06/04/2025 – Day 329 – Nehemiah – Chapters 5 – 9 – 2 of 2 / Chapter 5: “Strife Within” commentary
I give you excerpts of “Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther” commentary, by J.G. McConville:
“Ever since the days of Zerubbabel, we have been accustomed to reading of the difficulties put in the way of the returned exiles by those outside the community. We now discover a new threat from within potentially more dangerous than the others, because it strikes at the exiles’ most precio9us asset, their unity.
The events of chapter 5 surprise the reader because the account of them follows directly upon the picture of co-operation presented in chapter 4. Yet we should not be too surprised. It is often the way of Hebrew narrative to use stark contrasts in order to qualify statements. Our author wishes to avoid giving the impression that, in the concerted effort on the walls, everything in the community was sweetness and light. On the contrary, there were deep problems. In determining their character, we need to bear in mind at the outset the factor of time-scale. Nehemiah is here reflecting on his twelve years as governor in Judah (v. 14). It is not quite clear whether the events described here took place during the time of the building, which was, after all, relatively brief (cf 6:15). Verse 16 does not necessarily suggest that they did. Problems like these could, therefore, have been more or less acute at different times during Nehemiah’s tenure in office. Matters may have come to a head during Nehemiah’s tenure in office. Matters may have come to a head in Nehemiah’s great assembly (v. 7),e either during the building , or at the later stage. Nevertheless they were almost certainly present in some degree during the time of the building and that is the author’s justification for placing the account here. A similar use of time-scale occurs in Ezra 4.
That the grievances were in any case no light matter is already hinted at in verse 1. The term ‘great outcry’ suggests a cry from the heart in deep distress. Furthermore, the fact that the women are expressly mentioned only here in Ezra-Nehemiah suggests that they are to the forefront in issuing a protest about conditions. This in itself indicates the life-and-death urgency of the matter. It was the women who had, ultimately, to provide the basic needs of their, perhaps large, families. Their husbands — especially during the time of the wall-building – may have been shielded from the realities at home by their prolonged absence. (We cannot help thinking of the role that men’s wives often play today in lengthy industrial disputes.) Yet it is not the women alone who protest. There real division is between rich and poor.
What has gone wrong, then, in the community so devoted to the ideal of brotherhood? For many in Judah there was no safety margin built into the family budget. Nor was there the security of a welfare state. If the crops were poor in any year. then some would be hungry. In a desperate situation there were measures that could be taken. Property could be mortgaged until better times came along. Property could be mortgaged until better times came along. This could apply in houses and fields, and even to children, whom the rich were always ready to acquire as slaves. The system was not directly opposed by Israelite law. At its best it could help the unfortunate over a bad patch. The laws sought rather to prevent abuse of the system, for which, obviously, there was considerable scope. Thus interest-taking on loans was forbidden (Deuteronomy 23: 19 – 20). After a certain period both loans and slaves were to be remitted (Deuteronomy 15: 1ff.), and generosity was enjoined (Deuteronomy 15:10, 13-14).
On matters like this therefore, Israelite law appealed to the heart. Dry regulations are made to point to their underlying principles: e.g. ‘there will be no poor among you’. (Deuteronomy 15:4). Rights were not to be insisted on to the extent of exploitation or the causing of intolerable poverty (Deuteronomy 24: 1–13). In short, all actions in the area of economic relations were to be governed by love (cf: Leviticus 19:18). The ideal of brotherhood, therefore, was no mere pipe-dream. Rather, it was backed up by a system of laws which, if taken seriously, could create a very different kind of society from any other. All this is hardly less radical than the teaching of Jesus himself on love. Has any other society been based on a system which ran on love? Are our own dealings in business, etc. — where our actions largely affect people we have never met — so motivated?
Sadly the appeal to the human heart often does little more than show up its reluctance to love beyond the family ties. Nehemiah was not the first to be disappointed at this discovery. The prophet Isaiah, three centuries before, had put his finger on the same problem (Isaiah 5:8). When the year of release was ignored, when creditors had no regard for the consequences of their exactions upon the poor, then the poor quickly lost all prospect of a way back. (With their land in pledge thy had no resources available for economic recovery.). Creditors did not even need to exact interest. They could crush the poor without it, thus remaining within the law while pursuing their murderous greed. It is probably that there is in fact no question of interest-taking in this chapter. Nehemiah’s words in verse 7 can as well be taken to mean ‘ Your are imposing to heavy a burden …’ (The same is true in verse 10.)
The time of Nehemiah for all its idealism and new opportunity was not exempt from such abuses. The emergence of a relatively wealthy class is probably connected with that other great abuse already treated in Ezra chapters 9-10. That is to say, some Israelites had not only intermarried, but had done so advantageously. On the principle that ‘money makes money’, even the dissolution of such marriages will not necessarily have deprived them of their initial gains.
…….. (note – picking up below with (ii), bottom of page 101)
The closing verses of the chapter form a sort of appendix to the main action which preceded them. They show other ways in which Nehemiah remained faithful to the idea of Israel which he has been preaching. He tells how, during his term of office, he renounced the governor’s food allowance, which was a tax upon the people (v. 14); how he refused to exploit the people (v. 15), in contrast to his predecessors (referring to governors since Zerubabell, of whom, individually our account tells us nothing); how he acquired no land, probably highly unusual among officials of the time, choosing rather to channel all his energies and all the advantages of his position into achieving the peoples good (v. 16).
It is clear that the honest policy cost Nehemiah dear. Verses 17-18 give a glimpse of the daily demands upon his hospitality, partly occasioned by his diplomatic responsibilities as governor, and partly, it seems, acceded to simply from his generosity. Nehemiah’s motives in acting thus were (a) his fear of God (v. 15), which means simply that he acted out of awareness of what was appropriate for one who worshipped God, and (b) compassion for the people’s suffering (v. 18). His motives in telling us about it may be similar to those of the apostle Paul, who while insisting strongly on his right to share in the material welfare of those among whom he worked (1 Corinthians 9:8ff.), renounced that right lest his motivation come in question (1 Corinthians 9:15).
The closing words in this section (v. 19) reflect this same spirit. As a prayer, it is a claim to innocence now made, not to the reader, but to God himself. It is thus testimony to his utter sincerity. It is possible to maintain a facade of righteousness before men, but not before God. The invocation of Gods favor is not so much a plea for a reward as an emphatic way of claiming that he has acted in good faith and from right motives. It is a statement of confidence that God is judge, and judges favorably this who sincerely seek to do his will. The same judgement will be invoked in similar terms but to different effect in 6:14.”
Soli Deo Gloria!