1. Smith-Christopher makes the claim that the process of rebuilding the temple, as described in Ezra 3:10-13, was both symbolically and practically important in establishing the community’s identity. The implication is that the focus on rebuilding would direct the community’s attention toward an object by which they could define themselves religiously (i.e., we are rebuilding our temple to restore our relationship with God) and politically (i.e., we are rebuilding our temple because we are a separate entity from our neighbors and the temple will be our administrative center). (157)
2. Smith-Christopher criticizes Ezra’s reforms as they relate to the issue of intermarriage. He considers that this is a form of “other-ing” which causes issues both in the local setting and, potentially, with the Persian authorities. On the other hand, Ezra’s reforms are also praised for bringing stability to a dangerous situation; the author admits this while admonishing Ezra for not balancing stability with openness to change. (158-9) Tellingly, the author’s concern about Nehemiah’s handling of intermarriage gets a different treatment; because Nehemiah’s complaints about intermarriage relate to the economic motivations of the elite, Smith-Christopher is more willing to paint Nehemiah’s criticisms in a positive light. (163-4)
3. Ezra-Nehemiah is still relevant to church leaders in the present day. A key lesson that it teaches is that a community of faith exists entirely within the political and economic landscape of its present moment and location. The very existence of our worship communities depends on church leaders understanding, as Ezra and Nehemiah did, the political realities of the moment. A good church leader must balance the prophetic and the pragmatic. The leader who does so will probably be criticized, but they can at least share in Nehemiah’s prayer: “Remember for my good, O my God, all that I have done for this people!” (Neh 5:19)