Ezr 9:13-14
And after all, continues Ezra, taking up again the אחרי־זאת of Ezr 9:10, - “after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass - yea, Thou our God has spared us more than our iniquity deserved, and hast given us this escaped remnant - can we again break Thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? Wilt Thou not be angry with us even to extirpation, so that no residue and no escaped remnant should be left?” The premiss in Ezr 9:13 is followed in Ezr 9:14 by the conclusion in the form of a question, while the second clause of Ezr 9:13 is an explanatory parenthesis. Bertheau construes the passage otherwise. He finds the continuation of the sentence: and after all this ... in the words וגו אתּה כּי, which, calmly spoken, would read: Thou, O God, hast not wholly destroyed us, but hast preserved to us an escaped remnant; while instead of such a continuation we have an exclamation of grateful wonder, emphatically introduced by כּי in the sense of כּי אמנם. With this construction of the clauses, however, no advance is made, and Ezra, in this prayer, does but repeat what he had already said, Ezr 9:8 and Ezr 9:9; although the introductory אהרי leads us to expect a new thought to close the confession. Then, too, the logical connection between the question Ezr 9:14 and what precedes it would be wanting, i.e., a foundation of fact for the question Ezr 9:14. Bertheau remarks on Ezr 9:14, that the question: should we return to break (i.e., break again) the commands of God? is an antithesis to the exclamation. But neither does this question, to judge by its matter, stand in contrast to the exclamation, nor is any such contrast indicated by its form. The discourse advances in regular progression only when Ezr 9:14 forms the conclusion arrived at from Ezr 9:13, and the thought in the premiss (13 a) is limited by the thoughts introduced with כּי. What had come upon Israel for their sins was, according to Ezr 9:7, deliverance into the hand of heathen kings, to the sword, to captivity, etc. God had not, however, merely chastened and punished His people for their sins, He had also extended mercy to them, Ezr 9:8, etc. This, therefore, is also mentioned by Ezra in Ezr 9:13, to justify, or rather to limit, the כּל in כּל־הבּא. The כּי is properly confirmatory: for Thou, our God, hast indeed punished us, but not in such measure as our sins had deserved; and receives through the tenor of the clause the adversative meaning of imo, yea (comp. Ewald, §330, b). למטּה מ חשׂכתּ, Thou hast checked, hast stopped, beneath our iniquities. חשׂך is not used intransitively, but actively; the missing object must be supplied from the context: Thou hast withheld that, all of which should have come upon us, i.e., the punishment we deserved, or, as older expositors completed the sense, iram tuam. מעוננוּ למטּה, infra delicta nostra, i.e., Thou hast punished us less than our iniquities deserved. For their iniquities they had merited extirpation; but God had given them a rescued remnant. כּזאת, as this, viz., this which exists in the community now returned from Babylon to Judaea. This is the circumstance which justifies the question: should we, or can we, again (נשׁוּב is used adverbially) break Thy commandments, and become related by marriage? (חתחתּן like Deu 7:3.) התּעבות עמּי, people who live in abominations. The answer to this question is found in the subsequent question: will He not - if, after the sparing mercy we have experienced, we again transgress the commands of God - by angry with us till He have consumed us? כּלּה עד (comp. 2Ki 13:17, 2Ki 13:19) is strengthened by the addition: so that there will be no remnant and no escaping. The question introduced by הלוא is an expression of certain assurance: He will most certainly consume us.