Peter H.W. Lau, «Gentile Incorporation into Israel in Ezra - Nehemiah?», Vol. 90 (2009) 356-373
In contrast to other texts dated to the post-exilic period, Ezra – Nehemiah is well known for its separatist policy towards gentiles. Two exceptions in EN are the possible participation of foreigners in the Passover ceremony (Ezra 6,19-21) and the community pledge to follow the Torah (Neh 10,29[28]). An examination of antecedent Passover celebrations reveals that participation in the Passover marks out those who are members of ‘true’ Israel. This article argues that these cases indeed exhibit an anomalous inclusiveness, and discusses how it can be understood within the wider ethno-theological thrust of EN.
360 Peter H.W. Lau
The participation of assimilated foreigners would also be consis-
tent with Deuteronomic ideology. For instance, Deut 5,2-3 underlines
the contemporary nature of the covenant:
YHWH our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.
Not with our fathers did he make this covenant, but with us,
with all of us who are alive here today.
The covenant and its requirements, as found in the laws that fol-
low, have been made with those currently living. The main point is
that the covenant is continuous across generations; thus, it is just as
binding for the new generation (19). The adversative stance (20), how-
ever, sets the present generation against the previous, and downplays
the connection to their forefathers. In the same vein, the focus on the
importance of learning and carefully obeying the statues and rules
(Deut 5,1) has the effect of linking Israelite identity more closely with
allegiance to the covenant/law than with lineage. As Baruch Halpern
notes, the predominantly second person singular address of the laws
contributes to the devaluation of kinship: ‘the lawgiver speaks di-
rectly to the individual, his voice unmediated by lineage usage’ (21).
The laws insisting upon the denunciation of relatives reinforce this
viewpoint (Deut 13,7-12[6-11]). Even if an Israelite is pressed by a
close relative to give up the covenant with YHWH in favour of other
gods, no mercy is to be shown them: they are to hand them over to be
stoned to death (13,9-10[8-9]). Loyalty to the covenant community
overrides loyalty to the family (22). Thus, the preference given to
covenant over kinship in Deuteronomy is consistent with Passover
observance by assimilated foreigners.
d) Joshua 5,10-12
This passage describes the first Passover in the land of Canaan,
and has ties with the first Passover celebration in Egypt. It follows the
miraculous crossing of the Jordan River (Josh 5,10-12), which is rem-
(19) Cf. M. WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1-11 (AB 5; Garden City, NY 1991)
237-238.
(20) Cf. Deut 11,2-7; 29,13-14[14-15].
(21) B. HALPERN, “Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century BCE:
Kinship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liabilityâ€, Law and Ideology in
Monarchic Israel (eds. B. HALPERN – D.W. HOBSON) (Sheffield 1991) 75.
(22) Indeed, there is a sense of the Israelite brotherhood or Israel as one ex-
tended kinship group in Deuteronomy (e.g., Deut 15,3.7.9.11.12; 17,15; 19,18-
19; 22,1-2). See the discussion of ‘brother theology’ in SPARKS, Ethnicity, 236-
238.