We continue our discussion on Jewish identity by considering the importance of context. An illustration of the importance of context in interpreting an answer can be seen by asking a seemingly simple question: What is an atom? The response—and the standards by which it is judged correct—depend entirely on the intellectual framework within which the question is posed. Within ancient Greek philosophy, the atom was conceived as an indivisible unit of matter, a speculative idea rooted in philosophical reasoning. In contrast, modern science, particularly quantum mechanics, describes atoms through complex models involving subatomic particles and probabilistic behavior. These differing explanations reflect distinct historical periods, assumptions, and scientific priorities. Each is valid within its own framework, yet they can appear largely unintelligible when judged by the standards of the other.

A similar challenge arises when attempting to define a Jew or to describe Jewish identity. Throughout history, different communities and individuals have identified themselves as Jews or have been identified as such by others according to varying criteria. For halakhic purposes, the definition is relatively clear: a Jew is someone born to a Jewish mother or someone who has undergone a halakhically valid conversion to Judaism. Yet when evaluating the adequacy or scope of this definition, it is essential to consider the framework in which the question is being asked. Whether the inquiry is halakhic, social, historical, or theological will inevitably shape both the answer and the context in which that definition is applied. This approach requires that we conduct a survey of biblical and rabbinic texts as well as a good dose of history. It will require several posts to keep the material readable.

Within the sphere of rabbinic jurisprudence, the halakhic definition is generally regarded as sufficient. From the perspective of traditional Judaism, the argument is straightforward: both biblical and rabbinic law establish Jewish identity on the basis of matrilineal descent. The Mishnah, however, indicates that although the dominant view ultimately affirmed matrilineal descent as the determining criterion for Jewish status, alternative opinions did exist and continued to be voiced even after the majority position had been accepted.

Early rabbinic literature—particularly discussions concerning the status of proselytes—suggests that competing views about the definition of Jewish identity continued to circulate in the early post-Temple period. Both matrilineal and patrilineal descent were still subjects of debate as possible bases for determining Jewish status. Some scholars have argued that the rabbinic adoption of matrilineal descent in the first or second century may have been influenced, at least in part, by Roman legal concepts. In Roman law, maternity was regarded as certain, and since Jews functioned in many respects as an ethnic community, maternal descent provided a practical and reliable criterion for determining membership.

In contemporary society, however, the issue of maternal certainty has largely been rendered moot by the availability of DNA testing. What once stood at the center of the discussion about Jewish status is therefore no longer as decisive as it once was. At the same time, the preference for matrilineal descent was not based solely on pragmatic considerations; it was also grounded in interpretations of the biblical text. Yet the Bible itself presents a far more complex picture, offering multiple perspectives that reflect an evolving and nuanced approach to the question of Israelite—later Jewish—identity.

There appears to be little evidence to suggest that such views were either articulated or consistently enforced during the period of the First Temple. Furthermore, it remains uncertain to what extent agreement on this issue existed across the various groups and factions of the Second Temple period. Even if one accepts that the concept of matrilineal descent may have been present in the biblical era, the underlying rationale for its acceptance within the community of Israel is not explicitly explained in the biblical text. As a result, the foundations of this principle must be explored through further historical and textual investigation.

Apart from the passage in Ezra, the Bible does not address the question of Jewish identity as directly as the Mishnah later would; instead, it approaches the issue only indirectly. Abraham, the patriarch and central figure of biblical faith, does not appear until the end of the eleventh chapter of Genesis, even though earlier chapters already describe individuals who maintain relationships with God.

Indeed, the first eleven chapters of Genesis portray the various peoples of the world primarily as indigenous groups associated with particular lands. Identity is largely geographical and territorial: Egyptians are those who inhabit Egypt, Chaldeans those who dwell in Babylon, and so forth. In this framework, peoples are defined less by lineage or legal status than by their connection to a specific place.

Abraham Avinu disrupts this earlier model by leaving his homeland and journeying to a land in which he is not an indigenous inhabitant. With Abraham, a new type of people emerges—one not defined primarily by geography. Abraham and his descendants may thus be understood as the first non-aboriginal people in the biblical narrative, defined instead by an entirely different set of criteria. Their identity is grounded in the establishment of a covenant. The terms of that covenant shape the definition of who belongs to Israel, making Jewish identity, at its foundation, a theological one. Jews are Bnei Brit—the children of the covenant—and their identity derives from participation in that sacred relationship.

From a theological perspective, the concept of Israel as the “chosen people of God” grows directly out of this covenantal framework. The biblical language of chosenness, expressed through the verb bachar, has often been understood by scholars as implying a form of exclusive selection, similar to the exclusivity of marriage. Chosenness therefore signifies a distinctive holiness that sets Israel apart. Deuteronomy 7:6 declares, “You are a people holy to the Lord your God,” and associates that holiness with Israel’s observance of the commandments. In rabbinic literature, however, Israel’s election is not portrayed as the result of rational calculation or merit, but as an expression of divine love. The covenant is not contingent upon Israel’s achievements, nor can it ultimately be annulled by Israel’s failures. Rabbinic tradition even suggests that Israel’s acceptance of the Torah at Sinai was not entirely voluntary, implying a form of divine compulsion. For this reason, some have proposed that the relationship between God and Israel may be better understood not as a contractual arrangement between equals but as a familial bond—more akin to the relationship between a father and a firstborn son. Regardless of the child’s behavior, the parent’s love endures. Israel’s role, accordingly, is to carry out the covenantal mission that forms part of God’s broader purpose for the world.

Later biblical passages refer to the descendants of Jacob as Bnei Yisrael, the Children of Israel, demonstrating that the Bible preserves an awareness of both theological and genealogical dimensions of identity. Membership in Israel reflects not only participation in a covenantal relationship but also a sense of kinship and lineage. The phrase “Children of Israel” conveys a form of class membership within a defined community, a concept that finds a modern echo in the way individuals today enter communal religious responsibility through ceremonies such as the Bar or Bat Mitzvah.

This dual nature of Israelite identity—both national and religious—appears in other biblical narratives as well. In the Book of Jonah, when the prophet is asked to identify himself, he responds that he is both a Hebrew and a man who fears God. His answer combines ethnic and religious self-definition rather than relying on a purely legal or halakhic description. Historically, many societies have recognized forms of collective identity that combine national and religious elements in this way. The scholar Shaye J. D. Cohen, for example, has emphasized that the Jews—or Judeans—of antiquity may best be understood as an ethnos, an ethnic people. They were recognized as a distinct group, connected directly or indirectly to a particular territory, sharing a sense of common history and collective memory, and possessing distinctive characteristics that fostered a strong sense of solidarity. In this sense, Jewish identity in antiquity reflected the broader features typical of ethnic communities: a shared origin, a common and distinctive historical narrative, identifiable cultural traits, and an enduring sense of collective uniqueness.

In a future post we will continue our journey in understanding of Jewish identity by exploring other texts and historical events.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)