Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahzeiah the son of Tikvah opposed this, and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite supported them.
The whole gathering had just agreed to put away a great evil. Then one short sentence names four men who would not join in. What were these men doing? And what happens to a work of God when some of His people hold back?
Opposing or overseeing?
This verse can be read in two opposite ways, and older English translations split over it. One writer weighs both readings and decides from what follows:
The Bible TreasuryA strange difficulty appears in verse 15. The words might mean being appointed over this business, or opposing it. The Authorized Version favours the first reading, the Revised Version the second. But the context seems to decide for opposition. Verse 16 is clear. Not only Ezra but certain heads of families, all of them named, were set apart, and they sat down to examine the matter. These carried out the task in order; whereas only four had stood up against this proposal.
Commentators differ on how firmly this can be settled. Another writer, reading the verse as a list of men appointed to the work, adds a cautious note:
Edward DennettIt is not clear whether those named in verse 15 were not rather opposing the suggestion of the people. One translation gives, "Stood up against this matter." Certainly Ezra and the heads of the families did the work (v. 16).
Four men against a repentant congregation
Scripture names the four men but gives no reason for their stand. One writer feels the loss, and can only guess at what moved them:
H. L. RossierIf only the feeling that moved the people had been unanimous! Sadly, it was not. What motives could have turned them onto this path of opposition? None are given to us. At most, we might guess at one of them. If he is the same Meshullam as the Levite of verse 29, he had taken part in the evil himself. That would give him personal reasons for opposing the decision of the assembly.
Borne with, not thrown out
So how did the rest respond to the four? The same writer draws out what they did, and what became of one of them:
Faced with this opposition, which was completely against the mind of God, what do those who have decided to purify themselves do? They do not exclude their brothers. They bear with them. The self-will of these few needs no other judgment than the decisive action of the majority. Later, to our joy, we see Shabbethai the Levite used to help the people understand the law, and then set over the outward business of the house of God (Neh. 8:7; Neh. 11:16). He was more guilty than the others because of his office, and because he identified himself with Meshullam. Indeed, the opposition of these men in no way influences the decision of the assembly. It is even a means by which God tests the resolve of their brothers' hearts. It does not stop the whole company from moving forward.
after-note: DELETE
The Levites were the tribe set apart to serve at the temple.
When agreement is not complete
The work went forward even so. One writer turns to these very verses when asking how much agreement a decision needs:
AnonymousA unanimous decision is desirable, but not absolutely necessary (see Ezra 10:15-17; 2 Cor. 2:6). A decision made by an assembly should be recognised as an assembly decision when those burdened with the matter search for His mind. They search filled with reverent awe towards God, and conscious of their responsibility before the Lord. It is not a question of infallibility, but a question of the authority which the Lord grants to the local assembly when it acts in His Name.
The danger of counting heads
But what if an assembly is divided over a case of discipline?
The Bible TreasuryTo decide by majority, as worldly meetings do, would plainly be human and therefore false. Far too many proofs show that the majority is not always right, in church matters as well as in worldly questions. I have heard of a case where one brother refused to agree with the unanimous judgment of all the brothers in the assembly. His brothers had grace, and they trusted the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so they waited. Soon afterwards it became clear that the single brother had been right and the others wrong. Full agreement seems most desirable, above all in the solemn matter of exclusion from an assembly. Those who wait on the Lord and for the guidance of His Spirit will not be disappointed.
Summary
- Reading — The verse can mean these four men were put in charge of the matter, or that they resisted it. Verse 16 gives the work to Ezra and the named heads of families, which points to resistance.
- Silence — Scripture names the four but gives no reason for their stand. The one guess offered is that one of them had a personal stake in the evil under judgment.
- Patience — The rest did not expel the four. They bore with them, and let the decisive action of the whole body answer for itself. The opposition tested their resolve; it did not stop the work.
- Recovery — Shabbethai's office made his opposition the worst of all. Yet he is later found helping people understand the law, and trusted with the business of God's house.
- Balance — Full agreement is desirable, but a decision can stand without it. Even so, the majority is not always right, so waiting on the Lord's guidance is never wasted.