Thabiti Anyabwile tries to appeal to Ezra for Reparations, but such appeals don’t go without its challenges:

First, the argument for reparations from Ezra 6 seems to imply that all that Darius did in this context was just in God’s sight. This would include Darius’s threat against all who refuse to pay the tax:

“Also I make a decree that if anyone alters this edict, a beam shall be pulled out of his house, and he shall be impaled on it, and his house shall be made a dunghill.” (Ezra 6:11, ESV)

Here’s the question for those who use Ezra 6 for reparations: is this tax also just? Is this, by God’s justice, a fitting punishment for tax evasion? Is it a mark of God’s justice for those who don’t pay taxes to be impaled on a beam from their house just before their house becomes a dunghill? Should a government today thus punish any who fail to pay reparation taxes?

Perhaps Ezra means to say, “Darius’ punishment here is good and just.” If so, it must be accepted as authoritative. A better conclusion, however, is that Ezra is emphasizing the extraordinary lengths to which Darius was determined to bring about the construction of the second temple. Ezra does not necessarily approve of the punishment. The greater point, however, is that if one part of the edict incontrovertibly shows God’s justice, then the other part does as well. Given the Law’s emphasis on voluntary giving to God, it is highly unlikely that the Spirit wants us to take Darius’ punishment as reflecting divine justice.

Second, the situation in Ezra does not translate to American slavery questions (or any other kind of reparations) neatly by analogy. The use of Ezra 6 for reparations conflates American slaves with the Old Testament people of God and their particular calling by covenant. What God did for Israel is in part due to their special calling, not because they were an oppressed people per se. In fact, Israel deserved God’s judgment for their idolatry and covenant breaking. God’s restitution of them to the land and the rebuilding of the temple is evidence of God’s mercy, far more than God’s justice.

Third, and most importantly, the argument for reparations from Ezra 6 conflates divine justice with the fulfillment of prophecy. They believe that God’s use of Darius to fulfill prophecy means God approved of Darius’s actions as just. This is bad theology, plain and simple. If this kind of reasoning were true, think of how many sins God would be calling just.

I would also add some dissimilarities. God clearly doesn’t require reparations for all the injustices in biblical history. Hence why the examples are scant. So, why suppose this is the norm for what God requires? God also owns everything and can demand people to surrender what they own for some purpose. But what warrant do we have that God wishes us to do so for North American slavery? And why are these not being demanded of South America and other places that employed slavery? Are they not purposely being selective? Principally, this is not able to be exercised with consistency.

Furthermore, unlike the Jews, whose nation was destroyed by the relevant people and their people have been slaves to the recent times. Africans haven’t recently been slaves, nor are reparations being asked for to return back to their home nations.