The number of people engaging in international migration has rapidly increased over the past few years (International Organisation for Migration [IOM] 2015:1). When people voluntarily and involuntarily move from their countries of origin to their preferred countries of destination due to various factors, they are confronted with multifaceted and complex challenges that the church, as a community of God, is expected to address (Magezi 2017; Snyder 2012). The problem that has emerged is that, while the church has a role to perform in a responsible migration response that is driven by its comprehensive theology of migration (Magezi 2017), it is apparent that the Bible, if not handled appropriately, can possibly limit the churches’ participation in responding to migrants’ challenges (Snyder 2012:136ff.). Snyder (2012:136ff.) advances that the Bible seems to have mixed attitudes towards foreigners or outsiders, that is, it points to the inclusion and separation of outsiders. That is, on one hand, the Bible presents the notion of the inclusion of foreign nationals within the Israelite community, that is, the inclusion of Tamar (Gn 38), Rahab (Jos 2:1–21), Ruth (Rt 1–4), the Gibeonites in Joshua 9–10, et cetera. (Magezi 2018:52–64). On the other hand, it presents the exclusion of foreigners or outsiders among the Israelites. According to Snyder (2012:143), Ezra-Nehemiah is ‘one of a number of biblical texts which could be used to justify the exclusion of outsiders’ (Snyder 2012:143). In Snyder’s view (2012:140), Ezra 9:1–4, 10–12 ‘denounces marriages of Israelites with the people of the lands in unambiguous terms’, while Ezra 10:11 ‘demands that the people of Judah make confession and separate themselves from the peoples of the land and foreign wives’. This has generated mixed conclusions among biblical scholars and commentators regarding the book of Ezra-Nehemiah (Usue 2012:158). For instance, Williamson (1985:159) contends that the command for the Israelite men who returned from the Babylonian captivity to divorce foreign women is ‘among the least attractive parts of Ezra-Nehemiah, if not of the whole Old Testament’. Schwartz (1997:86) describes Ezra 9:11–12 as ‘the most xenophobic utterance’ the Bible makes ‘about drawing the border of Israel by kinship’. Usue (2012:158, 167) charges Ezra and his associates with having a narrow view of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant codes and concludes that the women were not foreigners as stipulated by Ezra-Nehemiah. Snyder (2012:141) also perceives Ezra-Nehemiah as a xenophobic text as she advances that ‘Ezra-Nehemiah appears to be a profoundly xenophobic text’. It is a text that could be taken as an ‘encouragement to ignore newcomers at best and positively seek their removal from local and national communities at worst’.

Emerging from the abovementioned discussion is the notion that Ezra-Nehemiah is considered as a xenophobic text. In the view of this article, this perception of Ezra-Nehemiah is interconnected with the notion that the Bible constitutes some verses and sections that may seem to contradict with the wider message of Scripture (Demarest & Lewis 1987:132). This conception of Scripture has a lesser view of the doctrine of inspiration that argues that Scripture came into existence as a result of divine-human collaboration. However, God superintended the whole process through the Holy Spirit so that the writings could be designated as the authentic Word of God (Demarest & Lewis 1987:132ff.; Horton 2011:167ff.; Murray n.d.:73–104). Indeed, if God superintended the whole process and he is the author of Scripture through human beings as his agents, it is certain that Scripture does not err or contradict itself as God, by nature, does not err or contradict himself (Horton 2011:167ff.). Together with other scholars in systematic theology such as Horton (2011), indicated above, this article argues that God is consistent and so is Scripture, which reveals him (God). From this position, the perceived contradictions require one to adopt a framework that embraces this position in a manner that is cognisant of its limitations within a scholarly debate.

In view of the above migration situation, theology, like any other discipline, should be involved in developing a response to address migration. To bring theology into this conversation, the question that arises is: How should theology be involved? Miller-Mclemore and Couture (2003), introducing the book volume at the International Academy of Practical Theology at Stellenbosch, South Africa, poses crucial and fundamental questions for theology, which are relevant to current migration discussions:

These questions relate to the function of church and theology within the realm of real life. The questions that could be posed to extrapolate the questions of Miller-Mclemore and Couture (2003) in the migration context under consideration should, among other things, focus on the Bible, church and society. The questions include the following: How is the situation of migration broadly portrayed in the Bible?; How can one read, interpret and make meaning of migration issues, resulting in practical guidelines?; and What biblical frameworks could provide a lens into discerning constructive and meaningful understanding of migration in the Bible? At stake is the question: How do theology scholars depart from mere theoretical and sometimes fragmented theological understanding to coherent theological understanding to instil meaning, logic, sense and purposefulness in people’s lives? A response to these questions requires integrated theological thinking. Integrated theological thinking is about adopting a systemic approach to doing theology. One cannot engage a life issue such as migration from a mono- or linear approach (cf. Louw 2014).

Various theological disciplines need to be considered together to provide an integrated understanding. For instance, in our case, developing a theological understanding of migration from the Bible is certainly a systematic-theological endeavour where one pulls together various texts to make meaning and discern their connections. At the same time, these biblical texts need to be understood from and within their respective contexts. As one brings systematic theology and biblical texts to discern a biblical understanding, the issue that further emerges is their practical relevance to a topical and practical issue such as migration.

A relevant and responsible approach to understanding and developing migration theology, as well as ministry guidelines, requires a constructive theological approach. Magezi and Magezi (2018:1) define a constructive theological approach as referring to ‘functional theology that responds to the needs of people. A constructive and sound theology refers to theology that is useful and able to address people’s needs’. The constructive approach is not concerned with the issue of right or wrong in the approach, but about whether it is justifiable or not. It is about making effort to determine whether a theological thinking could be sustained from the Bible. At stake in a constructive approach is the question: Does the approach represent God as presented in the Bible? The notion of a constructive Bible framework is closely related to what Louw (2014:276) calls speaking appropriately on God within different contexts (representative speaking).

The constructive approach is therefore an integrative reflection process that draws from the various theological disciplines, particularly in the case concerning biblical, systematic and practical theology. Miller-McLemore and Couture (2011:14), and Graham (2017:3) clarify that practical theology is distinguished from systematic theology that is orderly beliefs about God, the church or classical texts or biblical studies, which focus on interpreting biblical texts. Practical theology regards practice as significant in a theological process. However, context and the reality of lived experiences are critical departure points (Graham 2017:3). Selecting the constructive approach from multiple approaches is like choosing food from a ‘buffet’ table. One selects the food which meets one’s intentions and goal. However, within an academic context, the selected approach should be rigorous.

The approach of speaking appropriately on God, as suggested by Louw (2014), is not the only one. Braaten (1989) identifies three different contexts that influence how people speak of God today, namely the ecclesial, the academic and the secular. Louw (2014) encapsulates Braaten’s (1989) three modes of God’s language in the following manner:

However, the fourth approach, namely ‘to speak appropriately on God within different contexts (representative speaking)’, which Louw (2014:276) adds to Braaten’s three modes of God’s language (1989), is critical in this study. This is because, in theology, particularly in pastoral assessment:

Accordingly, linking with Louw’s approach of appropriately speaking on God (2014), a biblical redemptive historical approach in dealing with migrant ministries can be contended and proposed. Its utility lies in providing a coherent-unifying approach, resulting in an appropriate and constructive understanding as Louw (2014:276) rightly argues. It pays special attention to the storyline of the Bible, namely creation, fall, redemption and consummation. Vos (1980:7–13), who taught biblical theology at Princeton Seminary from 1893 to 1932, and Gaffin (2012) are some of the few leading proponents of biblical redemptive historical approach.

In building upon Vos’s conception of redemptive historical approach (1980), Gaffin (2012:92) endorses the redemptive historical approach as the best methodology of interpreting Scripture. He (Gaffin 2012:92) articulates that ‘history is revelation and develops six elements of the redemptive-historical approach’ and strongly maintains that the ‘outcome of these elements is that Jesus Christ is the culmination of the history of redemption’. Gaffin’s (2012:91–92) six elements are as follows: (1) the Bible should always be interpreted in view of God’s self-revelation (in word and deed) in creation; (2) God’s redemption or revelation is historical; (3) Jesus Christ, in his person and work centred on his death and resurrection (e.g. 1 Cor 15:3–4), is the culmination of the history of redemption (revelation); (4) the subject matter of revelation is redemption, meaning that ‘revelation – excluding prefall, pre-redemptive revelation in Eden – is the interpretation of redemption, as revelation either attests or explains, describes or elaborates’; (5) Scripture is self-revelation, not somehow less revelation; and finally (6) hermeneutically, revelation is the interpretation of redemption. The significance of Gaffin’s aforementioned six elements of the redemptive historical approach (2012:109) lie in the fact that ‘salvation resides ultimately, not in who God is or even in what he has said, but in what he has done in history, once and for all, in Christ’. Gaffin’s redemptive historical approach (2012) can be summarised as advancing the study of any particular topic in the Bible, in view of the doctrines of creation, fall and redemption, with their culmination in Christ.

Likewise, Torrance (2008:45), Horton (2011:45) and Kruger (2007:2) advance the redemptive historical approach as an appropriate method of studying the Bible and treats the Old and New Testaments as a single unit that finds its fulfilment in Jesus Christ’s person and work. In view of the abovementioned discussion, we argue that a biblical redemptive historical approach can be summarised as advancing the study of any particular topic in the Bible in view of the doctrines of creation, fall and redemption, with its culmination in Christ. In his PhD thesis titled Theological understandings of migration and church ministry models: A quest for holistic ministry to migrants in South Africa, Magezi (2018:28) specifically advances the biblical redemptive historical approach as an appropriate method in studying migration in the Bible. He (2018:28) contends that, in studying migration, the biblical historical redemptive approach is preferred, because migration is widespread in the Bible and that what it says on migration has unity. Thus, one needs a biblical redemptive historical approach to the matter. This is because it helps to bring out the relationship of anything that the Bible touches on with its central message or the so-called bigger picture, which is redemption (Magezi 2018:28). Stated otherwise, the biblical redemptive historical approach helps to mainstream anything that the Bible teaches on, whereas other approaches tend to allow for many other things to be studied as if they were peripheral to the central message of the Bible, which is salvation of humankind (Magezi 2018:28).

Given this, in developing a biblical-theological understanding of Ezra-Nehemiah, the command to the Israelites to divorce foreign wives, as in Ezra-Nehemiah, will be analysed in view of the biblical redemptive framework established in this section. However, before that can be done, the manner in which the Israelites dealt with intermarriage in the previous cases will be highlighted by looking at the narratives of Rahab and Ruth.

In view of the intermarriage of the men of Israel to gentile women who have been converted to Israel’s faith and way of life in the Old Testament, the narratives of Rahab and Ruth can be specifically mentioned. These two women from gentile ethnic groups are embraced in Israel and later on incorporated in the leading line of Israel. They play significant roles, together with many others, in advancing the genealogy of Jesus. The stories of Rahab and Ruth are reminiscent of the fact that God migrates his people (Israel) to accomplish his redemptive purposes and plans for humankind. That is to say, after the physical redemption of the Israelites from the Egyptian bondage, God migrates them to Canaan so that there would be a remnant of people among the gentile nations that God, in his providence, planned to graciously save and even, over time, incorporate into Israel to work out his plans.

The story of Rahab (a Canaanite woman or a woman from a gentile ethnic group) in Joshua 2:1–21 (cf. 6:17, 22, 23, 25) illustrates that God, in his providence, migrates the Israelites to Canaan so as to graciously save a remnant of gentile people, which he later on uses to advance his redemptive purposes and plans for humankind. In saying the abovementioned, the author of this article is aware that when God migrates the Israelites from Egyptian bondage in order to enable them to possess the land of Canaan, he commands them to completely exterminate the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, including men, women and children (Dt 7:2; 20:17). The Israelites are a people or nation ruled by God; thus, the extermination of the Canaanites is a direct command that is given to them by God (Geisler 1977:99–100). However, from a closer look at Deuteronomy 7 and 20, it seems the reason for the total destruction of the Canaanites is to prevent the Israelites from falling into idolatry. In this way, from a redemptive historical approach, it can be argued that the Canaanites and other nations that gave up their gods and acknowledge Israel’s God as the only true God to be worshipped were not supposed to be destroyed, as they were not a threat to the faith of the Israelites, that is, they could not corrupt the Israelites to worship their pagan gods, becaues they were now part of the faith of Israel.

With the aforementioned in mind, God’s command to the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanite nations should be read in view of the redemption that God aims to execute through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the Israelites as a nation. By implication, the story of Rahab indicates that from the universal redemption that God sets to accomplish through the Israelites, the latter are not commanded to exterminate all, but only those that resisted and did not want to accept living under them and in serving the only true God of Israel. For instance, Rahab, a prostitute in Jericho, hears about the God of Israel and acknowledges him as the one who is worth risking her life for and she hides the spies of Israel who come to spy on the land of Jericho (Magezi 2018:52–55). One should note that the spies of Israel, sent by Joshua to Jericho (Jos 2:1–2), come to the house of Rahab and lodge there for a night. The report about the Israelite spies reaches the king of Jericho (Jos 2:3). When the king of Jericho realises that the spies had been at Rahab’s house, he demands that Rahab (the prostitute) brings them out of her house. Rahab, however, lies that they had gone; yet, she had hidden them on the rooftop of her house (Jos 2:4–6). Rahab sends the soldiers of Jericho, who want to pursue the spies, in the opposite direction.

It is clear in Joshua 2:8–11 that Rahab had given up her pagan gods and acknowledged the God of Israel as the only true God, based on his (the God of Israel) works that she had heard. In addition, Rahab pleads with the spies of Israel to spare her and everyone in her household (Jos 2:12–14). The spies of Israel swear an oath to spare Rahab and her household members as long as she would not disclose the former’s mission to the authorities or anyone in Jericho. Later on, a pitched battle is fought between Israel and Jericho, and the city of Jericho is destroyed. In line with the oath that the spies had made to Rahab, Joshua gives an order for Rahab and all her household members to be rescued (Jos 6). Hence, Rahab and her household members, in this case, are rescued and adopted by the Israelites and dwell among the Israelite community. Given this, it can be possibly advanced that the migration of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage to Canaan is not outside of God’s plan and control, because, in his providence, God uses that migration to save the remnants of the gentile nations such as Rahab. Indeed, Rahab is converted. Hebrews 11:31 mentions Rahab as one of the heroines of faith in the Old Testament. Rahab’s story reaches its climax when she marries Salmon and gives birth to Boaz (Mt 1:5) who later marries a Moabite woman, Ruth. Ruth is the mother of Obed, the father of Jesse, who sires David, from whom Jesus, the Saviour of the world, descends (Mt 1:1–16).

Furthermore, Ruth is one of the converted foreign women who marry into one of the leading lines of Israel and advance the genealogy of Jesus (Rt 1–4). The background of Ruth’s narrative is that because of famine in the land of Judah, Elimelech, the man of Bethlehem in Judah (with his wife Naomi and two sons, Mahlon and Chilion), migrates to Moab and settles there (Rt 1:1–2). Elimelech dies, after which his two sons get married to Moabite women, namely Orpah and Ruth (Rt 1:3–4). Naomi and her two sons live in Moab for 10 years after the death of Elimelech (Rt 1:4b). However, the sons also die, leaving Naomi bereft of husband and sons (Rt 1:5). After the death of her husband and sons, Naomi leaves Moab for Judah with Ruth (her daughter-in-law), after hearing the good news that the covenantal God of Israel had visited his people of Judah and given them food (Rt 1:6–7; Ulrich 2007: 53). Given God’s provision of food for the people of Judah, Naomi sets to return to Judah and advises her two daughters-in-law to return to their fathers’ houses and remarry (Rt 1:8–18). Orpah returns, but Ruth insists on going with Naomi. Because of Ruth’s insistence, Naomi finally migrates with her to Judah at the beginning of the barley harvest season (Rt 1:19–22).

Ruth 1:16–18 seems to express that Ruth is already a converted Moabite woman who is conveying her faith. In this regard, it can be argued that when Elimelech migrates to Moab, he and his family are in a way certainly some kinds of ‘missionaries’ by word and deeds to many Moabites. Ruth could have been converted when she married Elimelech’s son. The words of Naomi to her daughters-in-law suggest that they would be going back to their people and their gods when leaving hers, which suggests that when they were with her during their marriages to her sons, they had declared some allegiance to her God. Thus, when Ruth affirms that the covenantal people of God (the people of Naomi) will be her people and the covenant God (the God of Naomi and Israel) will be her God (Rt 1:16–18), it is possible at this point that Ruth is expressing her faith in the God of Israel that she had acknowledged and believed when she got in contact with Elimelech and his family.

However, when Ruth goes to Judah with Naomi (her mother-in-law), she gets married to Boaz who belongs to the leading lineage of Israel and fosters the genealogy of Jesus. After marrying Boaz, Ruth gives birth to Obed, the father of Jesse, who fathers David (Rt 4:17), who becomes the king of Israel and with whom God enters into an eternal covenant about his (David’s) throne which was made to endure forever (2 Sm 7ff.). The genealogy in Matthew also amplifies David’s genealogy in Ruth 4:18–22 by making a significant link between Jesus Christ (the Saviour of all people) and David, as it denotes Jesus as the Davidic son (Mt 1:1–25). It is in Ruth 4:17 and Matthew’s genealogy where the inclusion of Ruth as part of Jesus’ genealogy is perceived.

Given this, we argue that these two women of gentile ethnic origin, Ruth and Rehab, come to be in Matthew’s genealogy in order to play a crucial role together with many others, because they are embraced by the Israelites and later on incorporated into the leading line of Israel when they marry Israelite men. With this in mind, the divorce of foreign women in Ezra-Nehemiah requires a lens of a biblical redemptive framework, because what the Bible says about the intermarriage of the Israelite men to foreign women has unity with the central message of the Bible, which is redemption.

The focus of this article is to develop a theological understanding that fosters inclusion and embrace integration of migrants from a seemingly explicit xenophobic books of Ezra-Nehemiah. This entails developing a theological understanding that has practical implications on real life from texts that could be perceived as encouraging exclusion of migrants. The development of a systemic and integrated theological understanding should not necessarily be an end in itself, particularly on practical issues such as migration, but a process to encourage practical action. Therefore, there is a need to pose the following question: What is the implication of the discussion to a practical migrant ministerial approach that fosters migrant inclusion, embrace and integration? Several applications can be drawn from the preceding discussion. However, in the context of this article, four major overarching principles could be discerned and proposed. The first principle indicates a practical application to the internal church relationships and functions while the three principles provide practical insights on the design of a migrant ministry that has implications for the church and the public:

Ezra-Nehemiah presents a challenge of understanding a text perceived as excluding migrants and xenophobic. Yet, considered from a biblical redemptive historical approach, the text fosters the inclusion of migrants. Thus, reading from a biblical redemptive historical approach, the text encourages embracing and integration. Notwithstanding the encouragement to embrace and integrate other people, the migration and intermixing of people pose challenges that should not be viewed simplistically. There is a clear rise in nationalism across nations (e.g. president Trump’s notion of making America great again, Brexit challenges and xenophobic issues in South Africa) within our global context. The rising nationalism threatens and poses huge rifts among nations, resulting in diffusing the notion of a unified telos. Thus, within this situation, embracing and integrating with others, remain challenges; yet, they are also opportunities for us to practise true humanity. Migration, both at theological and social levels, presents humanity with enormous challenges, as well as incredible opportunities for being fully human to one another. Among theologians, the quest to develop relevant theological frameworks should continue. There is a need to engage problematic texts such as divorce of foreign women in Ezra-Nehemiah to develop a life-giving and human affirmation of other people.