Justin Taylor interviews OT professor James K. Hoffmeier on his new book, The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible. It’s a bit weighty, but this is a difficult issue with many lives and livelihoods at stake. Here’s an excerpt:
It seems to me that in the public square those who are using the Bible in the immigration debate assume that the Bible endorses the idea of providing sanctuary for illegal aliens. Do you agree?
The OT Law is very clear about the practice of sanctuary or accessing the cities of refuge. The former was for those living in proximity to the Tabernacle or Temple, while the city of refuge were scattered throughout Israel for easier access.
The purpose of sanctuary was not to avoid the law or one’s sentence, but to get a fair trial in the case and only in the case of accidental death (cf. Ex. 21:12-14; Num. 35:11-15, 22-29; Josh. 20:1-9).
So when American cities offer their cities as sanctuary from federal law, or when churches offer their facilities as a refuge for illegal immigrants who have been tried and order deported, they are neither following the letter or spirit of the OT law.
A recent example of this was the case of Elvira Arellano, a woman who had been ordered deported by a judge because of her undocumented status. She was given sanctuary in a United Methodist Church in Chicago for more than a year. In my view, such a practice neither follows the letter or the spirit of the biblical law regarding sanctuary.
Cities of refuge were a trick to get from the old blood feud system into a new system of justice dispensed by judges. According to the Mishnah, it also included an additional component of punishment by exile for negligent manslaughter. Murder was still capital, even if the murderer were to hold on to the altar itself.
However, how is Old Testament law relevant? I thought there was a later tradition of churches granting refuge, which include other reasons than differentiating between manslaughter and murder.
I don’t know of a tradition of refuge in the churches, but it would have no bearing on biblical doctrine. But the OT is relevant because it gives us an idea of God’s point of view on the society he established in ancient Israel. If God had said things to the effect of allowing any and all immigrants to come to us and eat with us, live with us, etc., then Christians in the modern debate would reflect that position (if they understood it).
Well, there are the OT admonitions not to oppress the stranger in your midst, because you were also a stranger in Egypt.
But that’s kind of vague. Hard to make a policy out of it.
I see. I think “cities of refuge” is an irrelevant concept here. They were for manslaughter only, and the people fleeing to them would typically be Israelites.
The relevant concept, as Lars said, was not oppressing the stranger in our midst. In general, the OT seems to accept strangers as living in the land, as long as they obey the same laws as Israelites. They have to rest on Shabbat and refrain from idolatry, but then they’re OK to be there.
Nobody had an INS in those days.