Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahzeiah the son of Tikvah stood up against this; and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them.
Parallel Translations
-
Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahzeiah the son of Tikvah stood up against this; and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them.
-
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.
-
Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahzeiah the son of Tikvah stood up against this matter; and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them.
Cross-references (4)
Passages linked to Ezra 10:15 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Nehemiah 11:16 and Shabbethai and Jozabad, of the chiefs of the Levites, who had the oversight of the outward business of God’s house;
- Nehemiah 3:6 Joiada the son of Paseah and Meshullam the son of Besodeiah repaired the old gate. They laid its beams, and set up its doors, and its bolts, and its bars.
- Nehemiah 10:20 Magpiash, Meshullam, Hezir,
- Nehemiah 12:33 and Azariah, Ezra, and Meshullam,
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (12 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Ezr 10:15 Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and…
Ezr 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.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain To wit, to take due care that the business…
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.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain The method of proceeding in this matter being concluded…
The method of proceeding in this matter being concluded on, and the congregation dismissed, that each in his respective place might gain and give intelligence to facilitate the matter, we are here told, 1. Who were the persons that undertook to manage the matter and bring the causes regularly before the commissioners - Jonathan and Jahaziah, two active men, whether of the priests or of the people does not appear; probably they were the men that made that proposal (Ezr 10:13, Ezr 10:14) and were therefore the fittest to see it pursued; two honest Levites were joined with them, and helped them, Ezr 10:15. Dr. Lightfoot gives a contrary sense of this: only (or nevertheless) Jonathan and Jahaziah stood against this matter (which reading the original will very well bear), and these two Levites helped them in opposing it, either the thing itself or this method of proceeding. It was strange if a work of this kind was carried on and met with no opposition. 2. Who were the commissioners that sat upon this matter. Ezra was president, and with him certain chief men of the fathers who were qualified with wisdom and zeal above others for this service, Ezr 10:16. It was happy for them that they had such a man as Ezra to head them; they could not have done it well without his direction, yet he would not do it without their concurrence. 3. How long they were about it. They began the first day of the tenth month to examine the matter (Ezr 10:16), which was but ten days after this method was proposed (Ezr 10:9), and they finished in three months, Ezr 10:17. They sat closely and minded their business, otherwise they could not have despatched so many causes as they had before them in so little time; for we may suppose that all who were impeached were fairly asked what cause they could show why they should not be parted, and, if we may judge by other cases, provided the wife were proselyted to the Jewish religion she was not to be put away, the trial of which would require great care. 4. Who the persons were that were found guilty of this crime. Their names are here recorded to their perpetual reproach; many of the priests, nay, of the family of Jeshua, the high priest, were found guilty (Ezr 10:18), though the law had particularly provided, for the preserving of their honour in their marriages, that being holy themselves they should not marry such as were profane, Lev 21:7. Those that should have taught others the law broke it themselves and by their example emboldened others to do likewise. But, having lost their innocency in this matter, they did well to recant and give an example of repentance; for they promised under their hand to put away their strange wives (some think that they made oath to do so with their hands lifted up), and they took the appointed way of obtaining pardon, bringing the ram which was appointed by the law for a trespass offering (Lev 6:6), so owning their guilt and the desert of it, and humbly suing for forgiveness. About 113 in all are here named who had married strange wives, and some of them, it is said (Ezr 10:44), had children by them, which implies that not many of them had, God not crowning those marriages with the blessing of increase. Whether the children were turned off with the mothers, as Shechaniah proposed, does not appear; it should seem not: however it is probable that the wives which were put away were well provided for, according to their rank. One would think this grievance was now thoroughly redressed, yet we meet with it again (Neh 13:23 and Mal 2:11), for such corruptions are easily and insensibly brought in, but not without great difficulty purged out again. The best reformers can but do their endeavour, but, when the Redeemer himself shall come to Sion, he shall effectually turn away ungodliness from Jacob.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain Only Jonathan the son of Asahel, and Jahaziah the…
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 brought the persons that had been delinquents, in their turns, of which they gave them notice, and took the account of them as they came:
and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them; assisted them in this work; the other two perhaps were priests, and both these Levites; and these four were the only persons appointed over this matter, as the phrase in the preceding clause may signify; though Jarchi interprets it to a quite contrary sense, that they were the only persons that opposed and objected to it; and so Dr. Lightfoot (r) understands it, and renders it, "stood against this matter"; in which they were seconded by the two Levites, and the sense is very probable.
Read full note →
(r) Works, vol. 1. p. 144.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain Employed - To take care that the business should…
Employed - To take 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, to keep an exact account of the whole transaction, and of the names of the cities and persons whose causes were dispatched, to give notice to others to come in their turns, and to prepare the business for the hearing of the Judges. These two were priests, as their helpers were Levites; that so they might inform the persons concerned, in any matter of doubt.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Ezr 10:15. Only Jonathan and Jahaziah were employed —…
Ezr 10:15. Only Jonathan and Jahaziah were employed — To take 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, to keep an exact account of the whole transaction, and of the names of the cities and persons whose causes were despatched; to give notice to others to come in their turns; and to prepare the business for the hearing of the judges. These two were priests, as their helpers were Levites, that so they might inform the persons concerned, in any matter of doubt.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain Some translate it: “Nevertheless, Jonathan the son of Asahel…
Some translate it: “Nevertheless, Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah opposed this.” The opposition was useless Ezr 10:16.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain
CHAPTER X.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain 15. Only Jonathan — So simplified and complete was…
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, such as recording the names and evidence in each case. These acted under the general oversight and direction of Ezra and the persons mentioned in the next verse.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 15. Slight opposition.
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.
Read full note →
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 Ezr_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’ (Ezr_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 1Ch_21:1; 2Ch_20:23; Dan_8:25; Dan_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 Ezr_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. This objection therefore like the other is equally well raised against any explanation of the verse; it does not affect the selection to be made between the two renderings.
Accepting the rendering of the R.V., we need not suppose that these four individuals were the only opponents of Ezra’s policy. They are here mentioned as the leaders of the opposition, and there is every reason to suppose that their opinions must have been shared by very many.
and Meshullam] Possibly the same as the Meshullam mentioned in Ezr_10:29. If so, we may suppose from Ezr_10:19 that he along with the others who had similarly offended ‘gave his hand’ that he would put away his wife. Perhaps he had been convinced of the public necessity for the action, which for private reasons he felt obliged to condemn. This conflict of feeling might account for his being described as only ‘helping’ the opponents.
Shabbethai the Levite] This name does not occur in 23 or 24 among the Levites who had offended. Shabbethai may have opposed for other reasons, either because members of his family were implicated, or because he considered the letter of the law to be strained by the adoption of the proposed measures. The opposition of a Levite deserved especial record.
helped them] As if their position were a subordinate one in the opposition. They supported, but did not head the movement, cf. 1Ki_1:7 ‘they following Adonijah helped him’.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain OPPOSITION OF JONATHAN AND OTHERS (ver. 15). It was…
OPPOSITION OF JONATHAN AND OTHERS (ver. 15). It was natural that some opposition should manifest itself when so trenchant a measure was announced as that which Ezra had declared to be necessary. To compel men to divorce their wives was to touch many in the tenderest place. Nor was it difficult to bring forward very plausible arguments to show that the marriages or at any rate some of them were allowable. Joseph had married an Egyptian, (Gen_41:45) Moses a Midianite. (Exo_2:21) True, these marriages had taken place before the law was given; but subsequently, also, Boaz had married Ruth the Moabitess; (Rth_4:13) David had taken to wife Maacah, a Geshurite; (2Sa_3:3) and Solomon had without blame married the daughter of a Pharaoh. (1Ki_3:1) These examples might be pleaded in proof that the Law admitted of exceptions, and individuals might argue that their cases were of an exceptional character. Again, in some instances the foreign wives may have become proselytes, and the children may have been circumcised, and so accepted into the congregation; which would give them a claim to remain, which would extend in some degree to the mothers. We therefore cannot be surprised that an opposition was made. Rather, it is remarkable that it was so slight, only extending (so far as appears) to four persons, and so easily quelled.
Only Jonathan and Jaha-ziah were employed about this matter. If this were the true meaning of the passage it would contradict the next verse, by which it appears that Ezra himself, together with several "chiefs of the fathers probably identical with the "rulers and elders" of ver. 14 took the matter in hand, and were occupied with it for three months. The true meaning of the clause, however, is almost certainly that which was assumed in the preceding paragraph: "Only Jonathan and Jahaziah stood up against this matter," or opposed" it. (see 1Ch_21:1; Dan_8:25 Dan_11:14, where the same expression has the sense of "oppose, resist Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them. The "Meshullam" intended is perhaps the person of the name mentioned in ver. 29 as having married an idolatrous wife. The others seem not to have had any personal interest in thwarting Ezra and preventing the reform.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 10:15 It is unclear why these four people opposed…
10:15 It is unclear why these four people opposed the plan. Perhaps they wanted a stricter penalty, or perhaps they or members of their families did not want to divorce their foreign wives. That there were only four dissenters shows the overwhelming support the policy had gained among the rest of the exiles. Sadly, a few years later, a similar problem of intermarriage with pagan wives created another crisis within the community (Neh 9–10).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.