Bible Commentaries

Ezra's Proceedings in theSeverance of the Strange Women fromthe Congregation of Israel - Ezra 9:1

When Ezra, some time after his arrival, was in the temple at Jerusalem, theprinces of the people informed him that the Israelites had mingledthemselves by marriage with the people of the lands (Ezra 9:1-2). Deeplymoved by this communication, he sat astonished till the time of theevening sacrifice, while all who feared God's word assembled about him(Ezra 9:3, Ezra 9:4). At the evening sacrifice he fell upon his knees and prayed,making a touching confession of sin before God, in the name of thecongregation (Ezra 9:5-15). During this prayer many were gathered aroundhim weeping, and Shecaniah coming forth from their midst, acknowledgedthat transgressions of the congregation, and declared that they would makea covenant with God to put away all the strange wives (Ezra 10:1-4). Aftermaking the princes, the priests, and Levites take an oath that they woulddo according to the declaration thus made, Ezra left the temple and retiredto the chamber of Johanan, to fast and mourn over the transgression ofthose who had returned from captivity (Ezra 10:5, Ezra 10:6). An assembly atJerusalem was then proclaimed, and those who should not attend it werethreatened with heavy penalties (Ezra 10:7-9). At this assembly Ezra reprovedthe people for their transgression, and called upon them to separatethemselves from the people of the countries, and from the strange wives(Ezra 10:10, Ezra 10:11); upon which the assembly resolved to appoint a commissionto investigate and decide upon individual cases. In spite of the oppositionof some, this proposal was accepted, and the commission named (Ezra 10:12-17), which held its sittings from the first day of the tenth month, and madean end of its investigations into all cases brought before it by the close ofthe year. Then follows the list of those who had taken strange wives (10:18-44), with which the book concludes.

Information given of the intermingling of Israel with the heathennations of the land by marriage (Ezra 9:1-4), and Ezra's prayer and confession(Ezra 9:5-15). - Ezra 9:1, Ezra 9:2. “When this was done, the princes came to me, andsaid, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, do not separatethemselves from the people of the lands, according to their abominations,(even) of the Canaanites; … for they have taken (wives) of their daughtersfor themselves and for their sons, and the holy seed have mingledthemselves with the people of the lands.” What now follows is placed inclose chronological sequence with what precedes by the formula אלּה וּככלּות, at the time of the completion of these things;comp. 2 Chronicles 31:1; 2 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 7:1. אלּה are the things related Ezra 8:33-36. Of these the delivery of the gifts took place on the fourth dayafter Ezra's arrival at Jerusalem, i.e., on the fourth or fifth day of the firstmonth (comp. Ezra 8:32, etc., with Ezra 7:9). The sacrifices (Ezra 8:35) would undoubtedly be offered immediately; andthe royal orders would be transmitted to the satraps and governors (Ezra 8:36)very soon after. As soon, then, as Ezra received intelligence concerning theillegal marriages, he took the matter in hand, so that all related (Ezra 9:3-10)occurred on one day. The first assemblage of the people with relation tothis business was not, however, held till the twentieth day of the ninthmonth (Ezra 10:9); while on the calling of this meeting, appearance thereat wasprescribed within three days, thus leaving apparently an interval of ninewhole months between Ezra 8 and Ezra 9:1-15. Hence Bertheau conjectures that thefirst proclamation of this assembly encountered opposition, becausecertain influential personages were averse to the further prosecution of thismatter (Ezra 10:15). But though Ezra 10:4-7 does not inform us what period elapsedbetween the adoption of Shecaniah's proposal to Ezra, and theproclamation for assembling the people at Jerusalem, the narrative doesnot give the impression that this proclamation was delayed for monthsthrough the opposition it met with. Besides, Ezra may have received the information concerning the unlawfulmarriages, not during the month of his arrival at Jerusalem, but somemonths later. We are not told whether it was given immediately, or soonafter the completion of the matters mentioned Ezra 8:33-36. The deliveryof the royal commands to the satraps and governors (Ezra 8:36) may haveoccupied weeks or months, the question being not merely to transmit theking's decrees to the said officials, but to come to such an understandingwith them as might secure their favour and goodwill in assisting the newlyestablished community, and supporting the house of God. The lastsentence (Ezra 8:36), “And they furthered the people and the house of God,”plainly shows that such an understanding with the royal functionaries waseffected, by transactions which must have preceded what is related Ezra 9:1-15.

This matter having been arranged, and Ezra being now about to enter uponthe execution of his commission to inquire concerning Judah and Jerusalemaccording to the law of his God (Ezra 7:12), he received information of theillegal marriages. While he was in the temple, the princes (השּׂרים, the princes, are those who give the information, the article beingused e.g., like that in הפּליט, Genesis 14:13) came to him, saying:The people (viz., Israel, the priests, and the Levites; the three classes ofthe Israelite community) do not separate themselves from the people ofthe lands; comp. Ezra 6:21. כּתעבתיהם, with respect to theirabominations, i.e., as Israel should have done with respect to theabominations of these people. The ל to לכּנעני might beregarded as introducing the enumeration of the different nations, andcorresponding with מעמּי; it is, however, more likely that it isused merely as a periphrasis for the genitive, and subordinates the namesto תּעבתיהם: their, i.e., the Canaanites', etc., abominations, thesuffix relating, as e.g., at Ezra 3:12 and elsewhere, to the names following. Give Canaanitish races are here named, as in Exodus 13:5, with this difference,that the Perizzites are here substituted for the Hivites, while in Exodus 3:8; Exodus 23:23, both are enumerated, making six; to these are added in Deuteronomy 7:1 theGirgashites, making, generally speaking, seven nations. Ammonites,Moabites, and Egyptians are here cited besides the Canaanitish races. Thenon-severance of the Israelites from these nations consisted, according toEzra 9:2, in the fact of their having contracted marriages with them. In the law,indeed (Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3), only marriages with Canaanitish women wereforbidden; but the reason of this prohibition, viz., that Israel might not beseduced by them to idolatry, made its extension to Moabites, Ammonites,and Egyptians necessary under existing circumstances, if an effectual checkwas to be put to the relapse into heathenism of the Israelitish community,now but just gathered out again from among the Gentiles. For during thecaptivity idolaters of all nations had settled in the depopulated country,and mingled with the remnant of the Israelites left there. By “the people of the lands,” however, we are not to understand, with J. H. Michaelis, remnants of the races subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar andcarried to Babylon, - who were now, after seventy years, returning, as wellas the Jews, to their native lands under Cyrus; in support of which viewMich. incorrectly refers to Jeremiah 25:9, etc. - but those portions, both of theancient Canaanitish races and of the Moabites and Ammonites, who,escaping the sentence of captivity, remained in the land. נשׂאוּ isnaturally completed by נשׁים from the context; comp. Ezra 10:44; 2 Chronicles 11:21, and other passages. The subject of התערבוּ is the collective הקּדשׁ זרע, the holy seed, i.e.,the members of the nation called to holiness (Exodus 19:5). The appellation istaken from Isaiah 6:13, where the remnant of the covenant people, preservedin the midst of judgments, and purified thereby, is called a holy seed. Thesecond part of Ezra 9:2 contains an explanatory accessory clause: and the handof the princes and rulers hath been first in this unfaithfulness (מעל, comp. Leviticus 5:15), i.e., the princes were the first to transgress; onthe figurative expression, comp. Deuteronomy 13:10. סגנים is an Old-Persian word naturalized in Hebrew, signifying commander, prefect; butits etymology is not as yet satisfactorily ascertained: see Delitzsch on Isaiah 41:25.

This information threw Ezra into deep grief and moral consternation. Thetearing of the upper and under garments was a sign of heartfelt andgrievous affliction (Joshua 8:6); see remarks on Leviticus 10:6. The plucking outof (a portion of) the hair was the expression of violent wrath or moralindignation, comp. Nehemiah 13:25, and is not to be identified with the cuttingoff of the hair in mourning Job 1:20). “And sat down stunned;”משׁומם, desolate, rigid, stunned, without motion. While hewas sitting thus, there were gathered unto him all who feared the word ofGod concerning the transgression of those that had been carried away. חרד, trembling, being terrified, generally construed with על or אל (e.g., Isaiah 66:2, Isaiah 66:5), but here with ב (like verbs ofembracing, believing), and meaning to believe with trembling in the wordwhich God had spoken concerning this מעל, i.e., thinking withterror of the punishments which such faithless conduct towards acovenant God involved.

Ezra's prayer and confession for the congregation. - Ezra 9:5 And at the time ofthe evening sacrifice, I rose up from my mortification (תּענית,humiliation, generally through fasting, here through sitting motionless indeep affliction of soul), and rending my garment and my mantle. Thesewords contribute a second particular to קמתּי, and do not meanthat Ezra arose with his garments torn, but state that, on arising, he renthis clothing, and therefore again manifested his sorrow in this manner. Hethen fell on his knees, and spread out his hands to God (comp. 1 Kings 8:22), to make a confession of the heavy guilt of the congregation beforeGod, and thus impressively to set their sins before all who heard hisprayer.

Ezra 9:6

9:6, etc. The train of thought in this prayer is as follows: I scarcely dareto lift up my fact to God, through shame for the greatness of our misdeeds(Ezra 9:6). From the days of our fathers, God has sorely punished us for oursins by delivering us into the power of our enemies; but has now againturned His pity towards us, and revived us in the place of His sanctuary,through the favour of the king of Persia (Ezra 9:7). But we have againtransgressed His commands, with the keeping of which God has connectedour possession of the good land given unto us (Ezra 9:10). Should we then,after God has spared us more than we through our trespasses havedeserved, bring His wrath upon us, till we are wholly consumed? God isjust; He has preserved us; but we stand before Him with heavy guilt uponus, such guilt that we cannot endure God's presence (Ezra 9:13). Ezra doesnot pray for the pardon of their sin, for he desires only to bring thecongregation to the knowledge of the greatness of their transgression, andso to invite them to do all that in them lies to atone for their guilt, and toappease God's wrath.

“I am ashamed, and am covered with shame, to lift up my face toThee, my God.” ונכלמתּי בּשׁתּי united, as in Jeremiah 31:19, comp. Isaiah 45:16, and other passages. נכלם, to be covered withshame, is stronger than בּושׁ. “For our iniquities are increasedover our head,” i.e., have grown above our head. ראשׁ למעלה, to or over the head. למעלה serves to enhance themeaning of רבוּ, like 1 Chronicles 23:17. “And our guiltiness is great,(reaching) unto the heavens;” comp. 2 Chronicles 28:9.

Ezra 9:7

“Since the days of our fathers, have we, our kings, our priests,been delivered into the hands of the kings of the lands, to the sword, tocaptivity, to plunder, and to shame of face.” The words from בּחרב onwards serve to explain what is meant by being delivered into thehand of strange kings. On the expression פּנים בּשׁת,comp. Daniel 9:7, etc., 2 Chronicles 32:21. הזּה כּהיּום, as itis this day, as is to-day the case; see remarks on Daniel 9:7. The thought is:We are still sorely suffering for our sins, by being yet under the yoke offoreign sovereigns.

Ezra 9:8-9

“And now for a little moment there has been mercy from theLord our God, to leave us a rescued remnant, and to give us a nail in Hisholy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little revivingin our bondage.” He calls the short interval between their release fromcaptivity by Cyrus, and the time when he is speaking, רגע כּמעט, a little moment (comp. Isaiah 26:20), in comparison with the longperiod of suffering from the times of the Assyrians (comp. Nehemiah 9:32) tillthe reign of Cyrus. פּליטה, a rescued remnant, is the newcommunity delivered from Babylon, and returned to the land of theirfathers. In proportion to the numerous population of former days, it wasbut a remnant that escaped destruction; but a remnant which, according tothe predictions of the prophets, was again to grow into a large nation. Afoundation for this hope was given by the fact that God had given them “anail in the place of His sanctuary.”The expression is figurative. יתד is a nail or peg struck into thewall, to hang any kind of domestic utensils upon; comp. Isaiah 22:23, etc. Such a nail was the place of God's sanctuary, the temple, to the rescuedcommunity. This was to them a firm nail, by which they were borne andupheld; and this nail God had given them as a support to which they mightcling, and gain new life and vigour. The infinitive clauses following,להאיר and לתתּנוּ, are dependent upon the precedinginfinitives להשׁאיר and ולתת, and state the purpose forwhich God has given a nail in His house to this remnant. That our Godmay enlighten our eyes, i.e., may bestow upon us new vitality; comp. Psalm 13:4. Suffering and misfortune make the eyes dim, and their light isquenched in death: the enlightened or beaming eye is an image of vitalpower; comp. 1 Samuel 14:27, 1 Samuel 14:29. מחיה לתתּנוּ is not tobe translated, ut daret nobis vivificationem, the suffix to לתתּנוּ being not dative, but accusative. The literal rendering is: that He may make us a slight reviving. מחיה, the means of supporting life, restoration to life; see on 2 Chronicles 14:13. Ezra addsמעט; for the life to which the community hadattained was but feeble, in comparison with a vigorous social life. Theirdeliverance from Babylon and return to the land of their fathers was, so tospeak, a revival from death; compare the embodiment of this figure inEzekiel's vision, Ezekiel 37:1-14: they were, however, still in a state ofvassalage, and had not yet regained their independence. This thought isfurther carried out in Ezra 9:9: “For we are bondmen, yet our God hath notforsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy to us before the kingsof Persia; so that they have given us a reviving to build up the house of ourGod, and to repair its ruins, and have given us a wall about us in Judah andJerusalem.” They who have returned to Jerusalem and Judah are stillbondmen, for they are yet under the Persian yoke; but God has disposedthe kings of Persia so to favour them as to give them a reviving, to enablethem to rebuild the house of God. Cyrus and Darius had not merelypermitted and commanded the building of the temple, but had alsofurnished them with considerable assistance towards the carrying out ofthis work; comp. Ezra 1:3, etc. Ezra 6:7-9. The suffix in חרבתיו alludes to אלהים בּית. The words of the last sentence are figurative. גּדר meansthe wall of a vineyard, the wall or fence built for its protection (Isaiah 5:2, Isaiah 5:5). Hence the wall, or enclosure, is an image of protection from the incursionsand attacks of enemies. Such a wall has been given them in Judah andJerusalem by the kings of Persia. “The meaning is not that they possess aplace defended by walls (perhaps, therefore, the temple) in Jerusalem andJudah, but that the Persian kings have given to the new community a safedwelling-place (or the means of existence), because the power of thePersian empire secures to the returned Israelites continued and undisturbedpossession of the city and the land.” (Bertheau.)
After this statement concerning the divine favour, Ezra next sets himself todescribe the conduct of his countrymen with respect to the mercyextended to them.

Ezra 9:10

“And now, O our God, what can we say after this? That wehave forsaken Thy commandments,” זאת, i.e., such proofs of thedivine compassion as have just been mentioned. The answer which followscommences with כּי, before which נאמר is mentallyrepeated: “we can only say that we have forsaken Thy commandments,requited Thy kindness with sins.”

Ezra 9:11-12

Namely, the commandments “which Thou hast commandedby Thy servants the prophets, saying, The land unto which ye go topossess it is an unclean land through the uncleanness of the people of thelands, through their abominations, wherewith they have filled it from oneend to another through their impurity. And now give not your daughtersunto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons (for wives),nor seek their peace nor their wealth for ever; that ye may be strong, andeat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children forever.” The words of the prophets introduced by לאמר are foundin these terms neither in the prophetical books nor the Pentateuch. Theyare not, therefore, to be regarded as a verbal quotation, but only as adeclaration that the prohibition of intermarriage with the heathen had beeninculcated by the prophets. The introduction of this prohibition by the words: the land unto which yego to possess it, refers to the Mosaic age, and in using it Ezra had chieflyin view Deuteronomy 7:1-3. He interweaves, however, with this passage othersayings from the Pentateuch, e.g., Deuteronomy 23:7, and from the propheticwritings, without designing to make a verbal quotation. He says quitegenerally, by His servants the prophets, as the author of the books ofKings does in similar cases, e.g., 2 Kings 17:23; 2 Kings 21:10; 2 Kings 24:2, where theleading idea is, not to give the saying of some one prophet, but torepresent the truth in question as one frequently reiterated. The sayings ofMoses in Deuteronomy also bear a prophetical character; for in this bookhe, after the manner of the prophets, seeks to make the people lay to heartthe duty of obeying the law. It is true that we do not meet in the otherbooks of Scripture a special prohibition of marriages with Canaanites,though in the prophetical remarks, Judges 3:6, such marriages are reprovedas occasions of seducing the Israelites to idolatry, and in the propheticdescriptions of the whoredoms of Israel with Baalim, and the generalanimadversions upon apostasy from the Lord, the transgression of thisprohibition is implicitly included; thus justifying the general expression,that God had forbidden the Israelites to contract such marriages, by Hisservants the prophets. Besides, we must here take into consideration the threatening of theprophets, that the Lord would thrust Israel out of the land for their sins,among which intermarriage with the Canaanites was by no means the least. Ezra, moreover, makes use of the general expression, “by the prophets,”because he desired to say that God had not merely forbidden thesemarriages one or twice in the law, but had also repeatedly inculcated thisprohibition by the prophets. The law was preached by the prophets whenthey reiterated what was the will of God as revealed in the law of Moses. In this respect Ezra might well designate the prohibition of the law as thesaying of the prophets, and cite it as pronounced according to thecircumstances of the Mosaic period.

(Note: It is hence evident that these words of Ezra afford no evidenceagainst the single authorship of the Pentateuch. The inference that asaying of the law, uttered during the wanderings in the wilderness, ishere cited as a saying of the prophets the servants of Jahve, is,according to the just remark of Bertheau, entirely refuted even by thefact that the words cited are nowhere found in the Pentateuch in thisexact form, and that hence Ezra did not intend to make a verbalquotation.)

The words: the land into which ye go, etc., recall the introduction of thelaw in Deuteronomy 7:1, etc.; but the description of the land as a land ofuncleanness through the uncleanness of the people, etc., does not read thuseither in the Pentateuch or in the prophets. נדּה, the uncleannessof women, is first applied to moral impurity by the prophets: comp. Lamentations 1:17; Ezekiel 7:20; Ezekiel 36:17, comp. Isaiah 64:5. The expression מפּה אל־פּה,from edge to edge, i.e., from one end to the other, like לפה פּה, 2 Kings 10:21; 2 Kings 21:16, is taken from vessels filled to their upperrim. ועתּה introduces the consequence: and now, this being thecase. The prohibition וגו תּתּנוּ אל is worded after Deuteronomy 7:3. The addition: nor seek their peace, etc., is taken almost verbally fromDeuteronomy 23:7, where this is said in respect of the Ammonites and Moabites. תּחזקוּ למאן recalls Deuteronomy 11:8, and the promise: thatye may eat the good of the land for ever, Isaiah 1:19. לבניכם והורשׁתּם, and leave it for an inheritance to your children,does not occur in this form in the Pentateuch, but only the promise: thatthey and their children should possess the land for ever. On הורישׁ in this sense comp. Judges 11:24; 2 Chronicles 20:11.

Ezra 9:13-14

And after all, continues Ezra, taking up again the אחרי־זאת of Ezra 9:10, - “after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for ourgreat trespass - yea, Thou our God has spared us more than our iniquitydeserved, and hast given us this escaped remnant - can we again break Thycommandments, and join in affinity with the people of theseabominations? Wilt Thou not be angry with us even to extirpation, so thatno residue and no escaped remnant should be left?” The premiss in Ezra 9:13 is followed in Ezra 9:14 by the conclusion in the form of a question, while thesecond clause of Ezra 9:13 is an explanatory parenthesis. Bertheau construesthe passage otherwise. He finds the continuation of the sentence: and afterall this … in the words וגו אתּה כּי, which, calmlyspoken, would read: Thou, O God, hast not wholly destroyed us, but hastpreserved to us an escaped remnant; while instead of such a continuationwe have an exclamation of grateful wonder, emphatically introduced byכּי in the sense of כּי אמנם. With this construction of the clauses, however, no advance is made, andEzra, in this prayer, does but repeat what he had already said, Ezra 9:8 and Ezra 9:9;although the introductory אהרי leads us to expect a newthought to close the confession. Then, too, the logical connection betweenthe question Ezra 9:14 and what precedes it would be wanting, i.e., afoundation of fact for the question Ezra 9:14. Bertheau remarks on Ezra 9:14, thatthe question: should we return to break (i.e., break again) the commands ofGod? is an antithesis to the exclamation. But neither does this question, tojudge by its matter, stand in contrast to the exclamation, nor is any suchcontrast indicated by its form. The discourse advances in regularprogression only when Ezra 9:14 forms the conclusion arrived at from Ezra 9:13 ,and the thought in the premiss (13a) is limited by the thoughts introducedwith כּי. What had come upon Israel for their sins was, according to Ezra 9:7,deliverance into the hand of heathen kings, to the sword, to captivity, etc. God had not, however, merely chastened and punished His people fortheir sins, He had also extended mercy to them, Ezra 9:8, etc. This, therefore, isalso mentioned by Ezra in Ezra 9:13 , to justify, or rather to limit, the כּל in כּל־הבּא. The כּי is properly confirmatory: for Thou,our God, hast indeed punished us, but not in such measure as our sins haddeserved; and receives through the tenor of the clause the adversativemeaning of imo, yea (comp. Ewald, §330, b). למטּה מ חשׂכתּ, Thou hast checked, hast stopped, beneath ouriniquities. חשׂך is not used intransitively, but actively; themissing object must be supplied from the context: Thou hast withheldthat, all of which should have come upon us, i.e., the punishment wedeserved, or, as older expositors completed the sense, iram tuam. מעוננוּ למטּה, infra delicta nostra, i.e., Thouhast punished us less than our iniquities deserved. For their iniquities they had merited extirpation; but God had given them arescued remnant. כּזאת, as this, viz., this which exists in thecommunity now returned from Babylon to Judaea. This is thecircumstance which justifies the question: should we, or can we, again(נשׁוּב is used adverbially) break Thy commandments, andbecome related by marriage? (חתחתּן like Deuteronomy 7:3.)התּעבות עמּי, people who live in abominations. Theanswer to this question is found in the subsequent question: will He not - if,after the sparing mercy we have experienced, we again transgress thecommands of God - by angry with us till He have consumed us? כּלּה עד (comp. 2 Kings 13:17, 2 Kings 13:19) is strengthened by theaddition: so that there will be no remnant and no escaping. The questionintroduced by הלוא is an expression of certain assurance: He willmost certainly consume us.

Ezra 9:15

“Jahve, God of Israel, Thou art righteous; for we remain anescaped remnant, as (it is) this day. Behold, we are before Thee in ourtrespass; for no one can stand before Thy face, because of this.” Ezraappeals to the righteousness of God, not to supplicate pardon, as Nehemiah 9:33, for the righteousness of God would impel Him to extirpate the sinfulnation, but to rouse the conscience of the community, to point out to themwhat, after this relapse into their old abominations, they had to expectfrom the justice of God. נשׁארנוּ כּי is confirmatory. God has shown Himself to be just by so sorely punishing this oncenumerous nation, that only a small remnant which has escaped destructionnow exists. And this remnant has again most grievously offended: we liebefore Thee in our trespass; what can we expect from Thy justice?Nothing but destruction; for there is no standing before Thee, i.e., no onecan stand before Thee, על־זאת, because of this (comp. Ezra 8:23; Ezra 10:2),i.e., because of the fresh guilt which we have incurred.