Scripture Passage
When these things had been done, the Jewish leaders came to me and said, “Many of the people of Israel, and even some of the priests and Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the other peoples living in the land. They have taken up the detestable practices of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites." (Ezra 9:1 NLT)
Observation
The events of the closing chapters of Ezra militate against 21st century American sensibilities. In short, the people of God have intermarried with “the other peoples living in the land” (9:1) and the solution adopted for this “inter-marrying” problem is divorce. In our hearts, it’s difficult to reconcile this with what the Scriptures say elsewhere about divorce and with our own sense of “fair play”. “Hey,” we say, “people make mistakes, but surely you don’t dissolve a marriage because the person you married isn’t a full-blooded Jew!”
I’m not really writing to justify Ezra’s actions here (and the truth is—read carefully—this “divorce” solution really wasn’t Ezra’s suggestion anyway, but came, rather, from the people themselves—cf. 10:2). …I’m not really writing to justify Ezra’s actions but please note these mitigating factors:
1. These offenses had been committed not by just “anybody” but by “exiles”—those who had been taken to Babylon and had now returned to Jerusalem to rebuild God’s city as God’s people (10:6). This divine task to which they had enjoined themselves called for significant accountability and unblemished testimony.
2. The issue was not just marriage to “foreign” women, but marriage to “pagan” women (as the NLT rightly translates)—women who specifically had not converted to Judaism, but rather had encouraged (won’t say “caused”—that's too strong) their husbands to take up “the detestable practices of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites” (9:1).
3. This was a leadership/direction issue. Though the percentage of people involved was small overall (0.4%), the problems were predominant among the leaders (0.3% among the laity, 2.2% among the gatekeepers, but 8.1% among the Levites). (Stats from the Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary)
4. As I read the passage, no man was obligated to divorce his spouse. Rather, any man could remain married to his spouse if he were simply willing to forfeit the privileges of God’s covenant with Israel (10:8). I understand that’s really not “simple”, but there’s a very real sense in which that sounds completely fair to me. “Here’s what the covenant calls for—you in or out?”
5. Most interesting, I think, is how easily we shrink back from the strength of action taken here but fail to show equal concern for what’s plain in Scripture. Should we not be at least as shocked at the clear violation of God’s covenant as we are by the corrective measures taken? Consider this response…
“Then all who trembled at the words of the God of Israel came and sat with me,” Ezra says, “because of this outrage committed by the returned exiles” (9:4). What evidence is there that we tremble at the words of God?
“And I sat there utterly appalled until the time of the evening sacrifice” (9:4). What appalls us? Is it possible that we ought to be more appalled at our own sinfulness than at people renewing their covenant with God at whatever costs? “What good will it be," Jesus asked, "for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?” (Matthew 16:26 NIV)
Ezra 9-10 are not easy chapters to read, but a deeper consideration makes these verses more palatable and my own callousness and casualness toward God's Word so much less so.
***
No comments:
Post a Comment