Were the exiles concerned about racial purity in marriages? Part I.
Ezra 9:1-2
Given that modern readers are particularly sensitive to the issue of racism, it is not surprising that we immediately suspect it in the exiles’ story and this assumption is sadly reinforced by many translations that have ‘holy race’ in Ezra 9:2. On the issue of the exiles’ racism, see also my earlier post Were the exiles racist in their definition of their identity (Ezra 2:1-70). Before we engage with the passage in detail, some preliminary comments about our own predispositions are in order.
The tendency to see racism in inequalities
First, those who have been hurt by racism or who feel the outrage of its injustice are often quick to see it in situations of inequality even when race is not the determinative factor. William Thaddeus in his book on social justice gives an example. At a particular intersection of a motorway in the US, it was found that more blacks were ticketed for speeding than whites, which at first glance looked like racism. However, further investigation revealed that the area was inhabited mainly by blacks of a younger age group (who are more likely to speed no matter their skin colour), whereas the whites living around the place were fewer in number and older, so that race was co-incidental to the issue.[1] While there is no doubt that racism exists and discrimination of various kinds are as old as history, we should recognise our own tendency to see this issue because it is so prevalent in our thinking.
Racism defined
Secondly, racism is considered as one of the worst crimes in Western societies and it is an emotive term bandied about a lot without a clear definition, so it is worth reflecting on what racism is. Audrey Smedley, Professor of Anthropology, defines it on the Britannica website thus.
racism, also called racialism, the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others. The term is also applied to political, economic, or legal institutions and systems that engage in or perpetuate discrimination on the basis of race or otherwise reinforce racial inequalities in wealth and income, education, health care, civil rights, and other areas.[2]
Racism then is the theory of distinct biological races with fixed traits, as well as the discrimination that results from it. At the heart of the theory is the insistence that there are superior and inferior races, determined by ‘nature’, which ‘nurture’ (society’s influence, education, training, etc.) cannot change. It is a convenient scheme to marginalise people who are seen as having a lower status and keep them locked into that position, or in its particular virulent form, to eliminate those in it because through intermarriage they might contaminate the pure bloodline of a superior race.
The ban on intermarriage – the threat of religious influence
How does this theory compare to the exiles’ stance? In their reasoning they combine Deuteronomy’s prohibition to intermarry with the local population with what might be termed the ‘holy seed’ rationale (translated by many English versions as ‘holy race’, Ezra 9:2). I shall return to this second aspect, but let’s examine the ban on mixed marriages first. The reason for the ban, which also includes not making covenants (i.e. alliances) with these people groups in Deut 7:1-6 is because they will lead the spouses into idolatry. In other words, the issue is religious influence that affects God’s people as a result of close social interaction (not just marriage) with pagan groups who worship other gods.
Israel is not superior or above judgement
Although Israel is chosen and therefore special to God, this is not due to any inherently superior qualities rooted in their biology or otherwise. Indeed, Israel is warned against becoming proud or thinking of themselves too highly (Deut 7:7-8; 9:4-7). Neither is their election an automatic guarantee of protection against judgment. Leviticus 18:24-30 (which also forms the background to the exiles’ thinking, see Ezra 9:11) explains that the local peoples were evicted from the land because of their sins (idolatry, sexual immorality) and if Israel imitates those practices, they too will be thrown out of the land.
Further, Ezra’s prayer (Ezra 9:5-15) is contrite and humble, reflecting on Israel’s sin that landed them in exile. This is not a superior race with innate holiness that indicates their high moral standards, nor one that can get away with anything but a people that sinned just like the nations around them and received the same punishment. In fact, the exiles who refuse to gather in Jerusalem to deal with the present crisis are excluded from the community (Ezra 10:7-8), once again indicating that being ethnic Jews does not give them automatic rights of membership.
Threat defined by proximity to Israel
We should also note that the list of people the exiles mention in Ezra 9:1 is not intended to specify the ethnic groups with whom intermarriage is forbidden for the simple reason that most of these did not exist by the time of Ezra. They are simply used as an analogy for local groups (whose ethnicity is not named). Being local (or from neighbouring countries) mattered because close contact with their extended clan would inevitably lead to religious influence. What connects these unnamed groups to the ancient ones listed in the law is their ‘abominations’, which we have seen in my previous post (What influences dominate our life?), was summarised under the broad categories of worship of other gods and sexual immorality. In other words, their influence was feared for leading God’s people away from their commitment to the Lord in their worship and daily practices (whether of a sexual nature or not).
Even in Israel’s first entry into the land, the determining factor for the ban on intermarriage with the locals is not that they are part of a particular ethnic group per se but that they are local and therefore have a greater impact through interaction between their clans. This is evident in the way the list of Canaanite nations varies in the laws. For instance, the Girgashites are missing from the list in the ban on covenants with the locals in Exod 34:11-17, but included in Deut 7:1. It is also clear from the way warfare is to be conducted against ‘cities far from you’ compared to ‘cities near you’ (Deut 20:10-18) with the former offered terms of peace and the latter to be destroyed, once again because of the influence the locals exert (see esp. v.18).[3] Note also the story of the Gibeonites who pretend in Joshua’s time that they come from a distant land, so that Israel would make a covenant with them (Josh 9:7-16). Once again, the issue turns not on being from a particular ethnic group but on the fact that these people are locals. By comparison, it is permitted to marry a non-Israelite woman captured in war likely because she has no extended family whose influence may be detrimental to Israel’s faith (Deut 21:10-13).
[I’ll return to the ‘holy seed’ rationale in my next post.]
[1] William Thaddeus, Confronting Injustice without Compromising Truth: 12 Questions Christians Should Ask about Social Justice (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 167-68.
[2] Audrey Smedley, ‘racism’, https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism (accessed 25 Jan 2022).
[3] The question of ‘utter destruction’, which is suggested by this passage is another thorny issue. For a detailed exploration of the issues, see Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011), 158-97. For the two points I mention below, see esp. Ibid., 175-77. First, agrarian and nomadic peoples lived in the countryside, so that ‘cities’ are likely garrison towns that are largely military strongholds rather than dwelling places for the local population. Secondly, the language of ‘utter destruction’ and ‘not leaving alive anyone who breathes’ are stock phrases to indicate the decisive smashing of military opposition, rather like sports commentators today use expressions like ‘team A annihilated team B’, or fans might say ‘we slaughtered them’. Understanding conventions in how we use language helps us not to jump to false conclusions and assume a bloodbath on the sports field.
If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.