Ezra 10:15

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

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. Shabbethai - Sabbath-born: cf.

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.

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.Ver. 15. Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahaziah] These two priests only, of all the company, had kept themselves unspotted, and so were fit to be employed in the work in hand. Diaconos paucitas honorabiles fecit, saith Jerome, of his times. The paucity of good deacons hath rendered them honourable. And I do not think, saith Chrysostom, that among the clergy there are many that shall be saved. Clerus Britannicus stupor mahdi (Dr Hall); and yet there never wanted among us those dehonestamenta Cleri, that might give some occasion to black-mouthed Campian to tell the world, Ministris eorum nihil vilius, Many of their ministers are most base.

(7-17) Conference of the people and commission to try individual cases. (8) Forfeited.—This, as also what precedes and what follows, again recalls the express commission of Ezra 7. But “according to the counsel” removes all appearance of arbitrariness on the part of Ezra. (9) Within three days.—From the time of hearing the summons. No town was more than forty miles distant; and of course only those would come that were able, and who came within the scope of the proclamation, the precise terms of which are not given. They were not more than could assemble “in the street,” or open court of the Temple. The minute specifications of date, and the two reasons for the trembling of the people, and the whole strain of the narrative, bear witness to the veracity of an eye-witness. It was the ninth month.—Chisleu, our December, the rainy month in Palestine. (10) Ezra the priest.—He stood up, not as the commissioner of Artaxerxes, not at this moment as the scribe, but as the representative of God. (11) Do his pleasure.—This procedure, humanly severe, is connected with the Divine will. From the people of the land, and from the strange wives.—The marriages were but a subordinate branch, though a very important one, of the wider sin: that of confederacy with idolators. (13) We are many.—Better, we have greatly offended in this thing. The greatness of the offence of course implied the number of the offenders. (14) Stand.—As a representative body in session. Until the fierce wrath of our God for this matter be turned from us.—A difficult verse, owing to a slight peculiarity in the original. The meaning seems to be: until the fierce wrath of our God—fierce while this matter lasts—be turned away from us.(15) Were employed about.—Rather, stood against. Nothing is said as to the reason for opposition on the part of these and the two who abetted them. But the reason is obvious enough. Some modern expositors are of their mind, and regard the act of Ezra as remedying one sin by another still greater. They bring Malachi (Ezra 2:15) to their support; but nothing in his prediction about “the wife of thy youth,” rightly understood, tends to condemn the conduct here described. (16) By their names.—As in Ezra 8:20, the names were before the writer, but are not given. And sat down.—That is, held a session. This was ten days after the general assembly. (17) And they made an end.—Though the number of transgressors was only one hundred and thirteen, two months were occupied, which shows the care taken to do justice, especially to the claims of the women put away.

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 Ezra 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’ (Ezra 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 1 Chronicles 21:1; 2 Chronicles 20:23; Daniel 8:25; Daniel 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 Ezra 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.

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

15. Only Jonathan — So simplified and complete was the method here adopted of disposing of each case, that only the four persons named in this verse were required to attend to the chief burden of it,