The Details of The Agreement (Nehemiah 10:29-39).
Throughout the books of Ezra and Nehemiah certain particular contemporary issues stand out. These include the taking of idolatrous foreign wives (Nehemiah 13:23-27; Ezra 9-10), the failure to strictly observe the Sabbath (Nehemiah 13:15-22), and the exaction of debt from the poor (Nehemiah 5:1-13). In the prophecy of Malachi (roughly contemporary) the bringing in of the tithes is also emphasised (Malachi 3:7-12). Added to these was a requirement to maintain the cult (which was also of great concern to the Persian kings who wanted the gods on their side). That is why these were the main things which were dealt with here, although in the context of the whole Law.
‘And they entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's Law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of YHWH our Lord, and his ordinances and his statutes,'
By entering into a solemn agreement with YHWH they knew that they were bringing themselves under the curses of Deuteronomy 27-28, which were a curse on all who did not ‘confirm the words of the Law to do them' (Deuteronomy 27:26). That was the negative side. On the positive side they swore by an oath that they would walk in God's Law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and that they would observe and do all the commandments, ordinances and statutes of YHWH their Lord. These were precisely what their fathers had been guilty of not doing (Nehemiah 9:16; Nehemiah 9:29; Nehemiah 9:34). As what follows makes clear, they saw as central to the statutes and ordinances those which related to the maintenance of their worship. The reading of the Law had seemingly brought home to them how neglectful they had been. We too should remember that whatever we get ‘involved in', the worship of God must always remain central.
For ‘observing and doing' compare Deuteronomy 5:1, which related to the ten commandments, and Deuteronomy 5:32; Deuteronomy 6:3; Deuteronomy 6:24-25; Deuteronomy 8:1, etc. which related to all God's commands. For ‘walking in God's Law' compare Exodus 16:4; and for the equivalent ‘walking in God's ways' see Exodus 16:20; Deuteronomy 5:33; Deuteronomy 8:6; Deuteronomy 10:12; Deuteronomy 11:22; Deuteronomy 19:9; Deuteronomy 26:17; Deuteronomy 28:9; Deuteronomy 30:16; Joshua 22:5; Judges 2:22. Thus they were swearing on oath that they would do away with the sins of the past.
‘And that we would not give our daughters to the peoples of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons,'
This command originally related to the Canaanites and their like in the land. See Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:1-4; Ezra 9:1-2; Ezra 9:12. The stated point was that the Canaanites and their like would drag them down into idolatry. Here it is being more widely applied to all the inhabitants of the land who were not true worshippers of YHWH, and this would include many syncretistic Jews. The ‘peoples of the land' were all those who did not conform to the pure worship of YHWH. And the point was that they too would drag them down into idolatry. It was not a question of race, for men of most races could quickly become Israelites by submitting to YHWH (Exodus 12:48). It was a question of involvement in idolatry and false religious principles.
Compare how the same principle was applied to the people of Benjamin when they sinned grievously (Judges 21:7; Judges 21:18). Apart from the last example, the point in all the above verses was that, being involved in idolatry, the idolatrous wives and husbands would drag their husbands and wives down with them, as Ezra emphasises in Ezra 9:1-2 (and as had happened to Solomon long before). This is a good example of the way in which the Law was being modified to suit the circumstances while still following the principles of the Law. It was no longer restricted to the Canaanites etc. It had been widened to refer to all ‘the peoples of the land' who indulged in syncretism and idolatry.
We should recognise that there was a great temptation to become involved with the peoples of the land, for they were often wealthy and influential. But to become involved with them was to become involved with idolatry. In the same way Christians are warned, ‘Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers' (2 Corinthians 6:14).
‘And if the peoples of the land bring wares or any grain on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy of them on the sabbath, or on a holy day.'
Since Exodus 16 onwards doing any servile work on the Sabbath day had been forbidden (apart from what was essential for the wellbeing of their cattle and herds). It was an essential element in the redemption covenant, i.e. in the ten commandments (Exodus 20:9-11; Deuteronomy 5:12-15), and it was an idea that was constantly repeated (e.g. Leviticus 23:3 and often). It applied equally to certain festal sabbaths (e.g. Leviticus 23:7), and it applied to ‘strangers' in their midst, who were also to benefit by it (Exodus 23:12). Amos 8:5 makes clear that it was seen to include trading on the Sabbath. It was to be a day of rest and delight in the Lord (see Isaiah 58:13-14). But it was so easy to say, ‘we are not working by buying from foreigners, and they are not bound by the Sabbath laws'. This would, however, have been untrue. Lading an ass with purchased goods was undoubtedly ‘work', and servants would regularly be involved in it.
Thus they promised that when the peoples of the land came with their goods to trade on the Sabbath day, they would not trade with them, or buy from them. For to do so would be to take their minds off delighting in the Lord, and would involve some of their number in servile work (loading up and unloading what was bought). It is clear later that this kind of abstinence from work had been neglected in this case, along with other examples such as pressing wine, gathering crops and loading up asses (Nehemiah 13:22). Thus the promise here, in respect of what might have been a doubtful situation to some (was buying work?) was resolved in a way which included observance of the Sabbath in every respect.
‘And that we would forego the seventh year, and the exaction of every debt.'
As we saw in chapter 5 lending on interest and exacting debt had become a real problem among the poorest members of the Jewish community. But there the problem had been resolved by Nehemiah's prompt action. Here then recourse is taken to the old laws on relieving poverty. Crops and fruit would not be gathered in the seventh year, but would be left so that the poor could gather them (Exodus 23:10-11). And all outstanding debt would be cancelled (Deuteronomy 15:1-2). Nor were loans to be made in such a way as to have the year of release in mind (Deuteronomy 15:7-11). They were to be willing to suffer loss because they themselves had been redeemed from bondage. It is clear that these laws had been neglected. Now they were to be reapplied.
‘Also we made ordinances for us, to charge ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel for the service of the house of our God,'
The interesting phrase ‘ we made ordinances' is an acknowledgement of the fact that what they determined on here was an extension of the Law, although based on that Law. This was a man made ordinance (‘WE made'). Yet it followed godly examples. There is nothing in the Law about a yearly Temple Tax. However, there are precedents for the idea, in tithes themselves, and in the half shekel tax payable when there was a census (Exodus 30:11-16; Exodus 38:25-26), which would be used to enhance Tabernacle funds. But there may well have been a yearly census at the great feasts, in the times when those took place. These could be seen as supporting the idea of regular payments to the Temple. But in the end it was an act of benevolence and gratitude on the part of a people, many of whom were poor and would find a third of a shekel a large amount to have to pay. It was a sign of the depth of feeling that this revival had brought about. The cult must be effectively maintained in a way that honoured YHWH at all costs.
Indeed it is an indication of the depths of the poverty of the people as a whole that the tithes would later prove insufficient for what were quite clearly a small number of Levites, leaving them to have to neglect their office and fend for themselves (Nehemiah 13:10). For they were dependent on the tithes. Even though it be granted that the problem there was that the tithes had not been handed over to the level that they should have been, it is difficult to believe that in so short a time after the oath sworn here the whole of Israel/Judah should have ceased to pay any tithes at all, so that in view of the small number of Levites there should still have been sufficient to maintain them, unless dire poverty had also considerably reduced the amount of tithes given. Note in this regard Israel's own view that they were an ‘afflicted' people (Nehemiah 10:32; Nehemiah 1:3), and the fact that even when they genuinely renewed their tithes, they were still not seen as sufficient to meet the needs of the Temple, hence the tax. In theory, given the small number of Levites, the tithes should have been overabundant. But whilst the Persian kings may have been relatively benevolent, their taxes were heavy, and most of the returnees were probably struggling to survive (as chapter 5 has revealed).
In their recent past much of the cost of the cult had often been met by the ‘generosity' of the Persian kings (Ezra 6:9-10; Ezra 7:21-24). But this was spasmodic and not permanent. Thus the people were now providing for the permanent support of the cult.
‘For the showbread, and for the continual meal-offering, and for the continual burnt-offering, for the sabbaths, for the new moons, for the set feasts, and for the holy things, and for the sin-offerings to make atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our God.'
The Law never specifically says how these central offerings for the whole of Israel were to be provided. Possibly it was by means of the census contribution. But the showbread had to be supplied weekly, the daily offerings twice daily, and there were many offerings ‘for all Israel' at the different feasts. To say nothing of the sin offerings which were to make atonement for the whole of Israel. Personal offerings and sacrifices would be the responsibility of the individual, but nothing is said about who would provide the offerings for the whole of Israel. Now they were to be provided for by this ‘Temple tax'.
‘And we cast lots, the priests, the Levites, and the people, for the wood-offering, to bring it into the house of our God, according to our fathers' houses, at times appointed, year by year, to burn on the altar of YHWH our God, as it is written in the Law,'
Another example of something which was for the benefit of all, but the responsibility of none, was the provision of wood to keep the sacrificial fires burning (Leviticus 6:12-13). Now this was to be provided for by those chosen by lot to have the privilege. All were involved. Priests, Levites and people. This was to be a permanent responsibility for those concerned, no doubt arranged by family. Each would in turn bring the wood-offering to keep the sacrificial fires burning, and it was itself seen as an offering. It is probable that we must assume that this had been a real problem in the past, otherwise it would not have required specific legislation.