Deeper Commentary

Ezra 10:1 Now while Ezra prayed and made confession, weeping and casting himself down before God’s house, there was gathered together to him out of Israel a very great assembly of men and women and children; for the people wept very bitterly-

The words for pleading and casting oneself down in prostration are those used of Moses in his intercession for Israel after the golden calf incident (Dt. 9:18,20,25,26). The people wept at the same time on both occasions. Ezra refusing bread and water (:6) is in imitation of Moses in his great intercession (Ex. 34:28). Ezra was clearly inspired by a Biblical example of prayer. He felt God was about to reject Israel again, and that the sin of intermarriage was of the same nature as that of the golden calf. But was it? Indeed there were idolatrous connections due to the intermarriages, but as discussed earlier, intermarriage of itself was not to be rectified by divorce. Ezra was eager to imitate Moses on a surface level, but he seems to have rather ignored the precise context. For all his much vaunted teaching of Moses' law. God responded to Moses' intercession. There is a pointed silence from God to Ezra's intercession. Ezra just gets up from his knees and orders mass forced divorces and family breakups for marrying Gentiles. Ignoring the fact that the Moses whom he was so keen to emulate had divorced his Midianite wife and married an Ethiopian- with no Divine criticism nor sanction recorded. There are also many connections between Ezra's prayer of confession and intercession, and that of Daniel in Dan. 9. Again we note that there was a Divine response to Daniel's prayer- Gabriel appeared with a message in response. But no response to Ezra's. Ezra surely was aware of Daniel's prayer, a generation before him.

The bleeding hearts of Jeremiah and Moses were actually for the ecclesia. David’s eyes wept “streams of tears” because Israel didn’t keep the Law (Ps. 119:136); the faithful in Ezekiel’s time sighed and groaned over all the abominations committed in Jerusalem (Ez. 9:4); Paul spoke “even with tears” about those in the ecclesia who lived as enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18), exhorting the Corinthians to mourn for those they had to disfellowship (1 Cor. 5:2; 2 Cor. 12:21); Ezra wept for the sins of his people (Ezra 10:1). Is this attitude seen amongst us? We lament in a gossipy way the weaknesses of the brotherhood; but is there this bleeding heart for the cases we mention? Perhaps we should never think of separating from anybody unless the decision has been come to through a process of such prayerful mourning for them first. 'Casting... down' is the common Hebrew word for "fall", often used of the condemned 'falling'. Ezra felt condemned on account of his total identity with his sinful people, and yet begs for mercy and makes intercession for them. This looked forward to how the Lord Jesus felt our condemnation, even feeling forsaken by the Father (Mt. 27:46), when in fact He Himself was personally sinless. It was this extreme identification with his sinful people which resulted in Ezra eliciting repentance in his people; for they too came forth and wept as he wept, in repentance. The result of the Lord's identification with us should be likewise.

Ezra 10:2 Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have married foreign women of the peoples of the land-

Shecaniah wasn't a Levite. He claims here intermarriage mean "trespass", or 'breaking faith' [GNB "We have broken faith with God", LXX "We have broken covenant with our God"], and so in :3 he proposes renewing the covenant with God [which is never recorded as happening]. The new covenant on offer was that of Jer. 31, and Ezra didn't seem interested in that- only in teaching the old covenant laws again. But intermarriage didn't in fact break covenant with Yahweh. There are many examples of it, not least Moses, and the law allowed Israelites to marry Gentile captives. Covenant with Yahweh wasn't broken by it of itself. Idolatry did- but he doesn't mention that.

In Ezra 9, Ezra showed a fine example of feeling that the failures of the community are our personal failures- so identified was he with his brethren. But then in Ezra 10:2 we read of Shecaniah saying that “we” have married unbelievers, even though Ezra 10:26 makes it clear that he himself wasn’t guilty [even though his brothers, five uncles and father had been, :26]. Ezra’s selfless example of solidarity with his weak brethren inspired this man, as it should us. Yet now there is hope for Israel concerning this thing- This could equally be translated to the effect that the hope of Israel of the restored Kingdom was still possible, despite "this thing" of failure. If they repented. "Shecaniah" means 'Yah's shekinah'; he had been named in hope of the shekinah glory returning visibly to Zion. And he felt that was still possible, although as it happened, it didn't happen.

 

Ezra 10:3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God. Let it be done according to the law- They claimed that this mass divorce, on pain of expulsion from the community and confiscation of property, was required by the law of Moses: "Let it be done according to the law". But the law didn't require such punishments. He wrongly predicated hope of forgiveness upon works, in this case, divorce. They had made their extrapolation from God's law equal to God's law. In expounding the Bible, it may indeed be that some things logically follow from others, and we can make inferences and fair deductions. But they are not God's word. It could be that "according to the law" was an appeal to the teaching of Dt. 24:1-4 that a man could divorce his wife "if she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some unseemly thing in her". But the Lord explains that this provision was "for the hardness of your hearts" and says that the pattern of the Genesis creation was not to make use of this. So in this case, Ezra hardly presents as a deep student of Torah, despite being called a skillful scribe of that law. He presents [perhaps, presents himself now, in his memoir] as a petty legalist who had ignored the foundational spirit of the Torah in early Genesis. Majoring on minors and ignoring the majors. And we might note that Shecaniah's idea of making a covenant with God about these things was apparently ignored. It seems what was important to Ezra was the divorces, and then claiming that anyone still married to a Gentile [such as very many amongst the Jews who had remained in the land] was  in fact not "Israel". We are invited to consider whether Ezra's casting himself down was partly mere theatrics. And it is Ezra who invites us to this reflection, because these are his memoirs and he is himself pondering these matters about himself. I suggested on :2 that the "therefore" suggests that repentance would have led to the prophetically promised hope of Israel still coming true in his time.

These relationships and children are defined as being part of mixing with the abominations of the peoples (Ezra 9:1,2). And "abominations" always refers to idol worship. So it could be that the relationships with "their daughters" were a result of sleeping with cult prostitutes and having children thereby. There was therefore far more to what happened than simply marrying out of the faith. To 'take daughters for themselves' (Ezra 9:2) may not mean marriage itself, but could refer to the kind of cultic relationships which went along with idol worship at the shrines. This is why the separation from these women with whom they had had children  would not then be quite the same as breaking up marriage and full blown family life.

The double reference in Is. 66:1-5 to trembling at Yahweh’s word is a definite prediction of the situation in Ezra 9:4; 10:3, where the same rare Hebrew word is used regarding how those of the exiles who repented for their marriage out of the Faith trembled before the word in repentance. Then, at that point, the Kingdom blessings could have been brought about, as described in the rest of Is. 66. But again, there was no staying power in their repentance. By Nehemiah’s time, and by Malachi’s time even after his, marriage out of the Faith was still their weakness. 

GNB "We will do what God's Law demands" highlights the problem: separation from wrongly taken wives was not stated in God's law. As so often happens, men assumed that their interpretation of His law was what His law "demands". But God never commanded divorce for marriage out of the faith, let alone loss of property. But divorce for no reason was not according to the law, neither in letter nor spirit.  

Shecaniah is manipulative. He puts the idea of mass divorce to Ezra, then says that Israel must do according to the counsel of Ezra. But Shecaniah is putting his words into Ezra’s mouth. And now Ezra in his memoirs is admitting this. The "they" in :7 who send out the summons to the meeting were quite possibly Shecaniah and his supporters, rather than Ezra.

Ezra 10:4 Arise; for the matter belongs to you, and we are with you. Be courageous, and do it- Shechaniah is seen as encouraging Ezra to do that which he was perhaps nervous to do- making the people swear to end their illicit relationships, and not to begin new ones. Being courageous and doing it is the language of encouragement given to Joshua, so that he might enter the land and establish God's Kingdom there. This was the same situation the exiles were in.

Ezra in this his memoir seems to say that he was told that he was the one to act, with the promise that he would be supported, and therefore he acted. They told him to "arise" and "do", and so he did. So often legalists egg each other on. And he now looks back and sees it for what it was... ending with that terrible final verse, admitting he had left children fatherless in the 112 marriages be broke up. And that list of names appears to be just of the priests and Levites. It rightly haunted him. And looking back, he sees Shecaniah as having put him up to it. Ezra 1-6 are Ezra's giving background information about the first return under Zerubbabel about 60 years before. The material about his own life's work is taken up almost exclusively with his response to the issue of intermarriage. He saw it as his defining work and legacy, although surely he did many other things with his life. And looking back, he is haunted by it. And his record draws us in to his own reflections and introspection.

The call to "be courageous!", 'Be strong for the truth!' has been heard so often. David uses the same words to Solomon when encouraging him in the work of building a temple which God never wanted: "Take heed now; for the Lord hath chosen thee to build an house for the sanctuary: be strong, and do it" (1 Chron. 28:10). Possibly they are assuming that divorcing wives and breaking up families was in fact establishing the temple. 

Ezra 10:5 Then Ezra arose, and made the chiefs of the priests, the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they would do according to this word. So they swore- The "word" was that of the proposed covenant of :3. The way Ezra had to 'make' them swear could imply that he forced this direction upon them. Which would explain why in Nehemiah and later in Malachi we find them committing the same failure; because their repentance was more likely a bought position which was enforced upon them by Ezra and Shechaniah. And repentance cannot be a group thing nor a bought position; it has to be from the heart, on an individual level. The fact the leading priests and Levites failed in this matter is a reflection of how unspiritual were the spiritual leadership of the people. We recall that Ezra had offered money for the Levites to come back to Judah at the last minute. They clearly were not spiritually committed to the whole project in spiritual terms.

Ezra 10:6 Then Ezra rose up from before God’s house, and went into the chamber of Jehohanan the son of Eliashib: and when he came there, he ate no bread, nor drank water; for he mourned because of the trespass of the captives- Jehohanan had come up with Zerubbabel in the previous return of the exiles (Neh. 12:13). He was presumably a faithful one amongst the largely apostate priesthood. Ezra refusing bread and water is in imitation of Moses in his great intercession (Ex. 34:28). I discussed on :1,2 how sincere all this was.

Ezra 10:7 They made proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem to all the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves together to Jerusalem- There was and is a value in group repentance; the repentance of one person provokes that of another. This is why it is helpful to confess sins to each other as James asks.

Ezra 10:8 and that whoever didn’t come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the assembly of the captives-

"Forfeited" is the word for herem, devotion, to the things of the temple. And yet the Persians had given them unlimited resources for this. This command and demand was quite unnecessary, so it was done in order to railroad people into submission. Never does the law of Moses require this as a punishment for intermarriage. Dt. 7:1-3 is clear that they were not to intermarry with the nations then in the land, but there is no sanction mentioned if Israel did so. They did so, and there is never any "forfeiting" of property as a Divine legal punishment. The anger of God would be with the idolatry which could well arise from intermarriage, not with the intermarriage itself: "Your daughter you shall not give to his son, nor shall you take his daughter for your son. For he will turn away your son from following me to serve other gods; so the anger of Yahweh would be kindled against you and He would destroy you quickly" (Dt. 7:3,4). Ezra surely had in view that the Jews who had remained in the land had intermarried, and he was seeking to ensure that they "lose their right to be members of the community" (GNB). His legacy was divisive. That large excluded group became the Samaritans, and the Lord's parable of "the good Samaritan" showed His identity with them. He was considered a Samaritan, and we recall His favourable acceptance of the Samaritan woman. But there may be another reason why the person's property was to be confiscated. The exiles had returned hoping to regain the property of their ancestors. But the fields and vineyards of the land, the property of the wealthy, had been given by the Babylonians to the people of the land- the Jews who remained in the land (Jer. 39:10). This heavy punishment was likely also an attempt to get those lands into the hands of the returned exiles.   

This talk of herem, being forfeited or destroyed, is an out of context midrash on various passages in the law of Moses that spoke of property being made herem, dedicated to Yahweh or destroyed. The spoil of some enemies or an idolatrous town was to be dedicated as herem to Yahweh (Dt. 13:15-18; 20:16-18). That's as bizarre as orthodox churches today taking some Biblical reference to High Priestly robes and dressing up likewise. Taking a single word from the scriptures and applying it out of context. Particularly in view was  Dt. 7:2,3: "When Yahweh your God delivers [the local nations] up before you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy [herem] them. You must make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them, neither shall you arrange marriages with them; your daughter you shall not give to his son, nor shall you take his daughter for your son". Herem means both destruction and devotion / being forfeit to God. Having stated that about the Canaanites, the passage goes on to warn about intermarriage with such people. Shecaniah and Ezra are twisting this to mean that the punishment for anyone who marries one of the "peoples of the land", who may well have been second class Jews [in their estimation], was that their property would become herem, forfeit and taken from them. That is a big jump of logic. And Ezra surely knew better than this- he was a scribe and student of the law. And yet he failed to successfully teach basic things from the law to Judah, e.g. keeping the feast of tabernacles. The common people were likely illiterate. Ezra is really abusing his knowledge of the scriptures at this point. And here in his memoir, he looks back and to his credit, recognizes what he has done. "Let it be done according to the law" (:3) was a terrible blasphemy, really. For this mass forced divorce was not at all according to the law of Moses- which contained no sanction for those who did intermarry. Ezra failed to realize that his actions were so similar to how Israel took an oath to put to death anyone who did not come to the assembly in Jud. 21:5, thereby making the men of Jabesh-Gilead herem because they failed to appear at the meeting (Jud. 21:11). The moral of that story was that such bulldozer behaviour was wrong, and led to the decimation of God's people and almost the cutting off of an entire part of Israel. But Ezra didn't see that clear Biblical precedent in his obsession for purity amongst others.

"Captives" is as AV "those that had been carried away". Although that had happened some generations previously, Ezra encouraged the exiles to perceive themselves as those who had first gone into captivity and who were now returning. We too are to see ourselves as of "no continuing city" even if for generations we lived in the same area. The exclusion from the community was like all Divine judgments- it was only really a confirmation of the position these people had themselves chosen by marrying those outside of the community of faith. The logic reflects how serious is marriage out of the faith.

Ezra 10:9 Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered themselves together to Jerusalem within the three days; it was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month: and all the people sat in the broad place before God’s house, trembling because of this matter, and because of the great rain- Apparently "all" of them came, nobody refused to repent. This however raises the possibility of group repentance, when repentance is essentially a personal matter. The restoration prophecy of Is. 66:2 is relevant: "But to this man will I look, even to him who is poor and of a broken spirit, and who trembles at My word". The Jews did tremble at the word at the beginning of the rebuilding. But it was a momentary thing; they came to see the building of the walls as more important than keeping a trembling spirit. Works eclipsed spirituality. Yet Isaiah had taught that the trembling at the word was more essentially important than building temples. But Judah paid no attention in the long term.

Ezra 10:10 Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, You have trespassed, and have married foreign women, to increase the guilt of Israel- The implication may be that by repentance and a devoted life, they were to decrease that guilt. But Ezra still comes over as a legalist, considering sin built and diminished by degrees. Israel had broken the old covenant. All they could do was throw themselves upon God's grace and accept the new covenant, as the restoration prophets had taught. But he is still far from perceiving that.

Ezra here defines the "trespass" as merely marrying foreigners. Yet the key issue was idolatry. He doesn't much mention that. There was the teaching that idolatrous wives deserved death (Dt. 13:6-11). But that is not appealed to as the basis for divorce. The focus instead is on excluding from the community anyone who remained married to a Gentile or to the "people of the land", the Jewish community who had remained in the land after the exile.

Ezra 10:11 Now therefore make confession to Yahweh, the God of your fathers, and do His will-  See on :16. "Confession" is the same word translated "thanksgiving" (s.w. Neh. 12:27,31,38). Praise of Yahweh is in confession of sin. But this is the word used about the "praise" or "confession" which was to characterize the restored Kingdom (s.w. Is. 51:3; Jer. 30:19; 33:11). So even through this sin, the repentance from it led to the "confession" which produced a potential fulfilment of the restored Kingdom.

And separate yourselves from the peoples of the land, and from the foreign women- We notice that relationships with "foreign women" is paralleled with union with "the peoples of the land".  I discussed on Ezra 9:1 how "the peoples of the land" were likely the Jews who had remained in the land after the exile. Separation from brethren is not God's "will". But like a pastor telling the congregation that giving him money is God's "will", so Ezra tells these people. He is now using the word "foreign" about the Jewish "people of the land".

Marriage is not just with a woman as an individual, but with the society she is part of it; we marry a family and not just a person. But “The people of the land” were to have a part in the new system of things (Ez. 45:16,22; 46:3,9), and yet this very phrase is repeatedly used concerning the Samaritan people who lived in the land at the time of the restoration (Ezra 4:4; 10:2,11; Neh. 9:24; 10:30,31). God’s intention was that they should eventually be converted unto Him; it was His intention that Ezekiel’s temple be built at the time of the restoration under Ezra. And yet Zech. 7:10; Mal. 3:5  criticize the Jews who returned and built the temple for continuing to oppress the stranger / Gentile. Israel would not.

Ezra 10:12 Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, As you have said concerning us, so must we do- This was repeated by the penitent people later shouting likewise their confession of sin "with a loud voice" (Neh. 9:4). But yet again in Malachi's time, they sinned again by marrying unbelievers. The point is that repentance is not necessarily related to the loudness of our confession that 'we're all sinners', especially when pronounced in unison with others. For repentance has to be personal. The LXX however brings out their obedience to God's word, practically doing what they had been told: "This thy word is powerful upon us to do it".

"It is so; we must do as you have said" suggests they were forced into agreeing with the judgment upon them. It was, after all, on pain of losing all they owned and being removed from the community. Their language is also an echo of the covenant ceremonies of Sinai (Ex. 24:3) and Shechem (Josh. 24:16-28). But at Sinai the people promised to do "all the words that Yahweh has spoken", whereas here the promise is to keep the commandments of Ezra. They were being kidded that by divorcing their wives, they were re-entering covenant with Yahweh. But covenant relationship didn't depend upon divorce. The new covenant which Ezra ought to have been offering was that of Jer. 31, Ezekiel and Isaiah. That was even then still on offer from God. Instead, he kids them that they need to re-enter the old covenant through divorcing their wives and disowning their kids. And this, from a man who was 'skilled' in the law of Moses- which said nothing about all this. Ezra knew the law, he was literate; his victims didn't know it as well as he did, and so they assumed he must be right, or at least, felt unable to argue with him in terms of Biblical interpretation. So often this has been the case. It is classic religious abuse. Ezra presents badly here; and he was clearly just following the lead of Shecaniah, who had falsely claimed they were breaking covenant with God and needed to make a new one (:2). The answer to that should have been that they needed to bring their Gentile wives and children into the new covenant with Yahweh.

Ezra 10:13 But the people are many, and it is a time of much rain, and we are not able to stand outside; neither is this a work of one day or two; for we have greatly transgressed in this matter- The idea seems to be that they felt they had to wait in line outside in order to each come before Ezra and have absolution from sin or their marriages dissolved. Perhaps I am being too critical, but I do get the sense that they were still in a 'religious' mindset, rather than seeking to God personally on their knees. For repentance and receipt of forgiveness doesn't need to be formalized by men, nor are those things mediated through men. Perhaps this is why by the time of Nehemiah, they sinned again in this manner; and again in Malachi's time.

The torrential rain made an open air meeting very difficult. Why did this occur, and why does the record labour it? Possibly because this agreement to mass divorce wives and break up families did not have God's blessing. In fact they couldn't effect the divorces as planned because of the rain, and had to delay it. We think of the rain sent when Israel wanted a king, a sign of God's displeasure with their decision making. His wrath at that point was hardly with the Jews for their marriages, which had been contracted before, and now they were repentant. His wrath, I suggest, was with the divorces.

Ezra 10:14 Let now our princes be appointed for all the assembly- "Appointed" is AV "stand"; the idea may be as in GNB: "Let our officials stay in Jerusalem and take charge of the matter".

And let all those who are in our cities who have married foreign women come at appointed times, and with them the elders of every city, and its judges, until the fierce wrath of our God be turned from us, until this matter is resolved- They seemed to think that the legal resolution of the marriage issue was required to turn away the wrath of God, and it took three months to do so (see on :17). But getting paperwork right in a legal sense is not going to turn away the wrath of God; He doesn't cherish being angry and His wrath can be turned away in a moment by repentance. Yet they seemed to think that the three months of legal process was required to turn away His wrath.

Ezra argues that the mass divorce will turn away God's wrath (:14).  Despite having spoken about guilt and trespass, he never suggests they offer a sacrifice for their guilt and transgression, even though this was specifically stipulated for leaders who had sinned. This lack of attention to basic Divine principle and law was because Ezra failed to understand that the blood looked forward to that of the Lord. It was all of works, to him, and not of faith in grace

Ezra 10:15 Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahzeiah the son of Tikvah stood up against this; and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them- This could mean that they "opposed the plan" (GNB), or that they alone assisted Ezra in it, "were with me concerning this" (LXX).

Ezra 10:16 The children of the captivity did so. Ezra the priest, with certain heads of fathers’ households, after their fathers’ houses, and all of them by their names, were set apart; and they sat down in the first day of the tenth month to examine the matter-

The account of Judah’s separation from the surrounding peoples reads similar to that of the purges from idolatry during the reign of the kings. They separated / purged, and then, within a few years, we read of them doing so again. Initially, the exiles separated from the peoples of the land (Ezra 6:21); by Ezra 9:1 they are in need of separating again; then they separate (Ezra 10:16), only to need another call to separation by the time of Nehemiah 9:2; 13:3. They obviously found it extremely difficult to be separated from the surrounding world unto God’s law (Nehemiah 10:28). There was a powerful logic- either separate from the world around, or be separated from the people of God (Ezra 10:8). It’s a separation- one way or the other.

Ezra 10:17 They made an end with all the men who had married foreign women by the first day of the first month- This seems a long period of time to resolve the issue; three months. Presumably this was because there was some local law to the effect that divorce could not be effected immediately but required a period of time. And yet as explained on :14, they were mistaken to think that such legalism would turn away God's wrath of itself. It was from the heart repentance that was required. Because of this legalistic approach, it is unsurprising that by Nehemiah's time they were committing the same sin.

Ezra 10:18 Among the sons of the priests there were found who had married foreign women: of the sons of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, and his brothers, Maaseiah, and Eliezer, and Jarib, and Gedaliah- This would indicate that Joshua of Zech. 3 was not so spiritually strong, and therefore failed to fulfill the potential of there being a Messianic high priest in the reestablished Kingdom of God whose name was Jesus. This public listing of the sinners, beginning with the family of the High Priest, was itself a form of discipline; and may be the basis of "them [elders] that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear" (1 Tim. 5:20).

Ezra 10:19 They gave their hand that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their guilt- The implication could be that all who were guilty also offered the guilt offering. But a ram was offered for a guilt offering when people had sinned in ignorance (Lev. 5:14-19). It is hard to believe that they really had acted in ignorance; so their repentance was rather compromised by claiming they had in fact sinned in ignorance. If indeed they had sinned in ignorance, then this is a tacit reflection of the extent to which they were totally adrift from the word and spirit of their God. We note that although the cult was established and an altar in place, Ezra doesn't make the individuals offer a personal sacrifice for atonement- although for priests it was required in Lev. 4:1-6:7. He failed to perceive that atonement required the shedding of blood, looking forward to that of Messiah. Despite being "a scribe expert in the law of Moses".

Ezra 10:20 Of the sons of Immer: Hanani and Zebadiah-  Only four courses of priests returned, when there were supposed to be 24 of them, namely Pashhur, Jedaiah, Immer, and Hardin (Ezra 2:37; 1 Chron. 24:7, 8,14). The priesthood had been deeply corrupt at the time of the exile, and it seems most of them preferred to remain in Babylon. And even of those who did return, they married unbelievers, despite having the 'Yah' suffix in their names.

There are only around 112 men mentioned here as having divorced their wives, and most were priests or Levites. Surely there were many others who had married women from the "people of the land"? There is no record of the threatened sanctions being carried out. We suspect that this repentance was not very deep reaching; and around 15-20 years later, in Nehemiah's time, the issue persists.

Ezra 10:21 Of the sons of Harim: Maaseiah, and Elijah, and Shemaiah, and Jehiel, and Uzziah- "Harim" means 'snubnosed'; the priest in whom there was a physical defect, such as to exclude him from priestly service. For this is the word used of how a 'flat nosed' man was excluded from priestly service (Lev. 21:18). Perhaps they were eager at the chance to serve in the restored temple, guessing that the regulations would be relaxed due to the relative lack of priests and Levites returning. Or the idea could simply be that the requirements of the law were not followed by the priests who returned. Perhaps this was why Harim's sons married out of the faith; or perhaps their physical defect  made them prone to any possibility of marriage.

Ezra 10:22 Of the sons of Pashhur: Elioenai, Maaseiah, Ishmael, Nethanel, Jozabad, and Elasah- Perhaps descendants of the unfaithful Pashur the priest of Jer. 20:1-3. We note that a relatively large number of this family returned with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:38). They would have been perceived as relatively faithful; but relatively many of them married unbelievers. So having a 'good name' amongst the community of believers is no guarantee of abiding spirituality.

Ezra 10:23 Of the Levites: Jozabad, and Shimei, and Kelaiah (the same is Kelita), Pethahiah, Judah, and Eliezer- "Shimei" = 'famous' and "Kelaiah" = 'insignificant'. The impression is that the well known and prominent as well as the insignificant were alike caught up in this weakness of relationships with Gentile women.

Ezra 10:24 Of the singers: Eliashib. Of the porters: Shallum, and Telem, and Uri- Again the impression is given that weakness in terms of illicit relationships is a weakness which is found in all sectors of society; from the high priest to the priests to the singers and even the porters.

Ezra 10:25 Of Israel: Of the sons of Parosh: Ramiah, and Izziah, and Malchijah, and Mijamin, and Eleazar, and Malchijah, and Benaiah- We note again that the exiles of Judah are called "Israel"- because Ezra was seeking to redefine "Israel" as the returned exiles, to the exclusion of all others. "Of Israel" appears to refer to the ordinary Israelites, apart from the priesthood. 85 offenders are now listed, compared to 28 amongst the Levites in the previous verses. A fair case could be made that the Levites / priests, those who were intended to be the spiritual leaders and teachers of the community, had sinned proportionately far more than the rest of the general population. And we noted on Ezra 2 that there were relatively few from the tribe of Levi who returned. This was truly a sad state of affairs, especially as I suggested on Ezra 9:2,3 that the relationships with these women were associated with an acceptance of their gods.

Ezra 10:26 Of the sons of Elam: Mattaniah, Zechariah, and Jehiel, and Abdi, and Jeremoth, and Elijah- It was their brother Shecaniah who realized that there really had to be action taken about the situation (:2). This is the more commendable because it involved a recognition that his own family had done wrong; and as in many churches today, to accept wrong behaviour amongst family members isn't something which comes easy, and involves a willingness to see things from a far wider and Godly perspective.

Ezra 10:27 Of the sons of Zattu: Elioenai, Eliashib, Mattaniah, and Jeremoth, and Zabad, and Aziza- Zattu was one of the elders who later was to sign to the covenant that they would separate themselves from the peoples of the land (Neh. 9:2 cp. Neh. 10:14). So this separation at this time was quickly undone, so quickly that we can assume it was somewhat fictive and insincere.

Ezra 10:28 Of the sons of Bebai: Jehohanan, Hananiah, Zabbai, Athlai- "Bebai" isn't a Hebrew word; some of the exiles had so assimilated that they only had local Persian names. And so the attraction to Gentile women in Judah was in turn hard to resist. They failed to appreciate their high calling in one context and so failed in later contexts.

Ezra 10:29 Of the sons of Bani: Meshullam, Malluch, and Adaiah, Jashub, and Sheal, Jeremoth- Bani = "Builder", perhaps so named because he was keen to rebuild Jerusalem; it was a popular name because there are three separate men in this chapter called that name (:29,34,38). But, as we all can, he focused so much on the physical aspects of God's work that he failed to appreciate the spiritual implications.

Ezra 10:30 Of the sons of Pahathmoab: Adna, and Chelal, Benaiah, Maaseiah, Mattaniah, Bezalel, and Binnui, and Manasseh-  The family of Pahathmoab also features in those who returned under Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:6) and were later noted for their work in rebuilding the walls (Neh. 3:11). And yet the founder of this family apparently had Gentile connections- "the pit of Moab". This might explain their tendency towards marriage out of the faith. But see on Ezra 8:4.

Ezra 10:31 Of the sons of Harim: Eliezer, Isshijah, Malchijah, Shemaiah, Shimeon- All these names are very 'spiritual'; but we can have a name we live and yet be spiritually dead and worldly.

Ezra 10:32 Benjamin, Malluch, Shemariah- Shemariah is LXX Samaria. This is incidental evidence that some of the ten tribes returned with the people of Judah. But the grand reunion of Israel and Judah on the basis of repentance, to form a new people of God, simply didn't happen; for most of the ten tribes as well as Judah chose to remain in captivity.

Ezra 10:33 Of the sons of Hashum: Mattenai, Mattattah, Zabad, Eliphelet, Jeremai, Manasseh, Shimei- Admittedly "sons of..." may mean relatives. But if they were all the sons of Hashum, this is a sad spiritual statement about the family- that the seven sons all married out of the faith. We see here how spiritual attitudes spread so easily within families, and negative attitudes spread easier than positive ones.

Ezra 10:34 Of the sons of Bani: Maadai, Amram, and Uel- Bani = "Builder", perhaps so named because he was keen to rebuild Jerusalem; it was a popular name because there are three separate men in this chapter called that name (:29,34,38). But, as we all can, he focused so much on the physical aspects of God's work that he failed to appreciate the spiritual implications.

Ezra 10:35 Benaiah, Bedeiah, Cheluhi- Benaiah was a popular name, taken in memory of the chiefest and most loyal of David's mighty men (2 Sam. 23:22); there are four men in this chapter of this name (:25,30,35,43). The tendency to name children after spiritual heroes is understandable, but spirituality isn't inherited; it has to be personal. And these four men of this name are named and shamed here for their marriage out of the faith.

Ezra 10:36 Vaniah, Meremoth, Eliashib- In all, 12 "sons of Bani" married out of the faith. The family of "the builder" were shamed by their apostasy. To physically work for the Lord isn't the same as true personal spirituality.

Ezra 10:37 Mattaniah, Mattenai, and Jaasu- Again we note the Yah suffix or prefix in the names. But this was all external spirituality only.

Ezra 10:38 and Bani, and Binnui, Shimei- This seems to mark a new clan or "sons of...". LXX "And so did the children of Banui, and the children of Semei"; GNB "Clan of Binnui: Shimei, Shelemiah...". See on :34.

Ezra 10:39 and Shelemiah, and Nathan, and Adaiah- Shelemiah's son Hananiah worked on repairing the walls (Neh. 3:30). So perhaps Shelemiah's repentance was genuine and his son learnt the lesson from seeing his half-siblings being separated from.

Ezra 10:40 Machnadebai, Shashai, Sharai- "Machnadebai" is a form of the word translated 'willingly offered' (Ezra 1:6; 2:68; 3:5; Neh. 11:2). And yet he married an unbeliever. No amount of freewill offering to God or voluntary work for Him can compensate for a heart given to Him. And he clearly lacked that, otherwise he wouldn't have married an unbeliever and been named and shamed for it.

Ezra 10:41 Azarel, and Shelemiah, Shemariah- Many of these names reflect thankfulness to God- meaning things like "God has helped" or "Yah has guarded". But it's as if the receipt of grace and recognition of grace had resulted in a continuance in sin that that grace might abound (as in Rom. 6:1), rather than a dedication of themselves solely to Him.

Ezra 10:42 Shallum, Amariah, Joseph- A name like Joseph is incidental evidence that some of the ten tribes returned with the people of Judah. But the grand reunion of Israel and Judah on the basis of repentance, to form a new people of God, simply didn't happen; for most of the ten tribes as well as Judah chose to remain in captivity.

Ezra 10:43 Of the sons of Nebo: Jeiel, Mattithiah, Zabad, Zebina, Iddo, and Joel, Benaiah- Benaiah was a popular name, taken in memory of the chiefest and most loyal of David's mighty men (2 Sam. 23:22); there are four men in this chapter of this name (:25,30,35,43). The tendency to name children after spiritual heroes is understandable, but spirituality isn't inherited; it has to be personal. And these four men of this name are named and shamed here for their marriage out of the faith.

Ezra 10:44 All these had taken foreign wives; and some of them had wives by whom they had children- These relationships and children are defined as being part of mixing with the abominations of the peoples (Ezra 9:1,2). And "abominations" always refers to idol worship. So it could be that the relationships with these women were a result of sleeping with cult prostitutes and having children thereby. There was therefore far more to what happened than simply marrying out of the faith. To 'take daughters for themselves' (Ezra 9:2) may not mean marriage itself, but could refer to the kind of cultic relationships which went along with idol worship at the shrines. This is why the separation from these women with whom they had had children  would not then be quite the same as breaking up marriage and full blown family life.

We have seen that the demand to break up families was not in fact in accordance with God's law, which is "holy just and good", and is never willfully destructive of man. Again and again, Ezra invites us to ponder his motives, and the degree to which we can break one Divine principle in order to attempt to keep another. This in fact is the spirit in which Ezra's memoir ends, with this otherwise strange comment after Ezra had made the Jews divorce their Gentile wives: "some of them had wives by whom they had children" (Ezra 10:44). Ezra is looking back and reflecting on the long term impact of his decisions. For there was no Mosaic command to separate from Gentile wives. We could say that what he did haunted him, even though there were strands of sincerity in his motivation. Just as those who disfellowship individuals from churches in their zeal for "God's truth" end up wrecking families... and at the end of their days must look back and wonder about what they did... See on Ezra 8:22.

We read no more of Ezra until in Neh. 8:1 he is asked to read God's law to the people in Nehemiah's time. Ezra returned from Babylon in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (Ezra 7:7) in 458 BC, and Nehemiah arrived in the same king’s twentieth year (Neh. 2:1) in 445. Ezra's work over those 13 years isn't recorded. In that time, Jerusalem had gone from a populated city (Ezra 1:1) to a depopulated city with broken down walls (Neh. 7:4; 11:1-3; 13:10-13). Possibly Ezra had returned to Babylon in that period; or perhaps he had a ministry which, like that of so many, produced little fruit. Yet still he kept on, for he reappears in Neh. 8:1 to read the law to the people. His attempt to fix the mixed marriages didn't go well, because Nehemiah had to address the same problem. The scene in Neh. 13 is very similar to that in Ezra 9,10- to make the point, that the problem recurred and Ezra had failed to address the root of the issue. But nearly all the prophets were failed reformers, and only a very few believers ever seem to remain consistently faithful to the Lord. In fact only Jonah, of all the prophets, had a successful ministry. On the other hand, we could say that Ezra himself is reflecting that his defining work had simply been to break up 112 marriages- and it hadn't worked. In Nehemiah's time, 13 years later, the people apparently had not even been taught the need to keep the feast of Tabernacles. They are very disobedient to Torah, practicing usury, not tithing and breaking the sabbath. Ezra's ministry had failed, or perhaps he had not really bothered doing the hard work of teaching God's word; he had simply maxed out on marriage out of the faith. And broken up families with kids. And in his memoirs, he admits this.