by Ian McKee (Northern Ireland)
The events recorded at the close of Ezra ch.8 brought successfully to an end another phase of Ezra’s life and service. There was much cause for gratitude to God and, no doubt, Ezra and his companions were greatly relieved to have delivered to Jerusalem the entire deposit they had received in Babylon. All seemed to be well. But it wasn’t. There was sin among the Jewish colony in Judah. Over one hundred civil and religious leaders were guilty of breaking the law of the Lord.
Between the events recorded at the end of Ezra ch.8 and those in ch.9 and 10 is an interval of approximately 4 months, see Ezra 7.9b and 10.9. At the end of that period the princes came to Ezra saying "The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations … For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass," Ezra 9.1,2.
It is significant that the princes confess this sin. There is evidently a guilty conscience where, before, there had been complacency. But why did they confess the sin to Ezra? Surely it is because he was the same person in Jerusalem as he had been in Babylon: "for Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments," Ezra 7.10. The new dynamic was the presence of an active, teaching priest with moral authority.
Until this moment Ezra was not personally aware of this sin. This is clear from his extreme reaction: "And when I heard this thing, I rent my garment and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down astonied," Ezra 9.3. Yet the consistent, consecutive, applicatory teaching of the servant of God had probed deep into lives and practices that were at variance with Scripture. Sufficient place must be given to the public reading of God’s Word, to the expounding of the doctrines of Scripture and to their practical application. Blessed by God, Ezra’s accurate exposition revealed unholiness.
Had Ezra been teaching from Leviticus? If he had, he could not with good conscience pass over, "Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron … they shall not take a wife that is … profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God … and he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured … he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife," Lev.21.1-14. If Ezra was teaching from Deuteronomy he could not ignore the admonition in relation to the peoples of the land, "Thou shalt make no covenant with them … neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly," Deut.7.2-4. Similar teaching is given in Ex.23.31-33 and 34.11-17. This truth was also reiterated in Joshua’s last counsels, Josh.23.12,13. And if there be any lingering doubt on the part of any as to Divine displeasure in this regard, the record about Solomon makes sobering reading, IKg.11.1-11.
It should, of course, be noted that marriage to foreigners was not absolutely forbidden in the Old Testament as, for instance, Boaz had a foreign wife. However, it was expressly forbidden in the context where, actually or potentially, it compromised faith or practice. There is no doubt here as to this action being illicit, "for they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands", Ezra 9.2. It should, however, be noted that the text at this point does not accord the "daughters" the title "wife", but uses the word employed in Ezra 5.15 for taking vessels to the Temple. "Similarly Ezra does not employ the word for "marry", which has already been used in Ezra 2.61, but a word which, in this context, signifies "giving a dwelling to". These, therefore, were women taken up, as vessels, for an unlawful, and hence unholy, purpose.
It has, of course, to be acknowledged that had Joshua, in his day, driven out these heathen nations from the land, Ezra’s generation would not have been so imperilled. But it is not sufficient simply to blame earlier generations for present conditions, even though in this case they are blameworthy for contributing to 1,000 years of risk! And the risk is significant. For when the people of God sin, very often they sink deeper than the ungodly.
It has also to be recognised that Ezra’s generation was desensitised to the seriousness of what had taken place. After all, they are close relatives who are involved! It therefore required the uncompromising ministry of an "outsider" to be brought to bear. It was well that Ezra did not adopt the prevailing, complacent mindset. Rather he was prepared to teach in Israel statutes and judgments. His ministry was both timeless and timely. While all ministry has value, that which meets present or, better still, anticipates need is more precious in its rarity and beneficial effect.
It is quite possible that there may have been a scarcity of single women in the Jewish community. An insufficient number of females may have come from Babylon and there may have been no exercise to redress the balance. But that neither sanctions nor excuses sin! We note the sad commentary, "yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass," Ezra 9.2. It was the people from whom most was expected who set aside the Divine standard. It was they who first succumbed to Satan’s ancient objective to mingle the holy and profane and compromise a separate people.
Position and possessions, if not held in trust for the Lord, can often lead to pride, pitfalls and perversion. It would be a tragedy to have influence with the people of God and then to lead them on a wrong course. And, later, to be specifically named by God for so doing!
—to be continued (D.V.)