¹ tn Heb “found.”

¹ tn Heb “hand.”

¹ tc The translation reads with many medieval Hebrew MSS and ancient versions וּמִבְּנֵי (umibbÿne, “and from the sons of”) rather than the reading ubene (“and the sons of”) found in the MT.

¹ tn The name “Bani” appears in both v. 29 and v. 34. One of these names has probably undergone alteration in the transmission process, but it is not clear exactly where the problem lies or how it should be corrected.

¹ tc The translation reads וּמִבְּנֵי בִנּוּי (umibbÿney vinnuy, “and from the sons of Binnui”) rather than the reading וּבָנִי וּבִנּוּי (uvani uvinnuy, “and Bani and Binnui”) of the MT.

¹ tc The final statement in v. 44 is difficult in terms of both its syntax and its meaning. The present translation attempts to make sense of the MT. But the passage may have undergone corruption in the transmission process. One proposal is that the text should be emended to read “and they sent these wives and children away” (cf. NAB, NRSV, TEV, CEV).

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.

All these had taken strange wives: and [some] of them had wives by whom they had ^{( n )} children.

^{( n )} Who also were made illegitimate because the marriage was unlawful.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ezr 10:44 contains the statement with which the account of this transactioncloses. The Chethiv נשׂאיּ seems to be an error of transcription for נשׂאוּ (the Keri), which the sense requires. וגו מהם וישׁ , "and there were among them women who had broughtforth sons." מהם must be referred to women, notwithstandingthe masculine suffix. ישׂימוּ , too, can only be referred to נשׁים , and cannot be explained, as by J. H. Mich.: unde etiam filios susceperant seu procreaverant . The gender of the verb is adapted tothe form of the word נשׁים , an incorrectness which must beattributed to the increasing tendency of the language to use the masculineinstead of the feminine, or to renounce a distinction of form between thegenders. There are no adequate reasons for such an alteration of the text asBertheau proposes; for the lxx already had our text before them, and the καὶ ἀπέλυσαν αὐτὰς σὺν τέκνοις of 1 Esdr. 9:36is a mere conjecture from the context. The remark itself, that among thewomen who were sent away were some who had already brought childreninto the world, is not superfluous, but added for the purpose of showinghow thoroughly this matter was carried out. Separation from women whoalready have children is far more grievous, ob communium liberorum caritatem , than parting with childless wives.

Strictly as this separation was carried out, this evil was not thereby doneaway with for ever, nor even for very long. After the arrival of Nehemiahat Jerusalem, when the building of the wall was concluded, thecongregation again bound themselves by an oath, on the occasion of a dayof prayer and fasting, to contract no more such illegal marriages (Neh 10:31). Nevertheless, Nehemiah, on his second return to Jerusalem, somefive and twenty to thirty years after the dissolution of these marriages byEzra, again found Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Moab, andAmmon, and children of these marriages who spoke the tongue of Ashdod,and could not speak the Jews' language, and even one of the sons of thehigh priest Jehoiada allied to a daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (Neh 13:28, etc.). Such a phenomenon, however strange it may appear on asuperficial view of the matter, becomes comprehensible when we considermore closely the circumstances of the times. The nucleus of the Israelite community in Jerusalem and Judah wasformed by those exiles who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel andEzra; and to this nucleus the remnant of Jewish and Israelite descent whichhad been left in the land was gradually united, after the rebuilding of thetemple and the restoration of the worship of Jahve. Those who returnedfrom Babylon, as well as those who remained in the land, had now,however, lived seventy, and some of them one hundred and fifty, years(from the captivity of Jehoiachin in 599, to the return of Ezra in 457)among the heathen, and in the midst of heathen surroundings, and had thusbecome so accustomed to intercourse with them in civil and socialtransactions, that the consciousness of the barriers placed by the Mosaiclaw between Israel, the people of Jahve, and the Gentiles, was more andmore obliterated. And this would specially be the case when the Gentileswho entered into matrimonial alliance with Israelites did not flagrantlypractise idolatrous worship, i.e., did not offer sacrifice to heathen deities. Under such circumstances, it must have been extremely difficult to doaway entirely with these unlawful unions; although, without a thoroughreform in this respect, the successful development of the new communityin the land of their fathers was not to be obtained.

Ezra's narrative of his agency in Jerusalem closes with the account of thedissolution of the unlawful marriages then existing. What he subsequentlyeffected for the revival of religion and morality in the re-establishedcommunity, in conformity with the law of God, was more of an inwardand spiritual kind; and was either of such a nature that no striking resultsensued, which could furnish matter for historical narrative, or wasperformed during the period of his joint agency with Nehemiah, of whichan account is furnished by the latter in the record he has handed down tous (Neh 8:10).

rdrb rdrs rdrw30 rsp20

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 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.   

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.