Thank you, Jean Sheldon, for this most necessary comment on the topic of this week’s Sabbath school. The official study guide of the church for the bible discussion groups seems to be a bit out of control, i.e. it is lacking basic reflections and must have bypassed the peer review - be it by a lucid mind or a compassionate heart - that I had always taken for granted to be in place.
I was especially surprised to read this passage from wednesday December 18, 2019 in the Bible Study Guide, 4th quarter, lesson 12, 2019:
"The specific words used in [Ezra 10:11,19) for “separate yourself” (badal) and “put away” (yatza’) are not used anywhere else in the Scriptures for divorce. Ezra would have known the terminology regularly used for divorce, but he chose not to use it. Thus it is apparent that Ezra did not consider the marriages valid after it was discovered that they were in violation of the Torah command. In other words, the marriages were nullified because they were contrary to the law. The process was dissolution of invalid marriages.
Does the author of the Sabbath school Quarterly really insinuate, that Ezra rightly considered these marriages to be invalid and therefore their “dissolution” was a justified step? To see such a statement in an official Adventist publication getting spread through all our local churches without a critical comment is appalling. The suggested idea here that a marriage vow between persons of differing religious backgrounds is invalid and can get nullified without further consequences is neither an Adventist nor a healthy position at all.
I’m missing an approach to the text that considers the option that Ezra (and Nehemiah) may have committed and reported some mistakes that they did not notice (or admit) themselves, even though there are strong indicators in both books and in the later story of the chosen people for exactly that. Nothing keeps us from viewing their deeds with a critical eye. Old Testament authors often do not explicitly judge actions as right or wrong. Instead they leave this task to the reader. We are called to take into account the consequences that followed the decisions of the protagonists. Why did a first attempt of Nehemiah to install healthy religious practices fail (ch 13)? Why did he return to Babylon at all, wasn’t he supposed to stay in Jerusalem, from a true believer’s point of view? Why did he not sacrifice his convenient career at king Artaxerxes’ court and choose a life in the Holy land? Why did he, again in his final chapter, repeat three times the plea, that Gold may have mercy on his works? The gold standard for evaluating behaviour in the Bible is, for every Christian, the teaching of Jesus Christ, as we get to know best from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And the son of God made very clear what God thinks about “nullifying” marriage vows by legal tricks.
(PS: The son of God also made very clear what God thinks about public shaming, to mention a second distorted teaching of this week’s Quarterly).