many - A slight emendation brings this verse into exact parallelism

with the next, and gives the sense - “We have pledged our sons and our daughters, that
we might get corn, and eat and live.” Compare Neh_5:5.
CLARKE, "We, our sons, and our daughters, are many - Our families are
larger than we can provide for; we are obliged to go in debt; and our richer brethren take
advantage of our necessitous situation, and oppress us. The details which are given in
the next verse are sufficiently plain.
GILL, "For there were that said, we, our sons, and our daughters, are
many,.... Not that they complained of the number of their children, for a numerous
offspring was always reckoned a blessing with the Jews; but this they observed to show
that their families, being large, required a considerable quantity of food to support them:
therefore we take up corn for them, that we may eat and live; that is, they were
obliged to take it at an exorbitant price, which is the thing complained of; or otherwise
they must starve, the rich taking the advantage of their poverty and present dearth.
HE RY 2-4, "We have here the tears of the oppressed, which Solomon considered,
Ecc_4:1. Let us consider them as here they are dropped before Nehemiah, whose office it
was, as governor, to deliver the poor and needy, and rid them out of the hand of the
wicked oppressors, Psa_82:4. Hard times and hard hearts made the poor miserable.
I. The times they lived in were hard. There was a dearth of corn (Neh_5:3), probably
for want of rain, with which God had chastised their neglect of his house (Hag_1:9-11)
and the non-payment of their church-dues, Mal_3:9, Mal_3:10. Thus foolish sinful men
bring God's judgments upon themselves, and then fret and complain of them. When the
markets are high, and provisions scarce and dear, the poor soon feel from it, and are
pinched by it. Blessed be God for the mercy, and God deliver us from the sin, of fulness
of bread, Eze_16:49. That which made the scarcity here complained of the more
grievous was that their sons and their daughters were many, Neh_5:2. The families that
were most necessitous were most numerous; here were the mouths, but where was the
meat? Some have estates and no children to inherit them; others have children and no
estates to leave them. Those who have both have reason to be thankful; those who have
neither may the more easily be content. Those who have great families and little
substance must learn to live by faith in God's providence and promise; and those who
have little families and great substance must make their abundance a supply for the
wants of others. But this was not all: as corn was dear, so the taxes were high; the king's
tribute must be paid, Neh_5:4. This mark of their captivity still remained upon them.
Perhaps it was a poll-money that was required, and then, their sons and their daughters
being many, it rose the higher. The more they had to maintain (a hard case!) the more
they had to pay. Now, it seems, they had not wherewithal of their own to buy corn and
pay taxes, but were necessitated to borrow. Their families came poor out of Babylon;
they had been at great expense in building them houses, and had not yet got up their
strength when these new burdens came upon them. The straits of poor housekeepers
who make hard shift to get an honest livelihood, and sometimes want what is fitting for
them and their families, are well worthy the compassionate consideration of those who
either with their wealth or with their power are in a capacity to help them.

K&D, "Neh_5:2
There were some who said: Our sons and our daughters are many, and we desire to
receive corn, that we may eat and live. These were the words of those workers who had
no property. ‫ה‬ ָ‫ח‬ ְ‫ק‬ִ‫נ‬ (from ‫ח‬ ַ‫ק‬ ָ‫,)ל‬ not to take by force, but only to desire that corn may be
provided.
BE SO , " ehemiah 5:2. We, our sons, and our daughters, are many — Which
indeed is in itself a blessing, but to us is turned into a curse. The families that were
most necessitous were most numerous. Those who have great families and little
substance must learn to live by faith in God’s providence and promises: and those
who have little families and great substance must make their abundance a supply
for the wants of others. We take up corn for them, that we may eat and live — That
is, we are compelled by our and their necessities to take up corn on unreasonable
terms. Or, the sense of the words may be, Where, or how, shall we get corn, that we
may eat and live?
TRAPP, " ehemiah 5:2 For there were that said, We, our sons, and our daughters,
[are] many: therefore we take up corn [for them], that we may eat, and live.
Ver. 2. We, our sons, and our daughters are many] That is a mercy, had we but
keeping for them. Their wives were very fruitful; sed luctuosa faecunditate (as
Jerome saith of Laeta); for they had more mouths than meat for them. Tho young
children asked for bread, and no man brake it unto them, Lamentations 4:4.
Therefore we take up corn for them] Grain upon use, to keep us from starving; and
that by pawning or selling our dear children to the rich creditors for servants; till
we can redeem them, which we are never like to do, ehemiah 5:5.
That we may eat and live] Merely to keep us alive; for else we would never have
made our poor children bondslaves. But ecessitas durum telum, hunger is so
pinching a pain, that a woman will eat her own child, as in the siege of Jerusalem,
Samaria, Saguntum; yea, a man his own flesh, rather than die with hunger. Hitherto
the poorest sort. Follows now another cry.
WHEDO , "2. There were that said — These seem to have been persons who held
about the civil status of the Roman proletaries, who owned no property, but served
the state with their children, and procured a livelihood by labouring for others.
These were the lowest class of citizens.
Our sons, and our daughters, are many — That which was to the true Israelite the
highest gratification and pleasure — a pledge that Jehovah’s blessing was with him
— was in this case the occasion of oppression and sorrow.
We take up corn for them — The words for them should be omitted. To take up

corn, means to receive or obtain it, not by violence, but by some specific
arrangement with the wealthier classes who had corn to sell. How these poorer
classes obtained their corn is not said, but the most natural inference is, (compare
ehemiah 5:5; ehemiah 5:8,) that they sold themselves and their children as bond-
servants to the richer Jews, according to the provisions of the law. Exodus 21:7;
Leviticus 25:39.
That we may eat, and live — Better, thought they, are food and life in bondage, than
starvation and death in freedom.
CO STABLE, "3. The strife among the workers ch5
This chapter evidently describes a situation that prevailed for more than the52days
the wall was under construction (cf. ehemiah 5:14). The writer probably included
it in the text here because it was another situation that threatened to block the
fulfillment of God"s will.
"Up to this point ehemiah"s challenges as a spiritual leader focused primarily on
those outside of Judah. But before the walls were finally rebuilt, he encountered the
most difficult and intense kind of problem almost every spiritual leader has to face
sometime-problems within." [ ote: Getz, p683.]
The underlying problem this chapter chronicles sprang from pride. Instead of
putting God"s interests first and seeking the welfare of their brethren, the Jews
were putting their own interests first and taking advantage of their brethren (cf.
Matthew 22:37-39). The Mosaic Law forbade Israelites from charging interest when
they made loans to fellow Jews ( Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:35-38). Evidently
ehemiah and some of his fellow Jews had paid money to certain Gentiles in
Babylonia who owned Jewish slaves in order to liberate those Israelites so they
could return to Judah ( ehemiah 5:8). How inconsistent it was, then, for the Jews
in Jerusalem to enslave them again. Evidently the people of the land were criticizing
the Jews for enslaving their brethren ( ehemiah 5:9). ehemiah himself seems to
have made loans to the poorer Jews in Judah, though he did not say he charged
them interest ( ehemiah 5:10). ow he called for a stop not only to usury (charging
exorbitant interest) but also to lending. He believed the "haves" should give, not
lend, to the "have nots" out of love for God and their brethren. ehemiah spoke out
against social injustice. The people agreed to do as ehemiah asked ( ehemiah
5:12). The "hundredth part" ( ehemiah 5:11) was the interest rate that, if
calculated on a monthly basis, would amount to12percent per year.
ehemiah"s unselfish example for the welfare of the community should be a
challenge to any leader of God"s people ( ehemiah 5:14-19). The plans of God and
the welfare of His people were most important to him.
"One cannot be certain that ehemiah was originally given a twelve-year
appointment as governor by Artaxerxes ( ehemiah 2:6). Perhaps his original

appointment was for a briefer period, but was extended to twelve years." [ ote:
Laney, p92.]
The people the governor ruled would have provided his food allowance ( ehemiah
5:14). Rather than taking advantage of his opportunity to acquire real estate,
ehemiah gave his attention to rebuilding the wall ( ehemiah 5:16). He also
provided for the needs of over150 Jews who worked on the wall out of his own
pocket ( ehemiah 5:17-18).
"According to the Persian custom, as governor of Judah ehemiah had to entertain
a number of people at his table." [ ote: Fensham, p198.]
As Paul later did, ehemiah gave up what was legitimately his due, in order to
provide a good example for those he led (cf1Corinthians9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8).
[ ote: See H. G. M. Williamson, "The Governors of Judah under the Persians,"
Tyndale Bulletin39 (1988):77-82.]
"Leadership means going further than those one is leading." [ ote: Idem, Ezra ,,
ehemiah , p246.]
ehemiah asked God to reward him for what he had done ( ehemiah 5:19). This is
not an improper request since God has promised to bless those who put Him first (
Deuteronomy 28:1-14; cf. Matthew 6:33; Mark 10:29-30).
"The invocation of God"s favour is not so much a plea for a reward as an emphatic
way of claiming that he [ ehemiah] has acted in good faith and from right motives.
It is a statement of confidence that God is Judges , and judges favourably those who
sincerely seek to do his will." [ ote: McConville, p102.]
The formula "Remember me, O my God ..." (also in ehemiah 13:14; ehemiah
13:22; ehemiah 13:31) has some parallels in Egyptian literature of this period.
[ ote: See Joseph Blenkinsopp, "The Mission of Edjahorresnet and Those of Ezra
and ehemiah ," Journal of Biblical Literature106:3 (1987):414-14.]
LA GE, " ehemiah 5:2. We, our sons and our daughters, are many,etc. The error
of the Heb. text here in writing rabbim for orebim (requiring only one letter
prefixed in the Hebrew) is very evident (according to Houbigant), so that it should
read in English, we have mortgaged our sons and our daughters that we might buy
corn. Compare the structure of the next verse. The complaint was three-fold: 1. We
mortgage our children for food2. We mortgage our estates for food3. We mortgage
our estates for the royal tribute. In all these their brethren were the exactors, not
only acting tyrannically towards them, but breaking the written law of God in its
spirit ( Exodus 22:25-27) as well as in its letter (see ehemiah 5:7).
ISBET, " ehemiah 5:2
‘For there were those who said, “We, our sons and our daughters, are many. Let us

get grain, that we may eat and live.”
The first complaint is on behalf of those who were starving because they could not
afford to buy food. Their breadwinners, who would normally be acting as day-
labourers for wages, were not available, and yet they still had to support large
families. Losing them for even a period of less than two months was disastrous.
They needed grain simply so that they could eat it and survive. There is no mention
of them possessing land. We must therefore assume that they were landless.
PULPIT, " ehemiah 5:2
There were that said, We, our sons, and our daughters, are many. Those who had
large families were foremost in making complaint. They found their numerous
progeny not the blessing that abundant offspring is ordinarily reckoned in Holy
Scripture, but a burthen and an anxiety. Therefore we take up corn for them. We
are obliged to get corn for them, or they would die, and have to run in debt for it.
Corn, wine, and oil seem to have been lent, no less than money ( ehemiah 5:11).
3 Others were saying, “We are mortgaging our
fields, our vineyards and our homes to get grain
during the famine.”
CLARKE, "Because of the dearth - About the time of Zerubbabel, God had sent a
judicial dearth upon the land, as we learn from Haggai, Hag_1:9, etc., for the people it
seems were more intent on building houses for themselves than on rebuilding the house
of the Lord: “Ye looked for much, and, lo, it is come to little; because of mine house that
is waste; and ye run, every man unto his own house. Therefore the heaven over you is
stayed from dew, and the earth is stayed from her fruit. And I called for a drought upon
the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon the new wine, and upon
the oil, and upon that which the ground brought forth; and upon men, and upon cattle,
and upon all the labor of the hands.” This dearth might have been continued, or its
effects still felt; but it is more likely that there was a new dearth owing to the great
number of people, for whose support the land that had been brought into cultivation was
not sufficient.

GILL, "Some also there were that said, we have mortgaged our lands,
vineyards, and houses,.... Made them over to others, put them into their hands as
pledges for money received of them:
that we may buy corn; for the support of their families:
because of the dearth; or famine; which might be occasioned by their enemies lying
in wait and intercepting all provisions that might be brought to them; for this seems not
to be the famine spoken of in Hag_1:10 for that was some years before this, and for a
reason which now was not.
HE RY 3-5, " The persons they dealt with were hard. Money must be had, but it
must be borrowed; and those that lent them money, taking advantage of their necessity,
were very hard upon them and made a prey of them. 1. They exacted interest from them
at twelve per cent, the hundredth part every month, Neh_5:11. If men borrow large sums
to trade with, to increase their stocks, or to purchase land, there is no reason why the
lender should not share with the borrower in his profit; or if to spend upon their lusts, or
repair what they have so spent, why should they not pay for their extravagances? But if
the poor borrow to maintain their families, and we be able to help them, it is certain we
ought either to lend freely what they have occasion for, or (if they be not likely to repay
it) to give freely something towards it. Nay, 2. They forced them to mortgage to them
their lands and houses for the securing of the money (Neh_5:3), and not only so, but
took the profits of them for interest (Neh_5:5, compare Neh_5:11), that by degrees they
might make themselves masters of all they had. Yet this was not the worst. 3. They took
their children for bond-servants, to be enslaved or sold at pleasure, Neh_5:5. This they
complain of most sensibly, as that which touched them in a tender part, and they
aggravate it with this: “Our children are as their children, as dear to us as theirs are to
them; not only of the same human nature, and entitled to the honours and liberties of
that (Mal_2:10; Job_31:15), but of the same holy nation, free-born Israelites, and
dignified with the same privileges. Our flesh carries in it the sacred seal of the covenant
of circumcision, as well as the flesh of our brethren; yet our heirs must be their slaves,
and it is not in our power to redeem them.” This they made a humble remonstrance of to
Nehemiah, not only because they saw he was a great man that could relieve them, but a
good man that would. Whither should the injured poor flee for succour but to the shields
of the earth? Whither but to the chancery, to the charity, in the royal breast, and those
deputed by it for relief against the summum jus - the extremity of the law?
Lastly, We will leave Nehemiah hearing the complaint, and enquiring into the truth of
the complainants' allegations (for the clamours of the poor are not always just), while we
sit down and look, (1.) With a gracious compassion upon the oppressed, and lament the
hardships which many in the world are groaning under; putting our souls into their
souls' stead, and remembering in our prayers and succours those that are burdened, as
burdened with them. (2.) With a gracious indignation at the oppressors, and abhorrence
of their pride and cruelty, who drink the tears, the blood, of those they have under their
feet. But let those who show no mercy expect judgment without mercy. It was an
aggravation of the sin of these oppressing Jews that they were themselves so lately
delivered out of the house of bondage, which obliged them in gratitude to undo the
heavy burdens, Isa_58:6.

K&D, "Neh_5:3
Others, who were indeed possessed of fields, vineyards, and houses, had been obliged
to mortgage them, and could now reap nothing from them. ‫ב‬ ַ‫ר‬ ָ‫,ע‬ to give as a pledge, to
mortgage. The use of the participle denotes the continuance of the transaction, and is
not to be rendered, We must mortgage our fields to procure corn; but, We have been
obliged to mortgage them, and we desire to receive corn for our hunger, because of the
dearth. For (1) the context shows that the act of mortgaging had already taken place, and
was still continuing in force (we have been obliged to pledge them, and they are still
pledged); and (2) ‫ה‬ ָ‫ח‬ ְ‫ק‬ִ‫נ‬ must not be taken here in a different sense from Neh_5:2, but
means, We desire that corn may be furnished us, because of the dearth; not, that we may
not be obliged to mortgage our lands, but because they are already mortgaged. ‫ב‬ ָ‫ע‬ ָ‫ר‬ ָ , too,
does not necessarily presuppose a scarcity in consequence of a failure of crops or other
circumstances, but only declares that they who had been obliged to pledge their fields
were suffering from hunger.
BE SO , " ehemiah 5:3. Because of the dearth — ot long before this, there had
been a great scarcity of corn through want of rain, which God had withheld as a
punishment for the people’s taking more care to build their own houses than his
temple, as we read Haggai 1:9-11. And, in this time of scarcity the rich had no
compassion on their poor brethren, who were forced to part with all they had for
bread. And this dearth was now increased, from the multitude of the people in and
near Jerusalem; from their work, which wholly took them up, and kept them from
taking care of their families; and from the expectation of their enemies’ invasion,
which hindered them from going abroad to fetch provision, and the people round
about from bringing it to them.
TRAPP, " ehemiah 5:3 [Some] also there were that said, We have mortgaged our
lands, vineyards, and houses, that we might buy corn, because of the dearth.
Ver. 3. We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards, &c.] Lands they had, but were
little the better for them. Husbandry they had neglected to give attendance upon
buildings; neither were they able to stock and store their grounds, and so are forced
to part with them at an underrate price. This is many a poor man’s case among us,
who yet are little pitied, or relieved, unless it be with a little mouth mercy, as in St
James’s days, James 2:15-16. Oppressors will be but as friends at a sneeze; the most
you can get of them is, God bless you; like they are (many of them) to Darius, who
prayed God to help Daniel, but sent him to the lions’ den.
WHEDO , "3. Also there were — Another class higher than those of ehemiah 5:2,
for they were the owners of lands, vineyards, and houses. These had brought
themselves into distress by mortgaging or pledging their property for food.
Because of the dearth — Literally, in the famine. This famine or scarcity may have
been occasioned, not by a pestilence or barrenness of their lands, but because so
many of the people had been called from their homes to labour on the wall, and thus
had failed to sow and reap their fields. The neighbouring nations, also, being hostile

towards them, would be likely to hinder the importation of provisions from a
distance.
COKE, " ehemiah 5:3. Because of the dearth— ot long before this, there had
been a great scarcity for want of rain; which God thought proper to withhold, as a
punishment for the people's taking more care to build their own houses than his, as
we read, Haggai 1:9; Haggai 1:15. At this time the rich had no compassion on their
poor brethren, but forced them to part with all they had for bread; and now, which
made them still more miserable, another dearth was come upon them, which might
easily happen from the multitude of people employed in the repair of the wall; from
the building-work, which hindered them from providing for their families some
other way; and from the daily dread that they had of their enemies, which might
keep them from going abroad for provision, and the country people from bringing it
in. Houbigant renders the last part of the fourth verse thus: for the king's tribute on
our lands and vineyards.
PETT, " ehemiah 5:3
‘Some also there were who said, “We are mortgaging our fields, and our vineyards,
and our houses. Let us get grain, because of the drought.”
The second group did own a small amount of land. But they were subsistence
farmers, struggling to produce enough to eat. However, the harvest had been poor,
and their adult males had neither been present to help with the meagre harvest, nor
to act as part-time labourers, earning wages so as to supplement the little that they
produced. Thus in order that they might obtain food to eat, and grain which would
have to be sown to produce the following year’s harvest, they had mortgaged their
tiny fields and vineyards. Repayments were becoming due and in order to pay them
they would have to sell some of their children into debt-slavery ( ehemiah 5:5), or
lose their land, which would then put them in the position of the first people.
4 Still others were saying, “We have had to
borrow money to pay the king’s tax on our fields
and vineyards.
BAR ES, "The king’s tribute - The tax payable to the Persian monarch (compare
Ezr_4:13; Est_10:1). In ancient times, heavy taxation was often productive of debt and
distress.

CLARKE, "We have borrowed money - This should be read, We have borrowed
money for the king’s tribute on our lands and vineyards. They had a tax to pay to the
Persian king in token of their subjection to him, and though it is not likely it was heavy,
yet they were not able to pay it.
GILL, "There were also that said,.... Who though they were able to buy corn for
their families without mortgaging their estates: yet, say they:
we have borrowed money for the king's tribute, and that upon our lands and
vineyards; for though the priests, Levites, and Nethinims, were exempted from it, yet
not the people in common; and some of these were so poor, that they could not pay it
without borrowing upon their estates, and paying large usury for it, see Ezr_6:8
K&D, "Neh_5:4
Others, again, complained: We have borrowed money for the king's tribute upon our
fields and vineyards. ‫ה‬ָ‫ו‬ ָ‫ל‬ means to be dependent, nexum esse, and transitively to make
dependent, like ‫א‬ ֵ‫ל‬ ָ‫,מ‬ to be full, and to make full: We have made our fields and our
vineyards answerable for money for the king's tribute (Bertheau), i.e., we have borrowed
money upon our fields for ... This they could only do by pledging the crops of these
lands, or at least such a portion of their crops as might equal the sum borrowed; comp.
the law, Lev_25:14-17.
BE SO , " ehemiah 5:4. We have borrowed money for the king’s tribute —
Which was laid upon them all, Ezra 4:13; Ezra 7:24. Houbigant renders the last
part of this verse, for the king’s tribute on our lands and vineyards.
TRAPP, " ehemiah 5:4 There were also that said, We have borrowed money for
the king’s tribute, [and that upon] our lands and vineyards.
Ver. 4. There were also that said] Here was a third complaint to good ehemiah; to
whom whosoever lamented were sure to have redress and remedy, he did not serve
these poor people as that merciless bishop of Mentz, in Germany, did; who, to rid
his hands of them in a time of famine, in horreo conclusos iussit concremari, shut
them up all together in a barn, and there burnt them (Hatto, Archiep. Mogunt. A. D.
923). He was afterwards eaten to death by rats, non sine maxima divinae vindictae
suspicione, saith mine author, by a just hand of God upon him for his cruelty to
those poor, whom he would not relieve with his grain, but let the rats eat it; and of
whom he said, when they were burning in his barn, that they cried like a company
of rats.
We have borrowed money for the king’s tribute] They did not deny payment, and
rise up in arms, making poverty their captain, as the Suffolk men did here in Henry
VIII’s time. either did they answer the king of Persia’s officers, as the men of

Andros once did Themistocles. He, being sent by the Athenians to them for tribute,
told them that he came unto them on that errand, accompanied with two goddesses,
Eloquence, to persuade, and Violence, to enforce them. Their answer was, that they
also had on their side two goddesses as strong; ecessity, for they had it not, and
Impossibility, for they knew not how to raise it (Plutarch). These men pawn their
lands to pay tribute; but it went to their hearts, and caused this complaint.
WHEDO , "4. We have borrowed money for the king’s tribute — These represent
a third class, whose lands and vineyards seem to have afforded them food for their
personal wants, but not money with which to pay the taxes assessed upon them. The
princes and wealthier men among the Jews took advantage of this impoverishment
of their poorer brethren to exact exorbitant and unlawful interest upon the money
they loaned them. ehemiah 5:7. This was expressly forbidden in the law. Exodus
22:25; Deuteronomy 23:19. But to obtain this money these persons also had to
mortgage or pledge their lands and vineyards. These last two nouns are to be
construed, grammatically, as accusatives after borrowed, which verb has not only
the sense of borrowing something, but also of pledging something for that which is
borrowed.
PETT, " ehemiah 5:4
‘There were also those who said, “We have borrowed money for the king’s tribute
on our fields and our vineyards.’
The slightly larger fields and vineyards of the third group had also not been
productive because of the drought, and the position had been made worse because
their adult males were not there to help but were taken up with building the walls.
Thus they had had to borrow money to pay the king’s tribute, based on land
ownership, thereby mortgaging their future. These loans would have to be paid
back, seemingly with interest (which was actually forbidden - Exodus 22:25;
Leviticus 25:36-37; Deuteronomy 23:19-20), and this would have to be paid out of
future produce. Financially things were difficult.
PULPIT, "The king's tribute. Judaea, like other Persian provinces, had to pay a
tribute, partly in money and partly in kind, yearly to the Persian monarch (see the
comment on Ezra 4:13); but there is no reason to believe that this burthen was
generally felt as oppressive, nor that it was heavier in Judaea than elsewhere. But by
the very poor even a small amount of direct taxation is felt as a grievance; and the
necessity of meeting the demands of the tax-gatherer was in the ancient world often
the turning-point, which compelled the contracting of a debt (Liv; 2.23); and so it
seems to have been with these complainants,

5 Although we are of the same flesh and blood as
our fellow Jews and though our children are as
good as theirs, yet we have to subject our sons and
daughters to slavery. Some of our daughters have
already been enslaved, but we are powerless,
because our fields and our vineyards belong to
others.”
BAR ES, "The power of a father to sell his daughter into slavery is expressly
mentioned in the Law Exo_21:7. The power to sell a son appears from this passage. In
either case, the sale held good for only six years, or until the next year of jubilee (see the
marginal references).
CLARKE, "We bring in to bondage our sons - The law permitted parents to sell
their children in times of extreme necessity, Exo_21:7.
GILL, "Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren,.... We are of the same
nature, nation, stock, and religion: our children as their children; are circumcised as
they, and have a right to the same privileges in church and state:
and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and daughters to be servants; shall be
obliged to it, unless relieved:
and some of our daughters are brought into bondage already; sold to be
servants, as they might in case of the poverty of parents, Exo_21:7, and some were
sometimes taken to be bondmen in payment of their parents' debts, 2Ki_4:1
neither is it in our power to redeem them, for other men have our lands and
vineyards; as pledges for money borrowed.
K&D, "Neh_5:5
“And now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, and our sons as their sons; and lo,
we are obliged to bring our sons and our daughters into bondage, and some of our
daughters are already brought into bondage; and we have no power to alter this, and our
fields and vineyards belong to others.” “Our brethren” are the richer Jews who had lent

money upon pledges, and ‫ם‬ ֶ‫יה‬ֵ‫נ‬ ְ are their sons. The sense of the first half of the verse is:
We are of one flesh and blood with these rich men, i.e., as Ramb. already correctly
explains it: non sumus deterioris conditionis quam tribules nostri divites, nec tamen
nostrae inopiae ex lege divina Deu_15:7, Deu_15:8, subvenitur, nisi maximo cum
foenore. The law not only allowed to lend to the poor on a pledge (Deu_15:8), but also
permitted Israelites, if they were poor, to sell themselves (Lev_25:39), and also their
sons and daughters, to procure money. It required, however, that they who were thus
sold should not be retained as slaves, but set at liberty without ransom, either after seven
years or at the year of jubilee (Lev_25:39-41; Exo_22:2.). It is set forth as a special
hardship in this verse that some of their daughters were brought into bondage for maid-
servants. ‫נוּ‬ ֵ‫ד‬ָ‫י‬ ‫ל‬ ֵ‫א‬ ְ‫ל‬ ‫ין‬ ֵ‫,א‬ literally, our hand is not to God, i.e., the power to alter it is not in
our hand; on this figure of speech, comp. Gen_31:29. The last clause gives the reason:
Our fields and our vineyards belonging to others, what they yield does not come to us,
and we are not in a position to be able to put an end to the sad necessity of selling our
daughters for servants.
BE SO , " ehemiah 5:5. Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren — We
are of the same nature, nation, and religion with them; nor is there any other
difference between us, but that they are rich and we are poor; and yet they treat us
as if we were beasts or heathen, forgetting both humanity and God’s law,
Deuteronomy 15:7. And our children as their children — As dear to us as their
children are to them; and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and daughters — We
are compelled to sell them for our subsistence. In case of great necessity this was
lawful: but those Jews were very void of compassion who forced their brethren to
do what was so much against nature. And it was especially distressing that they
were driven to such an extremity as to be under a necessity of selling even their
daughters for slaves, being more tender and weak, and unfit for servitude, and more
exposed to injuries than their sons. either is it in our power to redeem them —
one being willing to lend us money, and our lands being mortgaged to our
oppressors. It was an aggravation of the sin of these oppressing Jews, that they were
themselves so lately delivered out of the house of bondage, which surely obliged
them in gratitude to undo the heavy burdens, Isaiah 58.
TRAPP, " ehemiah 5:5 Yet now our flesh [is] as the flesh of our brethren, our
children as their children: and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our
daughters to be servants, and [some] of our daughters are brought unto bondage
[already]: neither [is it] in our power [to redeem them]; for other men have our
lands and vineyards.
Ver. 5. Yet our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren] i.e. evertheless we are men as
well as they, though poor men, and therefore slighted (but why should they hide
their eyes from their own flesh? Isaiah 58:7. "Have we not all one Father?" Malachi
2:10). Yea, we are men of Israel, such as fear God, Acts 13:16. Hewn out of the same
rock, digged out of the same pit, Isaiah 51:1, cut out of the same cloth, the shears
only going between. What if God have given them more wealth (as the shepherd
bestows a bell upon his bellwether), should they therefore insult and domineer over

us, as if not worthy to breathe in the same air?
Our children as their children] viz. As dear to us, and as freeborn every way as
theirs are; why then should their unmerciful dealing enslave them? He that
oppresseth the poor, reproacheth his Maker; but he that honoureth him, hath mercy
on the poor, Proverbs 15:31. There is a writ in England which beareth this name, e
iniuste vexes, Vex not any man unjustly; but law without execution is like a bell
without a clapper. It was done directly against law that is here complained of. See
Leviticus 25:39, and therefore there is an Ecce Behold set upon it in the next words;
And (lo) we bring into bondage, &c. These cruel cormorants thought to bear out
and justify the most monstrous misdemeanor, because it was the fact of a noble, who
could as easily break through the lattice of the laws as the bigger flies do through a
spider web; as Anacharsis once said concerning his Scythians.
We bring into bondage our sons and our daughters] This went to the hearts of them,
and well it might. For, 1. Our children are a chief part of ourselves, even the seed; as
though now there were nothing left in us but the chaff. 2. Bondage is very grievous,
as liberty exceeding sweet. Did we but live a while in Turkey (saith one), in Persia.,
yea, or but in France, a dram of that liberty we yet enjoy would be as precious to us
as a drop of cold water would have been to the rich man in hell, when he lay
broiling in those flames. 3. They were necessitated to do this with their own hands,
We bring into bondage, &c., hard hunger driving us thereunto, though as ill-willing
thereunto as ever Jacob was to part with his Benjamin into Egypt; he would not do
it till there was no remedy. 4. They sold them for slaves, not to strangers, but to their
own friends and countrymen, where we looked for more courtesy. But a man had as
good a deal with a Cossack or Cannibal as with a truly covetous captive, and as
much favour and fair dealing he shall find. For such a one respecteth neither friend
nor foe; nor regards at all how he cometh by it, by hook or by crook, by right or by
wrong, be it short or long.
And some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already] So that our
complaints are neither false nor causeless; for that weaker sex is every way subject
to more abuse, their chastity (which is their honour) was much hazarded, Castus,
quasi, καστος ornatus.
either is it in our power to redeem them] Would we never so fain. What would not
a tender hearted father give or do for the redemption of his dear child? To let go
many other examples, Fredericus Barbarossa, emperor of Germany (when as in the
wars between the pope and himself, his youngest son was taken prisoner by the
Venetian fleet), Vehementi amore commotus erga filium captum, saith mine author,
through an earnest desire of getting his son’s liberty, he concluded a peace upon
most unequal terms, viz. that he should come in person to Venice, and there,
prostrate at the pope’s feet (who trod upon the emperor’s neck), he should beg

pardon; and then having settled peace in Italy, led his army into Asia against the
Turk. All this he did for his son’s liberty.
For other men have our lands and vinevards] Even those men that so lately came
out of captivity themselves, and know the misery of want and slavery. Those that
partake now of so much liberty and liberality from the kings of Persia, and yet,
behold, they pull up the bridge before us that themselves have gone over. Surely
there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land, Hosea 4:1. Lo this
was Vox oppressorum mercesque retenta laborum.
WHEDO , "5. Our flesh is as… our brethren — Having separately stated their
several grievances, they now unitedly urge the common oppressiveness of them all.
They are all one race, descendants of a common sire, and, therefore, brethren — of
the same flesh and blood.
Bring into bondage… to be servants — Literally, tread down to servants; that is,
subject to the condition of slaves. The law allowed such sale of children. See Exodus
21:7; Leviticus 25:39.
Some of our daughters — The subjection of these weaker and more helpless ones to
the condition of bondmaids is emphasized as something specially severe.
either is it in our power to redeem them — Literally, and nothing to the power of
our hand, or, nothing of power [is in] our hand, ‫ל‬ having here its genitive, or
possessive sense. The word ‫,אל‬ here rendered power, is commonly rendered God,
and Bertheau translates and explains the words thus: And not to the God is our
hand; that is, we have not the power, as that of a God, to change or put an end to
our wretched condition. But the more natural and simple meaning is that given
above; these oppressed ones had no power to help themselves. Comp. the same
expression in Genesis 31:29 ; Deuteronomy 28:32; Proverbs 3:27; Micah 2:1.
PETT, " ehemiah 5:5
‘Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brothers, our children as their children:
and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some
of our daughters are brought into bondage (already), nor is it in our power to help
it, for other men have our fields and our vineyards.”
All three groups were concerned about the possibility of eventually having to sell
their children into debt slavery, whereby their children would become unpaid
servants, with payment for their services being given up front as the ‘purchase
price’ of the young virtual slave. This slavery would last for seven years (Exodus
21:2-11; Deuteronomy 15:12-18). And this was being done to them, not by
foreigners, but by their fellow-Jews who were of the same stock as they were. Indeed
some of their daughters had already been brought into such bondage (girls would be
sold first as they were not so useful in the fields). or could their parents do
anything about it as their fields and vineyards were under the control of others,

either through sale or mortgage, with the result that there was no other way of
obtaining money.
PULPIT, "Our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren. We love our own flesh and
blood, poor as we are, just as much as do our richer brethren; our children are as
dear to us as theirs to them. The necessity which compels us to bring into bondage
our sons and our daughters is therefore most grievous to us. Some of our daughters
are brought into bondage already. On the power of fathers to sell their daughters,
see Exodus 21:7. either is it in our power to redeem them. Literally, "nor is aught
in the power of our hands" (see Genesis 31:29). We have no remedy; it is not in our
power to effect any change.
6 When I heard their outcry and these charges, I
was very angry.
GILL, "And I was very angry when I heard their cry, and these words. Their
complaint expressed in this manner; it not only raised pity and compassion in his breast
towards these poor distressed people, but indignation at the rich that oppressed them.
HE RY, "It should seem the foregoing complaint was made to Nehemiah at the time
when he had his head and hands as full as possible of the public business about building
the wall; yet, perceiving it to be just, he did not reject it because it was unseasonable; he
did not chide the petitioners, nor fall into a passion with them, for disturbing him when
they saw how much he had to do, a fault which men of business are too often guilty of;
nor did he so much as adjourn the hearing of the cause or proceedings upon it till he had
more leisure. The case called for speedy interposition, and therefore he applied himself
immediately to the consideration of it, knowing that, let him build Jerusalem's walls ever
so high, so thick, so strong, the city could not be safe while such abuses as these were
tolerated. Now observe, What method he took for the redress of this grievance which
was so threatening to the public.
I. He was very angry (Neh_5:6); he expressed a great displeasure at it, as a very bad
thing. Note, It well becomes rulers to show themselves angry at sin, that by the anger
itself they may be excited to their duty, and by the expressions of it others may be
deterred from evil.
JAMISO , "Neh_5:6-19. The usurers rebuked.
I was very angry when I heard their cry and these words — When such
disorders came to the knowledge of the governor, his honest indignation was roused

against the perpetrators of the evil. Having summoned a public assembly, he denounced
their conduct in terms of just severity. He contrasted it with his own in redeeming with
his money some of the Jewish exiles who, through debt or otherwise, had lost their
personal liberty in Babylon. He urged the rich creditors not only to abandon their illegal
and oppressive system of usury, but to restore the fields and vineyards of the poor, so
that a remedy might be put to an evil the introduction of which had led to much actual
disorder, and the continuance of which would inevitably prove ruinous to the newly
restored colony, by violating the fundamental principles of the Hebrew constitution. The
remonstrance was effectual. The conscience of the usurious oppressors could not resist
the touching and powerful appeal. With mingled emotions of shame, contrition, and
fear, they with one voice expressed their readiness to comply with the governor’s
recommendation. The proceedings were closed by the parties binding themselves by a
solemn oath, administered by the priests, that they would redeem their pledge, as well as
by the governor invoking, by the solemn and significant gesture of shaking a corner of
his garment, a malediction on those who should violate it. The historian has taken care
to record that the people did according to this promise.
K&D, "The abolition of usury. - Neh_5:6 Nehemiah was very angry at this complaint
and these things, i.e., the injustice which had been brought to his knowledge.
COFFMA , "Verse 6
EHEMIAH MOVED QUICKLY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM
"And I was very angry when I heard their cry and these words. Then I consulted
with myself and contended with the rulers and the nobles, and said unto them, Ye
exact usury, every one of his brother. And I held a great assembly against them.
And I said unto them, We after our ability have redeemed our brethren the Jews,
that were sold unto the nations; and would ye even sell your brethren, and should
they be sold unto us? Then held they their peace, and said never a word. Also I said,
The thing that ye do is not good: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our God,
because of the reproach of the nations our enemies? And likewise, my brethren and
my servants, do lend them money and grain. I pray you, let us leave off this usury.
Restore, I pray you, to them, even this day, their fields, their vineyards, their
oliveyards, and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money, and of the grain,
the new wine, and the oil, that ye exact of them. Then said they, We will restore
them, and will require nothing of them; so will we do, even as thou sayest. Then I
called the priests and took an oath of them, that they would do according to this
promise. Also, I shook out my lap, and said, So God shake out every man from his
house, and from his labor, that performeth not this promise; even thus be he shaken
out and emptied. And all the assembly said, Amen, and praised Jehovah. And the
people did according to this promise."
"I was very angry when I heard these words" ( ehemiah 5:6). ehemiah restrained
his anger, very wisely, and by his skillful handling to the situation, "He avoided
personally alienating the rulers and nobles, who after all were the leaders of the
community, and the men upon whom he relied for the support of his
administration."[9]

"Then I consulted with myself" ( ehemiah 5:7). This means that ehemiah
disciplined himself in the control of his anger. He carefully laid the plans by which
he would put an end to their abuses.
"Ye exact usury, every man of his brother" ( ehemiah 5:7). This was a heartless
violation of God's law (Exodus 22:25), which forbade God's people to charge
interest on any loan to a brother Israelite. "He reminded the rulers and nobles that
his own conduct had been the opposite of theirs; and that when he had seen Jewish
slaves offered for sale in Gentile markets, he would pay the ransom price and give
them their liberty. But those nobles and rulers were Selling their poverty-stricken
fellow Jews to heathen masters, knowing that ehemiah would buy them back."[10]
That procedure, obviously, amounted to their selling their brethren to ehemiah, as
indicated by the terse words in ehemiah 5:8, And should they be sold unto us?
"Would ye even sell your brethren" ( ehemiah 5:8)? It was against the Law of God
for an Israelite to sell even a servant as a bondman, much less a brother (Leviticus
25:42). It is apparent that ehemiah's inclusion of this episode parenthetically at
this point in his book was due to his purpose of exposing the character of the rulers
and nobles as an advance explanation of trouble he would have with them later.
"They held their peace, and found never a word" ( ehemiah 5:8). ehemiah had
completely checkmated any public opposition by the rulers and nobles by his
confronting them before a general assembly of the whole population. They had no
excuse whatever for their wholesale violations of the Mosaic Law. Their own
consciences condemned them. "And I likewise, my brethren and my servants do
lend them money and grain" ( ehemiah 5:10). ehemiah said nothing at all here
about charging interest on such loans; and this writer does not believe that he was
guilty of violating the Moasic instructions against such charges. If ehemiah had
been charging his brethren usury, why would he have been so angry with the nobles
and rulers for doing so? The scholars who make the word likewise in this verse
prove that ehemiah was a usurer are in error.
"Let us leave off this usury" ( ehemiah 5:10). Ah! But does not this clause prove
that ehemiah was doing the same thing? Williamson so understood it, " ehemiah
here candidly admits having been involved in these same practices."[11] o! This
was merely a tactful identification of himself with the violators, in order to promote
good will and to avoid antagonism; and this is by no means the only example of a
Biblical writer's using that very same device for the sake of avoiding unnecessary
bitterness. "Ezra identified himself with the marriage offenders (Ezra 9:6) although
he had not contracted an illicit marriage."[12] Did not the apostle Paul write:[13]
"Let US press on ... not laying again a foundation of repentance, ... and this will WE
do, if God permit (Hebrews 6:1,3)?
In this passage, Paul used the first person plural twice (capitalized words in passage
above); but he was not confessing that he himself was guilty of the same errors he

was attempting to correct in the recipients of his letter. In the same manner, here,
ehemiah's use of the first person plural was not a confession that he was the same
kind of heartless usurer as the rulers and nobles.
"Restore unto them their fields ... the hundredth part of the money ... and of the
grain, ..." ( ehemiah 5:11). This was a public request, backed up by the support of
the general assembly that all the abuses be ended at once. Several types of
oppressing the poor are in evidence in this blanket request. (1) There was the
interest charge (a hundredth part of the money. "This was a monthly charge,
amounting to 12% a year."[14] (2) Then there were the fields confiscated through
foreclosures, and (3) the extravagant rental charges "in kind," the grain, wine, oil,
etc.
"Then said they, We will restore them, and will require nothing of them"
( ehemiah 5:12). Wonderful! So far, so good. But ehemiah knew the character of
the evil men with whom he was dealing; and he moved at once to "swear them in" to
do what they promised to do.
"Then I called the priests and took an oath of them" ( ehemiah 5:12). With honest
men, this would have been unnecessary; but ehemiah moved to thwart any
violations of this agreement by swearing them in before the whole assembly.
"I shook out my lap, and said, God so shake out every man ... that performeth not
this promise" ( ehemiah 5:13). The `lap' that ehemiah shook out was an
improvised one, made by gathering up his robe in a fold, and then shaking it out as
if he were emptying out things contained in it. This was a symbolical action, as were
the deeds of many of the prophets, designed to emphasize their words. It was an
appeal that God would drastically and completely punish and remove all violators
of the promises they had sworn to honor.
"And the people did according to this promise" ( ehemiah 5:13). ehemiah's
precautions assured a full compliance with the public promises; and the people were
relieved.
BE SO , " ehemiah 5:6-7. Then I was very angry — Grieved exceedingly at this
sin of the nobles. Then I consulted with myself — I restrained the emotions of my
mind, being afraid to do any thing in a fit of anger or vexation and coolly
considered, and deliberated with myself, what was best to be done. And I rebuked
the nobles and rulers — Who were the moneyed men, and whose power, perhaps,
made them more bold to oppress; and said, You exact usury every one from his
brother — Which was against the plain and positive law of God, (Deuteronomy
23:19-20,) especially in this time of public calamity and dearth. And I set a great
assembly against them — I called a public congregation, both of the rulers and
people, the greatest part whereof were free from this guilt, and therefore more
impartial judges of the matter, and I represented it to them, that the offenders might
be convinced and reformed; if not for fear of God, or love of their brethren, yet at
least for the public shame, and the cries of the poor. Ezra and ehemiah were both

good and useful men; but of how different tempers! Ezra was a man of a mild,
tender spirit, and when told of the sin of the rulers, rent his clothes and wept.
ehemiah forced them to reform, being of a warm and eager spirit. So God’s work
may be done, and yet different methods taken in doing it; which is a good reason
why we should not arraign the management of others, nor make our own a
standard.
TRAPP, " ehemiah 5:6 And I was very angry when I heard their cry and these
words.
Ver. 6. And I was very angry] Red-hot with anger, and not without cause. To be
angry without cause is to be guilty of judgment, Matthew 5:22, but in case of God’s
dishonour, and public prejudice, moderation is mopishness, toleration cowardice,
&c. ehemiah was a magistrate, that is, a mortal god; as God is an immortal
magistrate. Therefore as God is angry at the oppressions of poor people (Lactantius
hath written a book De Ira Dei), so should his lieutenants; and this holy anger
should be cos fortitudinis, a means to encourage, or rather to enrage them against
oppressors, who grind the faces of the poor, and take from them burdens of wheat,
Amos 5:11. Yea, lands and vineyards, as here, eating bread baked with the tears of
men, coining their money on their skins, and wringing their spunges into their own
purses.
When I heard their cry] His anger then was mixed with grief, as was our Saviour’s,
Mark 3:5: it was pure zeal, which is nothing else but an extreme (but regular) heat
of all the affections.
PARKER, "What was this new tone in the voice of good, brave ehemiah? He tells
us—
"And I was very angry when I heard their cry and these words" ( ehemiah 5:6).
To see a noble people inflamed with a common sentiment, rising to demand the
redress of an all but infinite wrong, is a picture on which no man can look, who has
any spirit of patriotism or nobleness in him, without emotion and without religious
thanksgiving. Take care that the rising does not become a mere fretfulness: let it be
a holy and not a baleful fire, a lofty and sacred indignation, and not a miserable,
petty self-protrusion and self-excuse. ehemiah was very angry, but he still had
himself to consult. A great man falls back upon himself—"a good man shall be
satisfied from himself." ever give yourself away— always carry about with you,
however hot the indignation that may inflame, an inner sanctuary into which you
can retire to study that which is right and to do justly, although there be a great
provocation to vindictiveness and even to finality of punishment.
What a speech the grand man made! "I rebuked the nobles and the rulers." Was he
a noble? was he a ruler? Even though he was neither one nor the other, yet he was a
noble and a ruler by the right of being right, and when a child is right he can make

Nehemiah 5 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Nehemiah 5 commentary

Similar to Nehemiah 5 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Nehemiah 5 commentary