10:1–4 The terms confession, covenant, and repentance provide an abstract for the chapter. Ezra’s prior activities were told chiefly in his own voice (7:27–9:15); the text now returns to third-person narrative. Ezra’s actions, however, are not new. The grammar stresses the incessant praying, confessing, and weeping of Ezra found in the prior chapter. His “casting himself down” parallels prior actions (9:4–5), now making clear that all this took place “before the house of God” (10:1). Ezra’s core action remains confession for “iniquities” (9:6, 7, 13; cf. Neh. 9:2) and “faithlessness” (Ezra 9:2, 4).172 It was the community’s persistent transgressions and breaking of the covenant that brought on the flood of judgments that culminated in exile (Lev. 26:14–39). Yet even in exile the Lord has provided the way forward: confession for iniquity and faithlessness, along with offering atoning sacrifice, will restore the relationship (Lev. 26:40–45; 16:21).173

In response to Ezra’s very public expressions of sorrow, an ever-expanding crowd of equally mournful confessors gather (Ezra 10:1; cf. 9:4), defined here as a “very great assembly.”174 Shecaniah, among the seventy “sons of Elam” who have returned with Ezra (8:7), represents the community in offering a way forward. His confession is a model. First, he admits the heart issue: “We have broken faith” (10:2). He next specifies the fundamental expression of their faithlessness, namely, marrying foreign women.175 The pain and risk for Shecaniah are great, given the involvement of six men from his own clan, reaching perhaps even to his own father (v. 26).176 Third, Ezra’s prayer had concluded by observing their very real danger before God “because of this” (9:15). Shecaniah picks up this exact phrase, noting “hope for Israel in spite of this.” Such hope comes by way of a suggested resolution in the form of a covenant.

Underneath all of this is the need for everything to be done “according to the Law” (10:3). Divorce was known and regulated in Israel (Deut. 24:1–4), yet no particular law existed for this marital situation.177 Shecaniah must propose that the community commit to apply the ancient covenantal obligations in this new setting, calling on God to witness their solemn promise to “separate” (Ezra 10:11; cf. Ex. 23:32–33; 34:15–16; Deut. 7:1–3). The suggestion to adopt this drastic measure arises not because of Ezra’s demand but because of his confession and sorrow (i.e., “the counsel of my lord”; Ezra 10:3). It is also likely that this proposal is the fruit of Ezra’s instruction over the preceding four months.

Acceptance arises from those with utmost regard for God’s Word and its call to holiness (i.e., “those who tremble at the commandment”; v. 3; cf. 9:4; Isa. 66:2). It is impossible to specify what it means to “put away” foreign wives and children. Minimally, this must entail the dissolution of the marital relationship and removal from full participation in the community. The closing imperatives—“arise,” “be strong,” and “do it”—implore Ezra to proceed with all haste. By so doing, he will help Israel fulfill her mission to inherit the land and follow Torah (Josh. 1:6, 7, 9; 23:6). In this Ezra receives the full support of the community.

10:5–6 Ezra responds to Shecaniah’s call to “arise” (v. 4), as both verses 5 and 6 begin with that same Hebrew verb (translated “withdrew” in v. 6). Ezra’s actions fulfill part of his priestly task under the divine King, as he is taking action to lead them in the ways of God. However, these actions are also consistent with a primary task assigned to Ezra by Artaxerxes, since applying God’s law was the very thing he was commanded to do (7:14, 25–26). One of his first steps is to use his royal authority to lead various constituencies to “take an oath” (10:5) and promise obedience, an important beginning step in the making of the covenant Shecaniah has proposed (v. 3; cf. Ex. 19:8; 24:3, 7).

Given the caprice of human nature and the sober choices that come before people when sin is prominent, outcomes are rarely assured. Knowing this, Ezra continues to fast and pray, but this time more privately (10:1; cf. 9:3–4) in a room associated with the temple. Such rooms were used both as storerooms (8:29; Neh. 10:38) and to provide Levites a room after being on duty (1 Chron. 9:27, 33; 23:28). Whether Ezra spends the entire night178 in prayer or some shorter time, it is easy to imagine him alone, sitting, fasting, reflecting, beseeching God for strength and wisdom for all involved in this crisis.

10:7–8 The time elapsed between verses 1–6 and the issuance of the proclamation is unknown. Nevertheless, the three-day requirement for gathering reveals a desire for quick resolution. The proclamation identifies the judgments incurred by any who ignore it. First, the threat that property “be forfeited” applies a form of haram, a Hebrew verb often used to refer to persons or property permanently consecrated to the Lord for either destruction or service (e.g., Ex. 22:20; Lev. 27:29; Josh. 2:10; 6:17–18, 21; 7:1). In this context, forfeiture of property likely means its dedication to temple use rather than destruction (Lev. 27:21, 28; Num. 18:14). Anyone refusing to join the assembly to discuss the issue of separation will himself be separated (i.e., “banned”) from the congregation.

10:9–11 These verses represent the climactic moment of the chapter. In gathering at the “open square,” the people return to the location of Ezra’s public prayer (v. 1). The tribes of Judah and Benjamin, tribes prominent among the returned exiles (1:5; 4:1), heed the call to gather within the time allotted.179 The ninth month (Chislev, November/December) coincides with the rainy season. Heavy rain and falling temperatures saturate and make to shiver an assembly that is already trembling with apprehension over the upcoming confrontation.

Returning to prior themes, Ezra now indicts and exhorts.180 As he urges his people to holiness, he is called “Ezra the priest” for the first time since chapter 7 (10:10; cf. 7:21). His previous use of the pronouns “we,” “us,” and “our,” showing priestly identification with their iniquity (cf. comment on 9:5–7), gives way to accusation with an explicit use of the pronoun “you.” His surgical diagnosis of their heart disease leads to a clear identification of their resulting symptoms (i.e., “you have broken faith and you have married”; 10:10 AT). Like a good surgeon, he also warns of the dangers of their current condition: if the “guilt” of Israel has already led to God’s wrath (9:13–14), how much more if they keep adding to Israel’s guilt (10:10)?

With “now then,” Ezra commands repentance using three interwoven commands (v. 11). The central command, “do his will,” shows that no mere external act will suffice. For Ezra’s hearers, trembling under the weight of cold and conviction, this is much needed motivation to submit their whole selves to do what pleases God (cf. Pss. 40:8; 50:14), especially the practical call for separation (Lev. 20:22–26).181 By obeying the command to “make confession,” the assembly recognizes that the God of their past (“your fathers”) and present is a just God (cf. Ezra 9:15). Finally, obeying the final command realizes the first two: “separate yourselves.” Although clearly referring to separation from foreign wives, the use of this language elsewhere in Ezra shows that intermarriage remains symptomatic of wider assimilation with “peoples of the lands” (6:21; 9:1). If so, the ritual purity of the whole community is at stake.

10:12–15 By responding concisely in content (“It is so”) and tone (“with a loud voice”), the assembly agrees with Ezra’s exhortation, offering no further excuses. However, the people do propose a delay due to mitigating factors. They build their case by adding consideration upon consideration: the numbers of people and the weather and the lack of strength and the potential length of the task.182 Like the frequent “I have sinned” (e.g., Josh. 7:20; 1 Sam. 15:24; 2 Sam. 12:13; Luke 15:18), “we have greatly transgressed” clarifies their multiplied wrongdoing (cf. Ezra 9:6–7).183 Comparable language elsewhere expresses acts of rebellion, especially in the political sphere (1 Kings 12:19; 2 Kings 1:1; 8:22). With respect to the Lord, “multiplied transgression” or “greatly transgressed” shows utter contempt for his authority (Isa. 59:12–13) leading, if unrepented, to inevitable judgment (Jer. 5:6).

The proposal includes a commission (Ezra 10:14). Participants include “officials” (cf. 9:1; 10:8) who will “stand,” i.e., represent the whole congregation, who “cannot stand” (cf. v. 13). Joining these will be “elders and judges of every city,” perhaps to provide evidence or ensure justice for the accused. Most importantly, anyone guilty of intermarriage must come at the time called. The fear of eradication of the remnant (9:14–15) motivates this proposal in an effort to turn away threatened wrath. Comparable vocabulary is used when grave sin threatens through judgment the very existence of the whole people (Ex. 32:12, 14; Num. 25:4; Josh. 7:1, 26; 2 Kings 23:26; 2 Chron. 29:10; 30:6–9; Jonah 3:9).

Support is substantial but not unanimous. The ESV captures well the ambiguity of the final verse of the scene. Attention is sharpened by the word “only,” which strongly suggests a contrast between four men and the community decision. There are two men (Jonathan, Jahzeiah) who “opposed this” and two others (Meshullam, Shabbethai) who “supported them.” Much hinges, therefore, on the referent of “this.” Perhaps “this” refers to the proposed separation itself, and so all four men stand opposed to that community decision, preferring a more lenient approach. Alternatively, “this” might refer not to the call for divorce but to its plan for implementation (Ezra 10:14). In this view, they prefer a more rigorous approach, desiring either increased swiftness of implementation or severity, or both. Most likely, these men prefer the more rigorous option. This conclusion is based primarily upon Shabbethai’s identity as a Levite and Meshullam’s position of leadership and presence with Ezra in his return (8:16).184

10:16–17 The initial oath (vv. 5–6) now reaches its summative conclusion. The notice that the returned exiles “did so” intimates that they effect the proposal (v. 14). With the details of the commission’s inquiries left to the imagination, it is impossible to know how divorce laws or Deuteronomy 24:1–4 applies, if at all. At a minimum, it appears that the investigation progresses carefully.

“Ezra the priest” continues his task of purifying a “holy race” (Ezra 9:2). With the final use of the verb “to separate” (Hb. badal), he “selected” officials to serve on the commission (10:16).185 The representative “officials” (v. 14), now identified as “heads of fathers’ houses” (cf. 1:5; 2:68; 4:2, 3; 8:1, 29), are carefully selected by clan and designated specifically by name. The scene concludes by noting that the commission starts its work almost immediately, on the “first day of the tenth month” (cf. 10:9), and finishes in approximately three months, justifying the initial concerns for how long the process might take (v. 13).186

10:18–22 Those first mentioned are related to Jeshua, the high priest, a noted leader in the first return (e.g., 2:2, 36; 3:2; 5:2). Citation of the “sons of” Immer, Harim, and Pashhur (10:20–22; cf. 2:36–39) suggests guilt among all the priestly families. The general dereliction of priestly duty in the period matches Malachi 1:6; 2:1–4; the onerous sin of leaders, who have special obligations for marriage (cf. Lev. 21:7, 13–14), is not ignored. Repentance encompasses two actions for all those on the list (Ezra 10:19). First is a pledge (lit., “they gave their hand”) promising determination to keep the covenantal promises and dismiss the foreign wives (cf. 1 Chron. 29:24). Second is acknowledgment of guilt by means of the guilt offering (cf. Lev. 5:14–19). Taking foreign wives is an act of faithlessness (cf. Lev. 5:15) and a serious covenantal breach, demanding a guilt offering to make atonement.189

10:23–24 The lower number of Levites may be due to relative reduction of numbers as evidenced in other lists (2:36–42; 8:15). Unlike in 2:43–58 and 8:20, neither the “sons of Solomon’s servants” nor “temple servants” (2:55–58) receive mention, either because no intermarriage is found among them or because the list focuses on higher-level cult personnel.

10:25–43 Many of the names of the laity here reappear in lists in Nehemiah, but connection between these occurrences is uncertain. Eleven family heads are named (ESV), or perhaps twelve if the inexplicable Hebrew name “Machnadebai” (v. 40) is read as either “of the sons of Azzur” or more likely “of the sons of Zaccai” (cf. 2:9, e.g., NAB).190 Of those named, only Binnui and Machnadebai are not found in chapter 2; lesser overlap occurs with those named in chapter 8.

10:44 The abrupt concluding verse provides little insight into what happens to these families. The first half of the verse states the obvious, while the second half notes only that both women and their children are impacted (“and some of the women had even borne children”).191 Women and children taking steps to separate themselves and “worship the Lord, the God of Israel” (6:21) remains a possibility. The importance of kinship connections in the ancient Near East may prompt others to return to former communities. The lack of closure certainly readies us to revisit the problem in Nehemiah.