Chapter 10

1 Shechaniah encourageth Ezra to reform the strange marriages. 6 Ezra mourning assembleth the people. 9 The people, at the exhortation of Ezra, repent, and promise amendment. 15 The care to perform it. 18 The names of them which had married strange wives.

1. When Ezra. For the remainder of the narrative Ezra retires to the background, and speaks of himself in the third person. On the change of persons in pronouns, see on ch. 7:28.

A very great congregation. Many people had come to the Temple to attend the daily evening sacrifice. Seeing Ezra, the recently appointed leader, in the greatest imaginable distress, confessing the sins of the people, these men and women were naturally deeply affected. Ezra’s sincerity made such a strong impression on them that they all wept. At first Ezra had knelt in prayer with his hands uplifted (ch. 9:5), but soon, sensing more and more the heinousness of the people’s transgression, he threw himself upon the ground in an attitude of extreme humiliation. Emotional acts such as this could not fail to impress an Oriental congregation in the strongest way possible.

2. Shechaniah. Probably an influential man, for he appears here as spokesman for the people. Although his name does not appear among those who had foreign wives, and he must therefore be considered as having been free from this sin, he was deeply distressed by the fact that his father belonged to the transgressors, for it seems probable that his father, Jehiel, is the same person mentioned in v. 26 as among those who had married idolatrous wives. Both are of the family of Elam. Shechaniah may have long felt the evil influence of his father’s foreign (second) wife, and hence could honestly agree with all the words of Ezra. He seems to have been glad that the problem had come to Ezra’s attention, who was as much concerned about the situation as he had been.

There is hope. The penitence of the people, evidenced by their sore weeping, gave hope that they might be led to amend their ways and return to God.

3. To put away all the wives. Shechaniah came forward with concrete suggestions, which implies that this situation must have weighed heavily on his heart for some time. Ezra had not yet given advice in the matter. Shechaniah apparently considered marriages contracted contrary to the law not merely wrongful but actually invalid. The law of Moses permitted divorce for various reasons (see Deut. 24:1–4; Matt. 19:3).

Such as are born of them. Young children especially require a mother’s care, and it would have been extremely cruel to suggest a separation. Furthermore, hereditary tendencies were likely to perpetuate the spirit of apostasy. Older children might be already tainted with idolatry. It seemed best, at least to Shechaniah, to dismiss the children with the mothers.

According to the law. This suggestion may mean either: (1) let the law, which forbids these marriages, in this way be satisfied, or (2) let divorce take place as prescribed by the law (see Deut. 24:1).

4. This matter belongeth unto thee. Or, “it is your task” (RSV). Since Ezra’s commission included the responsibility of executing judgment on those who would not obey the law of God (ch. 7:26), Ezra was morally obligated to take action. Shechaniah’s assurance, “we are with you” (RSV), must have greatly encouraged Ezra, who realized that any action he might take in this matter would make him most unpopular with a considerable number of guilty men.

5. Then arose Ezra. Without hesitation he acted at once, binding the religious leaders by an oath to carry out the suggestion of Shechaniah, with which Ezra was in complete agreement. To confirm such an important decision with an oath was in harmony with OT usage (see Joshua 2:12; Deut. 6:13; etc.).

6. The chamber of Johanan. As to the Temple chambers, see on ch. 8:29. On Johanan, see Additional Note on ch. 7. This Johanan seems to have been the grandson of Eliashib (Neh. 12:22, 23), high priest in Nehemiah’s time (Neh. 13:4, 5). The Elephantine papyri attest that Johanan was high priest in 410 b.c. he already had a “chamber” in the Temple, and must therefore have been more than 20 years old at the time (see on Ezra 3:8). The objection of some commentators to identifying Johanan of this text with the one mentioned by Nehemiah and in the Elephantine papyri is not well founded.

He did eat no bread. Strict fasts of this kind were twice observed by Moses (Ex. 34:28; Deut. 9:18), and similarly by the inhabitants of Nineveh (Jonah 3:7), but they were not common. It was usually considered sufficient to abstain from eating (1 Sam. 1:7; 2 Sam. 3:35). Sometimes the person who fasted merely abstained from “pleasant bread,” “flesh,” and “wine” (Dan. 10:3). Ezra’s great earnestness appears in the severity of his fast. Ezra’s mourning in the office of Johanan, following the response of the people, clearly reveals that his previous emotional acts were the spontaneous expression of genuine horror, and not a well-planned theatrical performance, as some commentators have suggested.

7. All the children of the captivity. A favorite expression with Ezra (see chs. 2:1; 4:1; 6:16, 19; 8:35; etc.), including all, from both Judah and Israel, who had returned from the captivity.

8. Within three days. The limits of Judea at this time appear to have been Bethel in the north, Beth-Pelet and Beer-sheba in the south, Jericho in the east, and Ono in the west. As the frontier was nowhere much more than 50 mi. (80 km.) from Jerusalem, three days from the day that they heard the proclamation would allow sufficient time for all able-bodied men to reach the capital.

Forfeited. Literally, “devoted.” This forfeiture of property does not mean its destruction, as prescribed in Deut. 13:13–17 in the case of a city fallen into idolatry, but its appropriation to the sacred use of the Temple (see Lev. 27:28; see on Joshua 6:17).

9. The twentieth day. In 457 b.c., Kislev 20 was probably Dec. 7 (see p. 108).

Street. Literally, “wide space.” This was probably the outer court of the large Temple compound. Great numbers of people could easily be accommodated there. The present Haram eshРSherйЖf in Jerusalem, which corresponds roughly to the ancient Temple site, with all its auxiliary buildings, covers approximately 170,000 sq. yds. (142,137 sq. m.), and in its spacious, open courts many thousands of people can be accommodated. The situation with the Temple was probably similar.

Trembling. The seriousness of the reason for which the people had been summoned must have been evident to all from the heavy penalties with which they were threatened in case they failed to attend.

The great rain. The ninth month, beginning in our November or December, brings heavy rains to Palestine. The winter rains start toward the end of October or the beginning of November, with light showers, but by early December heavy rain is falling. The incidental mention of “the great rain” is one of those seemingly unimportant touches that mark the writer as an eyewitness and the story as authentic.

10. Ezra the priest stood up. Thus far Ezra seemed to let the civil authorities take the leading part in the matter. Now he came forward boldly, denouncing the sin committed, and, as supreme leader, commanded the repudiation of the strange wives.

13. We are many that have transgressed. The marginal rendering of the KJV, followed also in the RSV, “we have greatly offended,” is a more exact rendering of the original text. Without doubt, however, the greatness of the offense consisted partly in the large number who had transgressed.

14. Let now our rulers. Since there were so many cases that would have to be investigated and settled, the suggestion was made that the administrative officers and judicial authorities should be authorized to deal with this matter, and that all those who had transgressed would be required to appear before them.

Until the fierce wrath. This clause and the remainder of the verse is grammatically somewhat obscure, but the rendering of the KJV and the RSV is probably correct.

15. Employed about this matter. Literally, “stood up against this matter,” meaning that they opposed it. The same words are used in this same sense in 1 Chron. 21:1; Dan. 8:25; 11:14.

The reason for the opposition of Jonathan, Jahaziah, and their supporters, is not stated. None of the four men is mentioned in the list of the transgressors, and no one could accuse them of seeking to protect themselves. The Levite Meshullam of v. 15 cannot be identified with the Meshullam of v. 29, who did not belong to the Levites, because the Levitic transgressors are mentioned in vs. 23, 24. These four men were either strongheaded fanatics, who opposed any delay and wanted the matter settled then and there, or they had been bribed to act on behalf of some transgressors who did not dare to voice their opposition publicly. Whatever their reasons, these men did not succeed. The narrative makes clear that the measures Ezra proposed were carried out.

16. Ezra … were separated. The KJV faithfully renders the Hebrew text, which gives no indication as to who made the selection. Some commentators and translators alter the text so as to make it read that the commission was appointed by Ezra.

Sat down. The sittings of the commission appointed to decide individual cases began their work on Tebet 1, which was Dec. 18, 457 b.c., ten days after the mass meeting in Jerusalem had decided to refer the matter of the heathen wives to a panel of appointed leaders.

17. Made an end. The work of the commission closed the first day of the first month, Nisan 1 of 456 b.c., which was April 15. Thus the sessions of the special court continued almost four months, because in the spring of 456 b.c. a second Adar was probably inserted before Nisan (see p. 108; also Vol. II, pp. 103, 116).

18. The sons of the priests. Aware of the danger that the nation might relapse into the sin he was seeking to root out, Ezra punished the wrongdoers by placing their names on record, that others might take warning. First place in his catalogue of offenders he assigns to the priests, for their responsibility was greatest. As the special custodians of the law, they were obligated to adhere most strictly to its precepts. Next to the priests he lists the Levites, on the same principle. He then concludes with the laymen, arranged under their several families. The list of laymen suggests that only 9 of the 33 families mentioned in Zerubbabel’s list were involved. There is one additional family that does not appear in Zerubbabel’s list. Three of the four priestly families, on the other hand, and even near relatives of the high priest, were among the guilty.

The sons of Jeshua. First among the priests stand four names of sons and other relatives of the high priest Jeshua, who had returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel. As in many other places in the Bible, “son” here stands for “grandson,” or even “greatgrandson” (see on ch. 7:1).

19. Gave their hands. Or, “pledged themselves” (RSV). The procedures followed with regard to the divorce of Jeshua’s relatives from their foreign wives are described here. First, they bound themselves by shaking hands—probably with the members of the commission—to put away their wives and to separate them from the congregation of Israel. Then they offered a ram as a trespass offering, according to the law (Lev. 5:14–16; cf. on Lev. 4:2). Throughout the remainder of the list only the names of the individuals and the families to which they belonged are given, without a repetition of the divorce procedure. It is evident from the context, however, that they were required to follow the same procedure.

20. The sons of Immer. On the priestly families, see ch. 2:36–39. Including those of the high-priestly family (v. 18), altogether 17 priests are mentioned as guilty. A comparison of these names with those given in ch. 2 reveals the fact that not one of the legitimate orders of priests who returned with Zerubbabel was free from guilt in this matter. Some of the names given in vs. 20–22 reappear in the lists of Neh. 8:4 and Neh. 10:2–9, and may indicate the same individuals.

23. The Levites. Of the Levites, only six names are given, and that without stating the houses to which they belonged. Kelaiah, better known as Kelita, appears under this latter name in Neh. 8:7 and Neh. 10:10. Jozabad appears again in Neh. 8:7.

24. The singers. The names of one singer and three porters are given.

25. Of Israel. That is, of the laity, of which 86 names in all are listed. Of the ten families represented, nine are mentioned in the list of Zerubbabel. Since two families of Bani are given (vs. 29 and 34), and but one in Zerubbabel’s list, the second family of the two must have returned at a later time.

26. Jehiel. Probably the father of the Shechaniah who counseled Ezra (see vs. 24).

44. All these. In Hebrew the entire verse is somewhat obscure. The most literal rendering would be the following, in which only two small grammatical adjustments are made in the Hebrew text: “All these had taken strange women, and there were some among the women who had given birth to sons.” Most modern scholars would alter the text and read the latter part of the verse thus: “and they sent away from them the women and their sons.” Whatever the original meaning, it seems clear that the author intended to convey the idea that it was more difficult to arrange a divorce where there were children than where there were not. All cases were dealt with in the same way.

The list given in vs. 18–43 shows that 113 men were guilty of marrying heathen wives. It would be interesting to know the size of the population of Judea in Ezra’s time, in order to secure a right picture of the extent of this evil in Judea. Since such figures are not available, a comparison can be made only with the people who had come to Judea with Zerubbabel about 80 years earlier.

Number of men returning with Zerubbabel

Number of men with strange wives

Percentage

Priests

4,289

17

0.4

Levites

74

6

8.1

Singers

128

1

0.8

Porters

139

3

2.2

Laity

24,144

86

0.4

———

——

——

Total

28,774

113

0.3

Since so few Levites had returned in Zerubbabel’s time, the percentage of transgressors in this group seems high in comparison with the other groups listed. It is apparent that in all groups an average of at least 3 men in every 1,000 had married foreign women. The small percentage may explain, in part, why Ezra experienced little or no opposition to the reform measures he proposed to carry out.

Although the number of transgressors was relatively small, the tendency was dangerous, and Ezra, like other serious-minded leaders, was determined to keep the nation free from pagan influence. Parallels to Ezra’s reform occurred among other ancient nations, though usually with the purpose of keeping the race pure. In Rome patricians were prohibited from marrying plebeians before 445 b.c. (some say 437). In 451/50 b.c. Pericles enforced a law in Athens, according to which only those whose parents were full-blooded Athenians could remain Athenian citizens. Almost 5,000 persons were sold into slavery because they were so unfortunate as not to be of pure Athenian stock.

Ezra knew that the great disaster of 586 b.c., when Jerusalem was destroyed and the nation ceased to exist, had resulted from idolatry. A recurrence of those conditions must now be avoided by all means. The evil, still of small proportions when he reached Jerusalem, would, if unchecked, be out of hand in a short time. Therefore it had to be eradicated irrespective of individual hardships. The situation was especially dangerous because of the fact that leaders and members of the high-priestly family were among the transgressors. The measures of Ezra now, and of Nehemiah later, were instrumental in leading the Jews to look with abhorrence on mixed marriages, an attitude that has kept the Jewish nation comparatively free of intermarriage to the present day. In contrast, the ancient nations surrounding Judea have been lost through racial admixture and mig

Ellen G. White comments

1–5PK 622

3          PK 623