¹ tn Heb “with much weeping.”

¹ tc The translation reads with the Qere, many medieval Hebrew MSS, the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and Vulgate עֵילָם (’elam, “Elam”) rather than the reading עוֹלָם (’olam, “eternity”) found in the MT.

² tn Heb “in that we have given a dwelling to.” So also in vv. 14, 17, 18.

³ tn Heb “the peoples of the lands.”

⁴ tn Heb “upon this.”

¹ tn Heb “cut.”

² tn The MT vocalizes this word as a plural, which could be understood as a reference to God. But the context seems to suggest that a human lord is intended. The apparatus of BHS suggests repointing the word as a singular (“my lord”), but this is unnecessary. The plural (“my lords”) can be understood in an honorific sense even when a human being is in view. Most English versions regard this as a reference to Ezra, so the present translation supplies “your” before “counsel” to make this clear.

³ tn Heb “who tremble at”; NAB, NIV “who fear.”

¹ tn Heb “to do according to this plan.”

¹ tc The translation reads וַיָּלֶן (vayyalen, “and he stayed”) rather than the reading וַיֵּלֶךְ (vayyelekh, “and he went”) of the MT. Cf. the LXX.

¹ tn Heb “voice.”

² tn Heb “they sent.”

³ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

¹ tn Heb “the peoples of the land.”

¹ tn Heb “thus according to your word [singular = Qere] concerning us, to do.”

¹ tn Heb “the time [is] rain showers.”

¹ tn Heb “stand.”

¹ tn Heb “stood.”

¹ tc The translation reads the Hiphil singular וַיַּבְדֵּל לוֹ (vayyavdel lo, “separated for himself”) rather than the Niphal plural וַיִּבָּדְלוּ (vayyibbadÿlu, “were separated”) of the MT.

² tn Heb “the heads of the fathers, to the house of their fathers, and all of them by name.”

¹ tn Heb “found.”

¹ tn Heb “hand.”

Now when Ezra had prayed, and when he had ^{( a )} confessed, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, there assembled unto him out of Israel a very great congregation of men and women and children: for the people wept very sore.

^{( a )} He confessed his sins, and the sins of the people.

And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, [one] of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is ^{( b )} hope in Israel concerning this thing.

^{( b )} Meaning, that God would receive them in mercy.

Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away ^{( c )} all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.

^{( c )} Who are strangers and married contrary to the law of God.

Arise; for [this] matter ^{( d )} [belongeth] unto thee: we also [will be] with thee: be of good courage, and do [it].

^{( d )} Because God has given you authority and learning to persuade the people in this and to command them.

Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered themselves together unto Jerusalem within three days. It [was] the ^{( e )} ninth month, on the twentieth [day] of the month; and all the people sat in the street of the house of God, trembling because of [this] matter, and for the great ^{( f )} rain.

^{( e )} Which contained part of November and part of December.

^{( f )} For the season was given to rain and so the weather was more sharp and cold and also their conscience touched them.

And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to ^{( g )} increase the trespass of Israel.

^{( g )} You have laid one sin on another.

Now therefore ^{( h )} make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.

^{( h )} Read (Jos 7:19).

Let now our rulers of all the congregation stand, ^{( i )} and let all them which have taken strange wives in our cities come at appointed times, and with them the elders of every city, and the judges thereof, until the fierce wrath of our God for this matter be turned from us.

^{( i )} Let them be appointed to examine this matter.

And the children of the captivity did so. And Ezra the priest, [with] certain chief of the fathers, after the house of their fathers, and all of them by [their] names, ^{( k )} were separated, and sat down in the first day of the tenth month to examine the matter.

^{( k )} They went to the chief cities to sit on this matter which took three months to finish.

And they gave ^{( l )} their hands that they would put away their wives; and [being] guilty, [they offered] a ram of the flock for their trespass.

^{( l )} As a token that they would keep their promise and do it.

Moreover of ^{( m )} Israel: of the sons of Parosh; Ramiah, and Jeziah, and Malchiah, and Miamin, and Eleazar, and Malchijah, and Benaiah.

^{( m )} Meaning of the common people: for before he spoke of the priests and Levites.

1 Ezra encouraged to reform the strange marriages.

6 Ezra assembles the people.

9 The people repent, and promise amendment.

15 The care to perform it.

18 The names of them which had married strange wives.

Shechaniah owned the national guilt. The case is sad, but it is not desperate; the disease threatening, but not incurable. Now that the people begin to lament, a spirit of repentance seems to be poured out; now there is hope that God will forgive, and have mercy. The sin that rightly troubles us, shall not ruin us. In melancholy times we must observe what makes for us, as well as against us. And there may be good hopes through grace, even where there is the sense of great guilt before God. The case is plain; what has been done amiss, must be undone again as far as possible; nothing less than this is true repentance. Sin must be put away, with a resolution never to have any thing more to do with it. What has been unjustly got, must be restored. Arise, be of good courage. Weeping, in this case, is good, but reforming is better. As to being unequally yoked with unbelievers, such marriages, it is certain, are sinful, and ought not to be made; but now they are not null, as they were before the gospel did away the separation between Jews and Gentiles.

There is hope concerning people, when they are convinced, not only that it is good to part with their sins, but that it is necessary; we must do it, or we are undone. So rich is the mercy, and so plenteous the redemption of God, that there is hope for the vilest who hear the gospel, and are willing to accept of free salvation. When sinners mourn for their sins, and tremble at the word of God, there is hope that they will forsake them. To affect others with godly sorrow or love to God, we must ourselves be affected. It was carefully agreed how this affair should be carried on. That which is hastily resolved on seldom proves lasting.

The best reformers can but do their endeavour; when the Redeemer himself shall come to Zion, he shall effectually turn away ungodliness from Jacob. And when sin is repented of and forsaken, God will forgive it; but the blood of Christ, our Sin-offering, is the only atonement which takes away our guilt. No seeming repentance or amendment will benefit those who reject Him, for self-dependence proves them still unhumbled. All the names written in the book of life, are those of penitent sinners, not of self-righteous persons, who think they have no need of repentance.

We are here told,

I. What good impressions were made upon the people by Ezra's humiliation and confession of sin. No sooner was it noised in the city that their new governor, in whom they rejoiced, was himself in grief, and to so great a degree, for them and their sin, than presently there assembled to him a very great congregation, to see what the matter was and to mingle their tears with his, Ezr 10:1. Our weeping for other people's sins may perhaps set those a weeping for them themselves who otherwise would continue senseless and remorseless. See what a happy influence the good examples of great ones may have upon their inferiors. When Ezra, a scribe, a scholar, a man in authority under the king, so deeply lamented the public corruptions, they concluded that they were indeed very grievous, else he would not thus have grieved for them; and this drew tears from every eye: men, women, and children, wept very sore, when he wept thus.

II. What a good motion Shechaniah made upon this occasion. The place was Bochim - a place of weepers; but, for aught that appears, there was a profound silence among them, as among Job's friends, who spoke not a word to him, because they saw that his grief was very great, till Shechaniah (one of Ezra's companions from Babylon, Ezr 8:3, Ezr 8:5) stood up, and made a speech addressed to Ezra, in which,

1. He owns the national guilt, sums up all Ezra's confession in one word, and sets to his seal that it is true: " We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives, Ezr 10:2. The matter is too plain to be denied and too bad to be excused."It does not appear that Shechaniah was himself culpable in this matter (if he had had the beam in his own eye, he could not have seen so clearly to pluck it out of his brother's eye), but his father was guilty, and several of his father's house (as appears Ezr 10:26), and therefore he reckons himself among the trespassers; nor does he seek to excuse or palliate the sin, though some of his own relations were guilty of it, but, in the cause of God, says to his father, I have not known him, as Levi, Deu 33:9. Perhaps the strange wife that his father had married had been an unjust unkind step-mother to him, and had made mischief in the family, and he supposed that others had done the like, which made him the more forward to appear against this corruption; if so, this was not the only time that private resentments have been over ruled by the providence of God to serve the public good.

2. He encourages himself and others to hope that though the matter was bad it might be amended: Yet now there is hope in Israel (where else should there be hope but in Israel? those that are strangers to that commonwealth are said to have no hope, Eph 2:12) even concerning this thing. The case is sad, but it is not desperate; the disease is threatening, but not incurable. There is hope that the people may be reformed, the guilty reclaimed, a stop put to the spreading of the contagion; and so the judgments which the sin deserves may be prevented and all will be well. Now there is hope; now that the disease is discovered it is half-cured. Now that the alarm is taken the people begin to be sensible of the mischief, and to lament it, a spirit of repentance seems to be poured out upon them, and they are all thus humbling themselves before God for it, now there is hope that God will forgive, and have mercy. The valley of Achor (that is, of trouble ) is the door of hope (Hos 2:15); for the sin that truly troubles us shall not ruin us. There is hope now that Israel has such a prudent, pious, zealous governor as Ezra to manage this affair. Note, (1.) In melancholy times we must see and observe what makes for us, as well as what makes against us. (2.) There may be good hopes through grace, even when there is the sense of great guilt before God. (3.) Where sin is seen and lamented, and good steps are taken towards a reformation, even sinners ought to be encouraged. (4.) Even great saints must thankfully receive seasonable counsel and comfort from those that are much their inferiors, as Ezra from Shechaniah.

3. He advises that a speedy and effectual course should be taken for the divorcing of the strange wives. The case is plain; what has been done amiss must be undone again as far as possible; nothing less than this is true repentance. Let us put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, Ezr 10:3. Ezra, though he knew this was the only way of redressing the grievance, yet perhaps did not think it feasible, and despaired of ever bringing the people to it, which put him into that confusion in which we left him in the foregoing chapter; but Shechaniah, who conversed more with the people than he did, assured him the thing was practicable if they went wisely to work. As to us now, it is certain that sin must be put away, a bill of divorce must be given it, with a resolution never to have any thing more to do with it, though it be dear as the wife of thy bosom, nay, as a right eye or a right hand, otherwise there is no pardon, no peace. What has been unjustly got cannot be justly kept, but must be restored; but, as to the case of being unequally yoked with unbelievers, Shechaniah's counsel, which he was then so clear in, will not hold now; such marriages, it is certain, are sinful, and ought not to be made, but they are not null. Quod fieri non debuit, factum valet - That which ought not to have been done must, when done, abide. Our rule, under the gospel, is, If a brother has a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away, 1Co 7:12, 1Co 7:13.

4. He puts them in a good method for the effecting of this reformation, and shows them not only that it must be done, but how. (1.) "Let Ezra, and all those that are present in this assembly, agree in a resolution that this must be done (pass a vote immediately to this effect: it will now pass nemine contradicente - unanimously ), that it may be said to be done according to the counsel of my lord, the president of the assembly, with the unanimous concurrence of those that tremble at the commandment of our God, which is the description of those that were gathered to him, Ezr 9:4. Declare it to be the sense of all the sober serious people among us, which cannot but have a great sway among Israelites."(2.) "Let the command of God in this matter, which Ezra recited in his prayer, be laid before the people, and let them see that it is done according to the law; we have that to warrant us, nay, that binds us to what we do; it is not an addition of our own to the divine law, but the necessary execution of it."(3.) "While we are in a good mind, let us bind ourselves by a solemn vow and covenant that we will do it, lest, when the present impressions are worn off, the thing be left undone. Let us covenant, not only that, if we have strange wives ourselves, we will put them away, but that, if we have not, we will do what we can in our places to oblige others to put away theirs."(4.) "Let Ezra himself preside in this matter, who is authorized by the king's commission to enquire whether the law of God be duly observed in Judah and Jerusalem (Ezr 7:14), and let us all resolve to stand by him in it (Ezr 10:4): Arise, be of good courage. Weeping, in this case, is good, but reforming is better."See what God said to Joshua in a like case, Jos 7:10, Jos 7:11.

III. What a good resolution they came to upon this good motion, Ezr 10:5. They not only agreed that it should be done, but bound themselves with an oath that they would do according to this word. Fast bind, fast find.

We have here an account of the proceedings upon the resolutions lately taken up concerning the strange wives; no time was lost; they struck when the iron was hot, and soon set the wheels of reformation a-going. 1. Ezra went to the council-chamber where, it is probable, the priests used to meet upon public business; and till he came thither (so bishop Patrick thinks it should be read), till he saw something done, and more likely to be done, for the redress of this grievance, he did neither eat nor drink, but continued mourning. Sorrow for sin should be abiding sorrow; be sure to let it continue till the sin be put away. 2. He sent orders to all the children of the captivity to attend him at Jerusalem within three days (Ezr 10:7, Ezr 10:8); and, being authorized by the king to enforce his orders with penalties annexed (Ezr 7:26), he threatened that whosoever refused to obey the summons should forfeit his estate and be outlawed. The doom of him that would not attend on this religious occasion should be that his substance should, in his stead, be for ever after appropriated to the service of their religion, and he himself, for his contempt, should for ever after be excluded from the honours and privileges of their religion; he should be excommunicated. 3. Within the time limited the generality of the people met at Jerusalem and made their appearance in the street of the house of God, Ezr 10:9. Those that had no zeal for the work they were called to, nay, perhaps had a dislike to it, being themselves delinquents, yet paid such a deference to Ezra's authority, and were so awed by the penalty, that they durst not stay away. 4. God gave them a token of his displeasure in the great rain that happened at that time (Ezr 10:9 and again Ezr 10:13), which perhaps kept some away, and was very grievous to those that met in the open street. When they wept the heavens wept too, signifying that, though God was angry with them for their sin, yet he was well pleased with their repentance, and (as it is said, Jdg 10:16) his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel; it was also an indication of the good fruits of their repentance, for the rain makes the earth fruitful. 5. Ezra gave the charge at this great assize. He told them upon what account he called them together now, that it was because he found that since their return out of captivity they had increased the trespass of Israel by marrying strange wives, had added to their former sins this new transgression, which would certainly be a means of again introducing idolatry, the very sin they had smarted for and which he hoped they had been cured of in their captivity; and he called them together that they might confess their sin to God, and, having done that, might declare themselves ready and willing to do his pleasure, as it should be made known to them (which all those will do that truly repent of what they have done to incur his displeasure), and particularly that they might separate themselves from all idolaters, especially idolatrous wives, Ezr 10:10, Ezr 10:11. On these heads, we may suppose, he enlarged, and probably made such another confession of the sin now as he made Ezr 9:1-15, to which he required them to say Amen. 6. The people submitted not only to Ezra's jurisdiction in general, but to his inquisition and determination in this matter: " As thou hast said, so must we do, Ezr 10:12. We have sinned in mingling with the heathen, and have thereby been in danger, not only of being corrupted by them, for we are frail, but of being lost among them, for we are few; we are therefore convinced that there is an absolute necessity of our separating from them again."There is hope concerning people when they are convinced, not only that it is good to part with their sins, but that it is indispensably necessary: we must do it, or we are undone. 7. It was agreed that this affair should be carried on, not in a popular assembly, nor that they should think to go through with it all on a sudden, but that a court of delegates should be appointed to receive complaints and to hear and determine upon them. It could not be done at this time, for it was not put into a method, nor could the people stand out because of the rain. The delinquents were many, and it would require time to discover and examine them. Nice cases would arise, which could not be adjudged without debate and deliberation, Ezr 10:13. "And therefore let the crowd be dismissed, and the rulers stand to receive informations; let them proceed city by city, and let the offenders be convicted before them in the presence of the judges and elders of their own city; and let them be entrusted to see the orders executed. Thus take time and we shall have done the sooner; whereas, if we do it in a hurry, we shall do it by halves, Ezr 10:14. If, in this method, a thorough reformation be made, the fierce wrath of God will be turned from us, which, we are sensible, is ready to break forth against us for this transgression."Ezra was willing that his zeal should be guided by the people's prudence, and put the matter into this method; he was not ashamed to own that the advice came from them, any more than he was to comply with it.

The method of proceeding in this matter being concluded on, and the congregation dismissed, that each in his respective place might gain and give intelligence to facilitate the matter, we are here told, 1. Who were the persons that undertook to manage the matter and bring the causes regularly before the commissioners - Jonathan and Jahaziah, two active men, whether of the priests or of the people does not appear; probably they were the men that made that proposal (Ezr 10:13, Ezr 10:14) and were therefore the fittest to see it pursued; two honest Levites were joined with them, and helped them, Ezr 10:15. Dr. Lightfoot gives a contrary sense of this: only (or nevertheless ) Jonathan and Jahaziah stood against this matter (which reading the original will very well bear), and these two Levites helped them in opposing it, either the thing itself or this method of proceeding. It was strange if a work of this kind was carried on and met with no opposition. 2. Who were the commissioners that sat upon this matter. Ezra was president, and with him certain chief men of the fathers who were qualified with wisdom and zeal above others for this service, Ezr 10:16. It was happy for them that they had such a man as Ezra to head them; they could not have done it well without his direction, yet he would not do it without their concurrence. 3. How long they were about it. They began the first day of the tenth month to examine the matter (Ezr 10:16), which was but ten days after this method was proposed (Ezr 10:9), and they finished in three months, Ezr 10:17. They sat closely and minded their business, otherwise they could not have despatched so many causes as they had before them in so little time; for we may suppose that all who were impeached were fairly asked what cause they could show why they should not be parted, and, if we may judge by other cases, provided the wife were proselyted to the Jewish religion she was not to be put away, the trial of which would require great care. 4. Who the persons were that were found guilty of this crime. Their names are here recorded to their perpetual reproach; many of the priests, nay, of the family of Jeshua, the high priest, were found guilty (Ezr 10:18), though the law had particularly provided, for the preserving of their honour in their marriages, that being holy themselves they should not marry such as were profane, Lev 21:7. Those that should have taught others the law broke it themselves and by their example emboldened others to do likewise. But, having lost their innocency in this matter, they did well to recant and give an example of repentance; for they promised under their hand to put away their strange wives (some think that they made oath to do so with their hands lifted up ), and they took the appointed way of obtaining pardon, bringing the ram which was appointed by the law for a trespass offering (Lev 6:6), so owning their guilt and the desert of it, and humbly suing for forgiveness. About 113 in all are here named who had married strange wives, and some of them, it is said (Ezr 10:44), had children by them, which implies that not many of them had, God not crowning those marriages with the blessing of increase. Whether the children were turned off with the mothers, as Shechaniah proposed, does not appear; it should seem not: however it is probable that the wives which were put away were well provided for, according to their rank. One would think this grievance was now thoroughly redressed, yet we meet with it again (Neh 13:23 and Mal 2:11), for such corruptions are easily and insensibly brought in, but not without great difficulty purged out again. The best reformers can but do their endeavour, but, when the Redeemer himself shall come to Sion, he shall effectually turn away ungodliness from Jacob.

The separation of the strange wives from the congregation. - Ezr 10:1-5. WhileEzra was making this confession before God, a numerous assemblagegathered around him, and wept aloud. From this point onwards Ezrarelates the further course of events in such wise as to cast his own personin the background, and speaks of himself in the third person. The matter ofhis prayer is more definitely declared by וּכהתודּתו , and hisposture in prayer by וּמתנפּל בּכה , weeping andcasting himself down (lying on his knees, Ezr 9:5). "Before the house ofGod,"i.e., in the court of the temple. The confirmatory clause: for thepeople wept much ( בכה הרבּה , a weeping in mass),furnishes the motive of so great a number of men, women, and childrengathering around Ezra. Very many were as distressed as he was at themarriages with strange wives, and regarded them as a grievous trespass;hence they assembled weeping around him.

Then one of the sons of Elam, Shecaniah, the son of Jehiel, stood forthfrom amidst the assembly, and uttered the confession: "We have beenunfaithful towards our God by marrying strange wives, but there is yethope for Israel concerning this thing. We will now make a covenant withGod to put away all the strange wives and their children from thecongregation, according to the counsel of the Lord, and of those who fearthe commandment of our God, that it may be done according to the law."Shecaniah, of the sons of Elam (comp. Ezr 2:7; Ezr 8:7), is a different personfrom the descendant of Zattu, mentioned Ezr 8:5; nor is Jehiel identicalwith the individual whose name occurs in Ezr 10:26. ונּשׁב , andhave brought home strange wives. הושׁיב , to cause to dwell (in one'shouse), said in Ezr 10:10, Ezr 10:14, Ezr 10:17, Ezr 10:18, and Neh 13:23, Neh 13:27, of bringing a wifehome. Shecaniah founds his hope for Israel in this trespass upon thecircumstance, that they bind themselves by a solemn covenant before Godto put away this scandal from the congregation, and to act in conformitywith the law. To make a covenant with our God, i.e., to bind themselves by an oath withrespect to God, comp. 2Ch 29:10. הוציא , to put away - theopposite of הושׁיב . All the wives are, according to the context, all thestrange women (Ezr 10:2), and that which is born of them, their children. Instead of אדני בּעצת , according to the counsel of theLord, De Wette, Bertheau, and others, following the paraphrase in thelxx and 1 Esdras, read אדני , according to the counsel of mylord, i.e., of Ezra. But this paraphrase being of no critical authority, thereis no sufficient reason for the alteration. For Shecaniah to call Ezra my lordsounds strange, since usually this title was only given by servants to theirmaster, or subjects to their sovereign, and Shecaniah afterwards addresseshim simply as thou . Besides, Ezra had given no advice at all in this matter,and still less had he come to any resolution about it with the God-fearingmembers of the community. יעשׂה after the preceding נכרת־בּרית , we will make a covenant, must be taken as hortative: and let it bedone according to the law. בּ חרד , caring for with trembling.

"Up! for this matter concerns thee (thou art called to carry it out), and weare with thee (will assist thee therein); be strong (courageous) and do it."

Then Ezra (who during this speech had continued upon his knees) arose,and made the chiefs of the priests, of the Levites, and of all Israel swear todo according to this word; and they swore. הזּה הדּבר is Shecaniah's proposal to put away the strange wives.

Hereupon Ezra left the place before the house of God, and went into thechamber of Johanan the son of Eliashib, to fast and mourn there for theunfaithfulness (transgression) of them that had been carried away( הגּולה מעל like Ezr 9:4). Johanan the son of Eliashibcannot actually be Johanan ben Eliashib (Neh 12:23) the high priest,however natural it may be to understand by the chamber of Johanan one ofthe chambers in the out-buildings of the temple, called after the name ofsome well-known individual. For the high priest Eliashib was acontemporary of Nehemiah, and the high priest Johanan was not the son,but, according to the definite statement, Neh 12:10, the grandson, ofEliashib, and the son of Joiada (the correct reading of Neh 12:11 being:Joiada begat Johanan and Jonathan). Now a chamber of the temple couldnot in Ezra's time have been as yet called after a grandson of Eliashib thecontemporary of Nehemiah;

(Note: This would not, indeed, be impossible, because, as we shallsubsequently show (in our Introduction to the book of Nehemiah, §2),Eliashib's grandson Johanan might be already ten years of age at thetime of the transaction in question; so that his grandfather, the highpriest Eliashib, might have called a chamber of the temple after thename of his grandson. This view is not, however, a very probableone.)

and both Johanan and Eliashib being names which frequently occur (comp. Ezr 10:24, Ezr 10:27, Ezr 10:36), and one of the twenty-four orders of priests being calledafter the latter (1Ch 24:12), we, with Ewald ( Gesch . iv. p. 228), regardthe Johanan ben Eliashib here mentioned as an individual of whom nothingfurther is known-perhaps a priest descended from the Eliashib of 1Ch 24:12, and who possessed in the new temple a chamber called by hisname. For there is not the slightest reason to suppose, with Bertheau, that asubsequent name of this chamber is used in this narrative, because thenarrator desired to state the locality in a manner which should beintelligible to his contemporaries. Cler. and Berth. desire, after 1 Esdr. 9:1( καὶ αὐλισθεὶς ἐκεῖ ), to change שׁם ויּלך into שׁם ויּלן : and he passed the night there without eating breador drinking water. But the lxx having καὶ ἐπορεύθη ἐκεῖ , and the repetition of the same word being, moreover, by no meansinfrequent, comp. e.g., ויּקם in Ezr 10:5, Ezr 10:6, and finally שׁם repeatedly standing for thither, e.g., 1Sa 2:14 ( שׁם הבּאים ), there are no adequate grounds for an alteration of the text. Theparaphrase of 1 Esdr. arises merely from the connection, and is devoid ofcritical value. To eat no bread, etc., means to fast: comp. Exo 34:28; Deu 9:9.

The resolution carried into execution. - Ezr 10:7, Ezr 10:8. A proclamation was sentforth throughout Judah and Jerusalem ( קול העביר , comp. Ezr 1:1) to all the children of the captivity to assemble at Jerusalem underpain of the punishment, that whoever should not come within three days,all his substance should be forfeited and himself excluded from thecongregation, according to the decision of the princes and elders, who, asthe heads of the community, had taken the matter in hand, and made thisannouncement. The forfeiture of substance is not its destruction, asprescribed Deu 13:13-17 in the case of a city fallen into idolatry, but itsappropriation to the benefit of the temple, after the analogy of Lev 27:28.

After three days all the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled atJerusalem. This took place on the twentieth day of the ninth month. Onthis statement of time, see the remark in Ezr 9:1. The assembledmultitude sat there on the open space of the house of God, i.e., probablythe open space ( הרחוב ) in front of the water-gate, Neh 8:1, Neh 8:3, Neh 8:16, at the eastern or south-eastern side, before the temple court; seeremarks on Neh 8:1. "Trembling"because of this matter, the seriousness ofwhich they might perceive from the heavy penalty attached to their non-appearance within three days, and "because of the rain."The ninth month,corresponding with our December, is in the cold rainy time of the year(comp. Ezr 10:13), "when the rain usually falls in torrents"(Robinson, Phys. Geog . p. 287).

Ezra then stood up and reproved the assembled multitude, saying: Youhave brought home ( הושׁיב , comp. Ezr 10:2) strange wives to increase thetrespass of Israel (comp. Ezra's confession, Ezr 9:6-15), and exhortedthem to give glory to God and to do His pleasure, (viz.) to separatethemselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives. On תודה תּנוּ , comp. Jos 7:19. Separation from thepeople of the land consisted, under the circumstances, in the dismissal ofthe strange wives.

The whole assembly replied with a loud voice, and therefore with firmresolve: According to thy word it is our duty to do. עלינוּ must not be drawn to what precedes, as in the Vulgate, juxta verbum tuum ad nos , sic fiat , but to what follows, as in Ezr 10:4, Neh 13:13; 2Sa 18:11. But - they further remark, Ezr 10:13 - the people are many, - i.e., the assemblage isvery large to be able to deal immediately with the several cases; and it is(now) the time of the heavy rains, and there is no power to stand without, - i.e., at the present season we are not able to remain in the open air until thebusiness is discharged; neither is this the work of one day, or of two, forwe have transgressed much in this matter, - i.e., one or two days will notsuffice to investigate and decide upon all cases, because very many havebroken the law in this respect.

"Let then our rulers stand for the whole congregation, and let all who in allour cities have brought home strange wives come at appointed times, andwith them the elders of each city, and the judges thereof, until the fiercewrath of our God be turned away from us, as long as this matter lasts."There were so many cases to deal with, that the rulers, as the judicialauthorities, must decide in this matter; and those who in all the cities ofthe land had transgressed, were to appear before these authorities, andsubmit their individual cases to their jurisdiction. The choice of the verb יעמדוּ , to stand or set oneself to discharge some business, heretherefore to give judgment, is occasioned by the preceding לעמוד . The whole community had assembled according to theproclamation, and was standing there for the purpose of bringing thematter to a close. This they were not, however, able to do, for the reasons stated Ezr 10:13;hence the princes, as rulers of the community, are to remain for thedischarge of the business. לכל־הקּהל is not a genitive dependent on שׂרינוּ , and explanatory of the suffix of this word-our, viz.,the whole congregation's, princes (Bertheau) - an unnatural and superfluouselucidation; for if the whole congregation say: our princes, it is self-evidentthat not the princes of a section or portion of the people, but of the wholecongregation, must be intended. לכל־הקּהל is the object of יעמדוּ : let them stand for the whole congregation ( ל עמד like ל קוּם , Psa 94:16), not instead of , but for the good of thecongregation, and transact its business. In our cities, i.e., including thecapital, for there is here no contrast between Jerusalem and the othercities. The article to ההשׁיב stands, as is often the case, for the relative אשׁר , e.g., Ezr 10:17, Ezr 8:25. מזמּנים עתּים ,appointed times, stated terms, used only here and in Neh 10:35; Neh 13:31. זמּן is a Chaldaistic expression. With the accused were to come theelders and judges of every city, to furnish the necessary explanations andevidence. להשׁיב עד , until the turning away of thefierceness of the wrath ( ל עד according to the later usage of thelanguage instead of עד only, comp. Ewald, §315, a , not instead of ל only, as Bertheau seeks, by incorrectly interpreted passages, to prove). The meaning is: until the fierce wrath of God concerning these marriagesshall be turned away, by their dissolution and the dismissal of the strangewomen from the congregation. The last words, הזּה לדּבר עד , offer some difficulty. De Wette and Bertheau translate them: on account of this matter, which ל עד can by no means signify. We regard ל עד = עד ofthe older language, in the sense of during, like 2Ki 9:22, according towhich the meaning is: as long as this thing lasts; but we connect thesewords, not, as J. H. Michaelis, with the immediately preceding clause: thewrath which is fierce during this matter ( quae usque , i.e., constanter ardet ),but take them as more exactly defining the leading idea of the verse: theprinces are to stand and judge the guilty as long as this matter lasts, so that הזּה לדּבר עד is co-ordinate with וגו להשׁיב עד .

Jonathan the son of Asahel, and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah, indeedopposed this proposal on the part of the community, and were supportedin their opposition by two Levites, but without being able to carry it out. This statement is introduced by אך , only , in the form of aqualification to the remark that the whole assembly (Ezr 10:12) made thisresolution: nevertheless Jonathan ... stood up against this. For על עמד , to stand up against, or as elsewhere על קוּם , comp. 1Ch 21:1; 2Ch 20:23; Dan 8:25; Dan 11:14. Such also isthe view of R. Sal. and Lightf., while older expositors understand it asmeaning: only Jonathan ... stood up for this matter, like the steterunt superhoc of the Vulgate, or as the decidedly incorrect explanation of J. H. Mich.: praefecti sunt huic negotio . - Nothing further is known of the fouropponents here named. That they did not succeed in this opposition appears from what follows. Ezr 10:16 The children of the captivity, i.e., the returned exiles, did so; i.e., thecongregation carried their resolve into execution. And Ezra the priest, andmen, heads of houses according to their houses, - i.e., so that each house wasrepresented by its head, - were separated, i.e., chosen to conduct theinvestigation. The ו copulative before אנשׁים has been lost, asasyndeton seeming in this case inadmissible. Bertheau, on the contrary,unnecessarily changes ויבּרלוּ into לו ויּבדל after 1 Esdras 9:16. "And they all by names,"comp. Ezr 8:20. ויּשׁבוּ , and they held a sitting (i.e., their first sitting) on thefirst day of the tenth month, and therefore only ten days after theassembly just spoken of. הדּבר לדריושׁ , to inquireinto the matter. It is impossible in Hebrew to form דּריושׁ from דּרשׁ , and this word can only arise from דּרושׁ , asEwald, §239, a , note, Olshausen, Lehrb. d. hebr. Spr . p. 150, and Böttcher, ausf. Lehrb. der hebr. Spr . i. 1, p. 162, note, unanimously agree.

And they made an end with all, with respect to the men who had broughthome strange wives. בּכּל (with the article) cannot be so connectedwith אנשׁים , from which it is separated by the accentuation ofthe latter, as to admit of the repetition, as by older expositors, of thepreposition בּ before אנשׁים : with all, namely, with the men. Still less can בּכּל , as Bertheau thinks, be taken in the sense of "inevery place,"and אנשׁים connected as an accusative with ויכלּוּ : they finished in every place the men (!); for כּלּה with an accusative of the person signifies to annihilate, to make anend of, while ב כּלּה means to finish, to make an end with, comp. Gen 44:12. If, as the accentuation requires, we take בּכּל independently, אנשׁים can only be an accusative of more exactdefinition: in respect of the men ( אנשׁים being without thearticle, because words which define it follow). As this gives a suitablemeaning, it seems unnecessary to alter the punctuation and read בּכל־אנשׁים , or with Ewald, §290, c , note 1, to regard אנשׁים בּכּל as a singular combination. - Till the first day of the first month(of the next year), therefore in three months, their sittings having begun,according to Ezr 10:13, on the first day of the tenth month. - The account of thistransaction closes with -

The list of the men who had taken strange wives , vv. 18-44; among whom were priests (Ezr 10:18-22), Levites (Ezr 10:23, Ezr 10:24), and Israelites, i.e., laymen (vv. 25-43).

Among the priests there stand first, four names of sons and brethren of thehigh priest Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, who returned to Jerusalem withZerubbabel. אחיו , his (Jeshua's) brethren. Judging by Ezr 2:36, these were among the descendants of Jedaiah, a section of the houseof the high-priestly family (see rem. on Ezr 2:36), and were therefore distantcousins of the high priest. They gave their hands, i.e., bound themselvesby shaking hands, to put away their wives, i.e., to dismiss them, and tosever them from the congregation of Israel, ואשׁמים , "andguilty a ram for their trespass,"i.e., condemned to bring a ram as atrespass-offering. ואשׁמים is to be regarded as thecontinuation of the infinitive clause להוציא . As elsewhere,infinitive clauses are continued without anything further in the verb. finit . (comp. Ewald, §350); so here also does the adjective אשׁמים follow, requiring that להיות should be mentally supplied. איל־צאן , a ram of the flock, is, as an accusative of more exact definition,dependent on אשׁמים . This trespass-offering was imposed upon them according to the principleof the law, Lev 5:14, etc., because they had committed a מעל against the Lord, which needed expiation; see on Lev 5:14. - In whatfollows, only the names of the individuals, and a statement of the familiesthey belonged to, are given, without repeating that the same obligations,namely, the dismissal of their strange wives, and the bringing of a trespass-offering, were imposed on them also, this being self-evident from thecontext. - Among the sons of Immer were three, among the sons of Harimfive, among the sons of Pashur six offenders; in all, eighteen priests. Bycomparing Ezr 2:36-39, we perceive that not one of the orders of priestswho returned with Zerubbabel was free from participation in thistransgression. Some of the names given, Ezr 10:20-22, reappear in the lists in Neh 8:4 and Neh 10:2-9, and may belong to the same individuals.

Of Levites, only six names are given, and that without stated the houses towhich they belonged. From Ezr 2:40, however, it appears that they wereof the sons of Jeshua and Kadmiel there mentioned. "Kelaiah, the same isKelita;"the latter is the usual name of the person in question, and thatwhich he bears in Neh 8:7 and Neh 10:11. Jozabad also reappears in Neh 8:7.

Of singers one, and of porters three names are given; comp. Ezr 2:41-42. In all, ten Levites.

Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i.e., of the laity. Ofthese latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43,who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 ofthe survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according tothe Chethiv, be read ירמות . - The twofold naming of sons ofBani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one ofthese places a mistake for some other name. Bertheau supposes thatBigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The errorundoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists notmerely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of everyother race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less thanseven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני , though allthese persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greaternumber of males therein had married strange wives. Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are givenin this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 andEzr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities,had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned toJerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. Thesereasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merelyindividuals belonging to a single house. This supposition cannot, however,be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the nameBani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct readinglaying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greektexts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrewtext, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material forcriticism. A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists ofnames in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowheremake the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

II. THE SECOND RETURN UNDER EZRA chs. 7--10

A period of 58 years separates Ezra 6 from Ezra 7 (515-458 B.C.). During this time the events in the Book of Esther took place in Persia and, in particular, Susa, one of the Persian capitals.

Darius I (Hystaspes; 521-486 B.C.) became a very capable ruler who united the vast reaches of the Persian Empire under his control. He organized the empire effectively into 20 satrapies each of which functioned under a satrap appointed by the king. The satraps, who were usually from the Persian noble families, were virtual kings over their satrapies. They levied taxes and provided troops for the emperor.¹⁰⁰ Darius also built a huge palace at Persepolis, a canal that connected the Nile River with the Red Sea, and a system of roads that greatly facilitated travel and communication within the empire.¹⁰¹

". . . under Darius, Persia reached her zenith."¹⁰²

Darius' son, Xerxes I (486-464 B.C., known as Ahasuerus in Ezra 4:6 and the Book of Esther), succeeded this great king. He was not as successful as his father militarily. He was, however, able to subdue rebellions in Egypt and Babylon but lost a third of the Persian fleet to the Greeks and eventually had to withdraw Persian troops from Europe. He died at the hand of an assassin.

The next Persian king was Artaxerxes I (Longimanus; 464-424 B.C.), the younger son of Xerxes who killed his older brother to obtain the throne. During his reign the empire continued to decline in strength. The Greeks attacked Cyprus, Egypt rebelled, and parts of Asia Minor attained independence.

In Judah, the Persian providence of Yehud that was part of the larger satrapy of Eber Nari (lit. "beyond [i.e., west of] the [Euphrates] river"),¹⁰³ the Jews did not continue to fortify Jerusalem. They were content simply to worship at the temple. Their earlier zeal to return to the Mosaic ordinances that included separation from non-Jews waned. Over this 58-year period some of them intermarried with unbelieving Gentiles (9:1-2). Evidently the Levites neglected the teaching of the law (7:25; cf. Neh. 8:1-12), and temple worship became formal rather than sincere (7:23).

2. The solution to the problem ch. 10

This chapter illustrates the fact that we should respond to sinful conditions by praying to God and by doing everything in our power and in God's will to change the situation.

The proposal of Shecaniah 10:1-4

The writer did not list Shecaniah among those who had married foreign wives (cf. 10:18-44). He appears to have been another faithful Jew like Ezra. The present situation distressed him. He too identified himself with the unfaithful.

Shecaniah proposed divorce, not separation. The Hebrew word translated "put away" (v. 3) is the same as the one translated "leaves" in Deuteronomy 24:2 where divorce is in view. "According to the law" (v. 3) probably refers to the law specifying the procedure for divorce in Deuteronomy 24 (i.e., with a certificate of divorce). In the ancient Near East mothers received custody of their children when there was a divorce (cf. Gen. 21:14). However in Greece they went with their fathers.¹³⁶

"Foreign women were married contrary to the law of God. The marriages were illegal from the outset. The sending away of the women is to guard the exiles against the continuation of an illegal act. With their foreign wives they lived in sin. It is thus clear from v. 4 that there is a strong legal background against which Shecaniah has formulated his proposal. The dividing line between the permissible and impermissible is strongly emphasized. Even the children born from the illegal marriages must be sent away. This proposal is harsh in the light of modern Christian conceptions. Why should innocent children be punished? We must remember that the religious influence of the mothers on their children was regarded as the stumbling block. To keep the religion of the Lord pure was the one and only aim of Ezra and the returned exiles. As a small minority group, the repatriates lived in the Holy Land among a large population of influential people who were followers of various polytheistic religions. Against such larger numbers they had to defend themselves and their religious identity. Thus the drastic measures are understandable."¹³⁷

Even today some Jewish leaders view intermarriage with non-Jews as the major threat to the continuation of Judaism.

"Therefore, the greatest danger to Jewish survival outside Israel today is not anti-Semitism but assimilation, epitomized by the threat of intermarriage . . . [and it] is a direct threat to Judaism, for without Jews Judaism cannot exist."¹³⁸

". . . the situation described in Ezra 9 and 10 was a classic example of one in which the lesser of two evils had to be chosen."¹³⁹

The assembling of the people 10:5-8

Ezra first secured the cooperation of Israel's leaders (v. 5). The Eliashib of verse 6 was not the same Eliashib who was the high priest in Nehemiah's day (Neh. 3:1; 13:4, 48).¹⁴⁰ Ezra executed the power over the exiles that he had received from Artaxerxes (v. 8; cf. 7:26).

The cooperation of the people 10:9-15

This general assembly took place in late November or early December of 458 B.C. The people who were guilty agreed to divorce their foreign wives and to do this in various local towns that were convenient to their homes in the weeks and months that lay ahead. The Feast of Dedication fell on the twenty-fifth of this month. Perhaps they made their commitment to God then.

"Since such marriages led to the introduction of foreign cults, Ezra's drastic solution is along the same lines as Joshua's Shechem assembly with its commitment to putting aside foreign gods (Jos 24:23)."¹⁴¹

God sent rain (v. 10; fertility) when His people got right with Him. He had promised to do this in Deuteronomy 11:10-17.

Israel's leaders permitted divorce on this occasion because of the unlawful marriages of the Israelites. They had married contrary to the Law of Moses. Even though God hates divorce (Mal. 2:10-16) He permitted it (Deut. 24) to achieve the larger goals of maintaining Israel's distinctiveness so she could fulfill His purposes for her in the world (Exod. 19). His purposes for the church are not the same as His purposes for Israel. Furthermore the church is not subject to the Mosaic Law. Therefore it is inappropriate to appeal to the Jews' action on this occasion as a precedent that Christians who are married to unbelievers should follow (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12-13).

Christians who believe that God does not permit divorce for any reason find this passage very disturbing. Obviously Ezra was following the Law very carefully, and he permitted divorce. I believe that the biblical revelation is that God hates divorce and does not want people to practice it. However, He does permit them to practice it in certain situations. Similarly God does not want anyone to perish but wants everyone to experience salvation (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). Nevertheless He permits people to perish.

The completion of the proceedings 10:16-44

The people were able to complete the divorce proceedings in three months (vv. 9, 17). A total of 113 Israelites had married and now divorced their foreign wives, only a fraction of the total number of Jews then living in Judah. Of these, 16 were priests and 10 were Levites, about 25 percent of the total. Perhaps Jewish women had not married Gentile men. A more likely possibility is that since women could not divorce their husbands in Israel the Jewish women who had married Gentiles did not get divorces.

Was this plan one that God approved? The text does not give any statement from a prophet or other representative who spoke for God either way. However for the reasons explained above and since the writer devoted two chapters in this inspired book to the record of this incident, I think it was God's will.

". . . although the law in general was known to the exiles, the finer distinctions and the interpretation of certain stipulations could have escaped them. Ezra was sent to teach them these distinctions and to interpret the law for them (7:10). It is this lesson they had to learn in order to realize that their marriages to foreign women were wrong."¹⁴²

This reformation resulted in the continued racial and, more significantly, spiritual purity of Abraham's descendants for another generation. However, Nehemiah faced a recurrence of the problem of mixed marriages only a few years later (Neh. 10:30; 13:23).

"The Book of Ezra-Nehemiah presents Ezra as a strong personality. He did not emphasize the law as an end in itself; rather, he was convinced that the covenant community needed to return to God by taking seriously his revelation and applying it to every aspect of life."¹⁴³

Ezra 10 - Confession and Repentance

A. The people decide to forsake their sin.

1. (1) The example of Ezra's confession.

Now while Ezra was praying, and while he was confessing, weeping, and bowing down before the house of God, a very large assembly of men, women, and children gathered to him from Israel; for the people wept very bitterly.

a. While Ezra was praying, and while he was confessing: The power of Ezra's confession was not merely in the words recorded in Ezra 9:6-15. It was in the depth of heart that brought forth the prayer, here evidence by weeping, and bowing down before the house of God. He prayed this prayer and humbled himself on behalf of the people publicly, before a very large assembly of men, women, and children.

i. Bowing down before the house of God: The Hebrew grammar "implies that Ezra kept on 'throwing himself down' on the ground." (Yamauchi)

b. For the people wept very bitterly: This shows that the people were also struck by the conviction of sin and the need to confess and repent. They sorrowed over the sin of the covenant community just as Ezra had done.

i. "They could not wash their hands in innocency, they, therefore, washed them in tears; they knew that as the sins of the old world, so of this little world, needeth a deluge." (Trapp)

ii. Through the centuries, one mark of a powerful movement of the Holy Spirit among the people of God is that they are convicted of their sin and feel compelled to confess it and to put it away. The old Puritan John Trapp thought of confession as a purging of sin. "This is the soul's vomit, which is the hardest kind of physic [medicine], but healthsomest. This the devil knows . . . and, therefore, he holds the lips close, that the heart may not disburden itself by so wholesome evacuation." (Trapp)

iii. "Confession of sins is a neglected doctrine. It only comes into its rightful place in times of revival, when the Holy Spirit comes in doubly-convicting power and makes it impossible for the erring believer to have any peace of mind until the wrong is confessed whenever necessary." (J. Edwin Orr)

iv. In his book The Second Evangelical Awakening, Dr. J. Edwin Orr quoted the observations of a high-ranking army officer upon the work of the Spirit in his Scottish town: "Those of you who are ease have little conception of how terrifying a sight it is when the Holy Spirit is pleased to open a man's eyes to see the real state of heart. . . . Men who were thought to be, and who thought themselves to be good, religious people . . . have been led to search into the foundation upon which they were resting, and have found all rotten, that they were self-satisfied, resting on their own goodness, and not upon Christ. Many turned from open sin to lives of holiness, some weeping for joy for sins forgiven."

v. William Newton Blair, the author of a book describing the great Korean revival, declares: "We may have our theories of the desirability or undesirability of public confession of sin. I have had mine, but I know that when the Spirit of God falls upon guilty souls, there will be confession, and no power on earth can stop it."

vi. The Bible has much to say about the confession of sin, and we can surmise some general guidelines about the confession of sin:

· Confession should be made to the one sinned against.

· Confession publicly of specific sins should be made as far as the circle of those sins.

· Confession of general spiritual need, while being discrete about the specific sin, is appropriate when the circle of the sin is either personal or very small.

· Confession should be appropriately specific.

· Confession should be thorough.

2. (2-4) Shechaniah exhorts the people to action.

And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, spoke up and said to Ezra, "We have trespassed against our God, and have taken pagan wives from the peoples of the land; yet now there is hope in Israel in spite of this. Now therefore, let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and those who have been born to them, according to the advice of my master and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. Arise, for this matter is your responsibility. We also are with you. Be of good courage, and do it."

a. We have trespassed against our God . . . yet now there is hope in Israel in spite of this: Shechaniah recognized the severity of their sin; yet he also knew that their present brokenness over their sin was an emblem of the work of God's Spirit among them. Thus it was reason for hope in Israel in spite of this.

i. It is interesting that Ezra himself did not suggest the course of action that Schechaniah did. Perhaps Ezra was so deeply troubled by the sin of the community that he could not think of a wise response. Perhaps Ezra knew what to do, but knew that the suggestion had to come from the community itself instead of from himself, who was a newcomer to Jerusalem and Judea.

b. Let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives: Shechaniah advised the actions of repentance, more than simply indulging the feelings of brokenness.

i. "One fact to be borne in mind about the issue as a whole is that divorce was permitted in Israel (Deuteronomy 24:1); and broken marriages had been rife at this time for the very opposite of the present reason: i.e., there had been a scandalous number of Jewish wives abandoned in favour of heathen women (Malachi 2:10-16)." (Kidner)

ii. "While divorce is always hateful to God (Malachi 2:16), and a witness to human 'hardness of heart' (Mark 10:5), the situation described in Ezra 9 and 10 was a classic example of one in which the lesser of two evils had to be chosen. If a serious reason for divorce could ever exist, this had a better claim than most to come within that category." (Kidner)

iii. "Marriages made between some prohibited persons; as suppose, between a father and his daughter, a brother and a sister, are not only unlawful, but void marriages, and ipso facto null, by the political laws of civil nations. And therefore these marriages with idolatrous and heathen women, being expressly and severely forbidden by God, might well be disannulled." (Poole)

c. Those who have been born to them: This was a strong command, because not only would the wives be put away - but also the children. Because of this, some commentators (such as Adeney) think that this was excessive zeal in reforming, going beyond God's will and causing great harm. Yet we should see that this was in fact God's will.

i. This was understood by the ancient culture - that of course, the women would stay with their children. "'All these women and their children' reflects the fact that in ancient societies, as in ours, mothers were given custody of their children when marriages were dissolved." (Yamauchi)

ii. It was also, no doubt, mitigated by support from the husbands. "Though by the Jewish laws such marriages were null and void, yet as the women they had taken did not know these laws, their case was deplorable. However, we may take it for granted that each of them received a portion according to the circumstances of their husbands, and that they and their children were not turned away desolate, but had such a provision as their necessities required. Humanity must have dictated this, and no law of God is contrary to humanity." (Clarke)

iii. Also, it seems that because of God's mercy in this difficult situation, there were relatively few children affected (Ezra 10:44).

iv. "Children may and sometimes do suffer, at least temporal evils, for their parents' sins, or upon occasion of them, is most evident, both by the Scripture instances, and by the laws and usages of nations in some cases." (Poole)

d. Arise, for this matter is your responsibility. We also are with you: Shechaniah both exhorted those guilty to do what was right and stood beside them in support. This was especially meaningful because it seems that though Shechaniah was not guilty of marrying a pagan woman, both his father and his uncles were (Ezra 10:21).

3. (5-8) Ezra issues a proclamation.

Then Ezra arose, and made the leaders of the priests, the Levites, and all Israel swear an oath that they would do according to this word. So they swore an oath. Then Ezra rose up from before the house of God, and went into the chamber of Jehohanan the son of Eliashib; and when he came there, he ate no bread and drank no water, for he mourned because of the guilt of those from the captivity. And they issued a proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem to all the descendants of the captivity, that they must gather at Jerusalem, and that whoever would not come within three days, according to the instructions of the leaders and elders, all his property would be confiscated, and he himself would be separated from the assembly of those from the captivity.

a. Ezra arose, and made the leaders of the priests, the Levites, and all Israel swear an oath: The counsel of Shechaniah seemed good to Ezra, so he immediately called upon the people to swear an oath to do according to this word. Significantly, Ezra began with the leaders; he expected them to make things right with God first.

b. He ate no bread and drank no water, for he mourned: For Ezra, this who tragedy was as bad as if someone had died. He could not think of himself or his own needs when he knew God was being so greatly dishonored.

i. We can say that Ezra observed a complete fast, abstaining from both food and water. This same kind of fast is rare in the Bible, but was observed twice by Moses (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:18) and also by the people of Nineveh (Jonah 3:7).

ii. "The man who sets himself 'to seek, to do, to teach' the law of God invariably brings himself into places where sorrow will be his portion, and intrepid courage necessary." (Morgan)

c. Whoever would not come within three days . . . all his property would be confiscated, and he himself would be separated from the assembly: Ezra was given great civil authority by King Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:26). Here he put that authority to use by making the people fulfill the oath they had previously made (Ezra 10:5).

B. The spirit of repentance at the assembly of the people.

1. (9-11) Ezra's appeal to the trembling assembly.

So all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered at Jerusalem within three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth of the month; and all the people sat in the open square of the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of heavy rain. Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, "You have transgressed and have taken pagan wives, adding to the guilt of Israel. Now therefore, make confession to the LORD God of your fathers, and do His will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land, and from the pagan wives."

a. So all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered at Jerusalem within three days: This was a remarkable response to the remarkable call Ezra made in the preceding verses. Their unified response was another evidence of the moving of the Holy Spirit among the people of God.

b. All the people sat in the open square of the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of heavy rain: The willingness of people to forsake normal comforts and to humbly assemble in adverse circumstances was another evidence of the moving of the Holy Spirit among them.

i. This response has been seen again as the Holy Spirit has moved upon the people of God. In March of 1859, at the beginning of a great move of God that would bring more than one million souls to conversion in Great Britain, some unordained men with a passion for revival preached at the First Presbyterian Church in Ahoghill, Northern Ireland. There was such a large crowd at that meeting that they had to dismiss the meeting out of fear that the balconies would collapse under the weight of so many people. They took the meeting to the street right outside the street, and in the freezing rain James McQuilkin preached to 3,000 people in the streets, with many of the listeners falling to their knees in the wet and muddy street because they were so moved by the conviction of sin under the preaching of these laymen.

c. You have transgressed . . . adding to the guilt of Israel: Ezra's word to the people was clear and strong. Though the moving of the Holy Spirit was evident, it was important to carry the work through to completion and to not be satisfied with a partial work.

d. Now therefore, make confession to the LORD . . . do His will . . . separate yourselves: This was a clear call to both confession and repentance.

i. We might even say that their confession would be vain without corresponding repentance. This repentance (the decision to stop one's sinful behavior and to do His will) is an essential element of the Christian life.

ii. "Perhaps you have the notion that repentance is a thing that happens at the commencement of the spiritual life, and has to be got through as one undergoes a certain operation, and there is an end of it. If so, you are greatly mistaken; repentance lives as long as faith. Towards faith I might almost call it a Siamese twin. We shall need to believe and to repent as long as ever we live." (Spurgeon)

2. (12-15) The response of the assembly.

Then all the assembly answered and said with a loud voice, "Yes! As you have said, so we must do. But there are many people; it is the season for heavy rain, and we are not able to stand outside. Nor is this the work of one or two days, for there are many of us who have transgressed in this matter. Please, let the leaders of our entire assembly stand; and let all those in our cities who have taken pagan wives come at appointed times, together with the elders and judges of their cities, until the fierce wrath of our God is turned away from us in this matter." Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah opposed this, and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite gave them support.

a. Yes! As you have said, so we must do: This was still another evidence of the remarkable moving of the Holy Spirit upon the people. They immediately answered (and with a loud voice) in agreement to what Ezra said.

b. But there are many people . . . nor is this the work of one or two days: The people asked Ezra for the time to make it right. This was necessary because so many people were involved in this sin; yet the principle was agreed upon with very little opposition.

c. Only Jonathan the son of Asahel . . .: "Why these four men opposed the measure is unclear. Perhaps they were protecting themselves or their relatives. Perhaps they viewed the measures of separation as too harsh. Less probably they were fanatics who wished no dely in implementing the measure." (Yamauchi)

3. (16-17) Each case is examined individually over a 3 month period

Then the descendants of the captivity did so. And Ezra the priest, with certain heads of the fathers' households, were set apart by the fathers' households, each of them by name; and they sat down on the first day of the tenth month to examine the matter. By the first day of the first month they finished questioning all the men who had taken pagan wives.

a. They sat down on the first day of the tenth month to examine the matter: Though Ezra was wisely willing to accept the delay because of necessity, he also held the assembly accountable to do what they agreed to do in the months after the great assembly.

b. They finished questioning all the men who had taken pagan wives: The whole process took many weeks, because so many men had taken pagan wives. The questioning was necessary because they needed to examine if one of these wives had genuinely decided to serve the Lord God and to forsake her native religions.

i. If the pagan wife had decided to keep her primary allegiance with her former people and their idols, she could not live among the covenant community and had to be divorced.

ii. To the end of the chapter, there is a list showing that only about 114 of these pagan wives refused to embrace the God of Israel and had to be divorced. Yamauchi calculates that it was less than one-half of one percent of the people who were guilty of this pagan intermarriage and who had to divorce their wives. Though it was such a small percentage, it still had to be dealt with strongly - and it was. It also shows that most of the foreign wives joined the people of God in their heart as well as their home.

iii. In the New Testament believers are also instructed to marry within the faith. Marriages to unbelievers are condemned (2 Corinthians 6:14) and widows (as one example of the unmarried) are directly commanded to marry within the faith (1 Corinthians 7:39). However, Paul specifically commanded that if a believer is married to an unbeliever, they are to remain in the marriage if at all possible, both for the possibility of a witness to the unbelieving spouse and for the benefit it brings to the children (1 Corinthians 7:12-17).

4. (18-44) The list of those found guilty.

And among the sons of the priests who had taken pagan wives the following were found of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brothers: Maaseiah, Eliezer, Jarib, and Gedaliah. And they gave their promise that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they presented a ram of the flock as their trespass offering. Also of the sons of Immer: Hanani and Zebadiah; of the sons of Harim: Maaseiah, Elijah, Shemaiah, Jehiel, and Uzziah; of the sons of Pashhur: Elioenai, Maaseiah, Ishmael, Nethanel, Jozabad, and Elasah. Also of the Levites: Jozabad, Shimei, Kelaiah (the same is Kelita), Pethahiah, Judah, and Eliezer. Also of the singers: Eliashib; and of the gatekeepers: Shallum, Telem, and Uri. And others of Israel: of the sons of Parosh: Ramiah, Jeziah, Malchiah, Mijamin, Eleazar, Malchijah, and Benaiah; of the sons of Elam: Mattaniah, Zechariah, Jehiel, Abdi, Jeremoth, and Eliah; of the sons of Zattu: Elioenai, Eliashib, Mattaniah, Jeremoth, Zabad, and Aziza; of the sons of Bebai: Jehohanan, Hananiah, Zabbai, and Athlai; of the sons of Bani: Meshullam, Malluch, Adaiah, Jashub, Sheal, and Ramoth; of the sons of Pahath-Moab: Adna, Chelal, Benaiah, Maaseiah, Mattaniah, Bezalel, Binnui, and Manasseh; of the sons of Harim: Eliezer, Ishijah, Malchijah, Shemaiah, Shimeon, Benjamin, Malluch, and Shemariah; of the sons of Hashum: Mattenai, Mattattah, Zabad, Eliphelet, Jeremai, Manasseh, and Shimei; of the sons of Bani: Maadai, Amram, Uel, Benaiah, Bedeiah, Cheluh, Vaniah, Meremoth, Eliashib, Mattaniah, Mattenai, Jaasai, Bani, Binnui, Shimei, Shelemiah, Nathan, Adaiah, Machnadebai, Shashai, Sharai, Azarel, Shelemiah, Shemariah, Shallum, Amariah, and Joseph; of the sons of Nebo: Jeiel, Mattithiah, Zabad, Zebina, Jaddai, Joel, and Benaiah. All these had taken pagan wives, and some of them had wives by whom they had children.

a. And among the sons of the priests who had taken pagan wives the following were found: Those who had to put away their wives (because they refused to convert) are here listed. This is a somewhat shameful list, and not a very good way to get one's name recorded in the best selling book of all time.

i. "None was exempt from the reformation, which was carried out with complete thoroughness. Such action is ever the true outcome, and only satisfactory expression, of sorrow over sin." (Morgan)

ii. Jewish rabbis speculated on the reason why Jewish men divorced their Jewish wives and married women from the pagan cultures (Malachi 2:10-16): because the Jewish women who returned from exile lost their beauty and aged before their time. "When the Jews drew near from the Exile, the faces of the Jewish women had become blackened by the sun. They therefore left them and married heathen wives." (Rabbi Johanan, cited by Yamauchi)

iii. They presented a ram of the flock: "This shows that they sinned against knowledge; for a sin of ignorance the oblation was not a ram, but a goat." (Trapp)

iv. Some of them had wives by whom they had children: "Whereby he implies that most of their wives were barren; which came to pass by God's special providence, partly to manifest his displeasure against such matches, and partly that the practice of this great and necessary duty might to be encumbered with too many difficulties." (Poole)

b. All these had taken pagan wives: As seen before, the greater problem was that these wives remained pagan and refused to join the covenant community. Their break with the people of Israel was grounded in faith, not in race.

i. "Let us at least separate ourselves after the manner of Christ, who frequented the temple, acknowledged the State, accepted invitations to great houses; but his heart and speech always revolved about his Father." (Meyer)

ii. Ezra here disappears from the Biblical record for about thirteen years, when he appears again in the Book of Nehemiah. His passion then was the same as it was at the end of the Book of Ezra: to transform the people of God by bringing them the Word of God.

© 2006 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.   

EZRA 10:10-44 —Why did God command Israelite men to put away their unbelieving wives, but Paul said not to do so?

PROBLEM: Ezra made all the returning Israelites put away their “pagan wives” because they were “adding to the guilt of Israel” ( Ezra 10:10 ). However, when Paul was asked whether a believer should divorce an unbelieving spouse, he said, “If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her” ( 1 Cor. 7:12 ). Aren’t these contradictory instructions?

SOLUTION: The different advice is given at different times, for different peoples, and for different reasons. First of all, Ezra’s command was given in OT times to the Jews, and Paul’s command was given in NT times to Christians. New Testament believers are not under OT laws to Israel (see comments on Matt. 5:17-18 ).

Furthermore, even assuming that the moral principle embodied in this OT command is still binding today, the situations are different for three reasons. First, the wives in the OT were not just “unbelievers” who were “willing” to be “sanctified” by the believing husband ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ). They were “pagans,” that is, they were probably Babylonian idol worshipers (cf. Neh. 13:25-26 ), who were having a pagan influence on their husbands. God told Solomon that his pagan wives, “will turn away your hearts after their gods” ( 1 Kings 11:2 ). Second, these were not just any pagans, for they included descendants of Moab and Ammon ( Ezra 10:30 ; cf. Neh. 13:23 ) and other surrounding nations of which God had told the Israelites explicitly that they should not marry them (cf. Ex. 34:16 ; Deut. 7:3 ). Third, they may even have been extra wives (cf. Ezra 10:44 ), and God forbid polygamy (see comments on 1 Kings    11:1 ). If so, they had violated the laws about polygamy ( Deut. 17:17 ) and idolatry (    Ex. 20:4-5 ). This is a different situation from Paul’s instruction to keep a non-    idolatrous monogamous wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2 ), if she wished to remain under the    sanctifying influence of a believing husband.