-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Put away their wives to please God
- Thread starter Lila
- Start date
Yes indeedy.
For the most part, the ones that they married that Ezra was complaining about (Chapter 9:1-2) were people that weren't even supposed to exist. The Israelites were supposed to have killed them, man woman and child, when they overtook Canaan.
Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites and Amorites fall into this category. They were all supposed to be dead because they were nephilim and had angel-genes in them that should not be mixed with human-kind.
Two of them were not allowed because they tried to snuff Israel out when they were in the wilderness
Ammonites and Moabites (Deuteronomy 23 3-4)
And one of them I have no idea about. What Ezra had against Egyptians, (commandment wise) I have no idea.
For the most part, the ones that they married that Ezra was complaining about (Chapter 9:1-2) were people that weren't even supposed to exist. The Israelites were supposed to have killed them, man woman and child, when they overtook Canaan.
Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites and Amorites fall into this category. They were all supposed to be dead because they were nephilim and had angel-genes in them that should not be mixed with human-kind.
Two of them were not allowed because they tried to snuff Israel out when they were in the wilderness
Ammonites and Moabites (Deuteronomy 23 3-4)
And one of them I have no idea about. What Ezra had against Egyptians, (commandment wise) I have no idea.
Note that in this passage, God doesn't actually command anyone to divorce, The people realise they have sinned (which they have), and Ezra prays and confesses their sin. Then while he's doing this some bloke by the name of Shekaniah has the bright idea that they should fix the situation by divorcing their wives (Ezra 10:2), and everyone goes along with it. God didn't tell them to do it, they decided to themselves, and nowhere are we told whether God agreed or disagreed with their choice.
Eristhophanes
Member
Lila, can you sing?
In answer to your question, I used to think that was a hall of shame. It wasn't. It was a hall of fame, the men who chose to obey God. Contrary to Samuel's claim, Ezra 10:2 does not say they divorced. they were "put away." 113 men who had violated the command of God who chose to repent.
Put away applies to the wives, but it implies they were continually cared for and it leaves room for the children to be parented. But no more kids.
In answer to your question, I used to think that was a hall of shame. It wasn't. It was a hall of fame, the men who chose to obey God. Contrary to Samuel's claim, Ezra 10:2 does not say they divorced. they were "put away." 113 men who had violated the command of God who chose to repent.
Put away applies to the wives, but it implies they were continually cared for and it leaves room for the children to be parented. But no more kids.
This has always troubled me as well, but if they were put away lawfully then they were free to remarry and the children would have stayed under the authority of the father.
It's a troublesome passage to be sure, much like the judge who sacrificed his daughter. I agree with Samuel though, I'm not sure this is what God wanted.
It's a troublesome passage to be sure, much like the judge who sacrificed his daughter. I agree with Samuel though, I'm not sure this is what God wanted.
What a diversity of looking at this passage! Thank you all for taking the time to give it a thought. I must admit, when re-reading the passage one more time I noticed that I totally missed the fact that the listed names of those married to foreign wives were actually priests. Then it occurred to me that in Leviticus there is a long list of must-not for priests in order for them to stay clean when entering the tabernacle.
This is not to say it's now all reconciled for me, it truly is one of the difficult passages.
Whatever conclusion presented here I go with I then still think about the practicalities for the effected put away women (sorry, probably because I'm a female, too) and I just cannot get my head around it.
This is not to say it's now all reconciled for me, it truly is one of the difficult passages.
Whatever conclusion presented here I go with I then still think about the practicalities for the effected put away women (sorry, probably because I'm a female, too) and I just cannot get my head around it.
It is possible that YHWH did command this and that was just considered an unnecessary detail and not recorded. But the account is paralleled in 1 Esdras 8-9 (in the apocrypha), and it is almost identical there also - there is again no record of YHWH commanding this, it is something the people chose to do themselves. You would think at least one account would record it if it happened.
However just because we have no direct statement that YHWH approved does not mean that he disapproved. Ezra was no doubt closer to YHWH than any of us and would have been unlikely to agree with such a plan if YHWH opposed it. But he may have done so because it just seemed so obviously the "right" thing to do that he neglected to actually ask. He certainly prayed a lot - but what is recorded are prayers of confession, not requests for guidance on this.
If his judgment was correct, and this was the right thing to do, then I agree this is a very difficult passage. Eristophanes suggestion that the men may have continued to support them is some comfort - in some cases the women may have remained in the household in a different role, with little changing except sex.
At least they didn't decide that the best approach was to stone these men and their entire families to death...
However just because we have no direct statement that YHWH approved does not mean that he disapproved. Ezra was no doubt closer to YHWH than any of us and would have been unlikely to agree with such a plan if YHWH opposed it. But he may have done so because it just seemed so obviously the "right" thing to do that he neglected to actually ask. He certainly prayed a lot - but what is recorded are prayers of confession, not requests for guidance on this.
If his judgment was correct, and this was the right thing to do, then I agree this is a very difficult passage. Eristophanes suggestion that the men may have continued to support them is some comfort - in some cases the women may have remained in the household in a different role, with little changing except sex.
At least they didn't decide that the best approach was to stone these men and their entire families to death...
I had no idea there was apocrypha for Ezra. I checked it out and quite honestly it seemed that not only priests are listed as those that took foreign wives which obviously doesn't help.
I thought Yahweh spoke through mentioning worth individuals which is the lense I used when reading that Shekaniah came up with that idea. I can also see though that such a serious thing is normally confirmed through other means also.
Altogether, I don't know, it's complicated.
Also remember that the Jewish people were to be a holy people (unmixed, pure) and that means physically and genetically too. Since the most widely understood meaning of Peter's vision is that the people of the gentile nations had now been made clean, it stands to reason that at the time before Jesus, all gentile nations were unclean.
At a time of re-dedication and re-instituting of the temple and city of Jerusalem, this mixing of bloodlines (always frowned upon in any age by Jews) is particularly unacceptable. God often warned them that there was a causational relationship between marrying foreign women and idol worship. In Deut 7 this progression is linked to God's swift judgment and their utter destruction. Since that had already happened and they had just spent 70 years without a homeland, re-founding their nation while carrying the same infection that promised destruction would be a bonehead play.
Remember also that God is not opposed to sending away women under all circumstances. Hagar was no less a woman when God told Abraham to send her away.
The idea of holiness is a more fundamental truth than God's hatred for divorce. God does hate the putting away of women, but it was lawful nonetheless, in cases where uncleanness was an issue.
There are weightier matters than women's need to be cared for, and holiness is one of them. Thanks be to God that we have been cleansed in Christ Jesus, so the two are no longer in conflict, as they were in Ezra's day.
At a time of re-dedication and re-instituting of the temple and city of Jerusalem, this mixing of bloodlines (always frowned upon in any age by Jews) is particularly unacceptable. God often warned them that there was a causational relationship between marrying foreign women and idol worship. In Deut 7 this progression is linked to God's swift judgment and their utter destruction. Since that had already happened and they had just spent 70 years without a homeland, re-founding their nation while carrying the same infection that promised destruction would be a bonehead play.
Remember also that God is not opposed to sending away women under all circumstances. Hagar was no less a woman when God told Abraham to send her away.
The idea of holiness is a more fundamental truth than God's hatred for divorce. God does hate the putting away of women, but it was lawful nonetheless, in cases where uncleanness was an issue.
There are weightier matters than women's need to be cared for, and holiness is one of them. Thanks be to God that we have been cleansed in Christ Jesus, so the two are no longer in conflict, as they were in Ezra's day.
Good point about Hagar.
Thanks Slumberfreeze for mentioning Hagar, it's quite an analogy I wouldn't have thought of even though I would argue God Himself told so to Abraham. As far as I recall because Sarah was displeased with Hagar she requested from Abraham to send her away, he approved. Anyway.
I appreciate your insight that apparently uncleanness was a weightier matter than what happened to the women in this instance.
However, my understanding of what the New Covenant stands for doesn't match yours. I wouldn't call conflicting that to date we are to strive to live holy (Be holy, for I am holy. 1 Pet 1:16). To assume Jesus took away the necessity for us to bother trying doesn't strike me as thrilling.
In my mind if we were given a new heart (as per Jer 36:26: I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.) then we want to do what's right and do not therefore have to suffer consequences resulting from choices of the "heart of stone".
I appreciate your insight that apparently uncleanness was a weightier matter than what happened to the women in this instance.
However, my understanding of what the New Covenant stands for doesn't match yours. I wouldn't call conflicting that to date we are to strive to live holy (Be holy, for I am holy. 1 Pet 1:16). To assume Jesus took away the necessity for us to bother trying doesn't strike me as thrilling.
In my mind if we were given a new heart (as per Jer 36:26: I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.) then we want to do what's right and do not therefore have to suffer consequences resulting from choices of the "heart of stone".
Oh! I think you have me wrong Lila! The two aren't in conflict because we aren't commanded to be holy, we sure are!
The two aren't in conflict because as per Peter's dream and 1 Tim 4:4, non-Jews are not to be regarded as unclean or unholy.
Therefore while under the Law without Christ, the only way to keep holy for a Jew was to not touch all those unclean gentiles (marriage was tricky... for some they were accepted as a Jew if all their ancestors 10 generations back were Jews, but that didn't help the initial marriage, only their distant descendants) . So the only recourse for Jews to enter into the assembly in Ezra's day would be to divorce their foreign wives and go through all the repentance and cleansing sacrifices.
With Christ, though, even the unbelieving husband of a believing wife is considered holy. And like wise the unbelieving wife of a believing husband. (1cor7:14), so today there is no reason or logic behind divorcing a person because of their lesser birth, or even their lack of faith, for the purposes of keeping holy.
The two aren't in conflict because as per Peter's dream and 1 Tim 4:4, non-Jews are not to be regarded as unclean or unholy.
Therefore while under the Law without Christ, the only way to keep holy for a Jew was to not touch all those unclean gentiles (marriage was tricky... for some they were accepted as a Jew if all their ancestors 10 generations back were Jews, but that didn't help the initial marriage, only their distant descendants) . So the only recourse for Jews to enter into the assembly in Ezra's day would be to divorce their foreign wives and go through all the repentance and cleansing sacrifices.
With Christ, though, even the unbelieving husband of a believing wife is considered holy. And like wise the unbelieving wife of a believing husband. (1cor7:14), so today there is no reason or logic behind divorcing a person because of their lesser birth, or even their lack of faith, for the purposes of keeping holy.
I'm not sure that is entirely correct. Rahab, despite being a Cananite, entered Israel, married and became part of Yeshua's bloodline. No waiting for 10 generations. The same goes for Ruth. David's key military man Uriah (the husband of Bathsheba) is always called "Uriah the Hittite" - he wasn't an Israelite. There are other examples. All these were proselytes - people who chose to come from the surrounding nations and follow YHWH, and were immediately accepted. Yes, the law said 10 generations - but then again, it seems to be ignored for those who choose to convert religiously. So if this route were open to Rahab and others, I would have assumed there were two choices before the wives of Ezra's day - turn away from false gods and follow YHWH, or be put out of the assembly. I struggle to see offering only the second option being entirely consistent with scripture - even though it is an option that is clearly commanded.
If I have misunderstood something important please say.
If I have misunderstood something important please say.
A question occurred to me whilst reading Samuel's post.
Could there be a difference between a family/clan/tribe joining Israel and a woman joining an Israelite family?
In regards to the 10th generation thing.
If the family that she was joining were already Israelites, does that cover her?
Could there be a difference between a family/clan/tribe joining Israel and a woman joining an Israelite family?
In regards to the 10th generation thing.
If the family that she was joining were already Israelites, does that cover her?
I think 'assembly' is not to be understood as "being a Jew". The beginning of Deut. 23 disbars anyone "wounded in the stones" from entering into the assembly, which has no bearing on whether or not they've converted religiously or whether or not he was genetically Jewish or even if he was accepted as a Jew. It was always my understanding that to enter into the assembly of the Lord, or the congregation of the holy, meant allowed inside the temple proper to take part in the general sacrifices and rituals, which one could not do if he was ceremonially unclean, or similarly unfit.
That got me pondering this further. By my reading right now (and I have probably missed some key passages) the ten generations only applied to the Ammonites and Moabites, who did not live in Canaan, but was a punishment for their failure to help the Israelites on their journey to Canaan (Deuteronomy 23:3). The Canaanites were to be driven out of the land in order to ensure that the Israelites did not get led into worshiping their gods, including through marriage (Exodus 34:10-16, Deuteronomy 7:1-5). So the laws regarding the various people groups mentioned in Ezra differed somewhat. David's entourage included men from both sets of nations (1 Chronicles 11:26-47) - possibly a few of the men in his army were forbidden from the temple.
I think Slumberfreeze is correct regarding entering the assembly - it may simply have meant the temple. So:
- Might the 10 generations law have only related to men, so have been irrelevant here? Were women considered part of the "assembly" or was that the males 18 and over? If so, I see no command to not marry Ammonites and Moabites, just to not let their men join the assembly.
- With the Canaanites, the command seems to be actually "don't marry them but kill them instead so you don't get led astray", rather than just "don't marry them". Marriage isn't the issue, it's just part of the mechanism. There is no remedy prescribed for someone who does marry them, nowhere are they required to divorce for instance. The law may not apply where the risk of being led into idolatry does not exist (ie the woman is a convert).
- The Jews today take the commands of Torah and extrapolate them to make rules to cover every conceivable situation. It is quite possible that Torah has some flexibility but the Jews took a more conservative approach due to their tradition, and Ezra is an example of the nation following developed Jewish traditional approaches to the situation rather than Torah alone.
Just trying to join up the dots.
I think Slumberfreeze is correct regarding entering the assembly - it may simply have meant the temple. So:
- Might the 10 generations law have only related to men, so have been irrelevant here? Were women considered part of the "assembly" or was that the males 18 and over? If so, I see no command to not marry Ammonites and Moabites, just to not let their men join the assembly.
- With the Canaanites, the command seems to be actually "don't marry them but kill them instead so you don't get led astray", rather than just "don't marry them". Marriage isn't the issue, it's just part of the mechanism. There is no remedy prescribed for someone who does marry them, nowhere are they required to divorce for instance. The law may not apply where the risk of being led into idolatry does not exist (ie the woman is a convert).
- The Jews today take the commands of Torah and extrapolate them to make rules to cover every conceivable situation. It is quite possible that Torah has some flexibility but the Jews took a more conservative approach due to their tradition, and Ezra is an example of the nation following developed Jewish traditional approaches to the situation rather than Torah alone.
Just trying to join up the dots.
Eristhophanes
Member
Samuel, you may want to take a look at 1st Kings 11:1-2
And what about the rules for marrying women captured in war? I think the missing link here is that you're not to marry women whose families aren't converted or slaughtered except for priests who were held to a different standard.
That is interesting, there Moabites are added to the list of Canaanite peoples. Which seems inconsistent.
However once again we can see that this was not a blanket rule, as Ruth was a moabitess and her marriage to Boaz is praised - because she chose to follow YHWH. And the issue with Solomon's marriages is once again that they would turn him away to other gods. So this does seem to reinforce that it is about religion rather than race.
I suppose it could be argued that this only applied to women from nations other than those on the mandatory "kill" list of Canaanites, but given that you only capture women when you're invading someone else's land, not defending your own, and their only invading wars were against Canaanites, these rules too only make sense if they apply to Canaanites. Which also reinforces that this must be about religion primarily.ZecAustin said:
This gets complex though because it is interrelated with other issues. Going further down the rabbit-hole...
The instruction to slaughter even Canaanite children is difficult to reconcile. However, we are told that in the time of Noah "there were giants on the earth in those days and also later", when the fallen angels mated with human women. There were also giants in Canaan. It is possible that this was a re-emergence of the nephilim (fallen angel / human hybrids). If so, Canaan was infected with an evil bloodline. This bloodline could not be allowed to infect Israel because it could contaminate the bloodline of Messiah. The only way to eliminate it was to exterminate the Canaanites, hence the need to slaughter everyone.
But if marriage to Canaanites was permissible provided they converted, then that would suggest that there was not a Nephilim / fallen-angel-hybrid issue, and it was solely about religion. That makes marriages make more sense, but makes it harder to understand why they were instructed to kill even the babies, who couldn't lead anyone astray after false gods. An instruction to kill babies only makes sense in my mind if there was something intrinsically evil about those babies themselves.
Or possibly both issues existed, and YHWH knew in His wisdom that only those who were not infected with a Nephilim bloodline would convert to follow Him. In that case, Jericho was massacred to exterminate an evil bloodline, but not everyone in the city had that bloodline, Rahab did not, she converted and there was no problem bringing her into Israel...
My main point is that it gets complex when you try to reconcile everything.
And ultimately we can never understand everything perfectly - but it is good to try.
Last edited:
Interesting... and through the redemption laws, there was an avenue for her to claim to be redeemed along with her husband's lands.