Ezra’s Ethics on Intermarriage and Divorce -- By: William R. Eichhorst

Journal: Grace Journal
Volume: GJ 10:3 (Fall 1969)
Article: Ezra’s Ethics on Intermarriage and Divorce
Author: William R. Eichhorst


Ezra’s Ethics on Intermarriage and Divorce

William R. Eichhorst

Dean of Faculty
Winnipeg Bible College

Introduction

The problem of divorce is practically as ancient as civilization itself. Civilizations of all ages have adopted a code of ethics on the subject. They vary from rigid rules prohibiting divorce, on the one hand, to practically no restrictions at all, on the other.

Both the Old and New Testaments deal with the subject. Divorces from the earliest times were common among the Hebrews. All rabbis agree, observes Edwards, that a separation, though not desirable, was quite lawful. The only source of dispute among them was as to what constituted a valid reason or just cause.1

It is not the purpose of this study to provide a full discussion of the divorce issue. The aim is rather to deal with the particular ethical problem presented in Ezra 9 and 10 .

The Old Testament law had prohibited mixed marriages between Israelites and the heathen nations around. Such a prohibition was not unusual among societies. In Rome patricians had been prohibited from marrying plebeians before 445 B.C. In 450 B.C. Pericles enforced a law in Athens, according to which only those whose parents were full-blooded Athenians could remain Athenian citizens.2 Israel was to be a peculiar nation and separate from the religions of other nations. The prohibition of mixed marriages was necessary for the maintenance of such separation.

But the problem of Ezra 9–10 reaches beyond this. Some Israelites did intermarry with the neighboring heathen. Mixed family units were established. Should these marriages, for the sake of national purity, be dissolved? Would not an annulling of these marriages create an injustice to the wife and family?

Nevertheless, the historical fact remains. Ezra required that the mixed marriages be broken up. Was he justified in his decision or not? It is the purpose of this study to investigate the ethical implications of this event and to offer a judgment on Ezra’s decision.

Research in the commentaries shows that there is divided opinion on the matter. Most, in fact, prefer to limit their comments in an attitude of non-commitment. The record of Ezra’s

decision is presented and his reasons for the decision are usually added. But most are reluctant about commending Ezra on this occasion.

Hastings is representative ...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()