Ezra poses a question that expects affirmation to underscore the inevitability of divine judgment if Israel persists in covenant violation. By framing God’s anger as a question rather than a declaration, Ezra invites the listening community to recognize that renewed disobedience will provoke complete destruction. The interrogative form makes the consequence inescapable while maintaining a posture of humble appeal rather than presumptuous certainty about God’s actions.

God provides no direct verbal answer to this question in the text. However, His response unfolds through the narrative action: the people are convicted unto repentance, propose a covenant to put away their foreign wives (Ezra 10:2-3), and successfully carry out the reform under Ezra’s leadership. The implied answer is that God’s mercy extends even to this renewed violation, but only as the community demonstrates genuine repentance through concrete action.

This question functions as the logical conclusion to Ezra’s preceding query about breaking God’s commandments. The phrase ‘would you not be angry’ uses the Hebrew interrogative construction that expects agreement, making this a rhetorical device that affirms rather than questions God’s justice. The verb ‘consume’ (kalah) suggests complete destruction, leaving nothing behind. Ezra asks rather than declares to maintain the humble posture appropriate to intercession while forcing his audience to confront the inevitable consequence of continued rebellion. The theological weight lies in Ezra’s remnant theology: the community’s very existence depends on God’s restraint, and renewed covenant violation could provoke the total judgment that exile partially represented. The question acknowledges that Israel has no claim on God’s mercy apart from His covenant faithfulness.