America has had a long heritage of accepting foreigners, refugees and immigrants. Yet with every new wave of immigrants, there is always blowback. The pressure at our southern border has re-ignited a debate about restrictions, walls and the fate of DACA children. Two days before the 2016 election, the author was on a flight to Germany seated next to a German gentleman. With the election imminent, the subject of politics came up and with it, discussion of conservative desires to build a wall on the southern border. His responsewas insightful, saying, “Well, you know, we German’s know a little bit about walls”, referring the the fall of the Berlin Wall. He then added, “We know they don’t work. They don’t keep people out, they only isolate those inside. You have to learn to work with your neighbors.” For me, it was a striking statement given Germany’s Nazi history and failed effort to advance racial purity.
For Americans, most can trace their ancestry to immigrant parents, grandparents or progeny. The author is no exception. My mother’s parents both emigrated from Sicily at the turn of the 20th century to escape grinding poverty. When asked why, my grandfather said that every month the mafia would visit the village and tell the people how many chickens, goats and sheep they must donate in order to assure life in this world. Shortly after, the Catholic church would visit, telling them how many chickens, goats and sheep they must donate to assure life in the hereafter. What was left, wasn’t enough to live off.
It wasn’t just impoverishment, it was a shakedown. Those in power prey upon the poor and powerless. In the US, after many years of scrimping and saving, my grandparents bought a small farm and raised a family. At harvest, the Albany police would often stop by. It was understood that a “donation” from the harvest was to be made. My grandparents had escaped grinding poverty, but not the shakedown. The poor and powerless are always preyed upon.
It was not just the grandparents on my mother’s side. My father was Canadian who came to the US to study and chose to remain when extended a job as a University Professor. One of his ancestors owned a farm in NJ at the time of the revolutionary war but because they were loyalists to the crown, patriots seeking independence from Britain burned down their farmhouse, confiscated their land and ordered them to leave. They found their way to Canada. This story is not atypical. Many who were persecuted for their beliefs came to America seeking freedom. Some were also persecuted and forced from America for their beliefs.
Where the author’s story differs is not in its beginnings but its endings. Born and raised in the US, at retirement the author felt the call of God to go to a foreign land and live as a foreigner. What followed was emigration to Germany to work with homeless, asylum-seekers, foreigners and immigrants (most Americans couldn’t know that 25% of Germany’s residents are foreigners or have parents who were foreigners). Living as a foreigner in a foreign land has brought insights into biblical characters who also lived as foreigners in a foreign land. It has also brought an awareness of the global problem of mass migration, prompting this post.
God’s People Were Foreigners Called to Live in a Foreign Land
Lessons from Babel, Abraham and his Exodus
Any discussion of refugees should begin at Babel (Babylon), as it was at Babel that the nations were created in judgment. That the call of Abraham immediately follows the curse upon Babel is not without purpose. Those who as “one” chose to defy God’s mandate to fill the earth (Genesis 11:4), were divided and scattered throughout the earth in confusion of tongues, filling the earth in judgment. Immediately following, God chose “one” through whom the divided, scattered nations would be brought back to Him as “one”. The path is less than straightforward. As the “many” nations were scattered, God separated the “one” from the nations. Unexpectedly though, the “one” given this mission would first become a foreigner in a foreign land (Genesis 17:8; 21:23; 23:4; cf. 28:4). Though living in the land of promise, Abraham chose to live as a foreigner in a foreign land. [1] Scripture tells us that Isaac and Jacob similarly lived in the land as foreigners (Exodus 6:4; Psalm 105:23). Even David, called himself as a foreigner (Psalm 39:12) and described the Israelites similarly. Undoubtedly, David’s words reflected a greater teaching of Israel as a foreigner in the land (1 Chronicles 9:15; 2 Chronicles 6:32-33; cf. Genesis 28:4).
Lessons from Israel and her Egyptian Exodus
In covenanting with Abraham, God revealed that Abraham’s descendants would also live as foreigners in a foreign land, enslaved and mistreated before returning to the land promised Abraham (Genesis 15:13-14). That Abraham’s descendants were enslaved and mistreated in a foreign land points to judgment that befell Joseph’s brethren for their sin of selling Joseph to foreigners who brought him to a foreign land (note the judgment in talion ). However, in prophesying it aforehand with the promise to bring them out with great wealth, God revealed a greater purpose apparent in Moses’ admonition not to mistreat foreigners (Exodus 22:21; 23:9, 12; Leviticus 25:35; Numbers 15:15-16, 29; Deuteronomy 1:16; 10:18; 15:3; 24:14; 24:19-21; 26:13; 27:19): “for you were foreigners in Egypt”, “for you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners because you were foreigners in Egypt”. The frequency of this Old Testament command emphasizes its importance. Israel was not to mistreat foreigners living among them, nor apply a different set of laws for foreigners or dispense justice differently than for Israelites (Leviticus 24:22; Numbers 9:14; 15:15-16, 29; Deuteronomy 1:16; 24:14; 24:17; 27:19; cf. Deuteronomy 27:19; Joshua 20:9). [2]
Beyond Israel’s responsibility to legally treat foreigners as Israelites, specific provisions in the Sinaic law were included to extend mercy to foreigners. Provisions for gleaning included foreigners (Leviticus 19:10; 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19-21) and the tithe of the third year included foreigners with priests, the poor and widows (Deuteronomy 26:12-13). When circumcised (i.e. joining the community of Israel), foreigners were also allowed to participate in the Passover (Exodus 12:48; see also 2 Chronicles 30:25), the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 12:19) the Feast of Weeks (Deuteronomy 16:9-11) and the Feast of Booths (16:14).
Interestingly, the celebration of the Feast of Weeks closes with a reminder “remember that you were slaves in Egypt, and follow carefully these decrees” (vs 12), linking Israel’s harvest celebration to her captivity (note the secondary link between the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the name “bread of affliction”). [3] A further link is found in Deuteronomy 26. At firstfruit offerings and tithes of the third year, Israelites and foreigners were to verbalize their origins as Arameans and sojourners in Egypt (vss 1-15). [4] These links point to the central idea of Israel as a community of landless foreigners granted God’s mercy, rescuing them from oppression, making them a holy people and granting them a land.
That God ordained Israel’s genesis from foreigners living in a foreign land, mistreated and persecuted by their Egyptian masters, provides an important ethical lesson. After being mistreated in a foreign land, it would be hypocritical for Israel to mistreat foreigners once she had taken possession of the land God granted her. Even where Israel acquired servants, whether Israelite or foreigner, she was to allow them Sabbatical rest (Exodus 20:10; Deuteronomy 5:14). In being miraculously and mercifully delivered from her Egyptian taskmasters, she was reminded to extend the same mercy to those foreigners living in the land God had granted her. [5] Her treatment of foreigners would serve as a “measure” of her appreciation of God’s mercy toward her. Yet, Israel was also commanded to love the foreigners living among her. The command to love, links to their time as slaves in Egypt, pointing toward Israel’s treatment of foreigners as a measure of true love:
33 “ ‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19
18 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. 19 And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt. Deuteronomy 10; cf. Psalm 146:9
An important motif emerges. Israel’s thankfulness to God for His deliverance is evident in the relationships she establishes with foreigners. Egypt’s oppression caused her to cry out to God, seeking deliverance and refuge from her abuse. He answered, providing refuge for Israel. Thus, Israel was a refugee seeking asylum from the oppression of her Egyptian masters. God not only delivered her, but in giving her a land, He provided her a place of refuge and rest from continuous work. When foreigners entered the land, they were to be treated as God treated Israel. They were to be considered refugees, provided opportunity to enter into covenant-relationship with God and enjoy all the benefits the Israelites enjoyed (including land). Perhaps most unexpected is Leviticus 25:23 which forbid selling land permanently, saying, “the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers”. The ethical teaching is clear: Israel is not only to remember her time as a foreigner living in a foreign land, but she was always to consider herself still a foreigner even in the land God had given her as an inheritance. She should always view herself as a refugee, saved by God’s grace.
Lessons From Israel’s Babylonian Exile
Despite God’s commands to Israel regarding foreigners, the exilic prophets testify of Israel’s failure to treat foreigners as themselves (Jeremiah 7:6; 22:3; Ezekiel 22:7, 29; 44:7; Zechariah 7:10; Malachi 3:5). Though not explicitly stated, Israel’s exile to Babylon was likely due in part to her sins against foreigners. Becoming a foreigner again in a foreign land would certainly gain Israel’s notice given God’s consistent use of talionic judgments.
As God’s use of talion is not well recognized, a short digression is in order. Consider the talionic judgment of Jeremiah 14:8, which shows God behaving as a stranger/foreigner/sojourner in response to Israel’s sins, hinting that familial relationship requires covenantal compliance. [6] Those who dishonor His laws are treated as strangers and foreigners, a fitting judgment for those who failed to count themselves foreigners in God’s land. They seem to have taken for granted God’s favor. Consider also Jeremiah 5:19, where talionic judgment is that Israel will serve foreigners in a foreign land for the sin of serving foreign gods in her native land.
What would be their relationship of foreigners in the land with ethnic Israel? [7] Isaiah seems to have anticipated the dilemma, promising that with Israel’s restoration would come the salvation of foreigners (56:3). It would be a time when foreigners would bind themselves to Israel and be united with them (14:1; 56:6). Jerusalem would become a stronghold for foreigners implying a sizeable population in Jerusalem (25:2). Isaiah further predicted that “foreigners will rebuild your walls” (60:10). [8] Ezekiel, in describing the restored, rebuilt temple, prophesied that Israel’s allotted inheritance would extend to include foreigners living among them (47:22-23). It will be their inheritance also. These promises foreshadow the Gospel going out to the Gentiles. Importantly, God’s people (Israel) are to love and embrace foreigners, providing them with full opportunity to live in their community as equals!
Key Old Testament Observations
A number of important observations can be made. First, from her creation, Israel was a multi-ethnic community comprised of foreigners. Second, Israel was birthed as a community of abused foreigners living in a foreign land. Because she cried out to God and received deliverance, she was not to treat foreigners as she had been treated in Egypt. She was to love foreigners and treat them as equals. There was to be compassion for the plight of other abused foreigners. Third, her community was always intended to be a community comprised of foreigners and fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham would include a multitude of foreigners. She was expected to welcome foreigners, providing them opportunity to join God’s covenant community, giving them full citizenship and all the rights God had granted her. Finally, despite being granted the land, Israel was to live as a foreigner. The implication is that her land-grant in Palestine was not the complete fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham. It begs the question, what does Israel’s history say to the church. Is the church to extend the same kindness, mercy and compassion to foreigners?
New Testament Teaching and Implications
That every significant Old Testament figure was a foreigner (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David), frames the New Testament. Even Moses, the great liberator of Israel, was a foreigner (Exodus 2:22; 18:3; Acts 7:29), foreshadowing Jesus’ time as a foreigner in Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15). Jesus was Himself a refugee, seeking refuge from the murderer Herod. As a refugee and foreigner without a land where He could safely dwell, one would anticipate Jesus would have compassion for all those in the world who are undesirable, unwanted and valueless people. Fundamentally, Jesus would fulfill the commandment that Israel would not: to love the foreigner. [9] Those in Christ must also love the foreigner.
It is proven in Matthew 25:35-44 which reveals that Jesus will judge others based upon whether they loved the foreigner. It is a well-known parable of the final judgment, often taught in churches. Yet the English translation “stranger” can obscure the true meaning “foreigner” or “sojourner”. It establishes the behavioral standard for the church. The frequent picture of believers on an exodus from the wilderness of the nations into the kingdom of God (the land) provides theological background for going into all the world to proselytize. The deeper meaning does not invalidate the more basic ethical teaching of reaching out to foreigners and sojourners in love.
Paul describes Gentiles as formerly foreigners to the covenant, but now fellow citizens with God’s people and members of his household, an echo of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17). Paul’s statement reveals that Gentiles were uncircumcised and thus excluded from God’s covenant and without hope ( vss 11-12). It affirms Israel’s role to be a blessing to the nations (foreigners), leading them to Christ. Their inclusion together with Israel restores and reunites the nations scattered at Babel. The reunification reverses the curse at Babel, in which Christ destroyed the dividing wall that separated Jew from Gentile (Ephesians 2:14).
A parallel is found in 1 Peter 2:9-11 (cf. 1Peter 1:13-17) in which believers are described as a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession. These words from Israel’s history point to the church as God’s people. Echoing the Egyptian exodus, Peter declares, “once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy” (vs 10). Peter then urges his audience, “I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul” (vs 11). Peter thus introduces the idea that God’s people are foreigners and exiles. Peter’s admonishment seems to parallel Leviticus 25:23. Like the Israelites, we have been delivered from the slavery of sin and now live in the proverbial land. But we are to consider ourselves foreigners and sojourners as our time on earth is probative. The reason is given in Hebrews 11:
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them. Hebrews 11
The land that God has ultimately promised His people Israel is not the land of Palestine, but a heavenly land. Those who believe in Christ must conduct an exodus from the kingdoms of this world into the Kingdom of God, a heavenly spiritual kingdom. Our current time on earth during this age is probative much as Israel’s time in the land of Palestine was probative. Entrance into God’s heavenly land requires obedience to His covenant much as Israel’s continued tenure in the land required obedience. But entrance into God’s heavenly land does not occur until death, when we cross the proverbial Jordan, following our Master into God’s true heavenly land. Until that crossing, the church, like Abraham, is urged to view herself as a foreigner living in a foreign land, as here we have no earthly city (the new Jerusalem is heavenly). Critically, passage into God’s heavenly land requires obedience, including obedience to God’s demands on how we treat foreigners. Since we were also once foreigners to the covenant, mistreated in a foreign land of sin and oppression, we are not to mistreat other foreigners.
The Fallicy of Church Teaching
Church teaching rarely covers the subject of foreigners and sojourners. When discussed, the focus is more doctrinal than pragmatic. With Israel’s rebirth as a nation in 1948, there has been reluctance to teach even the doctrinal truth of Gentile equality and oneness with Jews for fear that ethnic Israel’s place and purpose in end-time studies will be obscured or church commitment to Israel will be undermined. Those churches which claim the Jewish return to Palestine is the fulfillment of prophecy must maintain the ethnic wall between Jews and Gentiles. The resulting tension with Paul’s claim that the separating wall between Jew and Gentile has been removed is a point of confusion. The fear of spiritualizing the meaning of Israel make pastors reticent to teach about foreigners. Likewise, the promise of a heavenly land undermines the predominant narrative of Israel’s miraculous rebirth as a nation. Oddly, it seems to have escaped notice that contemporary Israel’s reformation has not seen the promised multitudes of Gentiles returning with her. Rather, it has been marked by mistreatment of foreigners of non-Jewish descent. [10]
Another contributing factor appears to be Christian nationalism, a patriotic narrative that stresses God’s special plans for the nation. It sets those within the nation above those outside the nation, advancing unequal treatment of foreigners with claims foreigners will destroy the character or Christian tradition of the nation. Rooted within this teaching is the tacit presumption that God established the nation, and especially its borders, which must be maintained and controlled. While a popular narrative, it is unscriptural. In the current age, God works globally through only one “nation” or body, the church. Even in the prior age, God worked only through Israel, the people with whom He covenanted. [11]
The failure to understand this truth is rooted in a failure to understand Abraham’s calling and its relationship to the church. Abraham as “one” was called to restore the scattered nations to “one” in relationship with God. His calling foreshadows the calling of Christ, as Abraham’s descendants foreshadow the church. It is the calling of the church to work in partnership with Christ to reestablish unity among all nations. It is not only the church’s calling, it is the church’s identity, attested in the descent of the Spirit on Pentecost in which the disciples spoke in other tongues where people from all nations heard the message in their native tongue. It signified the removal of the curse of confusion of tongues at Babel. The removal of the curse signals that all the nations scattered at Babel have been again made one in Christ.
Mainstream Christianity has largely missed this important truth. The church is not just to proselytize the nations, but to be the “one” new restored community of humanity. Rejecting foreigners or controlling access to nations where borders have been artificially established by men runs counter to God’s purpose for the church to be borderless. There are no separating walls between nations within the church. All have been made one in Christ. Christians cannot hold to the notion that individual nations must maintain borders and prevent or limit entry of foreigners. Through the Spirit’s descent, all nations have been reunited as one without exception and without limitations on entry. God has placed no quotas or restrictions upon who can join and become full citizens of Israel and heirs of Abraham.. Return to this fundamental truth is urged, that the church not share in the guilt of the nations who reject ethnicities, tribes and peoples that are oppressed, persecuted and denied justice.
Relevance to Christians Today
Ethical Lessons
The analysis above shows that God’s laws concerning treatment of foreigners is a picture of redemption. That is why in both ages, God’s people are to conduct themselves as foreigners and exiles. We were foreigners oppressed by Satan that Christ redeemed at great cost. The refuge we received was without limit. God did not establish borders to His kingdom nor walls with controlling gates for the new Jerusalem (Zechariah 2:4; cf. Revelation 21:25). God’s grace is without limit. All may enter without limit or quota. The city never reaches capacity nor needs to turn anyone away. It provides the model for the church. There should be sufficient faith in God that believers can call upon Him to provide essentials for everyone who seeks refuge (Deuteronomy 28:8-13). Denying entry at the border, denying citizenship or controlling entry is scripturally forbidden as such things are simply ways to enforce a different set of laws upon foreigners from citizens.
For many Christians, it can be difficult to accept. My uncle once related a story of my grandfather’s arrival in Ellis Island. Apparently burlap sacks strung from a cord were placed around the necks of arrivals. Whether the sack rested on the chest or back determined which immigrants were received and which were rejected. My grandfather was rejected due to a nasty eye infection he contracted on the boat. Unnoticed, he discretely switched the sack’s position and passed through successfully. It creates a ethical dilemma with the possibility my grandfather falsely represented his health (I say possibly as I cannot verify the story’s truth). His rejection was justified as it was to protect the health of Americans from potential infectious disease.
There was no benefit to admitting my grandparents. Both were illiterate and had little to no schooling. They showed all the signs of burdening society. Yet my grandfather received citizenship and later became a Christian. He raised a family of six children all of whom became Christians. Most of their children became Christians and many of their grandchildren became Christians. Christ’s mandate was fulfilled in a most ironic way. My grandfather’s salvation was not the result of American missionaries going to all the earth to proselytize. Rather, it was the result of America receiving an unworthy, oppressed foreigner who was then proselytized here and then won many in his family to Christ. Ironically, he came from a “Christian” nation in which the church oppressed and drove him further from salvation but God in mercy brought this unwanted peasant to America and accomplished redemption here. This is God’s ultimate purpose in us – to be spiritually fruitful, leading many to Christ.
This story is a real life example of how loving and embracing foreigners by opening our borders can fulfill Christ’s mandate in reverse! But if we open our borders, it will only be because of thankfulness for what God has done in our lives, saving us, bringing us into His land, giving us citizenship in the new Jerusalem and making us Abrahamic heirs. Never losing sight of our own beginnings as foreigners will power compassion in us to open our borders to other foreigners who need Christ.
But if we fail, we should expect God will judge us in talion. Further, if we lock down our borders to keep foreigners out, we are also locking ourselves in. In effect, we are refusing to fulfill Christ’s mandate to go into all the world. Perhaps this is why so many foreigners are attempting to cross our borders. A talionic judgment would be that God brings the foreigners to us in judgment if we refuse to go as Christ commanded. Perhaps it is time the church considered this possibility. Perhaps this is a crisis of our own making. Repentance seems in order. For which church in America’s history has made it a point of focus to win incoming immigrants to Christ?
Eschatological Lessons
There is great irony in the story of Christ’s time in Egypt. We as foreigners and refugees were redeemed by Christ, Himself a foreigner and refugee, and Christ’s rejection by Israel shows they treated Him as a foreigner. The judgment that befell them for their mistreatment of Christ is a warning to the church. In rejecting Christ, Israel was again guilty of idolatry, putting their love of the law above love of God’s Messiah. Israel also failed to love Christ as a foreigner and came under a judgment of exile to a foreign land, commencing with Jerusalem’s destruction to Titus in 70 A.D. Christ was clear her restoration would not come until they say, “blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” (Matthew 23:39; Luke 13:35). Nearly two thousand years later, only a remnant have repented and acknowledged Christ as Israel’s Messiah. The rest have perished apart from Christ.
One might ask how that relates to the church? John prophesied that God’s people would go into exile (Revelation 13:10). Given the idolatrous demands of the beast and the idolatrous behavior of the harlot, it is reasonable to expect this new exile is also rooted in idolatry. But as Israel was also guilty of bloodshed and injustice – including mistreatment of foreigners, bloodshed and injustice should also be expected contributors to the exile.
Further, Revelation’s judgments suggest large numbers of foreigners and refugees from wars, famine, pestilence and other global disruptions. Historically, the church’s response has been poor. Given God’s pattern of talionic judgments, exile into a foreign land where the church would endure talionic mistreatment should be expected. And that is exactly what is prophesied in the persecutions of the beast (Revelation 13:10). Many will go into captivity and many will die by the sword in talion for bloodshed (see Revelation 17:6).
For John, those who go into captivity are symbolized as a harlot called Babylon. The harlot John depicts recalls Israel’s idolatry, ever “playing the harlot” (Jeremiah 2:20: 3:1, 6, 8; Ezekiel 16:28, 41; 23:5, 19; Hosea 2:5; 3:3; 4:15) until she went into captivity to Babylon, for rebellion against the laws of God. It also represents Israel’s failure to exodus from Babylon seventy years later and return to the land when commanded by God through Cyrus. Only a remnant returned with most choosing to remain in Babylon (Ezra 2:64-65).
It is a picture John employed in his prophecies. The prophets envisioned Israel’s redemption as an exodus after the model of Moses’ exodus. This new end-time exodus would be from the nations – or more exactly from the kingdoms of this world into the kingdom of God. John deftly envisioned the kingdoms of this world as (the harlot) Babylon “that rules over the kings of the earth” (Revelation 17:18), a community from which God’s people must exodus (Revelation 18:4) before her destruction. Her complicity in the beast’s campaign to destroy the church (Revelation 12:17; 13:7) makes her guilty of complicity with the martyrdoms carried out by the beast. Her guilt brings her under God’s judgment of destruction.
Critically, many of God’s people are envisioned “captive” to the harlot. They are captivated by all the fineries and privileges that go with excessive wealth (Revelation 18) and must exodus from her before her destruction. John thus brings to focus this critically important realization that believers are truly foreigners who must exodus from the kingdoms of this world and into the kingdom of God.
John presents that decision as a martyr’s choice (Revelation 13:15). Those who refuse the idolatrous worship of the beast will be killed. Thus, faith is required to make the wise choice. One must have faith to believe that death in this world for Christ assures entrance into God’s heavenly land forever, signified in resurrection at the end of the age. Failure results from foolishly desiring the fineries of this world, failing to see that these things cannot bring resurrection and eternal life, only enjoyment for the short season we are present on this earth.
John’s warning is palpable. Israel rejected Christ, loving their law more than Christ with their leaders loving money. John’s parallel shows that those who prefer an earthly perspective on God’s kingdom over a heavenly one, preferring the fineries earthly wealth brings, will ultimately reject Christ by failing to lay down their lives in martyrdom, the ultimate proof of their love of God. Realization that heaven is our ultimate “home” and that we are merely foreigners here on earth, brings clarity to this difficult choice.
[1] This outcome is unexpected, but consistent with that of Abraham, who though having walked throughout the land, symbolically taking possession of it, continued to live as a foreigner and alien in the land God had promised him. This idea carried forward with Isaac and Jacob as Isaac blessed Jacob saying “May he give you and your descendants the blessing given to Abraham, so that you may take possession of the land where you now reside as a foreigner, the land God gave to Abraham” [Genesis 28:4]. Note the blessing to take possession of the land where Jacob, a foreigner in the land, already resides, the land God already gave Abraham. It highlights the early development of an inaugurated perspective regarding the land.
[2] In the various Old Testament verses on foreigners, one must carefully consider context. Before Israel’s entrance into the land, foreigners meant non-ethnic Israelites who were members of Abraham’s household (Genesis 17:12-14), typically Abraham’s slaves who were not his physical descendants. Upon entrance into the land, these two groups together renewed the covenant, took circumcision and were thereafter called “Israel”. Israel was a multi-ethnic community from her inception. While living in the land, foreigners often worked for Israel as hired labor or temporary labor. They were typically foreigners because they were not members of the covenant-community, and were not circumcised (so Exodus 12:12:43-48; 20:10). Upon accepting the covenant and circumcision, they would then become part of Israel with full rights as Israelites.
[3] A similar link is possible with the requirement that every male shall make a pilgrimage to appear before the Lord three times per year at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Booths. The thrice per year pilgrimages serve to remind Israel of her origins as foreigners.
[4] Israel was not merely reminded of her origins as foreigners. Leviticus 25:23 declares the land is the Lord’s and Israel resides in Yahweh’s land as foreigners and strangers, emphasizing Israel’s continuing estrangement to Yahweh in her standing as foreigners. It recapitulates the exile of Adam and Eve from the garden while adding the picture of restoration with entrance into a new Edenic, Palestinian garden.
[5] We say “reminded” as the practice of properly caring for foreigners appears to go back to antiquity (Job 29:16; 31:32).
[6] Contained here is an important theological truth. Israel was to view herself ever a foreigner because she was estranged from God due to her sins. That estrangement would continue until the coming of Christ and His provision for sin. Thus, though granted tenancy in the land, it was probative, awaiting Christ and His atoning work.
[7] That a sizeable foreign population existed with ethnic Israel is attested in the Egyptian exodus in which ethnic Israel was accompanied by a “mixed multitude” (AV) of Gentiles to Palestine. These mixed peoples were also referred to as “rabble” (Exodus 12:38; Numbers 11:4).
[8] There is a possible recapitulation of 1 Chronicles 22:2 and 2 Chronicles 2:17-18 in which foreigners played a significant role in building the temple.
[9] In Jeremiah 14:8 it asks of the Messiah “why are you like a foreigner in the land”? Jesus may have answered the question in John 10:8, stating that His sheep would know His voice and not respond to foreigners. Jesus seems to have pointed to His atoning work to restore relationship between Israel and God with a measure of irony. His sheep would listen to Him, though treated as a foreigner, but not listen to the religious leaders in the land whose behavior proved they were foreigners in their relationship with God.
[10] To those who would argue that ethnic Israel alone must take the land, consider the example of David: His sin of numbering the fighting men of Israel. Gad the prophet told David to build an altar that the plague on the people might cease. Oddly, Gad instructed David to build the altar on the threshing floor of a Jebusite named Araunah. Jebusites were among the tribes Israel was commanded to drive out from the land. Yet Araunah not only dwelt in the land, but willingly offered his threshing floor as an altar including oxen, threshing sledges and oxen yoke for wood. All as a gift without cost. That God would call for the altar on the land of a Jebusite doesn’t square with modern claims Israel must drive foreigners out of the land. Araunah’s generosity proved his faith as he wished to assist David in halting the plague. Note the irony: One from a people opposed to Israel sought to stop a plague upon Israel. It is unexpected that the plague would be halted by an offering made upon the land of a Jebusite, yet it attests the importance of foreigners to God’s redemptive plan.
[11] Often it is claimed that God used nations in the Old Testament for the accomplishment of His purpose. However, these nations were used in Sinaic ways to bring punishment to Israel, not for the advancement of God’s redemptive message. An exception may be found in Cyrus who foreshadowed Christ, who would enable Israel’s diaspora back to the land. But in this case, God was not using the nation of Persia but a single individual to point to the coming work of Christ. When pastors claim their nation has a special calling, it is in the context of a redemptive purpose. While it is often deeply believed, it is scripturally false. God’s redemptive purpose has always been through Abraham’s Messianic Seed and His people Israel, the church.