Ezra is a book in my bloodstream. I’ve preached through it three times; taught it at Cornhill pretty much every year since I’ve been here; lectured it here and overseas and I’m midway through writing our Teaching Ezra book. And yet, I still think that getting to the bottom of chapter 10 (when foreign wives are put away) one of the hardest parts of the Old Testament – especially in how we make it into New Covenant teaching.
I’ve just finished teaching this year’s course at Cornhill and am reminded that ending with this uncertainty is always unsatisfactory. Of course, that sense might be mitigated if we bundled Ezra and Nehemiah together (as I recommend the students). But our timetable, at present at least, does not allow for that.
I set the students two key questions. First, is Ezra’s response the correct one? Second, what is the New Covenant parallel, if there is one. These are two separate but not entirely unconnected questions.
For what it’s worth, I think the first question is easier to answer. Ezra is presented as the pre-eminent man of the law (e.g. Ezra 7.10). The whole second section leans heavily in this direction. He describes the remedy as “honouring the Lord, the God of your ancestors and doing his will” (Ezra 10.10). The people recognise this is good. “You are right! We must do as you say” (Ezra 10.12) having previously encouraged Ezra “Let it be done according to the Law” (Ezra 10.3).
DA Carson is somewhat more ambiguous than I could be: “Strictly speaking the text itself does not adjudicate between these two interpretations [Ezra is right, or wrong in his actions], though the first of the two is slightly more natural within the stance of the book.”
I want to go further. It seems to me that the text’s thrust and tone positively encourages us to think optimistically about Ezra’s actions. But given that to be the case, we are still left with the perplexing question of New Covenant application. Here are one or two ideas:

• First, the big thing going on is the supremacy of relationship with the covenant God. Nothing must be allowed to trump this. This point needs to be made, though that does not necessarily rule anything in or out in terms of our preaching application.
• Second, we must recognise that a New Testament believer’s relationship to law is not the same as an Old Testament believer.
• Third, there is a seriousness about sin and a ruthlessness about remedy that is reflected in the New Covenant – see, for example, Matthew 5.30.
• Fourth, it is possible to make a case I believe, for saying that these so-called “marriages” are not marriages at all. It is not that they are unethical, they are illegal. Is it possible to say that a legal parallel would be ‘marriage’ to, say, a sister? If someone told you that they were married to their sister, you would reply, ‘No, you’re not.’ The “wife” must be put away.

There are some things in Scripture that are hard to understand. We must not ignore them, but wrestle with them. And when it comes to preaching, I believe, we have to take a line. More of that tomorrow.