Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezra 10:15

Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah were employed about this [matter]: and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them.

15. Slight opposition.

Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah were employed about this matter] R.V. stood up against (Marg. Or, were appointed over) this matter.

The word ‘only’, the English reader should take notice, is not used in the sense of ‘alone’, but as an adversative, ‘notwithstanding’, ‘nevertheless’. It would therefore naturally introduce the mention of an exception or of an opposition.

There are two views as to the correct rendering of the verse. The point of difference lies in the Hebrew words variously rendered ‘were appointed over’ and ‘stood up against’. (1) The rendering of the A.V. ‘were employed about’, though less accurate, agrees with that of the R.V. margin ‘were appointed over’. The Hebrew literally translated is ‘stood over’; ( a) it is noticeable that this verb to ‘stand’ is the same as that used in the previous Ezr 10:12 ‘Let now our rulers be appointed (Heb. stand)’. If there were no other point to be considered, it would seem most natural that the narrative should be resumed with the same verb as had just occurred in a reported speech and with the repetition of the phrase ‘about this matter’ (Ezr 9:15). ( b) After the people’s declaration, it was to be expected that the names of some of the commission would be recorded. ( c) The use of the adversative may betaken to imply a departure from the first proposal of a commission. ( d) The mention of Meshullam and Shabbethai, who ‘helped’, seems to suggest cooperation in the execution of, not in the opposition to, the scheme. (2) The rendering of the R.V. ‘stood up against’ has greater probability. ( a) It accounts for the use of the adversative ‘only’. ( b) The use of the words to ‘stand over or against’ in a hostile sense is supported by 1Ch 21:1; 2Ch 20:23; Dan 8:25; Dan 11:14. ( c) Except for this verse we should have no record of any of the opposition, which, considering the extreme severity of the measures, would be almost inevitable. It is indeed a reasonable objection that the mention of the opposition is very awkwardly inserted between the people’s declaration and the statement (in Ezr 10:16) of their action. But this objection applies to the verse (15) as a whole rather than to the special interpretation of it, and, as a matter of fact, the abruptness of the insertion is due to the Compiler’s work, and is scarcely lessened by the alternative interpretation. Another objection, that the word ‘help’ used of Meshullam and Shabbethai would not naturally express their support of an opposition, can only be partially admitted. It is true that, as only four opponents are mentioned by name, they might much more easily have been grouped together, unless there was some special reason for separating them. But whatever special reason there was for separating the pairs of names, would apply equally well, whether the individuals were said to carry out or to oppose the scheme. This objection therefore like the other is equally well raised against any explanation of the verse; it does not affect the selection to be made between the two renderings.

Accepting the rendering of the R.V., we need not suppose that these four individuals were the only opponents of Ezra’s policy. They are here mentioned as the leaders of the opposition, and there is every reason to suppose that their opinions must have been shared by very many.

and Meshullam ] Possibly the same as the Meshullam mentioned in Ezr 10:29. If so, we may suppose from Ezr 10:19 that he along with the others who had similarly offended ‘gave his hand’ that he would put away his wife. Perhaps he had been convinced of the public necessity for the action, which for private reasons he felt obliged to condemn. This conflict of feeling might account for his being described as only ‘helping’ the opponents.

Shabbethai the Levite ] This name does not occur in 23 or 24 among the Levites who had offended. Shabbethai may have opposed for other reasons, either because members of his family were implicated, or because he considered the letter of the law to be strained by the adoption of the proposed measures. The opposition of a Levite deserved especial record.

helped them ] As if their position were a subordinate one in the opposition. They supported, but did not head the movement, cf. 1Ki 1:7 ‘they following Adonijah helped him’.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Some translate it: Nevertheless, Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah opposed this. The opposition was useless Ezr 10:16.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

To wit, to take due care that the business should be executed in the manner proposed, that the officers and delinquents of every city should come successively in convenient time and order, as these should appoint, and to take and keep an exact account of the whole transaction, and of the names of the cities and persons whose causes were despatched, and to give notice to others to come in their turns, and to prepare the business for the hearing of the judges. And these two were priests, as their coadjutors or helpers were Levites; that so they might inform the persons concerned, if any matter of doubt did arise.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

Only Jonathan the son of Asahel, and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah, were employed about the matter,…. To see that this affair was conducted in the manner proposed; that the magistrates of every city brought the persons that had been delinquents, in their turns, of which they gave them notice, and took the account of them as they came:

and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them; assisted them in this work; the other two perhaps were priests, and both these Levites; and these four were the only persons appointed over this matter, as the phrase in the preceding clause may signify; though Jarchi interprets it to a quite contrary sense, that they were the only persons that opposed and objected to it; and so Dr. Lightfoot r understands it, and renders it, “stood against this matter”; in which they were seconded by the two Levites, and the sense is very probable.

r Works, vol. 1. p. 144.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Jonathan the son of Asahel, and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah, indeed opposed this proposal on the part of the community, and were supported in their opposition by two Levites, but without being able to carry it out. This statement is introduced by , only, in the form of a qualification to the remark that the whole assembly (Ezr 10:12) made this resolution: nevertheless Jonathan … stood up against this. For , to stand up against, or as elsewhere , comp. 1Ch 21:1; 2Ch 20:23; Dan 8:25; Dan 11:14. Such also is the view of R. Sal. and Lightf., while older expositors understand it as meaning: only Jonathan … stood up for this matter, like the steterunt super hoc of the Vulgate, or as the decidedly incorrect explanation of J. H. Mich.: praefecti sunt huic negotio . – Nothing further is known of the four opponents here named. That they did not succeed in this opposition appears from what follows. Ezr 10:16 The children of the captivity, i.e., the returned exiles, did so; i.e., the congregation carried their resolve into execution. And Ezra the priest, and men, heads of houses according to their houses, – i.e., so that each house was represented by its head, – were separated, i.e., chosen to conduct the investigation. The copulative before has been lost, as asyndeton seeming in this case inadmissible. Bertheau, on the contrary, unnecessarily changes into after 1 Esdras 9:16. “And they all by names,” comp. Ezr 8:20. , and they held a sitting (i.e., their first sitting) on the first day of the tenth month, and therefore only ten days after the assembly just spoken of. , to inquire into the matter. It is impossible in Hebrew to form from , and this word can only arise from , as Ewald, 239, a, note, Olshausen, Lehrb. d. hebr. Spr. p. 150, and Bttcher, ausf. Lehrb. der hebr. Spr. i. 1, p. 162, note, unanimously agree.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

      15 Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah were employed about this matter: and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them.   16 And the children of the captivity did so. And Ezra the priest, with certain chief of the fathers, after the house of their fathers, and all of them by their names, were separated, and sat down in the first day of the tenth month to examine the matter.   17 And they made an end with all the men that had taken strange wives by the first day of the first month.   18 And among the sons of the priests there were found that had taken strange wives: namely, of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren; Maaseiah, and Eliezer, and Jarib, and Gedaliah.   19 And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass.   20 And of the sons of Immer; Hanani, and Zebadiah.   21 And of the sons of Harim; Maaseiah, and Elijah, and Shemaiah, and Jehiel, and Uzziah.   22 And of the sons of Pashur; Elioenai, Maaseiah, Ishmael, Nethaneel, Jozabad, and Elasah.   23 Also of the Levites; Jozabad, and Shimei, and Kelaiah, (the same is Kelita,) Pethahiah, Judah, and Eliezer.   24 Of the singers also; Eliashib: and of the porters; Shallum, and Telem, and Uri.   25 Moreover of Israel: of the sons of Parosh; Ramiah, and Jeziah, and Malchiah, and Miamin, and Eleazar, and Malchijah, and Benaiah.   26 And of the sons of Elam; Mattaniah, Zechariah, and Jehiel, and Abdi, and Jeremoth, and Eliah.   27 And of the sons of Zattu; Elioenai, Eliashib, Mattaniah, and Jeremoth, and Zabad, and Aziza.   28 Of the sons also of Bebai; Jehohanan, Hananiah, Zabbai, and Athlai.   29 And of the sons of Bani; Meshullam, Malluch, and Adaiah, Jashub, and Sheal, and Ramoth.   30 And of the sons of Pahath-moab; Adna, and Chelal, Benaiah, Maaseiah, Mattaniah, Bezaleel, and Binnui, and Manasseh.   31 And of the sons of Harim; Eliezer, Ishijah, Malchiah, Shemaiah, Shimeon,   32 Benjamin, Malluch, and Shemariah.   33 Of the sons of Hashum; Mattenai, Mattathah, Zabad, Eliphelet, Jeremai, Manasseh, and Shimei.   34 Of the sons of Bani; Maadai, Amram, and Uel,   35 Benaiah, Bedeiah, Chelluh,   36 Vaniah, Meremoth, Eliashib,   37 Mattaniah, Mattenai, and Jaasau,   38 And Bani, and Binnui, Shimei,   39 And Shelemiah, and Nathan, and Adaiah,   40 Machnadebai, Shashai, Sharai,   41 Azareel, and Shelemiah, Shemariah,   42 Shallum, Amariah, and Joseph.   43 Of the sons of Nebo; Jeiel, Mattithiah, Zabad, Zebina, Jadau, and Joel, Benaiah.   44 All these had taken strange wives: and some of them had wives by whom they had children.

      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, v. 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, v. 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 (v. 16), which was but ten days after this method was proposed (v. 9), and they finished in three months, v. 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 (v. 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. xxi. 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. vi. 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 (v. 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; 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.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary