Were the exiles racist in their definition of identity? (Ezra 2:1-70)

Throughout the book of Ezra and Nehemiah, Israel (i.e. God’s people) are defined as Jews who returned from exile (Ezra 2:2). For modern readers with a greater sensitivity to racial and ethnic exclusion and to related atrocities in our recent historic memory, such a definition raises alarm bells. What are we to make of this list? Is it right for God’s people to exclude others from the community along racial-ethnic lines? Responsible interpretation requires that we do not judge ancient peoples by our modern standards. This is not to condone what is morally wrong, but to recognise that we are removed in time and place from the OT and may not fully appreciate what is going on. To understand and learn from their experience, we need to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Identity for a threatened minority

For the Jews in exile, identity was a pressing issue because their captivity was God’s punishment for forgetting their calling as God’s people. Chastised as they were, they wanted to safeguard their faithfulness to God and one aspect of this was to define the boundaries around their identity more tightly, a common enough feature among minorities who feel threatened by outside influences. Neither could they handle this in a laid-back manner like citizens of independent countries where identity is unquestioned, since these returned Jews were a minority in a Persian province rather than the majority in their own country.

Family and ethnic affiliation determines religion in the ancient world

People in the OT commonly described themselves in terms of family, clan, and by location (e.g. 1 Sam 1:1), so this is the starting point here (e.g. Ezra 2:2-3, 21-23). Since belonging to a people group largely defined religious allegiance, it was a logical step. Although we may think of individuals like Ruth, the Moabite ancestor of David, who committed herself to Israel’s God (Ruth 1:16), this is an exception and the concept of conversion as a recognised pathway into the community of Israel did not exist at this time. These factors explain why faithfulness to God is primarily linked to ethnicity here.

The exception – those assimilated into Israel

However, this is not the full story. The mention of ‘the sons of Solomon’s servants/slaves’ (i.e. the descendants of Solomon’s slaves; Ezra 2:35) point to a group that was not ethnically Israelite. Solomon used the local Canaanite population for forced labour (1 Kings 9:21), but their long-term association with Israel would have led to their assimilation. Thus, racial purity or superiority as defined in modern terms is not the perspective here. Further, those Jews who could not prove their genealogy (some records would have been destroyed or lost when the people went into exile) could still be counted in the tally (Ezra 2:59-60) presumably because others vouched for them.

Exilic experience – spiritual renewal as determinative

Moreover, what is also significant here is the exilic experience. Throughout Ezra-Nehemiah, it is the returnees who are seen as God’s people, once again not an ethnic-racial category. When Babylon took Judah into captivity, they left the poorest of the land in place (2 Kings 25:12) and people groups from neighbouring countries would have filled the vacuum. Those who remained may have improved their lot in life by acquiring land belonging to those taken captive and could have mixed and assimilated into non-Israelite groups.

In comparison, the exiles were settled in communities in Babylon and the full shock of their loss would have more likely drawn them closer together as a separate entity and led them to soul-searching and repentance, as the postexilic prophet, Zechariah, recalls (Zech 1:6). This is presumably the logic of Jeremiah’s prophetic word that sees the exiles as favoured by God (Jer 24:4-10) and why they considered themselves as the people of Israel (Ezra 2:2). It was not enough to have Jewish lineage; rather, this shared experience leading to spiritual renewal was determinative.

God’s people will later refine their categories as they encounter challenges (for instance, those [Jews] who separated themselves from the local population will be allowed to join in the Passover celebrations – Ezra 6:21), but the boundary lines of returned exiles will largely be operative. The mystery that the Gentiles who turned to Christ could become accepted (Col 1:26-27) was not revealed to the exiles, but we can rejoice that Christ has made us from strangers into family (Eph 2:18-19).

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