The challenge of re-applying ancient laws in new contexts (Ezra 9-10)

In an OT class I taught, we were reflecting on the Mosaic law and how to interpret regulations in a meaningful way. I used the example of ‘tattoos’ (Lev 19:28), which is a hot topic among young people in New Zealand, where such markings can be significant for a sense of identity or simply a way of being reminded of an event or person. As we explored the OT law, it became clear that the reasons behind the prohibition, which are forbidden to Israel, are likely very different from the motivation for it among people today, so that even laws that expressly treat a subject may not be talking about the same thing. Moreover, many situations we face today simply did not arise in the ancient world so that there is no discussion of them in the Bible.

Re-applying ancient laws to new contexts

This, of course, is not a new problem.  The exiles faced a similar time-gap between their situation of mixed marriages and the Mosaic law. The Canaanite people groups in Deut 7:1-6 did not exist anymore, and the law gave no solution to the problem of what happens if intermarriages have already taken place. We have seen that the exiles understood the heart of the command to be about preserving faithfulness to God and avoiding idolatry, so they interpreted the list of people groups in the prohibition flexibly to apply to the present local people (see my post on What influences dominate our life? (Ezra 9:1-4)).

The reason for the ‘holy seed’ argument

However, they tagged on a secondary explanation (the ‘holy seed’ intermingled, Ezra 9:2), which added the matter of purity to the moral-religious concern. The anthropologist, Mary Douglas, argues that pollution language in traditional societies often functions to make a complex moral-religious issue into a straightforward black-and-white one and help bolster the former concern.[1] For the exiles, this allowed for a rigid separation without having to evaluate the actual attitudes of these foreign women (whether they worshipped idols or were open to following Israel’s God). The returned Jews would have felt threatened in their identity by outside influences and been motivated to create certainty by buttressing the command in Deuteronomy 7, which left resolutions vague.

Unforeseen implications

What this extra element does is create a ‘hedge’ around the law. It is like the fence we put up to protect our house from intruders, an early deterrent before the real infraction happens. Such boundaries are sometimes necessary because they keep bad influences out when people are vulnerable. The history of the holy seed rationale, however, shows that this idea had some unforeseen consequences. In the exiles’ situation it created a rigid approach to the women and children and clashed with the ideal of marriage set out in Gen 2:24. In its later development, the rationale came to foster the kind of zealous behaviour that resulted in promoting the killing of a Jew who was in an intimate relationship with a Gentile woman. The rabbis later disapproved of such zealotry and the problems that resulted from this rationale explain why it stayed a minority position, which flourished briefly in the Second Temple Period and then disappeared without ever gaining wholesale acceptance. [2] In general, both Jewish and Christian mainstream positions came to favour conversion as a pathway into the religious community.

Hedges: the issue of protection and responsibility

The story of the exiles highlights for us that when we feel threatened or weak, we are prone to desire certainty and can be tempted to treat difficult questions in a black-and-white fashion. Creating extra barriers around a main concern can be helpful in giving protection for the weak, but the danger is that we identify our hedges with the real issue and judge or treat people ruthlessly. Thus, in some Christian groups, commitment to God is measured rigidly by holding certain views or doing/abstaining from certain practices. While there is often a connection between faithfulness to God and those views/practices, we should not forget that a hedge is not identical with the issue it tries to protect.

Conversely, our postmodern culture also has its protective hedges that set off an alarm when its central concerns around equality, freedom and no discrimination are felt to be breached. Thus, many are quick to pin the racist label on the exiles and fail to engage with the story, even though several aspects of it do not fit a racist theory (see my posts on racial purity in Ezra 9?).

The other side of protective boundaries is the question of responsibility. While guarding the weak is necessary and parents know well the importance of these when their children are vulnerable, rigid boundaries long-term can also keep one in a state of immaturity. Thus, the story of the exiles reminds us of the importance of creating flexible boundaries that gradually allow discernment and moral muscle to develop.

---

The key points in this post are taken from my PhD dissertation and summarised in the concluding chapter. Csilla Saysell, “According to the Law”: Reading Ezra 9-10 as Christian Scripture, JTI 4 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 218-224.

---

[1] Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1966; repr., London: Routledge Classics, 2002), 160-172.

[2] The Second Temple Period roughly falls between the exiles’ return and rebuilding of the temple in 515 BC (Solomon’s was the first temple) and its destruction by the Romans in 70 AD.

If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.