With a better understanding of their social location, I feel that Ezra and Nehemiah make calculated efforts to instill the importance of community for the returning Judeans. One of these items is the “Golah List” found in Ezra 2 and essentially replicated Nehemiah 7. Lists bring inherit feelings of loyalty and inclusiveness, foundational qualities for strengthening a community. Furthermore, the rebuilding of the temple and walls with Ezra and Nehemiah are both vital for “reestablishing identity, faith, and community for this people” (156). Other conjoined efforts that work to foster community involve the criticism of mixed marriages, the need to celebrate holy days, and the devotion to “penitential prayers.”
One of the strengths for the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah involves overcoming local opposition in Jerusalem. Smith-Christopher details how Ezra’s building projects were undermined and stalled by local opponents bringing “twin threats of power and money…intended to alarm the imperial (Persian) authorities” (157). Eventually, the infrastructural reforms were found to be authorized by Cyrus. In a more drastic parallel, Nehemiah “takes up the role of military strategist as well as engineer” (161) in safeguarding the walls of Jerusalem. Despite local opposition which is “considerably darker,” (161), Nehemiah is successful moving forward.
One of the great weaknesses with some reforms, such as dealing with mixed marriages, surrounds the need for balancing communal stability while being open to necessary change (159). Acceptance of this reform movement is far from universal.
This need for balance is a powerful message for the modern church. While adherence to tradition is vital for strengthening families of faith, communities must remain adaptive to new surroundings and appropriate voices. We can see today, in the United Methodist Church, how valuing tradition plays a major role in deciding “whose voices are welcome in the community” (158).