5 Terrible "Biblical" Arguments For Border Control

While debating immigration with fellow Christians, I have grown very used to seeing the same bad arguments over and over again. In addition to these five “biblical” reasons to oppose immigration, there is also more abstract reasoning such as common fear and xenophobia. However, out of the attempts to use scripture to justify strict border control, these arguments have been, by far, the most common. 

God Ordains Borders

Much has been made of scripture respecting borders, and, frankly, scripture does make much of borders. Yes, God is Sovereign over boundaries (Jeremiah 31:17), and In fact, God’s Law condemns the man who dares tamper with the boundary markers of his neighbor. 

“You shall not move your neighbor’s landmark, which the men of old have set, in the inheritance that you will hold in the land that the Lord your God is giving you to possess.” Deuteronomy 19:14

In a time before the widespread availability of accurate maps designed by professional surveyors, these landmarks were essential in determining the boundaries between family property lines, tribal territories, and national borders. To move these boundaries would necessarily be an act of theft or, perhaps, even national treason. The clear scriptural and theonomic view is that God respects and honors boundaries. 

We should be very clear about what we are discussing. Borders are objectively and indisputably necessary, but borders do not necessitate restricting the free travel of non-criminals. In essence, there is a categorical distinction between borders and border control. Borders form jurisdictional legal boundaries, while border control physically restricts free travel by the use of force or the threat of force. Borders are a crucial judicial tool in determining proper jurisdictions and, in the case of private boundaries, property rights. However, border control is a perpetual executive action. 

Some strongly feel that having borders without strict border control is untenable or downright bizarre. 

From history, however, we see that this was the standard legal position of most Western nations, including the United States, up until the last hundred and fifty years. The first immigration law passed in the USA was in 1882 and restricted the immigration of Chinese. This means that the USA, somehow, existed for over a hundred years with borders but without any notable border control. Crossing into Canada or Mexico was as easy as crossing from Kansas into Oklahoma. Europe was very much the same, so much so that the idea of presenting identification papers at a border was, for many years, considered a nefarious act associated with Nazi Germany as opposed to a normal part of life. Allowing the free travel of peoples across national borders is a far cry from disrespecting, disregarding, or negating the borders themselves. 

From scripture, though we see texts honoring jurisdictional borders, we have no text prescribing any law or policy restricting the free travel of foreigners across national borders.

“You have fixed all the boundaries of the earth; you have made summer and winter.” Psalm 74:17

One other argument made regarding God ordaining borders is the idea that because God sovereignly ordains borders, then that must necessitate strict border control or else we are opposing God. In an attempt to support this conclusion, the above text is often used and abused. This faulty proof-texting makes about as much sense as saying we are rebelling against God if we get a haircut because God knows the number of hairs on our head. God is sovereign over all things, and he has ordained borders, with or without strict border control, simply because he is God. This text, in particular, has more to do with his supreme sovereignty and knowledge over all things than it has to do with a positive command to enact a modern system of border control policies. 

Following the Pagan Example

Though there are no texts in all of scripture prescribing a law or policy restricting the free travel of foreigners across national borders, there is a text describing this precise policy. This Biblical example of a border control policy is by far the most explicit text we have regarding this often contentious issue. The passages describing this example are powerful, specific, and without a doubt, should play a significant role in how we examine border control and immigration. Jephthah, judge of Israel, describes the events found in Numbers 20:14-21 and Numbers 21:21-24. 

“But when they came up out of Egypt, Israel went through the wilderness to the Red Sea and on to Kadesh. Then Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying, ‘Give us permission to go through your country,’ but the king of Edom would not listen. They sent also to the king of Moab, and he refused. So Israel stayed at Kadesh.

Next they traveled through the wilderness, skirted the lands of Edom and Moab, passed along the eastern side of the country of Moab, and camped on the other side of the Arnon. They did not enter the territory of Moab, for the Arnon was its border.

Then Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon, and said to him, ‘Let us pass through your country to our own place.’ Sihon, however, did not trust Israel to pass through his territory. He mustered all his troops and encamped at Jahaz and fought with Israel.

Then the Lord, the God of Israel, gave Sihon and his whole army into Israel’s hands, and they defeated them. Israel took over all the land of the Amorites who lived in that country, capturing all of it from the Arnon to the Jabbok and from the desert to the Jordan”. Judges 11:16-22

Here we see the Edomites, Moabites, and Amorites displaying the epitome of Biblical border control policy. However, when I say Biblical, I only mean that the policy is found within scripture, not that scripture prescribes the policy. Though many social media pontificators have used this text in favor of their strict border control policies, this text teaches us the exact opposite. These pagan nations were decidedly not being righteous with their border control policies. In a mirror of modern border control policies, Edom, Moab, and finally, the Amorites threatened the sword to anyone who dared cross their boundaries. The Amorites did more than threaten, and Israel conquered them. 

Note here that Israel was not just a few families, but a mass of individuals. Some interpretations estimate the Exodus’ numbers in the millions while other more conservative interpretations number the Israelite nation in the several thousand. Either way, these pagan nations were expected to allow the free travel of at the very least thousands and thousands of foreigners. You can imagine the conservative talking heads characterizing this group as a “hoard of invaders.” 

Why we would use the example of pagan nation’s aggression as a model for immigration policy is beyond me. Yet, some will still unwittingly use this text to justify their border control policies. Suffice it to say we should not follow the example of wicked nations that God judged for their warlike aggression and paranoia.  

The Gibeonite Vetting

In the book of Joshua, we read an example of questioning and vetting. Because we see the conquering army of Israel questioning and vetting a particular group, some have used this text as justification for modern border control policies. Let’s consider the text. 

“But when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and to Ai, they on their part acted with cunning and went and made ready provisions and took worn-out sacks for their donkeys, and wineskins, worn-out and torn and mended, with worn-out, patched sandals on their feet, and worn-out clothes. And all their provisions were dry and crumbly. And they went to Joshua in the camp at Gilgal and said to him and to the men of Israel, “We have come from a distant country, so now make a covenant with us.” But the men of Israel said to the Hivites, “Perhaps you live among us; then how can we make a covenant with you?” They said to Joshua, “We are your servants.” And Joshua said to them, “Who are you? And where do you come from?” They said to him, “From a very distant country your servants have come, because of the name of the Lord your God. For we have heard a report of him, and all that he did in Egypt, and all that he did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon the king of Heshbon, and to Og king of Bashan, who lived in Ashtaroth. So our elders and all the inhabitants of our country said to us, ‘Take provisions in your hand for the journey and go to meet them and say to them, “We are your servants. Come now, make a covenant with us.”’ Here is our bread. It was still warm when we took it from our houses as our food for the journey on the day we set out to come to you, but now, behold, it is dry and crumbly. These wineskins were new when we filled them, and behold, they have burst. And these garments and sandals of ours are worn out from the very long journey.” So the men took some of their provisions, but did not ask counsel from the Lord. And Joshua made peace with them and made a covenant with them, to let them live, and the leaders of the congregation swore to them.

At the end of three days after they had made a covenant with them, they heard that they were their neighbors and that they lived among them. And the people of Israel set out and reached their cities on the third day. Now their cities were Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath-jearim. But the people of Israel did not attack them, because the leaders of the congregation had sworn to them by the Lord, the God of Israel. Then all the congregation murmured against the leaders.” Joshua 9:3-18

The argument is that it is legitimate to set up restrictive governmental border control procedures simply because Joshua asked the Gideanites questions. It is no surprise that there are several glaring issues with this application of the text. 

First, the Gibeonites were not immigrants. The Gibeonites were residents of the land. Joshua and the Israelites were the righteous conquerors.  

Second, the Gibeonites were under special judgment by God and does not stand as a normative principle for how to treat other nations or peoples. Joshua was conquering according to the special instructions of God concerning the Holy Land. Joshua was not running about slaughtering people arbitrarily, nor was he targeting foreign lands not occupying the Holy Land. The Gibeonites, therefore, cannot serve as a normative standard for public policy, but rather as an example of God working especially throughout history. 

Third, Israel’s “vetting” was not directed towards determining hostility; instead, establishing the people’s covenantal status in the Holy Land was the goal. Were they refugees from a far off land, or are they to be devoted to destruction before the Lord? Because perceived hostilities were not the basis for any “vetting,” no carte blanche “for the greater good” principle can be ripped artificially from this text.

Using the same logic, we could conclude that it is legitimate for the state to detain any person at any time for any reason. This argument proves far too much. 

Sojourner vs. Foreigner

Some have come with a so-called “scholarly” argument insisting on a strict distinction between different Hebrew words for “sojourner.” Most cite this paper from The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) as the source of this argument, and thus far, I have been unable to find older sources for this linguistic argument. I should note that CIS is an extreme population control organization with many ties to other organizations with the same population control goals (such as radical environmentalist groups and Planned Parenthood). 

The argument is that the Hebrew word for “stranger” (ger) implies needing to obtain permission or an official invitation to be allowed into Israel.

Pastor Gordan Runyan of Tucumcari, New Mexico, handles this argument well. 

“1. I was unable to find even one Hebrew language resource that would agree with that assertion. I’m sure I don’t have access to every Hebrew lexicon in existence, of course, but checking both Christian sources (conservative, liberal, pro-zion, anti-zion) and Jewish; reading scholars arguing back and forth, etc., the concept of a ger gaining prior permission is absent from everyone’s definitions. I’m open to correction, but from what I have seen, it looks like Hoffmeier’s assertions are unique to himself. 

2. His main case for his assertion that “gers” need official permission is that he thinks scripture shows this definitively by example. Which, of course, is a perfectly legitimate way of establishing a term’s meaning. As D.A. Carson put it in his book on Exegetical Fallacies, “Usage determines meaning.” But as you read the examples he offers, only one really shows anyone receiving a government invitation (that is, when Joseph’s family was invited to live in Goshen.) Even in this instance, however, there is never a connection made between this invitation and the use of the word “ger.” They were in fact invited. Afterwards, they did in fact call themselves “gerim.” But their claiming of that designation fits perfectly fine with all the standard lexical definitions. Meaning, there is no reason to assume they meant anything by “ger” that goes beyond what all the resources say. Unless you have an agenda. (“Ger” means you’re living in a land that is not your peoples’.)

Every other example he gives either has nothing to do with immigration (as in Israel hoping to move their entire nation through Edom) or makes zero mention of permission (the permitting has to be assumed.) 

In fact, one of the latter actually spells disaster for his case. See, he believes that when Moses named his son Gershom, in memorial of his having lived in the land as a “ger,” Hoffmeier speculates that this must mean that he is thinking of his father-in-law’s insistence that Moses stay with them. That was the permission that made him a legitimate “ger.” But if this is the case, then unless that you believe that Jethro was a king (which I don’t think anyone believes) then that means that the invitation of a single individual living in the land is enough to qualify you as a “ger”. I doubt this was the intention (at all) of the Center for Immigration Studies, which published the article.”

Though there are distinctions between foreigners and converts and perhaps foreigner residents and foreigner non-residents, there is no scriptural argument for an illegal immigrant and legal immigrant distinction. Once immigrants cross the border, there may be distinctions, but none of those distinctions have anything to do with gaining permission to enter or barring individuals from entering. This textual argument, although it is often repeated on social media, is not one to be taken seriously and it does not appear to have any support within Church history. 

But the Walls of Jerusalem! 

It is true. Jerusalem had walls and those walls were significant. However, do these walls meet the necessary criteria to serve as a relevant pro-border control example?

The answer is no. These walls, frankly, have nothing to do with immigration or border control policy. Christians must do better than looking at one text that speaks of the importance of a specific wall and then extend that principle flippantly to justify vast swaths of irrelevant scenarios. One does not just look at the mechanistic letter of the law, but the heart and intent of the law. Although scripture speaks of just war and just killing, that cannot be recklessly extended to any war and any killing wherever we deem as fit. That is an abuse of scripture and is precisely what those who make this argument are doing. 

We must look at the ethical purpose and function of the walls of Jerusalem. 

First, one glaringly obvious trait of these walls is that they are not national or even jurisdictional walls, they are city walls. Was the city of Jerusalem attempting to stifle immigration into the city from Israel’s other cities? No. Do we have any textual or historical evidence that these city walls were built to limit any kind of immigration whatsoever? No. 

Second, just like other city walls from this time of history, these were walls used for military defense. The purpose was to protect the city from hostile invasion. Therefore, when modern Mexico decides to raise a hostile army armed with ancient siege weaponry, a border wall may be relevant and justified.   

Some cite Nehemiah 7:3 as a prooftext for restricting immigration. 

“And I said to them, “Let not the gates of Jerusalem be opened until the sun is hot. And while they are still standing guard, let them shut and bar the doors. Appoint guards from among the inhabitants of Jerusalem, some at their guard posts and some in front of their own homes.” Nehemiah 7:3

However, if we are to take this text as a prooftext relevant to immigration (hint: it is not applicable), then all it proves is that immigration should be relegated to the daytime, not at night time. One text concerning a security protocol of a rebuilding city under direct military threat is not a prooftext for immigration policy. 

In short, just saying that “the Bible has walls” is ridiculously insufficient. The Bible also has wars, but that doesn’t justify all wars. Can we seriously, with an ounce of intellectual honesty, say that the purpose of the city walls or the temporary closing of city gates was to restrict sojourners?

Closing

Immigration can be a very contentious issue. Far too often, fear is used against the Church and far too often we are naive and gullible. Party politics and tribalism play too much of a role as well, while instead, we are called to be Christians first. Whatever view we take on immigration, we should be looking to God’s Word as our standard. Although I could spend pages writing about terrorism, economics, xenophobia, fear, and on and so on, there are only two questions that must be answered.

What is our standard?

and

What is the Biblical prescription for closed borders?

These common arguments fail to answer that question and fail miserably.