Fisking American Vision Published Blog Regarding Immigration

http://covenantaldivide.com/open-and-closed-borders-lets-have-both/

I will not be fisking the whole article above. Those who want to read the whole article are encouraged to go to the link to read the parts that I’ve passed over.

Publisher American Vision writes,

“What about a scriptural alternative to the cacophony of opinions being blurted out on the issue? Notice I didn’t say Christian alternative. We Christians today are many times out of touch with what scripture has to say in the civil realm.”

Bret observes

The answers that are provided here, in this article, are not exactly clear. American Vision blog, while bringing out some great points, does not succeed in giving us a nuanced picture of immigration in the Old Testament.

American Vision Blog writes,

Beyond common sense and logic, the issue is biblical. Matt is on target in that the heart of the issue lies within a discussion of borders (boundaries), laws and enforcement. We need to ask ourselves, what kind of borders? Who makes the laws? Who has authority to enforce the laws? What laws should govern immigration? What is the source and standard for such laws?

1.) Biblical is beyond common sense and logic? How would we know that without using common sense and logic to determine that?

2.) R. J. Rushdoony asked these questions back in 1965. Here are some of the answers at which he arrived.

“The purpose of this immigration policy then is to unify man, to bring about the unity of the godhead. Its purpose, and its premise, is not economic but religious. It is theologically rooted in this religious dream, the United Nations.”

So, Rushdoony realized that the immigration push was to eliminate all borders so that the humanist global order could come to the fore. Rushdoony understood that the immigration act in 1965 (and what is currently happening is merely the flowering of that Legislation) was being pushed by Humanists desiring to destroy the Nation State order. Rushdoony understood that such immigration was not Biblical.

America Vision Blog writes,

Let’s begin with the last question first. I believe the Word of God should be the source and standard. With this pre-commitment in mind, it would make sense to look at the first nation in Scripture to tackle the immigration issue God’s way.

See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today? (Deuteronomy 4:5-8)

Israel was to be a light among the nations. If they operated their nation in terms of God’s revealed law, all other nations would take notice. Not only would they take notice, many would be drawn to Israel.

Bret responds,

Certainly we can agree that God’s intent for Israel was to be a Witness to the Nations. However, that in no way implies that God desired open borders so that the Nations lost their National Identity as the various Nations’ identity was submerged with Israel’s National Identity. Nations were to be drawn to Israel so that they, as Nations, bowed to Yahweh.

A Reformed Old Testament scholar Martin Wyngaarden recognized this when he wrote,

“Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Martin J. Wyngaarden
The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture pp. 101-102.

American Vision blog writes,

God promised blessing and freedom if Israel followed his prescription for running their nation. Freedom is only possible when men govern themselves according to the Word of God. God’s covenant people were required to render judgment in their families, the assembly and the state according to God’s revealed law. As they did so, their light would shine as a beacon to other nations that were in bondage.

Not only was Israel a light, it was a shelter. Someone could recognize the light and sojourn in Israel. If they subjected themselves externally to the law of the land (the law of God), then they would enjoy the blessings promised in the land.

For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. (Numbers 15:15)

Here the American Vision blog does not nuance enough given the different words for “stranger” in the Old Testament.

James Hoffmeier, in his book, “The Immigration Crisis proves that a State is under no compulsion to have a generous immigration policy and does have a responsibility to protect its borders –just as States did even in the Old Testament. The texts used by Christian organizations like American Vision, Sojourners, etc. are ripped out of their context in order to guilt the laity into thinking being a good Christian means disinheriting one’s self and children.

The book of Joshua goes into great detail about the allocation of the territories of the Promised land to the tribes of Israel but the ger (resident Alien) did not receive their own allotment. The Ger (resident Alien — perhaps our equivalent of a perpetual Green card holder) could receive social benefits (i.e. — gleaning rights, a portion of the third year tithes) but they could never own land and so they forever would remain ger (stranger).

The resident alien (ger) in Israel was never so integrated and assimilated into the Israeli social order that the distinction between citizen born and alien evaporated. The resident alien (ger) was held to the same law, could become part of the worship cult BUT they were always known as distinct from Israeli born. Hence they are continuously referred to as ger (stranger).

So there was continuity between the native born Israeli and the ger but there was discontinuity as well and it strikes me that it is the discontinuity is what American Vision desires to ignore.

In short the ger (stranger) would always be known as “other.”

In the Old Testament the alien (ger) was a person who entered Israel and followed legal procedures to obtain recognized standing as a resident alien. Hence ger (alien) is the term for legal immigrants. However, the ger (legal immigrants) in the OT were still distinct from those who were permanent residents (citizens). In the OT then there is a distinction between the alien (ger) the foreigner (nekhar or zar) and the permanent residents of the Israeli tribes.

The American Vision Blog continues,

The stranger could worship who and how he wanted within the confines of his own home but as long as he was a resident in Israel he had to submit externally to God’s law….

This is a major component with the issue of immigration because with no handouts and a requirement to live according to God’s laws, the borders of Israel were to some extent self-regulated. Those that immigrated into the country were most likely law-abiding, productive residents that would add value to the society. This was inexpensive, inside-out border enforcement. It was in one sense an open border policy by God’s design.

Bret responds,

Hoffmeier differs with this assessment regarding “self-regulated borders,” as he points out that ancient territorial borders were taken seriously and that national sovereignty was recognized. Hoffmeier points out that 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.

Numbers 20:16-21 yields an example of Edom’s refusal to allow Israel to pass, even with Israel paying a Toll. This was out of keeping with the socially accepted custom of offering hospitality to strangers in the ancient and modern Middle East. Still, it is worth noting that even a traveler — a foreigner — passing through the territory of another had to obtain permission to do so, thus revealing that in the OT borders were taken seriously. Likewise Judges 11:16-20 gives another example of borders being taken seriously.

These episodes demonstrate clearly that nations could and did control their borders and determined who could pass through their land.

On the individual, family, and clan level, property was owned and boundaries established. Personal property and fields were delineated by landmarks — stone markers of some sort. For this reason, the Mosaic law prohibited the removal of landmarks. (Dt. 19:14, 27:17). This parlayed itself into the idea of National boundaries merely being an extension of the reality of property owned by individual, family and clan. During the period of the divided Kingdom (8th cent. BC) the prophet Hosea decried the leaders of Judah for seizing territory of her sister kingdom Israel by taking their boundary stones (cmp. Job 24:2).

So we see that nation states, large and small in the Biblical world were clearly delineated by borders. These were often defended by large forts and military outposts. Countries since biblical times have had the right to clearly established borders that they controlled and were recognized by surrounding Governments.

The borders of countries were respected, and minor skirmishes and even wars followed when people and armies of one nation violated the territory of their neighbor.

All this meant that nations, including Israel had the right to clearly established secure borders and could determine who could and could not enter their land.

American Vision blog continues,

“There was though, another critical component to God’s open door policy. Those that did immigrate into Israel and lived as residents could not hold civil office as a judge. They could enjoy the blessings through submission to external laws but could not judge in the civil realm. This could only change if they professed that Israel’s God was their God and were circumcised.

Again, this was critical. Someone who was not in covenant in the visible community of God’s people, professing Jehovah’s Lordship and authority over them, could not exercise temporal authority over others. This includes their ability to vote. (Voting is rendering judgment against those who hold office.) Practically this means that if you did not profess God’s Lordship over you for all eternity, you would be restrained from having a voice among his people temporally. In order to preserve the purity of his people and blessings that come from living according to his laws, you would be restrained from civil authority.”

Bret responds,

This is all true but there are a couple other components that the American Vision blog is missing and that is important to this discussion. First, is the fact that a stranger and an alien could never own land in the Israelite community. Land was to be kept within the Tribes and returned to the various Tribal ownership upon every Jubilee. This provision ensured that the alien and the stranger (ger) would never rise higher than the native born.

“The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia” offers,

The Ger.

This word with its kindred verb is applied with slightly varying meanings to anyone who resides in a country or a town of which he is not a full native land-owning citizen; e.g., the word is used of the patriarchs in Palestine, the Israelites in Egypt, the Levites dwelling among the Israelites (Deuteronomy 18:6 Judges 17:7, etc.), the Ephraimite in Gibeah (Judges 19:16). It is also particularly used of free aliens residing among the Israelites, and it is with the position of such that this article deals.

Secondly, the ger, if bond servants, were not released in the Year of Jubilee. This again is suggestive that distinctions were maintained between Native born and ger (Exodus 12:43,45; Leviticus 25:45,46).

All of this is suggestive that we need to be very very careful when we seek to translate Old Testament immigration reality from OT Israel to 21st century Immigration issues in the States. Would American Vision blog support Strangers coming here with the stipulation that they could never own land? Would American Vision blog support unfettered immigration if the condition was known before hand that the immigrant would always and forever be known as “ger?”

American Vision blog,

“To do otherwise would be to leave a crack in the door and the potential for an ethical invasion from within the camp. Don’t miss this concept. If my god is different than your god, I will inherently work towards a competing law-order. My god will skew my ability to render judgment according to the law of your god. In a practical and organizational sense it would be a structural, judicial compromise with God’s sovereignty. This competing law-order would no-doubt be a stumbling block given the sinful nature of man. There is only one alternative to God’s law. It is man’s. So, in essence, to give an outsider an inside voice would be to tempt the entire nation with the opportunity to captain their own ship rather than leave God in control.

In Israel you had to be a member of the “assembly” or Old Testament church to be a full citizen and judge within the civil realm. Upon formal acknowledgment that you were under God’s eternal sanctions, you could place yourself in the position of carrying out God’s temporal sanctions in history.”

Bret responds,

Here, we appeal again to Rushdoony who taught that the kind of Immigration that is going on now was a immigration that Christians should oppose precisely because it was seeking to establish an alien social order. Rushdoony lectured,

“… The continuing purpose of American history, according to President Johnson is union, union of the races, closer union of the states to the federal union. It is also civil rights, federal aid, the unity of man with the world he has built, the United Nations, the New Immigration policy, and the Great Society.’

Rushdoony understood what we fail to understand and that is that the immigration policy cobbled together in 1965 and which still guides our policy today is a policy intent on Humanistic Union. This is why Biblical Christians must oppose this immigration folly right now. This immigration policy, as Rushdoony knew, was about pushing us nearer and nearer to a Humanist Statist regime where tyrannical centralized control would be established.

Rushdoony, in the same lecture continues on pointing out the now obvious,

“The U.N. charter preamble declares that its purpose is to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to gain fundamental freedom for all, the first chapter declares, without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Disunity is the one great evil. The godhead must be united, and this faith, which appears in the U.N., is a product of a grassroots faith. We see it all around us. We see it in the churches, in the pulpits. We see it in a multitude of private agencies which indeed very often outrun the U.N. in their enthusiasm for this one world state, this new god. But certainly it is a part of the United Nations program, and its IMMIGRATION LAWS is an expression of this policy, to unify mankind.”

Here we find Rushdoony saying explicitly that Churches and Organizations that support the kind of Immigration we are seeing this very day are Churches and Organizations who are “outrunning the U.N. in their enthusiasm for this one world state.”

American Vision blog offers,

“So, if this was such a great system then why did Israel suffer from such a poor track record in history? First of all, guarding the nation from within through limiting citizenship was not a failsafe against national moral decay. This was only one aspect of God’s law. The fundamental principle was one of Lordship. If the people of God ceased to walk according to his statues in any area, they were liable to his judgment. There are no political solutions for sinful rebellion among citizens.”

Bret responds,

American Vision blog speaks about how Israel failed in Christ’s Lordship and yet were we,as Biblical Christians, to support the current Immigration boondoggle we our currently staring at we likewise would be failing in Christ’s Lordship.

Consider again the great Rushdoony when speaking against the 1965 immigration act,

“The purpose of this 1965 Immigration Act law is threefold.

First, it has been described by Senator Javits as the civil rights legislation for the world. Now, had we so described the bill, we would have been accused of misrepresentation, but we have the authority of Senator Javits that this bill is the civil rights legislation of the world. In other words it will establish, as a civil right of any person, anywhere in the world that they have a right to come to the United States, that immigration is no longer a privilege, a right which we hold and which we extend as a privilege to whomever we choose, but a civil right of anyone in the world. This then is its first function.

Its second function is to transfer immigration control from the legislative branch to the executive, so that the control of immigration, which has historically been in the hands of congress will be transferred to the administration.

Third, the law would be basically secondary to the president’s wishes, so that the basic law would be the will of the president, and it really would be a blank check. There would be no effective prohibition of anyone, whether subversive, mentally defective, a prostitute, a pervert, anyone would have the right to come into the country. There would be no effective {?}.

This then, is the nature of the Kennedy-Johnson bill…. The purpose of this immigration policy then is to unify man, to bring about the unity of the godhead. Its purpose, and its premise, is not economic but religious. It is theologically rooted in this religious dream, the United Nations.”

What we are facing right now with the borders on the edge of being extinguished is the full flowering of the 1965 Immigration act that Rushdoony was so animated against. As Biblical Christians should we not be just as animated as Rushdoony was in 1965?

This immigration policy is NOT about economics. It is about expanding the humanist global state by creating the North American Union which is a precursor step to the the global state. This immigration policy serves to capture the country irretrievably for socialism, because this policy will forever entrench the Marxist (Democratic)party as the ruling party. This immigration policy serves to bring socialism to the country because it provides cheap labor which in turns redistributes wealth upwards by 3% annually and so again, turns us ever more into a Marxist state, as the Uber wealthy eliminate the middle class in the push towards Corporatism. This immigration policy serves to socialize the country because it serves corporatism and the fact that people can’t see this merely means that they are not self aware enough of what the humanist globalist elites are doing …. which R. J. Rushdoony understood in 1965.

The American Vision article finishes quite well. I encourage the reader to read the whole thing.

In the end we must keep in mind the necessity to fight for the reality of nations as nations against the humanist global order that Rushdoony warned against.

Wyngaarden understood this as well. I finish with this quote,

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance” (Isaiah 19:25).

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Wyngaarden, pp. 101-102.