The Persian title for “governor” (see on Ezra 2:63). Nehemiah, whose influence was no doubt behind the long address of the Levites recorded in the preceding chapter, may have been the spiritual father of the covenant now to be concluded. He set an example by being first to sign the document.

 Probably a high official. However, nothing further is known regarding him. It has been assumed that after the analogy of Ezra 4:9, 17 he was the secretary to the governor.

 The 21 names following those of Nehemiah and his secretary are designated as “priests” (v. 8). Among these, the high priestly house of Seraiah had, appropriately, precedence. Of all the 21 names, 15 occur in ch. 12:2-7 as leading priests who came up with Jeshua and Zerubbabel from Babylon, and in ch. 12:12-21 as heads of priestly houses. Hence it is obvious these 21 men who signed the agreement did so as heads of their respective families and courses (see on Neh. 12; Luke 1:5).

 Jeshua, Binnui, and Kadmiel represent the three chief families of Levites who had returned with Zerubbabel (see Ezra 2:40; 3:9; Neh. 7:43; 9:4, 5; etc.). Here, Binnui seems to have supplanted Kadmiel and to have stepped into the second place. Of the remaining names, those of Hashabiah and Sherebiah represent families that returned with Ezra (Ezra 8:18, 19). The remaining names are probably also those of families.

 From v. 14 to Magpiash in v. 20 the personal names correspond to those of lay families that returned with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:3-30; Neh. 7:8-33); the first 18 are personal names, two of which (v. 17) should be united by a hyphen, since it is clear that they represent the single family “After of Hezekiah,” mentioned in Ezra 2:16 and Neh. 7:21. (“Hizkijah” and “Hezekiah” are identical in the original Hebrew text.) The last three are names of localities: Nebai (v. 19), the same as Nebo (ch. 7:33); Magpiash (v. 20), the same as Magbish (Ezra 2:30); and Anathoth. The others (from Meshullam to Baanah, Neh. 10:20-27) are names either of the heads of the different houses into which these families were divided or of the elders of the smaller towns of Benjamin and Judah. That not all the families listed in Ezra 2 appear in this list may be due to the fact that some may have merged, though there is also evidence that during the course of years fresh accessions to the number of families had occurred.

 The enumeration of classes is the same as in Ezra 2:70. Since no class of people is missing, there was evidently a general, perhaps universal, concurrence on the part of the nation with the provisions of the covenant.

 This class may have descended from those Israelites who had been left in the land at the time of the Captivity, and who now joined the new community (see on Ezra 6:21).

It is interesting to notice that, contrary to Oriental usage, women and mature young people also signed the covenant. All those old enough to understand the nature of the covenant were allowed to participate in the sacred ritual. It is unlikely that only the educated class is meant, as some commentators have suggested.

The common people gave their support to the leaders who had attached their seals to the document, in this way approving and ratifying what they had done.

 It is possible that the curses and blessings of Deut. 27 and 28 had been included in the readings taken from the law. An oath was probably taken of the people each time the covenant between God and His people was confirmed (see Deut. 29:12; 2 Kings 23:3).

 This title belongs to Moses in a unique way. God called him “my servant Moses,” who is “faithful in all mine house” (Num. 12:7), and from that time forward this was his special title (see Joshua 1:2; 8:31, 33; 1 Chron. 6:49; 2 Chron. 24:9; Dan. 9:11; Heb. 3:5).

 Apparently the reform instituted by Ezra (Ezra 9, 10) had not proved lasting (see on Neh. 13:23).

 The prohibition of commerce on the Sabbath, though not specifically mentioned in the fourth commandment, is implicit in it, and is certainly included in regulations pertaining to that day. Amos 8:5 implies this prohibition, as well as Isa. 58:13 and Jer. 17:19-27. The earliest non-Biblical evidence for the observance of the weekly Sabbath among the Jews comes from the 5th century B.C., from Elephantine in Egypt. This mention of the Sabbath is found on ostraca, or potsherds, that is, pieces of broken pottery commonly used as inexpensive writing material.

Rather, “a holy day,” meaning that the people bound themselves to refrain from trading not only on the Sabbath but on any holy day.

 An abbreviated statement of the law concerning the sabbatical year (Ex. 23:10, 11), according to which the land was to lie untilled and unsown during that year. This law had frequently been neglected during the times of the monarchy, and its neglect was one of the sins the Captivity was expressly intended to punish (2 Chron. 36:21). It now appears that after the return this regulation had again been disobeyed.

 For comment, see on ch. 5:12-13.

 It is not stated who were to make this contribution for the upkeep of the Temple service, but it was a well-known custom. This payment was evidently a revival of the Mosaic precept (Ex. 30:13) that every man of 20 years of age and upward should give half a shekel as an offering to the Lord, a tribute still required in Christ’s day (Matt. 17:24). In consideration of the poverty of the greater portion of the community, this tax was now lowered to a third of a shekel for each man. The opinion of Ibn Ezra, the great Jewish commentator of the Middle Ages, that a third of a shekel was to be paid in addition to the half shekel levied in conformity with the law, is unsupported by the text.

 This fund was not for building expenses or for repair work on the Temple, but for maintaining the regular Temple services. According to v. 33 this tax was to be used to supply the shewbread, the continual meat and burnt offerings (Num. 28:3-8), sacrifices for the Sabbath day and the new moon (ch. 28:9-15), and for other festivals (chs. 28:16 to 29:40).

 The “wave offerings” and “peace offerings” (Lev. 23:10, 17, 19) are probably intended, since they were “holy to the Lord for the priest” (Lev. 23:20). Further, this tax covered the sin offerings commanded in Num. 28:15, 22, 30; 29:5, 11, 16, 19;

 etc., and whatever else might be necessary. The establishment of such a tax does not necessarily mean that the contributions promised by Artaxerxes in his edict (Ezra 7:20-22) had ceased, and that the congregation now found it necessary to defray the expenses from their own resources. In addition to the assistance afforded by the king it now found necessary to provide for increased requirements of the Temple.

 The law of Moses merely prescribed that wood should constantly be burning on the altar, and that the priest should lay wood on it every morning (Lev. 6:12, 13). However, no directions were given concerning the procurement of the wood. This covenant made it the business of the congregation to furnish the necessary wood, and the various houses were successively responsible for this need, in the order decided by casting lots. According to Josephus (Wars ii. 17. 6) the wood needed for a year was brought in on a stated day, the 14th day of the 5th month, which was kept as a festival called “the wood carrying.”

 For those of the ground, see Ex. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 26:2; for those of the fruit trees, see Lev. 19:23.

 These were to be redeemed according to the estimation of the priest (Num. 18:16), as were also unclean cattle (Num. 18:15). The firstlings of the herds and of the flocks had to be offered on the altar (Num. 18:17).

 See Num. 15:18-21.

 Literally, “our heave offering” (see Num. 15:20; Lev. 23:11, 17).

 The storerooms attached to the Temple building (see ch. 13:4, 5).

 The tithe seems to have been neglected by many, with the result that the priests and Levites could not attend to their Temple duties, and were compelled to earn their living otherwise (see ch. 13:10). The people now solemnly promised to resume the practice. Malachi, who also prophesied about this time, discusses the same problem and reminds the people of the disadvantages of withholding the tithe and the blessings that accompanied faithfulness (Mal. 3:8-12). On the law of tithe paying under an agricultural economy, see Lev. 27:30.

It seems that the agricultural tithes were not brought to Jerusalem, but stored up in centers where they were produced until claimed by the Levites. It is not clear whether storehouses were provided in these cities for this purpose or whether Levitical cities are meant.

Literally, “work.”

 A priest was to be present when the Levites took the tithe, not so much as a guarantee that they would receive their share, as some commentators have thought, but to secure the priests’ share, the tithe of the Levites’ tithe (Num. 18:26). According to this verse, the tithe was to be conveyed to Jerusalem at the expense of the recipients, and it was only fair for the priest to share in the work of transporting it there. This regulation must also have been designed as a guarantee of the proper handling of sacred funds. The presence of representatives of the two ecclesiastical orders at the time the tithe was received and divided would tend to avoid mismanagement of these funds.