A few decades ago, when George Bush was running for president, he visited Bob Jones University. You would not believe the media firestorm that ensued. Some people were outraged that Bush went there at all, while others were astonished that his political opponents made so much of it. Of course, only political junkies like me noticed it at all.
The two things that really got under the media’s skin were that Bob Jones prohibits inter-racial dating and that they think Catholicism is a “cult.” Since Bush didn’t call them to account, they accused him of “pandering to the religious right.” Now I think that inter-racial dating is just fine, and I don’t think Catholicism is a cult. In fact, I disagree with a lot more of what Bob Jones U. teaches than just those two things, especially their view of women's roles.
But it’s only a short step from the intolerance of the media for those particular religious beliefs to intolerance of all politically incorrect beliefs: from the belief that homosexual acts are displeasing to God to the belief that women should not be ordained to the ministry (or to the priesthood), from capital punishment to corporal punishment, from divorce to polygamy to birth control. In hindsight, these issues pale compared to today's controversies over gender. But some questions remain the same.
How can I have fellowship with a Christian who doesn’t think I have any business preaching the Word or administering the sacraments? How can I have fellowship with Christians who, I believe, are promoting or at least condoning sin? Why do we think we’re right and they’re wrong? There's always a "we" and a "they," no matter which side you're on.
Both sides claim Biblical authority. Both sides of all the above controversies, in fact, so I should probably say all sides rather than both sides.
It’s not enough to say, “Well, everyone knows that banning inter-racial dating is racism, and racism is wrong.” Obviously, not everyone does know it, otherwise Bob Jones wouldn’t have quite such a large enrollment. It’s not enough to say “Everyone knows that women and men are equal and equally called to ministry and the people who don’t agree are misguided and medieval.” Because some people believe that those of us who won’t perform same-sex unions or ordain active homosexuals to church office are misguided, medieval, and motivated by fear and hatred. And we all know we’re not, right? So how do we know where we should make a stand? How do we know how to think of those Christians who differ from us on these issues? Are they evil and bad and to be criticized and shunned, or are they - just maybe - right? Have we succumbed to the popular culture rather than holding fast to Biblical truth?
The book of Ezra is a good place to look, to see where some of those views come from. Because it explicitly forbids mixed marriages. As Cambridge scholar H. G. Williamson puts it in his commentary on Ezra and Nehemiah, this part of Ezra is “among the least attractive parts of the Old Testament.”
Time for a little background.
Recently, we watched King Hezekiah as he tried to pull his people back from Baal-worship to the worship of YHWH. It didn’t take. He was followed by two of the worst king’s in Judah’s history, Manasseh and Amon, and within a hundred years, Judah fell to Babylon. God pulled his punches on this one, though; instead of destroying the culture by breaking up families and selling them into slavery all over the known world as Assyria had done, the Babylonians just picked up the inhabitants of Judah and moved them to Babylon where they could keep an eye on them and make sure they didn’t cause any more trouble.
During the seventy years of exile, Ezekiel preached God’s word and Daniel modeled it; after Persia conquered Babylon and let the Jews go back and rebuild the temple, those who returned were REALLY MOTIVATED to pay attention to their religious leaders, and to do what God wanted them to do.
The first group who went back, under Zerubbabel, set the tone.
"When the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returned exiles were building a temple to YHWH, the God of Israel, they approached Zerubbabel ... and said to them, 'Let us build with you, for we worship your God as you do ....' But Zerubbabel... said to them, 'You shall have no part with us in building a house to our God; but we alone will build to YHWH the God of Israel, as King Cyrus of Persia has commanded us.' Then the people of the land discouraged the people of Judah, and made them afraid to build...." [Ezra 4:1-5]
Now, Zerubbabel may have had good reason to refuse the help of the local people; they may have been enemies of the returned exiles even before being so rudely rejected. Or it may be that Cyrus had made it clear that only the returnees were authorized to build. But they may have been motivated instead by religious elitism, or snobbery. Whatever the reason, from that point on, the Samaritans - for that’s who they were - hated the Judeans and did their best to frustrate their efforts.
So the building went slowly, and even stopped for a while, because the mudslinging and rumor-mongering got them in trouble with the Persian authorities. The armed raids and a couple of foiled assassination plots played a part in the delay, as well. The builders had to take turns standing guard while their fellow workers laid bricks.
That was the state of affairs when King Artaxerxes of Persia sent Ezra, a priest and scribe, a teacher of the law, to take a big offering to Jerusalem to help in the building effort and to get the community back on track in accordance with the law of Moses.
“And you, Ezra... appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people... who know the laws of your God; and you shall teach those who do not know them. All who will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be strictly executed on them...” [Ezra 7:25-26]
Ezra took the gold and silver to Jerusalem, and appointed judges, and taught the law, and after a few months the people came to him and confessed that they had married local women, and after listening to his teaching they had become convinced that it was against God’s will, and what should they do about it? That’s where we came in.
Ezra probably already knew about the marriages and had just been waiting for the people to confess and ask for guidance, so his reaction is probably as much for dramatic effect as for anything else. The outcome, in the next chapter, is that the men divorce their foreign wives and send them and their children away. Pretty drastic, huh? And not something anyone quotes when discussing the question of divorce.
Was Ezra right? Is this what God wanted?
There are three principles of Biblical interpretation that apply here.
The first one is, that just because something appears in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s something we should do. Even if it’s done by one of the big-name heroes. It’s the difference between “description” and “prescription.” For instance, Absalom shouldn’t have rebelled against his father David, and Samson shouldn’t have been carrying on with Delilah. Ezra is not a prophet. Nowhere in this book does it say, “Thus saith the Lord.” The returned exiles are not dealing with direct prophetic revelation, but with Biblical interpretation. They are wrestling with what the Mosaic law means for them, in their time and place, just as we have to wrestle with it here and now.
Which brings us to the second principle: difficult passages are to be read in the light of clearer passages on the same subject. And it is my belief that this passage is in direct conflict with the law that Ezra quotes to support it. The Mosaic law against intermarrying with the Canaanites - the “people of the land” - a thousand years before had to do with their worship of Baal, not with racial or ethnic inferiority. The reason was that foreign wives might entice their husbands away from worship of YHWH. But what we saw here was that the local population wanted to help, wanted to worship YHWH, and in my opinion should have been welcomed, included and given the opportunity to have their practices updated and purified. Only if they refused should they have been excluded. Religious differences are important to God, and to the maintenance of the distinctive identity of the covenant community, but racial and ethnic ones are not.
And the third principle of Biblical interpretation is, how does the New Testament view this matter? Because for us, Jesus and the apostles are the authoritative interpreters of the Old Testament.
The New Testament is clearly against racial discrimination (take my word for it!) but on the matter of marrying outside the faith, Paul says two things directly to the point:
First of all, “If any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him." [1 Cor 7:12-13]
But it also warns against marrying outside the faith to begin with. “Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness?” [2 Cor 6:14]
This is an unpopular teaching nowadays. It is seen as rigid and legalistic.
I will agree with you that it is a hard teaching. But I do believe that it is truly what Scripture teaches on the matter. If we are to take seriously the matter of listening to and obeying the word of God, as Ezra and the people were as we say in today’s passage, we cannot let the fact that it is a difficult piece of advice to swallow get in the way of our accepting it.
“If anyone does not love me more than these,” said Jesus, referring to his disciples’ family attachments, “he cannot be my disciple.” [Mt 10:37]
The lesson we are to take home today from the book of Ezra is not the solution they found to their problem. The lesson is the passion which they brought to the process of discerning and carrying out the will of God. That is why I selected Ezra 9 - which illustrates the intensity of Ezra’s pursuit of godliness - over Ezra 10, which details the people’s actions - for today’s reading.
Jesus calls his followers to a passionate commitment, even to the extent of going against our culture, and even - when necessary - against our closest family ties. Marriage is hard enough already without adding the additional stress of spiritual disharmony. But Jesus also calls us to an informed commitment. We do no-one any good if we are passionately committed to the wrong things.
Let’s mix up the races all we want. But let’s keep the message clear.
