Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam: A certain Shecaniah spoke up. There is no previous reference to him and no indication is given as to how he became the spokesman for the crowd. There are six different men with this name in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the name of his father Jehiel was a common one. There is a Jehiel among the descendants of Elam in the list of those who had foreign wives (verse 26 below). It has been argued that this could not be the father of Shecaniah since Shecaniah would be proposing that he himself be sent away since he would have been a child of a foreign mother. But it is also possible that he was the son of another wife of Jehiel. Shecaniah echoes the ideas in the prayer of Ezra and seems to have been advised by Ezra in the proposal that he makes. For sons of Elam, see the comments on Ezra 2.3-20.
Addressed Ezra, saying: The Hebrew text uses a common pattern of two verbs, as Revised Standard Version has translated. The meaning is that the speaker replies with the words that follow. In this case he is not replying to a specific question asked by Ezra, but rather to the general situation that Ezra has presented to the people. Segond says “he began to speak and said to Ezra.” Revised English Bible renders it “spoke up and said to Ezra.” Many translations reduce the Hebrew pattern to a single verb as Good News Translation has done, and often this will be the most natural rendering. The words of Shecaniah are reported in the form of direct quotation by both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, and translators should do the same, if possible.
Shecaniah confessed that We have broken faith with our God. The Hebrew verb that is translated broken faith is a term used for having broken an oath or a covenant (see the comments on “faithlessness” in Ezra 9.2). Some translations render it “We have been unfaithful to our God” (so New International Version, Nouvelle version Segond révisée, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), while others are more explicit with “we have committed a serious wrong toward God” (Bible en français courant).
Their relationship with their God has been broken because they have married foreign women from the peoples of the land. The word that is translated married is not the usual Hebrew term for marriage. The word used here means literally “cause to dwell [in one’s house].” This word was only used of marriages with foreigners. It may indicate a relationship outside the Law and may have had a negative connotation. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh describes this as “bringing into our homes foreign women.” This is the opposite of “put away” in verse 3 below, which was not the usual word for referring to divorce and which may also have had a negative connotation.
In the phrase foreign women, the adjective that is translated foreign is an important word in this chapter, where it occurs seven times. The word refers to something that does not belong and that is therefore “strange.” These women were “strangers” or “outsiders” to the Jews. Some cultures have equivalent expressions for referring to wives who are married from outside the husband’s society.
For the peoples of the land, see Ezra 9.1-2. The singular form of land used in the phrase here puts the focus on the “land of Judah.” This phrase is redundant because the speaker has already specified that the women are foreign, but the repetition of the phrase emphasizes again the importance of separation from what is foreign and polluting and the failure of the people to maintain the separation that is required by God’s commands. New International Version renders this “the peoples around us.”
But even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this: The speaker emphasizes that even at the time that he is speaking and even recognizing the gravity of their sins toward God, there is something good that can be hoped for. The connective conjunction in Hebrew here is contrastive, followed by the adverb now.
The Hebrew word translated hope is not a common term in the Old Testament. It occurs only five times. Here the speaker affirms that there is hope for Israel. In 1 Chr 29.15 King David asserts that there is no hope for humankind apart from God. In Jer 14.8 and 17.13 the prophet addresses God as the “hope of Israel” and in Jer 50.7 he refers to God as “the hope of their fathers.” In the present situation of having broken faith with God, the speaker asserts that all is not lost. There is still the possibility of something good happening. The people can still count on a good ending. They can still put their trust in something that will come to their aid or someone who will rescue them.
The name of the nation Israel is used as it was used earlier in verse 1 to represent the people of the nation. Contemporary English Version accordingly translates “for the people of Israel.”
The last clause of this verse may be difficult to translate both because of the abstract concept of hope and because of the statement of the existence of that hope. In this clause Hebrew uses an adverbial form to express existence that is translated as there is in Revised Standard Version. In English and some other Indo-European languages a formal verb “to be” exists and may be used here. However, in many languages a copulative construction without a verb expresses the idea of “being” when the subject is being described or located. To express there is in terms of existence may require locating the subject in an abstract place. In the statement here, the speaker does not identify where the hope is located. In some languages it may be necessary to give concrete expression to hope. A possible rendering is “but there is still something on which we can rely in this situation” or “but something exists yet on which we can put our thoughts in this matter.”
Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Ezra. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .