personal interest in thwarting Ezra. e.nd pre- fallen out of the text by the mistake of a venting the reform. copyist, After the house of their fathers. SETTLEMENT OF THE WHOLE MATTER BY Rather, "for each father's house" - i. e. TllE REPUDIATION OF THE STRANGE WIVES " for each family." It would seem from this clause that each re~~ised family wa 3 (vers. 16, 17). The opposition made did represented on the comm1ss10n by its head. not dele.y the business more the.n a few days. The number of such families appears by eh. The gree.t assembly had been held on the ii. 3-61 to have been ninety-eight. And e.11 twentieth day of the ninth month. On the of them by their names. Compare with first day of the tenth month, little more this eh. viii. 20. In both places Ezra pro- bably means that a. list of the names was than e. week later, the commission for made out, and was in his possession, though examining into the matter met under the he does not think it nece!:l<ary to give them. presidency of Ezra, and commenced proceed- Were separated. I. e. "set apart for the ings. The method of proceeding suggested business." And they eat down, i. e. " beuan at the great meeting was no doubt followed. their sittings," on the first de.y of the te;th month, the month Tebeth, corresponding The ce.se of each city was taken separately. nearly to our January. Its male inhabitants of full age attended, and Ver. 17.-They made e.n end with e.11 the its "elders" and "judges" sat on the com- men. They ran through the whole list of mission as assessors while the conjugal those who were accused of having taken position of their townsfolk was being inves- stran_ge wives, and adjudicated on every case, by the first day of the first month, tigated. Where a "mixed marriage" was Nisan, corresponding nearly with our April. proved the wife was repudiated. In 112 Deducting Sabbaths, the number of days in cases the necessity of repudiation was made the three months -would be seventy-fi,e or out to the satisfaction of the commission, seventy-six ; but it is of course possible that and this number of wives was put away. the court diJ not sit continuously. Probably the entire number of cases adju- THE NAMES OF THOSE WHO HAD MARRIED dicated upon was very much greater, since THE STRANGE WIVES (vers. 18-44). Aware the commission continued at work for three of the danger that the nation might relapse months, and probably sat on seventy-five into the sin which he was seeking to root different days, judging (we may presume) out, Ezra punishes the wrong-doers by three or four cases a. day. On ;the whole, placing their names on record, that others the small extent to which the evil had might fear to do the like. He assigns the prevailed is remarka.ble; for 112 mixed mar- first place in his catalogue of offenders to the ria.ges in a population where the a.dult males priests, doubtless because in them the sin were about 40,000 would give only one such was greatest ; they, as the special custodians marriage to three hundred or three hundred of the Law, were most bound to have observed and fifty legitimate ones. Nevertheless, the Law. Next to the priests he puts the evils in a community are not to be judged Levites, on the same principle, because of simply by their prevalence. Great evils their semi-sacerdotal chara.ctcr. He then must be checked at once, even though they concludes with the laymen, arranged under have not extended far, lest, if they spread their several families. By the list of laymen at all widely, they become irremediable. it appears that ten only out of some thirty- Ezra is to be commended for having per- six lay families ,~ere implicated in the sin. ceived the greatness of the peril, and for Three of the four priestly families, on the ha.ving taken prompt a.nd decided measures other hand, and even the near kindred of to check it, without wa.iting till it had got the high priest, were among the guilty, It is to a head, and so become uncontrolla.ble. remarkable that it is Ezra, a priest, and one Ver. 16.-The '.children of the captivity by many accused of over-sacerdotalism, who did so. The people generally, notwithstand- gives this testimony against his own order. ing the opposition of Jonathan, acquiesced Ver. 18.-Jeshua the son of Joze.dak is, in Ezra's decision, and acted accordingly. undoubtedly, the high priest of chs. iii anJ Ezra the priest, with oerte.in chief of the v. Four members of bis family had com- fa.there. There is no "with," or other con- mitted the sin (compare Neh. xiii. 28). nective, in the origine.l; but our translators Ver. 19.-They gave their hands that did right in supplying one, since the con- they would put away their wivu. It is junction l, "and," has a.lmost certainly not clear whether this is inteudecl to be said 156 THE BOOK OF EZRA. [CH. X. 1-44.
of MaRseiah, Eliezer, Jarib, and Gedaliah Ver. 25. -·Of Israel, I. e. " of the laity." oulv, or of the entire body of persons found Ver. 26.--.Tehiel. Probablv the father of guilty of having married strange wives. the Shechaniah who counselled Ezra. (eh. L lllost. probably the court made out the 2-4). divorces in the generality of cases, but were Ver. 44. -And some of them had wives by content to take a solemn pledge from mem- whom they had children. Re.ther, "And bers of the high priest's family. there were some amon~ the wives who ha.d Vers. 20-22.-On the priestly families of given birth to children. ' The fact is implied Immer, Rari.m, a.nd Pashur see above, eh. above in the advice of Shechania.h (ver. ~), ii 37-39. but is here a.lone distinctly asserted. No Ver. 24.-The singers and porters. These doubt it was more difficult to arrange the wel'8 special subdivisions of the Lentica.l terms of the divorce where the marriage had order, appointed originally by David (2 been fruitful. Chron. xxv. I; xxvi. 1-19).
HOMILETICS.