Separation From Idolatrous Foreign Women (Nehemiah 13:23-27).
Nehemiah's final act to which he calls God's attention is his purifying of Jerusalem (or possibly of the new Israel) from idolatrous foreign women. It is made clear that these women had not converted to Yahwism, nor had they brought up their children to be Yahwists, otherwise they would have ensured that they knew Hebrew and/or Aramaic so that they might be able to understand the Scriptures. This was something that was incumbent on every Jew, and on every convert. Thus, as with Tobiah, Jerusalem was defiled by their presence. Furthermore otherwise genuine Yahwists (as Solomon had been) were being led astray. It is this last fact that is the emphasis of the passage.
There is no suggestion that the situation was widespread, as it had been in the days of Ezra 9-10. Rather it is revealed as a local affair dealt with locally. It had been over twenty years since Ezra had taken action against marriages with idolatrous foreign women. Now the practise had begun to creep back, and Nehemiah deals with it in his usual forthright manner.
It should be noted that in Nehemiah 4:7 the Ashdodites and the Ammonites were of those who actively opposed the building of the wall. They had been no friends of the Jews.
Ashdod was the name of the Persian province bordering Judah on the west. Moab and Ammon were to the east. Unlike in the time of Ezra the idolatrous foreign marriages here appear to have been limited to women of these three areas.
‘In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, of Ammon, of Moab, and their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people.'
Ashdod was the name of the Persian province to the west and its notabilities would probably have had constant contact with Jerusalem, which was now the capital city of the province of Judah. These marriages may thus have been limited to the Jewish aristocracy who were seeking political and trading influence. Alternately, but less likely, they may simply have been cross border marriages. But if the latter were the case we would have expected the children soon to learn Aramaic as they mixed with Jewish children. They would not be brought up in the same isolation as the children of wealthy aristocrats. The situation therefore smacks very much of children brought up in an exclusive environment, with Ashdod-speaking servants being responsible for their education. The Moabites and Ammonites spoke a language basically similar to the Jews, as we know from the Moabite inscription, although it might not have sounded like it to Nehemiah. But probably their children were not so discernibly ignorant of Hebrew and Aramaic as the children of Ashdod, which may explain the cryptic ‘spoke half in the speech of Ashdod'. Their languages were, however, sufficiently different that it would cause misunderstanding when hearing the reading of the Scriptures, but it would certainly not have appeared to be as barbaric as the language of Ashdod.
With regard to Ammon and Moab, we know of the intermarriages of the daughters of Jewish aristocrats with Tobiah and his son, who were both Ammonites, for we have been told that Tobiah was son-in-law to a prominent Jew named Shechaniah the son of Arah, and that his son Johanan had married the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah (Nehemiah 6:18), a prominent wallbuilder (Nehemiah 3:4; Nehemiah 3:30) and priest (Nehemiah 3:28; Nehemiah 3:30). Both Shechaniah and Meshullam would presumably be of the Jewish aristocracy. We can therefore understand a tendency for some who supported Tobiah to encourage intermarriage with aristocratic Ammonite sons and daughters. Once again political and trading influence was probably at stake. And as Ammonites and Moabites were closely allied, and were brother tribes, it would be natural for aristocratic Moabite men and women also to be involved.
What appears to have shocked Nehemiah the most was the inability of children of half the marriages to speak anything other than ‘the speech of Ashdod'. In other words they only spoke a language which was totally beyond understanding. This was possibly what first drew the situation to his attention. There may not only have been one language spoken in Ashdod. It was a Persian province including a number of nations. ‘The speech of Ashdod' may not therefore signify a single language, but any language spoke in Ashdod. All would have appeared equally barbaric. And as we have suggested above their ‘speaking only the speech of Ashdod' clearly indicated that they were not being brought up to understand the Jewish Law, which could only have bad consequences for the future. Thus underlying his horror at their not speaking Hebrew/Aramaic was a recognition of the fact that they were being brought up to worship the gods of Ashdod. And at the best this could only lead to syncretism. He could see Israel slowly slipping away from the pure worship of YHWH.
Note On The Words ‘and their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people.'
It is clear that this is unlikely to mean that their children each spoke half Ashdod, half Hebrew, for then it could not have been said of them that they could not speak in the Jewish language. There would have been many bi-linguists in Jerusalem who were pure Yahwists so that being bilingual would not have been a matter for concern. It may signify:
· That half the children spoke in the Ashdod speech, as their mothers came from Ashdod, while the other half spoke in either Ammonite or Moabite (‘according to the language of each people').
· That being aristocrats the Jews in question had more than one wife so that some of their children were brought up to speak Hebrew, because they had mothers who were Yahwists, while the others were brought up to speak the Ashdod languages because their mothers came from Ashdod. The latter would then have been brought up to worship the gods of Ashdod.
· That half the children of Ashdod mothers had not learned to speak Hebrew, whilst the other half had. This might explain why only some were severely punished.
Without more information we cannot be dogmatic, but whichever way it was it disturbed Nehemiah sufficiently to cause him to take drastic action, because he recognised the danger of encroaching idolatry.
End of note.
‘And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, “You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons, or for yourselves.”
It appears from what happened that the Jews involved were summoned together before Nehemiah to present their defence, for we learn that he ‘contended with them' (see Nehemiah 13:26), whilst Nehemiah 13:27 (‘shall we then listen to you?') certainly suggests that they put forward a bold defence. We are probably not to see in this description that Nehemiah lost his temper and began pulling at their beards, (for that the incident would have had to be very local indeed), but rather that he passed a judicial sentence on them, solemnly cursing them and sentencing some of them to be beaten and have hairs pulled out, either of their beards or their heads. To decimate a man's beard and hair was to subject him to shame (compare 2 Samuel 10:4; Isaiah 3:24; Isaiah 15:2; Jeremiah 48:37; Ezekiel 29:18). Thus by this they were being publicly shamed. We can compare how God's Servant described a similar punishment applied to himself in Isaiah 50:6, something clearly designed to humiliate him. In Ezra 9:3 we find how Ezra subjected himself to the same humiliation, although in his case self-imposed.
They were also made to swear before God that they would not in future “give your daughters to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons, or for yourselves.” This was Biblical language based on the requirements of the Law (Deuteronomy 7:3; Exodus 34:16). It will be noted that it is not specifically said they were required to put away their wives, and if that was the case it may be an indication of the high status of their wives. (Even Nehemiah had to consider possible appeals to the King of Persia). In that was so the situation was unlike that in Ezra. On the other hand it may be that divorcing their foreign wives was implied in the verdict (‘or for yourselves') and was simply not mentioned in this very abbreviated account.
“Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? Yet among many nations was there no king like him, and he was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel. Nevertheless even him did foreign women cause to sin.”
Nehemiah then gave a powerful Scriptural example in order to back up his case. He pointed them back to Solomon, outstanding among kings, beloved of God and granted the kingship of Israel by Him. Yet even this king who was so great and powerful, and owed God so much, was led astray into idolatry by his foreign wives (1 Kings 11:1-8). What chance was there then for lesser people to resist the temptations put in their way by idolatrous foreign wives.
“Shall we then listen to you to do all this great evil, to trespass against our God in marrying foreign women?”
Thus in view of the example of Solomon their persuasive arguments carried no weight. It is quite clear that the husbands were seeking to put up a defence for their actions, a defence which Nehemiah swept aside. Note how he describes marrying idolatrous foreign wives as a ‘great evil'. It was no light matter. And by it they were trespassing against God and His word. It is difficult in the light of this to see how he could do anything other than insist that they divorce their idolatrous foreign wives.