Massive public outcry has built over children being
separated from their parents as they attempt to cross into the U.S. illegally.
After Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a
“zero-tolerance” policy in dealing with migrants who cross into the U.S. illegally,
nearly 2,000 children were separated from their families during a six-week
period in April and May.[1]
Though some news outlets have suggested
that, as a general rule, children had not been previously separated from parents,[2] according to charities and border and immigration officials near
the border, that is simply not true.[3] In fact these same persons see very little change this year, except
that there has been more media coverage and scrutiny.[4]
At the same time, some citizens watching on
television or reading about the border in newspapers or in on-line articles,
may conclude that people are not arriving at the border because of genuine
crises in their countries. Sharla Megilligan dispels this when she tells the
story of Oscar Suriano, who left Honduras with his young son in May to make his
way to the United States. He did this because he owned and operated a small
neighborhood food market. Recently local gangs began stopping by randomly and
requesting payment. So far he had been able to pay, but he knew there was
coming a time when he would be unable to pay and they would kill him. This had
happened with other business owners he knew. Suriano made his way to the U.S.
since his sister already lives here. After applying for asylum, being processed
at the border, and treated very well, Suriano and his son were given two bus
tickets to New York where his sister lives. He hopes to bring his wife and
daughter from Honduras to join them. His story seems to be the same as many
others.
We must see there is a need to be aware of
the events going on at the border so we can make good decisions about how and
for what we should advocate. Yet, that is often hard to do with all the
divergent voices weighing in on the situation.
What there is also a need to do is to seek
biblical wisdom on the topic. Most of us reading this post will not have
face-to-face contact with people coming into the country at the border, even
though we may have contact with people in our own communities who have come
into the United States legally and illegally. If we are seeking biblical
justice in this current issue, that is, to seek the equitable and impartial
application of the rule of God’s moral law to immigration, then we must prayerfully
think through this emotionally-charged topic based upon God’s Word.
Because of the difficulty and complexity of
some aspects of the immigration debate, these two posts on the subject will not
be able to provide a detailed solution to implement. The goal is more modest,
to guide us to think through some key bits of biblical wisdom that should shape
a solution. Such information can prepare us both when we vote and in the event
we would interact with our political leaders who are in positions to seek more specific
solutions.[5]
What we will seek to do is to glean truths
from three main areas of biblical wisdom to create a truly just approach to
immigration.
1.
We Must Understand What Wisdom The Bible Gives On Immigration Itself.
Many people, especially Christians, refer
to the Bible for how to deal with the current immigration issues. Yet, many are
doing so without understanding what it really says. Many also fail to interpret
the material in its biblical and historical contexts, also failing to take a
comprehensive approach to what the Bible says.[6] What we will find from the Bible are divine standards that protect
the immigrant and, at the same time, guard the nation (and its laws) receiving
new people.[7]
We start by merely calling attention once
again to the four foundational relationships to which humans must give
attention, if they are to flourish: God, self, creation, and others. Our desire
should be to advocate approaches to immigration that can encourage attention to
all four. Anything less falls short of full biblical justice. Here are examples
of what this might look like:
- When the church in the United States can see that God is bringing the world to us in so many ways and we have opportunities to love, serve, and share with those who come into the country, we grasp that such people can have the opportunity to be saved and thus have a genuine relationship with God (Rom. 10:13-17). Because of this, when possible, we should love, serve, and share with persons coming into our country, even if they have come lawlessly.[8]
- There are many situations in which people are refugees and fleeing great danger and horror. In such cases there are deep emotional wounds that result. When possible, we should advocate helping such people. At the same time, we also remember that alleviating resource poverty, a poverty of safety, and a poverty of personal well-being are very important, but there are also other factors we must consider and other kinds of poverty immigrants and refugees have that we should not overlook.
- God has given commands (his moral will) that all people are bound to keep if they are to be rightly related to God, his creation, and to other people (Ps. 100; Mt. 22:37-40; Acts 17:30; Rom. 2:14-15; 13:8-10). This includes obeying authorities whom God has placed over us (Rom. 13:1-7). The best approach to immigration for all involved values such authority and the people-protecting-and-benefiting laws governments have (Rom. 13:1-7). This is best for the citizens of the country and eventually for those who immigrate into it. What is more, it establishes a pattern that is consistent with how God has created the world—that there is right and wrong, and the reason we need a Savior is that we fall short of his righteousness, his standards—in other words, we all are sinners (Rom. 3:9-26, esp. 23). As such, the church should not encourage persons to disobey the laws of the government, unless they are being commanded to do something contrary to the moral will of God (Acts 5:29).
One other matter we must touch on before
launching into the biblical teaching on immigration has to do with the fact
that we will refer to material in the Old Testament. We must be clear on how we
as New Covenant believers relate to the Old Testament material. Some suggest
none of it applies, others imply it all does. How should we relate to it? Here
are some simple points that should guide us.[9]
- When the New Testament makes the point we are no longer under the law (e.g. Rom. 6:15; Gal. 4:5, 21; 5:18), its intent is that we are no longer morally bound under the mosaic covenant and the laws associated with it (Gal. 2:11-14; 3:10-29), a covenant and set of laws that was intended from its inception to be temporary and to prepare for the Christ (Gal. 3:22-29). Material outside of these specific laws (such as Genesis 1-Exodus 19) and that the New Testament clarifies is still applicable, such as the Ten Commandments—all but the sabbath command (e.g. Rom. 13:8-9; Eph. 4:15; 6:1-3; Col. 2:16; 1 Jn. 5:21)—these are commands to which we are still morally bound.
- We must see all Old Testament commands in light of the differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The fact that during the time of the mosaic covenant God’s people were primarily located within a nation that was to attract the rest of the world to worship God, but now God’s people are located throughout all nations and not primarily located in one nation, changes how we relate to laws in the Old Testament that address how that nation was to function. On the one hand we can say we are not morally bound to try and make either the church or the nation in which we live follow the exact details of those laws. On the other hand, those laws still reveal something about God’s will and wisdom for how we are to function.[10] This seems to be how the New Testament deals with some of the Old Testament laws set forth for the nation. For example, the legal standard that a person was not to be convicted merely upon the testimony of one witness, the fact that the more witnesses the better to corroborate the testimony (Dt. 17:6; 19:15) stands behind Paul’s admonition to Timothy in 1 Tim. 5:18 that the same kind of standard should be applied in the church when it comes to accusations against leaders. Such suggests that the matter of considering a person innocent until proven guilty is how we love others by treating them how we would want to be treated (Mt. 7:12), namely to give them the benefit of the doubt until we absolutely cannot (1 Cor. 13:7).[11]
- Similar to and flowing out of this previous point, even in legislation within the mosaic/Sinai covenant, there is to be found wisdom and insight into how we are to love God and love others. So, for example, laws given to Israel regarding those who came into their borders display how God wanted Israel to love others in ways that are consistent with the four foundational relationships humans must address to flourish. Because of this and because of the fact that nothing in the New Testament suggests an overruling of such wisdom or the basic direction of practice, and because these laws and practices form an historical context for how to understand what the Bible would have to say about immigration, it is beneficial to look at and be guided by what we find, even in the Old Testament.
- All dietary, festival, sabbath, sacrificial, and tabernacle/temple laws that by their very nature were temporary and intended to prepare for and look to the coming of Christ are no longer binding now that Christ has come and fulfilled them (Mk. 7:19; John 1:14; 2:19; Acts 10:15; Col. 2:16-17; Heb. 8-10).
So, what we discover is that we cannot
simply say the Old Testament does not apply in total or it does apply in total.
We must be willing to think carefully through specific laws and then decide
what applies and how. If we are willing to do this, I believe what we will find
about immigration is very helpful to determine what God would want the church
to do in particular and also how Christian citizens should call its government
to respond in general.[12]
With these preliminary matters covered, we
are now ready to take a quick tour through the Bible to see what wisdom it has
for a just approach to immigration.
Immigration
And Immigrants In Abraham’s World[13]
Even though things were very different in
the cultures of the ancient near east, even then “…there were clearly
delineated lands or countries, some large and others tiny.”
A question emerges. Were ancient borders
taken seriously and was national sovereignty recognized?
The answer is emphatically yes. Not only were wars fought
to establish and settle border disputes, borders were vigorously defended, and
battles occurred when a neighboring state violated another’s territory. So
national boundaries were normally honored.
See Numbers 20:16-21 where Israel requested passage through Edom and was
denied. It is worth noting that even a
traveler, a foreigner, passing through the territory of another had to obtain
permission to do so.
We can even say more. “On the individual,
family, and clan level, property was owned and boundaries established…. The
Mosaic Law prohibited the removal of landmarks (Dt. 19:14) and an even stronger
denunciation is made in Dt. 27:17: ‘Cursed is the man who moves his neighbor’s
boundary stone.’” Additionally, we see in Job 24:2: “Theft is associated with
moving boundary stones by the sage Job.”
We also discover that Abram was an
immigrant (Gen. 11:27-12:3). “In Canaan Abraham identifies himself to the
Hittites of Hebron as a sojourner or alien (ger, Gen. 23:4), a person
(or family) who resides, temporarily or permanently, outside his or her
homeland.”
Because Abraham’s descendants eventually
went to Egypt, we should look at immigrants and foreigners in ancient Egypt, a
land that, not unlike America today, was a land of wealth and opportunity to
other peoples—implied in Gen. 46:34, where it is said, “For all shepherds are
detestable to the Egyptians.” Archaeological finds have discovered that Egypt
had border guards through which people must pass to enter.
Clearly the Egyptians were not anti-immigration or
against foreigners per se (an impression you might get from reading the early
chapters of Exodus), but they did want their sovereignty respected and their
borders protected, and they wanted to control who entered their land and why.
It is fair to say that this is the attitude of most countries today…. Since
1999 I have directed excavations at Tell el-Borg in northwest Sinai. There we
have discovered and excavated the remains of two frontier forts just in Sinai,
six miles east of the Suez Canal, that defended a strategic area near the
border between 1450 and 1200 B.C.
Since we brought up the subject of Abraham
being an alien, we need to define what this is. Several things can be said:
- “The Hebrew word usually translated ‘stranger,’ ‘alien,’ or ‘sojourner’ derives from the verb gwr, which occurs eighty-one times in the Old Testament. It means ‘to sojourn’ or ‘to dwell as a stranger, become a refugee.’ As a noun, ger is found eighty-two times in Hebrew. More than 160 occurrences of these words indicate just how common aliens were in ancient Israel’s experience.” We must understand that this word group is almost always used differently in the Old Testament than nekhar and zar, both of which can accurately be rendered “foreigner.”
- “From the Bible and ethnographic[14] evidence it is [clear] that outsiders were able to enter and stay in a foreign land because they were offered hospitality by a host, and one’s status as an alien was an extension of that welcome.”
- “The word [sojourner] (ger) is sometimes coupled with the term ‘resident’ (toshav, lit. ‘one who resides’), the second word Abraham attributes to himself [in Gen. 23:4]. Rather than translating this expression as “[a sojourner and foreigner],”the two terms together likely mean ‘resident alien.’ Such individuals or families, a clan or tribe, are those who have essentially taken up permanent residence in a foreign land, as Abraham and his family had done in Hebron with the permission of their host. In fact, the residents of Hebron acknowledged Abraham’s status as being one who is ‘among us’ (23:6) rather than viewing him as a foreigner (nekhar or zar).”
- “The distinction between the two is not only that the aliens (gerim) have resided with a host nation for a period of time, but that ‘they have abandoned their homeland for political[, religious,] or economic reasons and sought refuge in another community. In other words, the ger regards the land of his sojourning as the new home for a protracted time period while the foreigner [nekhar or zar] does not.”[15] “…in the Bible the foreigner and the alien/sojourner were not the same and should not be confused.”
- “Typically the foreigner is one who travels through a country or is there for business purposes. As a consequence…the Law prescribes for aliens certain legal protection as well as social and religious benefits that foreigners (nekhar or zar) do not get…. This is why the meaning ‘protected citizen’ can also be applied to the word ger.” Hoffmeier goes on to say that this alien, sojourner, or protected citizen is a prolonged guest. He was not entitled to offer hospitality to others—i.e. to invite them into the country. “The right of granting hospitality is reserved to citizens” (even Joseph as a high ranking official in Egypt had to get permission for his family to come). An exception would be marrying someone from your original community and having them come to live in the new community.
- He goes on to argue that the alien/sojourner (ger) followed legal procedures to gain recognized standing as a resident alien. So, Hoffmeier suggests they are parallel to legal immigrants today. (emphasis added0
So, what we have discovered early in our
tour through Scripture is that in the cultures represented in the Old Testament
(and especially that of Israel), borders were to be respected and there was a
difference between legal and illegal immigrants and how they were viewed.
Immigrants were to abide by the laws of the land. As we move on through the
Bible we will discover that these findings stay constant.
The Story Of The Israelite Exodus[16]
In biblical passages about Israel’s time in Egypt and their
subsequent exodus, the Israelites were termed “aliens” (gerim) in Egypt (Ex. 23:9). The terms, as we
saw them above, are used very consistently throughout these texts and agree
with what we have said above.
One very significant point found in these passages is that once
the Israelites had been delivered, they were called to love and not mistreat
aliens coming into their land since they had been aliens in Egypt (Ex. 22:9;
23;9). This also forms a backdrop for New Covenant believers who are to
prioritize extending mercy to others (Mt. 18:21-35; 23:23), and extend grace
and forgiveness since grace and forgiveness have been shown to them (Eph.
4:31-32; Col. 3:13).
The
Law And The Alien[17]
We discover that the Law material in the Old Testament has
much to say about aliens or sojourners.
The people of God under the Old Covenant were commanded to
“love your neighbor as yourself “(Lev. 19:18) and this involves loving the
alien since the Israelites were aliens (Lev. 19:34).
Regarding the difference between aliens/sojourners and
foreigners, Israelites could not charge the former and fellow Israelites
interest on loans (Lev. 25:35-37), but they could to foreigners (Dt. 15:3).
Aliens were to be treated as native-born, not mistreated, and they were to be loved
(Lev. 19:33-34). Aliens have the same legal protection as native-born or
citizens (Lev. 24:22; Nu. 15:15-16; Dt. 1:15-17). Social benefits were given in
the OT to legal immigrants (aliens/sojourners) and citizens alike (Lev.
19:9-10; 23:22; Dt. 24:19-22; 26:12-13).
Since the idea of “sanctuary” has come up in recent times,
especially in cities that have made themselves “sanctuary cities” to protect
illegal immigrants from the penalties of federal laws, it is needed that we go
back and look at the concept of “sanctuary” in the Old Testament, especially
since some (though by no means not all) people want to suggest sanctuary cities
are in line with Old Testament thought.
The
idea and practice of sanctuary is rooted in the Law given at Mt. Sinai. (Exodus
21:12-14; Nu. 35:11-29) …The biblical
practice of sanctuary, then, was to protect the offender from vigilante justice
and to ensure that he received a fair trial. Should a person come to the
sanctuary who was guilty of intentionally murdering someone, he would be
removed from the protection of the sanctuary and receive his punishment. This
practice is clearly spelled out in Exodus 21:24: “Take him away from my altar
and put him to death.” …Sanctuary was
never intended as a place to avoid the law but to allow the law to take its
proper course rather than retaliation when it was not called for. While both
Israelite citizens and aliens qualified for sanctuary (cf. Nu. 35:15 and Josh.
20:9), being an illegal alien was not a criterion for such protection.
Consequently, American cities and churches who offer sanctuary for illegal
immigrants cannot claim to be following the practice described in the Bible.
Having covered the Old Testament, we now turn to the New.[18]
Jesus
And The New Testament[19]
Right away, we see that Jesus was a refugee and alien in
Egypt (Mt. 2:13-15). We know that Joseph and Mary and Jesus would have passed
through forts or checkpoints to be given permission to enter and stay in Egypt.
Philo of Alexandria affirms there was a large number of Jews in Egypt at this
time, which would have given them community and Joseph employment
opportunities.
In the New Testament we also discover a new twist with “alien”
language. Christians, that is, true
followers of Jesus Christ, are said to be aliens in this world (Heb. 11:8-10,
13-16; 1 Pt. 1:1; 2:11). Yet, at the
same time, they are not foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens, in regard
to the people of God (Eph. 2:19). These spiritual realities seem to be built
upon and consistent with the more literal uses of the terms in the Old
Testament.
One other note we can make from New Testament teaching at
this point. Christians are to submit to and obey the laws and authorities over
us where we live—and the implication is that all citizens, Christian or not,
should (Rom. 13:1-7). As a result, Hoffmeier writes: “Based on this clear
instruction, I believe that citizens and foreigners should be subject to a
nation’s laws, and this applies to immigration laws and how one enters a
country and becomes a legal resident….”
This provides a good transition into our next area of
biblical wisdom we must discuss. We will take up that area and the third area
in our next post.
Joyfully Pursuing Justice With You,
Tom
[1] Kaitlyn Schallhorn, “What
Trump's 'zero-tolerance' immigration policy means for children separated from
families at border,” at foxnews.com (accessed 9/19/18).
We should note that the separations happen because the
way the laws currently read at the time of the zero tolerance policy announcement,
when illegal immigrants enter the U.S. and are caught they are detained. Yet,
legally there is a limit to how long their children could be detained in the
same facilities. As Sharla Megilligan, “At the
Mexico-Texas frontier, truth and lies,” World
(July 21, 2018), 36ff., has written even the previous administration, because
of this law, sent children to federally funded children’s homes.
[2] e.g. Camila Damonoske,
Richard Gonzales, “What We Know: Family Separation And ‘Zero Tolerance’ At the
Border” (June 19, 2018), at npr.org (accessed 9/20/18).
[4] Megilligan, “At the Mexico-Text
Frontier,” 36ff.
[5] Though I will not offer a
detailed solution, I do want to say more than some have. Recently Mindy Belz
interviewed Fuller Theological Seminary professor, Matthew Kaemingk, on a
recent book he had written. In essence, according to that interview, the main
point he is making is that we must be compassionate toward people coming into
the country, something to which Jesus called us. Though I have not read the
book, that article made it sound like the professor ignored other bits of
biblical wisdom that are also important.
See Mindy Belz, “Matthew Kaemingk, “A Space For Freedom: Offering
Hospitality To Muslims In America,” in World,
August 18, 2018: 26-27. I do not want this discussion about immigration to be
truncated and one dimensional. Hopefully we can engage in a reasonably full and
balanced treatment of the biblical truths that should shape our approach to the
topic.
[6] James K. Hoffmeier, The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants,
Aliens, And The Bible (Wheaton: Crossway, 2009, Kindle ed.), ch. 1, agrees with this
assessment.
[8] As we will see below, we
never encourage such persons to break the law.
[9] For a helpful and
accessible treatment of this subject, see Wayne Grudem, “Using The Old
Testament For Ethical Guidance,” which is chapter 8 in his book Christian Ethics: An Introduction To
Biblical Moral Reasoning (Wheaton: Crossway, 2018), 209-263. I am dependent upon his
treatment for these points.
[10] In speaking specifically
about Old Testament Scripture, which was all that was in place at the time,
Paul wrote that all of it is inspired by God and profitable for us (2 Tim.
3:16-17). See also Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:6.
[11] Another example would be
Leviticus 19:15: “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial
to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your
neighbor.” This basic principle seems to supersede temporary laws only for a
nation, but to communicate how we apply God’s righteous will equitably to all.
The history of jurisprudence in the U.S. has been wise to suggest that justice
is blind, based upon this biblical wisdom. Another way the Old Testament has
provided wisdom for jurisprudence is to distinguish between different kinds of
taking of life, whether it be government-induced capital punishment (Gen. 9:6;
Nu. 35:31), self-defense (Ex. 22:2-30, an accident (Ex. 21:12-14; Nu. 35:9-34),
or pre-meditated (Ex. 20:13; 21:12-14; Nu. 35:16; 31). This is consistent with
God’s treatment based upon the intent of their heart (e.g. 1 Sam. 16:7).
Intentional unlawful taking of life is very different than unintentional taking
of life. God calls people in all times to love, not hate (Lev. 19:9-18).
[12] It was Abraham Kuyper,
theologian and prime minister of the Netherlands in the late 19th
and early 20th centuries, who coined the term “sphere sovereignty”
(especially seen in his 1898 presentation, “Lectures On Calvinism,” as part of
the Stone Lectures at Princeton). This label is a helpful description of what
the Bible teaches regarding the authority of different institutions or spheres
within society (e.g. Mt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1-7; Eph. 6:1-4). This must be kept in
mind to guide the Christian in how he or she relates to the different spheres.
An example will help. Suppose that Joe, a U.S. citizen who lives just north of
the border in southern Texas, is employed by the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) agency. What this means is that he is tasked, as an agent of
the government, with prohibiting people from coming into the U.S. illegally.
That is a role the U.S. government in general and he in particular has so they
can help in the protection, defense, and orderly operation of the country, as
well as in penalizing law breakers (Rom. 13:3-4). Joe is also a Christian, part
of the church. His local congregation loves, serves, and shares with illegal
immigrants who are caught trying to cross the border and detained. They also
love, serve, and share with illegal immigrants who are not caught (and part of
what they seek to do is encourage them to obey the law). Joe’s role is very
different in each sphere (the church and CBP). It is primarily the job of the
government to protect and supervise the border and, as we will see, this is a
good thing. At the same time, the church is not primarily tasked to protect and
oversee the border, even though U.S. citizens who are part of the church are to
obey U.S. laws and encourage others to do the same. What this all means is that
the church can and should love, serve, and seek to make disciples of people who
come across the border legally and illegally as a primary role. At the same
time, the government is not tasked as a primary role with those tasks (even
though this does not mean the government cannot be compassionate or operate in
such a way that love, service, and sharing can take place. So, at one and the
same time, the Christian can advocate for compassion and love toward illegal
immigrants and, at the same time, they can advocate for border security and the
enforcement of U.S. laws.
[13] Unless otherwise noted,
all quotes in this sub-section are taken from Hoffmeier, The Immigration Crisis, ch. 2. All other
material, unless otherwise noted, is also dependent upon this chapter from
Hoffmeier.
[14] Merriam-Webster (on-line)
defines ethnography this way: “the study and systematic recording of human cultures;
also : a descriptive work produced from such research.” So, “ethnographic”could
be defined this way: “relating to the scientific description of peoples and
cultures with their customs, habits, and mutual differences.”
[15] Hoffmeier goes on to say
of the nekhar
or zar,
i.e. the foreigner (both terms used at times parallel to each other: Ex. 30:33;
Is. 28:21; Lam. 5:2), he was not a permanent resident as was the ger. “A foreigner could be
an invading enemy (…Is. 1:7; Obad. 11) or squatters who moved into Israel when
the Israelites were removed to Babylon (…Lam. 5:2). But for the most part in
Israel, foreigners were those who were passing through the land with no
intention of taking residence, or perhaps they would be temporarily or
seasonably employed.”
[16] All
quotes in this subsection are taken from Hoffmeier, The
Immigration Crisis, ch. 3. All other material is also dependent upon
that chapter.
[17] All quotes in this
subsection are taken from Hoffmeier, The
Immigration Crisis, ch. 4. All other material is also dependent upon
that chapter.
[18] In chapters 5-7 of his
book, The Immigration
Crisis, Hoffmeier looks at how terms were used in the rest of the
Old Testament and affirms they were used consistently with what has been set
forth already.
[19] All quotes in this
subsection are taken from Hoffmeier, The
Immigration Crisis, ch. 8. All other material is also dependent upon
that chapter.
