Chapter 1: Out of the Land of Slavery
This chapter will show that Israel’s collective memory was shaped by various events
that the patriarchs and their descendants endured, from their first nomadic journey
(Gen 13:5) to the miraculous exodus from Egypt. The meaning and significance of
gerim, sojourners, as descriptive of the Israelites, will be contrasted with the
wandering of the many people groups of ancient Mesopotamia, as Israel’s own
journey will be seen to have been one of purpose, directed towards a land promised to
the patriarch Abraham. Israel’s initial status as ger (appendix 1:1) will be seen as a
significant pointer towards her own self-identity, and as a profound influence on the
subsequent treatment of aliens within her society. The law codes will be investigated
in the light of Israel’s obligations to the marginalized, and the roots of these laws in
covenant relationship with Yahweh will be recognized as seminal to the nation’s
distinctiveness. The laws will be compared and contrasted with other ancient Near
Eastern documents. Attention will be drawn to the disparities between resident aliens
and foreigners and the derivations of the terminology related to them.
1.1 Israel’s self understanding
The biblical records emphasize the uniqueness of Israel’s identity as the nation
chosen and saved by Yahweh (Exod 6:6-7). The stories in Genesis concern a
particular people - group, the family of Abraham, and draw attention to the two most
important facets of their history, patriarchal wandering and exiled captivity. These
become foundational to Israel’s self-understanding, reinforced by the earliest creeds
that encouraged the nation to reflect not only on her past, but on her conduct towards
11
humanity as a whole, including the foreigners within her own society. It must not be
assumed that these concepts were realised immediately. The embryonic nation that
left Egypt accompanied by a “mixed multitude” (Exod 12:38) was in transition, free
from slavery but yet to reach her promised land. It was during her sojourn in the
desert that the collective memories of God’s covenantal promises to Abraham, and
Israel’s liberation from Egypt, would begin to dominate and define her history and
the covenant at Sinai would shape her identity. “The latter marked the first major step
forward toward the birth of Israel as a nation . . . [and] was the seal of Yahweh’s
choice of the people which went back to the time of Abraham.”1
1.2
Called for a Purpose
1.2.1
The Call of Abraham.
Abram was already hundreds of miles from his ancestral home, “the urban-based
cosmopolitan culture of central Mesopotamia,”2 when he heard God’s call in Haran,
with its promise of blessing and inheritance: “I will make of you a great nation, and I
will bless you . . . [T]o your offspring I will give this land.”(Gen 12:2, 7). His
response led to the abandonment of family ties, cultural well-being and, most
significantly, the protection of the many gods of his polytheistic background. The
covenantal blessings were not unconditional: Abraham was given to understand that
his descendants’ inheritance would be hard won, as “strangers (gerim) in a country
not their own . . . enslaved and ill-treated for four hundred years” (15:12, 13). With
the invitation to Abraham “walk before me and be blameless” (17:1, 2), the patriarch,
and through him the nation of Israel, was called to a life in which every step was to be
1
D.J. Wiseman, “Introduction,” Peoples of Old Testament Times (ed. D.J.Wiseman; Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1973), xxi.
2
Victor H. Matthews, Old Testament Turning Points, the Narratives that Shaped a Nation (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 39.
12
taken looking to God. Thus Abraham’s family was distinct from other Near Eastern
gerim or even hapiru / habiru (see 1. 2. 3 below), chosen from a settled environment
for a specific purpose “to walk in obedience and faith. . . [in] dynamic ongoing
relationship.”3 Whilst Spina asserts that the patriarchs’ wandering life-style was not
nomadic for purely pastoral reasons but “because they had become personae non
grata . . . compelled to flee because of pressures which were directly or indirectly
applied . . . travelling about in search of a place where they could settle down and
raise their families in peace,”4 Brueggemann emphasizes the self-determination of
their development, observing that Abraham’s “intergenerational family” is
collectively remembered by his later descendants as “the peculiar and decisive carrier
of the promissory faith of Israel.”5
The choices that Abraham made are indicative of decisions that form a constant
theme throughout Israel’s history, although his own faith and obedience are not
necessarily emulated by his descendants. This becomes apparent in the patriarch’s
dealings with his nephew Lot, who chose to dwell in fertile land close to Sodom, the
abode of evil men (Gen 13:13), in Isaac’s decision to dwell as a ger, sojourner, with
Abimelech (26:3) because of famine - one of the most frequent reasons for becoming
a sojourner in the ancient Near East 6- and Jacob, the obed -Aramean (Deut 26:5),
who chose to deceive his father (Gen 27:1ff.) and cheat his brother (25:29-34).
3
Kent E. Brower, Holiness in the Gospels (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2005), 123.
Frank A. Spina, The Concept of Social Rage in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East (Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan, 1977), 198.
5
Walter Brueggemann, “The Ancestors,” Reverberations of Faith (Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2002), 1.
6
D. Kellermann, “gûr,” TDOT 3: 439-449.
4
13
1.2.2 Joseph in Egypt
Before the famine had forced Jacob to leave Canaan, Joseph had fallen victim to his
brothers’ jealousy and had been sold into slavery (37:12 ff). Nevertheless, as he was
taken into forced exile in Egypt, God’s guidance emerged with great clarity in his
life, as his father and brothers sought food in Egypt (47:4) and became resident aliens
there. As Pharaoh’s chief steward over the whole land Joseph was the means of
blessing both to his family and to Pharaoh, and became instrumental in the advance of
God’s purposes in the wider narrative of Israel’s history (41:41).
1.2.3 Hebrews
What links the term “Hebrew” with “Israelite”? In the slave-laws of Exod 21:1 “the
term was [already] losing its wider connotation and becoming identified with the
Israelite,”7 but this had not always been the case. Pharaoh referred to the resident
alien Israelites in Egypt as Hebrews distinguishing them from Egyptians, and
implying an inferior status (Exod 1:11).8 At the time of Israel’s exodus from Egypt
hebrew was a generic term for “an ethnic group . . . [denoting] disadvantaged
peoples.”9 Whilst there is not an exact correlation, there may well be links with the
more widely used Akkadian terms habiru/ hapiru, “thought to mean a population
element of fugitives and outlaws”10 and found “in sources from all over the ANE in
the 2nd millennium B.C.”11 There is evidence in the Amarna Letters to suggest that
the term was used pejoratively, not only of outlaws but of officials from neighbouring
foreign countries.12 Amarna is also one of the sources from which descriptions of
7
Childs, Exodus, 468.
H. Cazelles, “The Hebrews,” Peoples of Old Testament Times (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973).
9
Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), 468.
10
Niels P. Lemche, “Hebrew,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 3: 95.
11
See Lemche, “Habiru, Hapiru,” ABD 3:6-8, for a fuller treatment of the subject.
12
James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1969) 486-7.
8
14
foreigners as dependent slaves are drawn.13 Etymological evidence sees habiru as the
more authentic version of the two words, leading to the connection with hebrew and
therefore the conjecture that “the rise of the Israelite nation cannot be separated from
the social upheavals . . . of which the habiru/ hapiru movement is evidence.”14 These
“social upheavals” describe a phenomenon which “increased in force during the MB
[Middle Bronze] and LB [Late Bronze ages]”15 when a huge number of people
became vagrant for reasons that included debt, leading to the threat of slavery.
Lemche notes that one of the root causes may have been “the growing centralization
of the state administration”16 in which the rights of the ordinary citizen became
diminished. Thus it is probable that the “mixed multitude” that accompanied the
Israelites in their flight from Egypt were hoping for protection amongst Israel’s tribes.
1.3 The Exodus
1.3.1 Yahweh’s Power
God’s destruction of the Egyptians and the deliverance of his people at the Red Sea
were the defining moments in Israel’s history and were to hold a perpetual place in
the nation’s collective memory. From the account of slavery in Egypt (Exod 2:23-25)
through to the song of deliverance (15:1-18) this was forever a reminder of Yahweh’s
“immense sovereign power over Pharaoh . . . and intense commitment to Israel.”17
Clearly other people who had attached themselves to the community were also saved
(Exod 12:38).18 Brueggemann understands this as “an engine for Israel’s continuing
13
“At least one letter refers to them (apiru) as former slaves.” John Drane, Introducing the Old
Testament, (Oxford: Lion, 2000), 60.
14
Lemche, Hebrew, 95.
15
Lemche, Habiru, Hapiru, 9.
16
Lemche, Habiru, Hapiru, 9.
17
Brueggemann, Reverberations, 72.
18
“The “motley group” (Ex.12:38) that accompanied the Israelites . . . may well be an accurate
reflection of a process [found] also in the narratives of conquest and settlement . . . [concerning those]
15
interpretive imagination”19 that becomes paradigm for “other occurrences in [Israel’s]
life and tradition [that] are presented as replications of the exodus event,”20 including
the crossing of the river Jordan (Josh 4: 23-24) and the return of Israel from exile in
Babylon (Isa 43:16-21).
1.3.2 Resident aliens and foreigners.
References have already been made to the patriarchs as gerim (1. 2. 1) denoting their
status as sojourners or “resident aliens.”21A fuller explanation of this term will clarify
further material in this chapter. Ger and gerim, derived from the Hebrew verb gûr “to
travel or to stay in a foreign territory” generally referred to travellers, or temporary
residents in the community. For example, Abraham as a sojourner depended on
Abimelech as his patron for the hospitality and protection traditionally given to the
guest.22 Mauch notes that sojourners “occupied a position between . . . the native born and the foreigner . . . [lacking] the protection and benefits ordinarily provided
by kin and birthplace.”23 It has already been noted that the Israelites were gerim in
Egypt, but their status changed to slaves under Pharaoh’s oppressive regime (Exod
6:6).
Other words used for the foreigner in the OT: zar, ben nekar, nokri have negative
connotations, implying “the non-belonger, irreducibly ‘the other.’”24 An example of
who became Israelite by theological rather than biological descendency,” John I. Durham, “Exodus,”
Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word Books, 1987),172.
19
Brueggemann, Reverberations, 72.
20
Brueggemann, Reverberations, 72.
21
Frank A. Spina, “Israelites as gērîm, ‘Sojourners,’ in Social and Historical Context,” in The Word of
the Lord Shall Go Forth (ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983),
321- 335.
22
Details about Israel’s hospitality laws can be found in Victor H. Matthews and Don Benjamin,
Social World of Ancient Israel 1250-587 BCE (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), 83-87.
23
T.M. Mauch, “Sojourner,” IDB 4:397.
24
Christopher T. Begg, “Foreigner,” ABD 2: 829.
16
the difference between the ger and ben nekar is found in Exodus where the Passover
ordinances forbid participation for the foreigner, ben nekar (12:43) unless accepted as
a ger, and circumcised with all the males in the family (12:48). Boundaries are set in
Torah between the Israelite and the stranger, nokri, “who is not your brother” (Deut
17:15), although this does not necessarily imply hostility.25 The fundamental
differences between the nokri and the ger lay in issues of integration: the temporary
foreign traveller did not get involved in Israel’s socio-religious culture whereas the
resident alien became “semi-assimilated.”26 The provisions made in Torah for the ger
anticipated the time when Israel would be resident in Canaan and would themselves
accept some of the remnants of indigenous groups as resident aliens.
1.4
Covenant and its implications for the Alien
1.4.1 Covenant as God’s faithfulness
Moses, like Abraham before him, was called for a purpose. His rescue as a baby,
when he was “drawn out” of the water (Exod 2:10),27 his experience as a ger in
Midian (Exod 2:21 ff.), and his commission by God to lead the Israelites out of Egypt
(3:10) are all indicative of a life bound up in the greater purposes of Israel’s history
“under the care and protection of a loving and all-powerful God.”28 The Sinai
covenant, given through Moses to Israel, reinforces and carries forward the
commitment first made by God to Abraham. The Ten Commandments summarize the
values of truth and justice that were to permeate all areas of Israel’s life as “the
guidelines for an alternative community that is completely contrasted to that of the
25
B. Lang, “nkr,” TDOT, 9: 423-431
B. Lang, “nkr,” 423-431.
27
Moses “sounds like the Hebrew for ‘pull out.’”(Exod 2:10, footnote, GNB)
28
Drane, Old Testament, 57.
26
17
pharaoh.”29 Whilst response was not something that God demanded of Israel, his
faithful commitment to his people and the demonstration of his power in saving them
from Pharaoh (Exod 6:2-8), were to evoke reciprocal commitment and obedience that
characterizes the laws throughout Torah. Rendtorff observes:
In the texts which speak of the covenant with the patriarchs and the
deliverance from Egypt, God’s promise and his helping and saving acts are
dominant. In other texts, beginning above all with Israel’s encounter with God
at Sinai, the obligation which God laid on the Israelites, and the observance of
which he requires, comes to the fore. Nevertheless, a closer examination
shows that there is no antithesis between these two aspects.30
It will be seen below that exhortations to Israel to show kindness to resident aliens are
invariably accompanied by reminders of the nations’ own history as gerim in Egypt
(appendix 1:2).
1.4.2
The Book of the Covenant
The Book of the Covenant (Exod 21-23), a covenant treaty document, expresses
Israel’s relationship to God “in terminology already familiar to them from the general
cultural background.”31 Its “remarkable commitment to justice for the socially
vulnerable”32 was immediately demonstrated (22: 21-2), as the wider group that had
accompanied Israel was included in her Passover celebrations. This commemoration
of Israel’s deliverance was to embrace the whole community, provided that the
requirements of the circumcision law were met by all (12:48). In this seminal text, the
gerim are included with the other poor members of society, the widows and orphans.
The gerim are also incorporated in Israel’s observation of Sabbath rest (20:10; 23:12).
The centrality of Yahweh’s relationship with Israel is emphasised by explicit
29
Brueggemann, Reverberations, 50.
Rolf Rendtorff, The Covenant Formula (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 84.
31
“The closest . . . parallel to Israel’s covenant with God is the unilateral ‘sovereignty’ type of treaty
between a monarch and a subject people . . . [e.g.] in the treaties made by Hittite and Assyrian kings.”
Alan Cole, Exodus, TOTC (Leicester; IVP, 1973), 25-6.
32
Brueggemann, Reverberations, 20-1.
30
18
instructions for the construction of the Tabernacle, the place of God’s presence in the
midst of Israel (Exod 33:14).33
1.4.3 The Priestly Code
Elements of the Priestly Code are found in Numbers and the twelfth chapter of
Exodus, but the major part of this significant legal document is in Leviticus and
contains “the regulations by which the religious and civil life of [Israel] was to be
governed once the land of Canaan was occupied,”34 thus anticipating in details that
include Israel’s treatment of gerim, the time when the identity of these resident aliens
would be the remnants of the Canaanites and other tribes yet to be conquered. Most
of the material pertaining to the resident alien is found in the second part of Leviticus
where the emphasis is on ethics, morality and holiness. The love that Israelites are to
show to one another is to be the yardstick by which regard for the alien is measured
(Lev 19; 33, 4). How is this love demonstrated? The Priestly code takes up and
develops material from the Covenant code (Exod 23:9) concerning Israel’s
relationship with the alien in terms of protection: the safeguard of his judicial rights
and the constraints of the law are as for the native (Lev 16:22; 24:22). Participation in
religious ritual and worship is also ensured. Following the initial call for circumcision
(Exod 12:19, 48-9), the alien, with the native, must fulfil the requirements of fasting
and Sabbath observance (Lev 16:29). This guarantees his permanent inclusion as a
participant with the native in sacrificial rites, “you and the alien are alike before the
Lord” (Num 15:8-16). As vulnerable members of society, the gerim share benefits
with other impoverished people, including gleaning rights (Lev 23:22).
33
34
Cole, Exodus, 39.
R.K.Harrison, Leviticus, TOTC (Leicester: IVP, 1980), 14.
19
In a significant passage towards the end of the Priestly code, the relationship between
God and Israel is described in terms of ownership, using the metaphor of slavery.
Israel’s designation is as the ger in God’s land. Thus the people are not allowed to
sell the land (Lev 25:23), and any families compelled to sell under economic duress
would have their land restored in a year of Jubilee, ensuring the preservation of the
socio-economic fabric of Israel’s family life.35 Israel is distinguished from her
resident aliens in regard to both land tenure and to ownership of property. Israelites
held in slavery must be redeemed, but the children of the gerim born in the land, who
were not distinguished as God’s special possession, could become slaves in
perpetuity (25:39-55).
1.4.4 Deuteronomic Code
The obligations of Israel to the alien in the Deuteronomic code serve to summarise
and extend the previous laws. God’s impartiality was to be displayed by his people in
the favour that they showed to the defenceless.The holistic embrace of egalitarian
principles cover all aspects of life, including religious (Deut 16:11,14), domestic
(24:19), protective (24:14) and legal (1:16) The divine blessings include gleaning
rights, and a share in the tithe of the firstfruits equal to that of the Levites and the
poor. Deuteronomy’s “hortatory” style, “that of an orator addressing his congregation
with words designed to move them to obedience”36 makes explicit use of motivations
to advance this response37 (appendix 1:3). Mauch draws attention to the primary
motive that concerns the ger in Deuteronomy, namely Israel’s collective memory of
35
Christopher J. Wright, The Mission of God (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006) 293.
Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT (Grand rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 17.
37
A motivation clause is one that presents the advantages of keeping a law, or gives a clear reason why
it should not be broken. See Houten, Christiana van, The Alien in Israelite Law ( Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic
Press,1991) ,166 ff.
36
20
her slavery and the redemption that followed (26:5).38 Other motivations are
connected with Sabbath laws. These are treated in several different ways in the
Pentateuch: in the Priestly code there is an emphasis on ritual purity (Lev 16:29,30)
but in Deuteronomy the appeal is connected to humanitarian instincts “so that they
[servants, animals, the alien]may rest as you do”(Deut 5:14).
Gerim could never become completely independent as God’s land was given to Israel
alone (Lev 25:23). However, as the beneficiaries of Israel’s tithe, the gerim were
assured of economic protection (Deut 14: 28-29). Brueggemann describes this turn of
events as the “recharacterization of the economy . . . [as] the generosity of YHWH is
matched by Israel’s gratitude that results in its own derivative generosity.”39
Although the status of the ger and the native Israelite was not equal, Israel’s resident
aliens were still required to conform to covenant regulations as the benefits of the
covenant depended on the total participation of the community (29:10-13).40 This
whole-hearted participation was to be a witness to God’s particular calling of his
chosen people, so that “all the peoples on earth will see that you are called by the
Name of the Lord, and they will fear you” (28:9, 10). The fame of Yahweh is at stake
in Israel, and none of those who live within her shadow must be a threat to this
principle.41
38
Mauch, “Sojourner,” IDB 4, 398.
Walter Brueggemann, “Deuteronomy,” Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 2001), 162-3.
40
Mauch, “Sojourner,” IDB 4, 398.
41
Wright, Mission, 258.
39
21
1.5
Comparison of Law Codes.
1.5.1 Biblical and Mesopotamian
Influences from other ANE codes, notably those of the Hittites, Babylonians and
Hammurabi, have been observed in the Biblical codes.42 Noting that the
distinctiveness of Israel’s laws stemmed from her covenantal relationship with
Yahweh, von Rad observes: “When we compare them with non-Israelite legal
statements from the ancient NE we are often able . . . to establish the superiority of
these legal statements in the social realm. Israel took pains to achieve the legal
equality of everyone before the law.”43 However, marked similarities between Israel’s
laws and those of other Mesopotamian nations must be explored before superiority
can be assumed.
The most striking similarity is found between the structure of the covenant form and
the vassal treaties of the Hittite and Assyrian empires, which, like the Deuteronomic
code, include blessings and curses and instructions for public reading.44 Material
advocating the defence of the poor can be noted in Hammurabi (24 b: 61)45 where
orphans and widows are mentioned in language similar to Deuteronomy 10:18,19,
although the Hammurabi statements are “not regulated by the case laws, but . . . part
of a [prologue] . . . made by the king.46 Walton accepts that there are superficial
similarities in “the ‘content, form and function’ of Mesopotamian law codes . . . but
42
Johannes P. Pedersen, Israel, Its Life and Culture (2 vols.; London: Oxford University Press, 1946),
1:378-410.
43
Gerhard von Rad, God at Work, (trans. John H. Marks, Nashville: Abingdon; 1980) 184
44
Wright, Christopher J. “Deuteronomy,” NIBC, 3.
45
Moshe Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient near East, (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1995), 42.
46
Van Houten, The Alien, 34.
22
substantial differences.”47 Two differences stand out, firstly in the form of the
Hittites’ vassal treaties, which are secular political documents whilst the Biblical
covenant laws stem from God’s intervention in Israel’s history. The “priority of grace
and divine action within the covenant framework . . . becomes more and more
apparent.”48 Secondly, there are no details to show the inclusion of foreigners in the
Hammurabi material concerning the poor. Brief references to slaves compare
unfavourably with Israel’s law codes, pronouncing a death sentence on fugitive
slaves, and severe punishment, possible death, for a ‘seignior,’ master, who is guilty
of harbouring someone else’s slave.49 Concern for the well-being of Israel’s gerim
differs significantly, in that a runaway slave will not only be protected from his
former master but will have some say in his relocation (23:15,16 ). Finally the laws in
Torah that include gerim in the community’s celebrations and Sabbath observance
have no parallels elsewhere.50 Thus von Rad’s assertion is correct inasmuch as
Israel’s laws contain inclusions of social protection for the alien that is not found
elsewhere. This “eminently brotherly legislation is to be understood not as . . . natural
right . . . but rather as regulation for community.”51
1.5.2 Biblical and ancient Greek
Comparisons with ancient Greek laws are unsatisfactory for two reasons: records are
obscure before the fourth century B.C., and the autonomy of the city states required
individual policies, thus making generalisations difficult. Blenkinsopp writes that the
47
John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1989), 88; 90-2.
48
Wright, Deuteronomy, 3.
49
Pritchard Ancient Texts, 166 (citing Hammurabi 15-19).
50
Van Houten’s search for “laws which would regulate how the citizens of the land are to treat an
outsider . . . yielded nothing in the Mesopotamian legal collections.” The Alien, 34.
51
Von Rad, God at Work, 185.
23
laws for metokoi, “the resident aliens of Athens,” 52bore some resemblance to Israel’s,
but that the gerims’ treatment was noticeably better. Metokoi at the time of Israel’s
settlement were most probably from other Greek states and not real foreigners, and as
long as they paid taxes, were generally well treated. Like the gerim, they were not
allowed to own land, but unlike gerim they were forced to pay for the right to trade,
and had to be registered as residents without receiving all the benefits of citizenship.
“The status of the metic suffered from a number of obvious limitations as compared
with that of a citizen:”53 the murder of a metic was treated as “involuntary
homicide;”54 metokoi were not allowed any political rights; failure to pay taxes
resulted in slavery. Writing in the fourth century B.C., Plato referred to typical Greek
legislation as “despotic prescription,”55 and Bickerman commented “an Athenian
contemporary of Ezra would be astonished to hear that he has to love the metics.”56
As previously suggested, the absence of goodwill towards the slave or the metic
compared with the protection of the gerim constitutes the main distinction between
Israel’s ethics and those of other ancient Near eastern societies. Contemporary society
is inclined to dismiss Biblical laws as restrictive but their inclusion of gerim in the
same list as the fatherless, widows and unemployed clergy (Deut 14:29; 24:19) and
the inclusion of all these vulnerable groups as the landless beneficiaries of the landed
(15:7-11), affirms Yahweh’s commitment “to neighbourly justice in the covenant
community.”57
52
Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Yahweh and Other Deities,” Interpretations, Vol.40:4 (Virginia: Union
Theological Seminary, 1986), 354 -366.
53
M.M. Austin, Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece: an Introduction, (London: B.T.
Batsford, 1977), 100.
54
Austin, Ancient Greece, 100.
55
For further information see S.Dean McBride, Jr. “Polity of the Covenant People,” in A Song of
Power and the Power of Song. (ed. Duane Christensen; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 3:71 n.22.
56
Bickerman cited in Blenkinsopp, Yahweh, 366.
57
Brueggemann, Deuteronomy, 166.
24
Summary
Yahweh’s promises of blessing to the Israelites were universal in intent. Their selfidentity was the key to the way in which they treated others and was intrinsic to their
integrity as a nation (Deut 14:29). God’s compassion for the dispossessed and
impoverished of society was conspicuous within laws that stemmed from covenant
relationship and required the response of willing obedience. This was to be
demonstrated in every aspect of life and included the gerim within the circle of the
poor and vulnerable, a principle that would have reciprocal blessings for the nation
25
Chapter 2: Integration and exclusion
The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the identity of gerim within Israel’s
established community, and to see the extent to which the nation’s response to
covenant commitment alternatively promoted or undermined her treatment of resident
aliens. As the channels of God’s word, the prophets will be seen to have played a
crucial role, exemplifying God’s generosity to outsiders, alerting the nation to her
apostasy and condemning her oppression of the poor and the alien. The loss of
Israel’s land and the destruction of the temple constitute the lowest points in her
history. However, God’s mercy and grace, never completely removed in spite of the
judgements poured out on Israel, are evident in the return from exile, and in the
prophesies concerning temple restoration, that foretell a greatly increased inclusion of
outsiders in Israel’s worshipping community.
2.1 Canaanite gerim
After Israel’s conquest of Canaan, the Canaanites were not completely driven out.
The Israelites’ memory of their former slavery was a constant reminder of Yahweh’s
salvific intervention, but as they moved in to possess the land, the remnant of
indigenous Canaanites became gerim, resident aliens within the conquering nation.
The narrative in Judges 1:27-35 lists a number of partial conquests whereby the
Canaanites remained within the territories occupied by Israel, “a great class of fellow
citizens . . . not born Israelites, but [attached] . . . to the Israelitic community,”58 and
reduced to a penurious existence that “occupied an intermediate position between the
free Israelitic burghers and the slaves.”59
58
59
Pedersen, Israel, 1:40.
Pedersen, Israel, 1:40.
26
In spite of the polytheism of her ancestors, Israel’s allegiance was to be totally given
to Yahweh (Deut 5:7). Her distinctive monotheism was still in the early stages of
development and she was easily exposed to the temptations of syncretism and
idolatry from the surrounding nations. Pedersen notes that although the gerim were to
enjoy the same privileges as the widows and fatherless (Lev 23:22), the admonitions
to love the Canaanite gerim “recur in writings full of hatred . . . against the Canaanite
spirit.”60 To the polytheistic Canaanites, Yahweh might have been just another god,
the national deity of the invaders, “co-opted into the Canaanite pantheon, which
according to one reckoning consisted of seventy divine beings.”61 Israel was exhorted
to accept her resident aliens but had been warned that the Law would not countenance
any assimilation of their “detestable practices” (Deut 18:12).
2.2
Developments in Israel
2.2.1 Gibeonites
Two early accounts in the nation’s history give clear indications that the destruction
of the indigenous nations was not wholesale. The first of these accounts concerning
Rahab (Josh 2,6), challenges the implementation of herem, the wholesale destruction
that Joshua was required to perform.62 Evidence that Joshua upheld this law to the
letter (Josh 10:40) is contradicted by the preservation of Rahab and her family who
became accepted into the citizenship of the nation (6:25). Creach comments that the
tensions present in this story are representative of the many circumstances where law
could not be applied “like a set of assembly instructions.”63
60
Pedersen, Israel, 1:41.
Blenkinsopp, Yahweh, 358.
62
For theological details of herem see Brueggemann, Reverberations, 91.
63
Jerome F. Creach, “Joshua,” Interpretations, (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2003), 67.
61
27
Rahab is depicted as resourceful and astute – characteristics displayed also by the
Gibeonites, a neighbouring tribe who were alarmed by the news of Joshua’s victories
and used cunning to save themselves (Josh 9). Hearing of the devastation of Jericho
and Ai, the Gibeonites tricked the Israelites into making a treaty with them, by
masquerading as ambassadors from a far country. The agreement was sealed with an
oath, made “in the name of the Lord” (Josh 9: 19), and therefore binding.
Brueggemann suggests that the “humane treatment of [more distant] enemies . . .
may indicate a rationale”64 in the legal prerequisites to destroy the nations (Deut
20:14-15). Like Rahab, the Gibeonites survive, “preserved because of their wily
action.”65 Unlike Rahab, the status of gerim is not applied, but in accordance with
Israel’s law, they become “subject to forced labour” (Deut 20:10) as “woodcutters
and water-carriers for the entire community” ( Josh 9:21). Creach understands that as
temple servants they were incorporated “into the covenant community,”66 and Blair
takes this idea further still, suggesting that they became the netinim, temple servants,
who replaced the Levites in Ezra’s re-constructed temple (Ezra 2:43; 8:20).67
However, Woudstra refutes this 68 suggesting rather that Joshua needed to make a
clear distinction between the Canaanites and Israelites, and therefore reduced the
Gibeonites “to the position of perennial serfhood instead of . . . allies.”69 Rahab’s
position as a resident alien was more privileged than that of these foreigners, but even
this distinction is not straightforward. As nokrim the Gibeonites should have been
killed, but the combination of their cunning and Israel’s oversight in making a
64
Brueggemann, Reverberations, 91.
Creach, Joshua, 83.
66
Creach, Joshua, 88.
67
Blair, “Joshua,” 243.
68
“Some think these are the later netinim . . . but no good reason exists to associate these with the
Gibeonites.”Marten H. Woudstra, “Joshua,” NICOT 164 n.46
69
Woudstra, Joshua, 164.
65
28
decision without consulting Yahweh (9:14b) led to the Gibeonites’ inclusion in
Israel’s community, and even to the possibility of “a later inclusion . . . in the circle
of the covenant.”70
2.2.2 Response to covenant principles
Other references to gerim in Israel’s Deuteronomistic history are scarce, and mainly
concern individuals.Two stories show how loyalty to Israel’s God and obedience to
the law was a matter of personal conscience rather than ethnicity, the first
demonstrating that the ger was subject to the restrictions as well as the privileges of
Torah.An Amalekite sojourner, possibly a member of Israel’s army, sought to profit
from his discovery of Saul by his spurious claim to have been the dying king’s
assassin (2 Sam 1:6). His status as ger should have been enough to give him
reverence for “the Lord’s anointed”( 2 Sam 1:14) and to prevent him from owning to
Saul’s murder. His character contrasts with the exemplary loyalty of David himself,
who as an exile fleeing from Saul had been unable to harm the Lord’s anointed one (1
Sam 26:23). Rather than rejoicing at Saul’s death, David demanded that the young
man should receive the death penalty himself, thus condemning him for his folly. As
a resident alien, the Amalekite carried greater guilt than if he had been a complete
outsider, when “his culpability would have been less and he might have avoided
death.” 71
In the account of Saul’s death, David’s devotion to Yahweh and loyalty to Torah are
clearly contrasted with the hapless sojourner’s attitudes. This is reversed in the king’s
dealings with Uriah the Hittite, a foreigner whose devotion to Yahweh prevented him
70
71
Woudstra, Joshua, 165.
Mary J. Evans, “1 and 2 Samuel,” NIBC, 140.
29
from violating Israel’s laws (Deut 23: 9). Even David’s repeated attempts to conceal
his own adultery, by giving Uriah the opportunity of sleeping with his wife, failed to
move him, and David arranged his death on the battle field. It is unlikely that David’s
judgement was affected by Uriah’s status as a non-Jew, as other ger were also
included in Israel’s army.72 The fact remains that Uriah, the ger, showed in his
commitment to the Ark of God a loyalty exceeding that of Israel’s chosen king “who
had been anointed as protector of the covenant.”73
2. 3 Israel’s disobedience
Israel’s open borders, representative of God’s grace to the outsider, were to become
abused in Solomon’s reign, as foreigners, known to be nokrim, were assimilated into
society, and given positions of privilege. The alliances that Solomon made with
foreign wives led to his own syncretism (1 Kgs 3:3). Houten indicates that forced
labour under Solomon (1 Kgs 9:15-22) may well have included resident nonIsraelites, resulting in marked differences between the treatment of Israelites and
resident aliens.74 The ensuing civil unrest resulted finally in a division of the kingdom
(I Kgs 11: 1-4;27- 39) and a decline in social justice (2 Chr 10:4-11), and in a nation
where devotion to Yahweh had encompassed all the details of life,75 destabilization
was inevitable.
The accounts of Elijah and Elisha demonstrate a steadfastness of faith in the face of
the nation’s disobedience (1 Kgs 21:17 ff.;2 Kgs 5:2), and the extension of God’s
mercy to individuals from other nations, as they came into contact with Israel’s
72
The list of David’s “mighty men” includes Uriah and Zelek the Ammonite (2 Sam 23; 37).
Evans, “Samuel,” 183.
74
Van Houten, the Alien, 161.
75
“All but one of the instructions about kingship in Deuteronomy 17:16-17 are thus seen to have been
abrogated by Solomon.” Iain W. Provan, “1 and 2 Kings,” NIBC, 87.
73
30
prophets. Elijah as a ger himself, extends the boundaries of God’s manifest power
and mercy beyond Israel into Sidon, “the very heartland of the worship of Baal,”76
and the home of Jezebel, where it might be supposed that Israel’s God had no
authority (1 Kgs 16:31). Elisha is seen to exhibit Yahweh’s care for the widows, the
needy and foreigners (2 Kgs 4,5). The prophet’s encounter with Naaman is significant
- Elisha’s acceptance of Naaman, a temporary visitor, “shows us how prophets again
and again were available to the individual and his needs.”77 His dealings with the
Syrian captain (2 Kgs 5:15-19), are resonant of the inclusion expressed in Solomon’s
prayer for the dedication of the temple: “When a foreigner comes from a distant land
because of your name, and prays . . . then hear in heaven . . . and do all that the
foreigner calls you to so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and
fear you” (I Kgs 8:41-3).
2.4
Decline of Israel’s Spiritual Health
2.4.1 Ezekiel
Ezekiel had seen the efforts of Josiah to restore something of the old Davidic
kingdom to Judah, following the apostasy of its kings.78 He had been a victim of
Israel’s deportation to Babylon and had experienced the distress of Jerusalem’s
destruction whilst in exile. Surrounded by a people who had believed themselves to
be inviolable and who, even in exile, were behaving in ways that showed little
repentance, the prophet pronounced judgement on Israel, and on the nations that had
devastated God’s people. Ezekiel’s dramatic portrayal of Israel’s exiled state (Ezek
12), emphasized the gravity of the situation, and served as a reminder of the gulf that
separated the nation from God’s original intentions – they had lost their homeland
76
Provan, Kings, 133.
Von Rad, God at Work, 191.
78
Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel, (transl. Cosslett Quinn; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 1-48.
77
31
and had returned to the scattered and wandering state of their forefathers. The
allegorical description of Israel’s background as a helpless baby and her rescue and
elevation by Yahweh to royal status (16:1ff) reinforces the appeal to Israel to
remember her past salvation and blessing.79
The gerim do not escape criticism in Ezekiel’s prophecies: just as Israel’s resident
aliens were required to conform to covenant regulations as far as possible (Deut
29:10-13), they are warned about the penalties of idolatry for all participants in the
covenant community (Ezek 14:7). But Ezekiel reserves his most scathing attack for
the wealthy Israelites who have oppressed the foreigners, widows and orphans (22: 7,
29).Their heedlessness of the instructions in Torah concerning the marginalised is
likened by Ezekiel to allowing the walls of their society to crumble (22:30).
2.4.2 Losing the Land
The land as Yahweh’s gift was the guarantee of his covenant and the home where the
sojourners could at last settle down, “the centre of all social, economic and spiritual
security.”80 Exile brought indescribable loss to Israel, not only “an event of
landlessness”81 but the negation of their security and identity. Even the process of
“possessing the land” had depended upon God’s presence with them in covenant
relationship (Judg 11:24; Josh 1:3, 4). Brueggemann observes that “the exile is for the
Bible the sharpest point of discontinuity . . . when every promise [seems] void.”82
However, he notes that although exile seemed to offer no way back, like Israel’s
79
Daniel Block, “Ezekiel,”NICOT (2 Vols.) 1: 471.
Christopher J. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 1-12.
81
Walter Brueggemann, The Land (London: SPCK, 1977), 8-9.
82
Brueggemann, The Land, 9.
80
32
sojourn in the wilderness, it was eventually to become a place where God’s
faithfulness would be displayed.
2. 5 Integration and expulsion
2.5.1 Future inclusion: Ezekiel and Isaiah
This hope is expanded in Ezekiel’s eschatological vision, a “new history . . . rooted in
Yahweh himself and not in Israel.”83 The words from the Holiness Code were
familiar to the Israelites: “The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the
citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land
of Egypt”(Lev.19:33-4). Having condemned Israel’s idolatry and its consequences
both for the alien and all who were oppressed (Ezek 22:7) Ezekiel’s prophecy for
Israel’s future anticipates redemption and inclusion for all nations through the
restoration of God’s chosen people:
Divide this land among your tribes; it is to be your permanent possession.
The foreigners who are living among you
And who have had children born here
Are also to receive their share of the land when you divide it.
They are to be treated like full Israelite citizens . . .
Each foreign resident will receive his share
with the people of the tribe among whom he is living.
I, the Sovereign Lord have spoken. (Ezek 47:21-23 GNB)
Not only are the returning Israelites to regard the gerim as citizens - they are to allott
land to them, as a permanent possession. Not only are gerim now to be brothers in
Israel, but citizens, landowners and members of God’s family. Block observes that
although the Israelites were exhorted to “love the alien as yourself”(Lev 19:34), “such
considerations . . . must have been empty dreams for aliens throughout most of the
83
Brueggemann, The Land, 140.
33
nation’s history, ”84 as their permanently dependant state prevented them from true
equality with the Israelites. Ezekiel’s vision makes the full inclusion of gerim a
reality, with one proviso: this refers to those whose families are established in the
community, not to temporary visitors (Ezek 47:22). This ideal is reiterated by Isaiah
where he prophesies acceptance for all people, irrespective of their past rejection by
the community (Is.56:3-5) Here the concept is broadened to include nokrim,
unacceptable foreigners, and the condition for their acceptance is the wholehearted
response of willing obedience. Thus the focus of access into God’s “house of prayer”
is no longer ethnicity, nationhood or even legality, but the loving response of a
faithful heart (56:6, 7).
2.5.2 Present exclusion: Ezra and Nehemiah
The determination of Ezra and Nehemiah to resist assimilation appears to contradict
the visionary inclusiveness of Isaiah and Ezekiel. During the restoration period,
temple worship became central to the returning nation as once the monarchy had
been.The religious rites and practises of subject nations were tolerated, even
encouraged by the ruling Persians, and Ezra was commissioned to oversee the
regulation of worship and to enforce Jewish laws (Ez 7:25,26).85 As both priest and
scribe (Ez 7:10) Ezra’s determination “to see that the law of the God of heaven was
known and observed in the province of Judah,”86 led to the prohibition of mixed
marriages (10:11) and the exclusion of specified foreigners from the community (Neh
13: 1-3).The leaders of the returning exiles understood that a strict adherence to
Torah was imperative.87 Israel had become gerim because of their disobedience, and
84
Daniel Block, “Ezekiel,” NICOT, 2: 717.
Breneman, Mervin. “Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,” The New American Commentary, 135.
86
Joseph Blenkinsopp, Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament (Oxford: OUP, 1983), 13, 14.
87
For the theological significance of the “remnant,” see Brueggemann, Reverberations, 170.
85
34
the shame that this had caused must not be repeated. Moreover, the land of Judah had
become polluted by the abominations of people who were not resident aliens but
nokrim (Ez 9:11), and as such had no place in the city which was designated as holy.
The book of Ruth may have been written as a reaction to the perceived legalism of
Ezra and Nehemiah, a polemic against the mandatory expulsion of Israel’s foreign
wives(Ezra 10:11), although another view sees it as supporting evidence for the
inclusion of a Moabite in the royal lineage of David (Ruth 4:18-22).88 The inclusion
of the book of Ruth amongst the Megilloth, little scrolls, in the Hebrew Writings,89
suggests a post-exilic dating, although the story is set in the pre-monarchical
framework of Israel’s unique covenant relationship (1:1),90 and as such placed after
Judges in the Christian canon.
2. 5. 3 Ruth and Boaz
The story of Ruth demonstrates the generosity of spirit required of a holy people
(2:1). The manner in which Boaz extends hospitality to Ruth, the Moabitess, and his
part in her elevation to ger evokes Yahweh’s own character “as divine landowner
[who] feeds and protects the Hebrews as guests.”91 “Law for Boaz is Torah [fatherly
instruction from God], not a moralistic legal code.”92 As Boaz works to redress the
two widows’ tragic circumstances, both as go’el, kinsman- redeemer, and levir,
literally “husband’s brother,”93 Naomi is reinstated into a position of dignity and
88
Robert L.Hubbard, Jnr. The Book of Ruth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), citing M. D. Gow,
“Structure, Theme and Purpose in the Book of Ruth” (diss., Cambridge, 1983) pp. 123, 128 et al.
89
H. Eldon Clem, “Megilloth,” ABD 4:680.
90
Brueggemann [2003] argues for a post-exilic dating; Cundall and Morris [1968] take the opposite
view; Hubbard [1988] gives a very comprehensive overview but concludes “there is no decisive
evidence to settle the matter finally.”
91
Matthews and Benjamin, Ancient Israel, 83.
92
David Atkinson, Message of Ruth (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983), 107.
93
Matthews and Benjamin, Ancient Israel, 83.
35
Elimelech’s name is honoured with the provison of an heir. Ruth becomes established
within the covenant people of Yahweh, as Boaz extends to her the hesed, faithful
covenant love, of God, “who stands by the oppressed . . . rescuing them from slavery
. . . [liberating] the captives and offering them a new freedom and hope.”94
Ruth’s role in the story is also significant. Trible regards her actions as heroic:
Ruth stands alone . . . no deity has promised her blessing . . . not even
Abraham’s leap of faith surpasses [her] decision. [She] has broken with
family, country and faith . . . [and] reversed sexual allegiance [by committing
herself] to the life of an old woman rather than the search for a husband . . .
[choosing] another female in a world where life depends on men. There is no
more radical decision in all the memories of Israel.95
Admirable though Ruth’s decision is, Trible seems to neglect the remarkable
impression that Naomi, and therefore Naomi’s God, has already made on the
Moabitess. Ruth’s avowed loyalty to Yahweh is surely not without foundation.
Nevertheless, her determination to accompany Naomi is resonant of journeys
throughout Israel’s history, involving choices that take the nation further towards
liberty or lead her into exile.
Ruth’s story demonstrates the importance of mutual commitment as foundational to
successful integration. By deciding to stay with Naomi, Ruth deliberately embraced
the faith of her mother -in- law (1:16). This is no casual syncretism but is resonant of
Isaiah’s prophetic vision in which foreigners and eunuchs can be admitted to the
worshipping community because they have “joined themselves to the Lord” (Isa
56:3). Thus Ruth’s story can be seen to evince the triumph of mercy over justice as
94
Atkinson, Message of Ruth, 95.
Phyllis Trible, “A Human Comedy.” in God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1978), 173.
95
36
the gulf between nokri and ger, between outsider and insider, is bridged by genuine
devotion to God in response to his demonstrations of grace.
Summary
The ger, initially represented by Israel herself, found a place within the covenant
community that was dependent upon the nation’s faithfulness to Yahweh. Israel’s
inability to adhere to the terms of the covenant was reflected in an assimilation of
heathen practises, when nokrim infiltrated her religious life, and gerim, with the poor
and oppressed of Israel’s indigenous society were neglected or even used as forced
labour. During the exile, Ezekiel spoke of a time when there would be a new
covenant, in which the hopes and expectations of Israel would be fulfilled. The new
covenant would be one of personal change, as God promised to take away stubborn
hearts of stone and cause obedience to grow from within (Ezek 11:19). Even the most
marginalised and despised, nokrim as well as gerim, were promised entry into
Yahweh’s house, providing that they truly turned to him.
37
Chapter 3: No longer aliens
Ezekiel’s inclusive vision was not realised in the era of second temple Judaism.
Ezra’s attempts to preserve Israel’s holiness advocated the exclusion of foreigners
from the worshipping community. This may have contributed to a system that was
more concerned with minutiae than with justice and mercy (Matt 23:23), nevertheless
it will be seen that Jesus’ rejection of legalisms was not a negation of the law itself.
The timeless principles of God’s universal love, formulated in the old covenant, are
shown to be taken up and carried forward into a new and living relationship with God
through Jesus’ redeeming sacrifice at Calvary. The liberated followers of Jesus
become the strangers and exiles on the earth, and empowered by the Holy Spirit are
able to reach out in compassion to the oppressed and marginalised of the world.
3. 1 Jesus’ Identity
Jesus’ messiahship was to be revealed in a way that was markedly different from all
previous expectations. Second Temple Judaism looked for a Messiah to “not only
announce but also . . . enact and embody the three major kingdom themes . . . the
return from exile, the defeat of evil, and the return of YHWH to Zion.”96 As Israel’s
king, the “Son of David”(Isa 9:6) would lead the nation into the dawning of a new
era, and as the “descendant of Abraham” he would fulfil the promise given to the
patriarch that through his seed all the families of the earth would be blessed (Gen
12:1-3).97 The inclusion of non-Israelites in Matthew’s genealogies98 is an intimation
of “a great ingathering, in which some who had thought themselves automatically
96
Norman T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God. (London: SPCK, 1996), 481.
Brower, Holiness, 105.
98
The Matthaean genealogies include two Canaanite women, a Moabitess refugee, and Bathsheba ‘the
wife of Uriah the Hittite’ (Matt.1:2-6).
97
38
included will be left out,”99 and others, from the Gentile nations in “a great
eschatological reversal”100 would share in the kingdom of heaven with “Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob”(Matt 8:11).
3.2 A new kingdom
Jesus’ announcement of a new kingdom was authenticated as he exercised authority,
not as a despotic ruler, but as the one who had the power to forgive sins, to heal the
sick and to enjoy table fellowship with sinners. Matthew draws attention to Jesus as
fulfiller of the law (Matt 5: 17) and as Messianic healer (4: 23-5) but also as the one
who in his humanity revealed his servant heart, giving up all his own rights (8:20)
and surrendering his divinity to become a stranger on earth, “without land, without a
home.”101 Jesus revealed the inclusiveness of God’s love and demonstrated
acceptance of the marginalised and the stranger, through his miracles of healing (8:5)
and in his teaching (5:41 ff). In his declaration of forgiveness he offered a
reconciliation and relationship with God (9: 6) that was not just to be internalized, but
to be the foundation for forgiveness and reconciliation with others (6:14,15).
Jesus’ final discourse in Matthew’s gospel, given before his betrayal and death,
portrays those who showed love to strangers as the true inheritors of his kingdom,
acknowledged by the King himself (25:34). Here, there are no ethnic boundaries as
the disciple’s love for Jesus is measured by the love that he shows to others. This
passage with its qualifying clause “these brothers of mine” (25:40), has been
99
Norman T.Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 430.
.Wright, Resurrection, 430.
101
Gary M. Burge, Whose Land, Whose Promise? (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2003), 174.
100
39
interpreted by some theologians to refer to Jesus’ committed followers.102 Others
favour an interpretation that embraces all those in need.103 Overman notes that the
context in which Matthew wrote his gospel was such that the “community of
believers . . . was clearly a minority with great worries and threats [therefore] . . .
Matthew was stressing care and concern for the members in light of the dangers and
threats they faced daily.”104 Although this passage is often used to promote universal
charity, the suggestion that this was intended as an appeal to the Jewish Christian
community is a more plausible explanation. However, other passages in Matthew’s
gospel show the universal extent of Jesus’ compassion and therefore imply a far
broader hermeneutic (8:5-13; 8:28 -32; 9:20;15:21-28) .Whilst the identity of the
“brothers” may be a matter of debate, what is beyond question is “the identification of
the needy with Jesus the Son of Man.”105
3. 3. Welcoming the stranger
Jesus demonstrated the “starting point [of] a completely new relationship between
God and his people”106 in his relationship with Israel’s “strangers.” Luke places
Jesus’ reading of Isaiah (61:1-2) at the beginning of his ministry, as he identified
himself to the congregation in the synagogue as the living embodiment of Isaiah’s
words (Luke 4:21). As he reminded his listeners of Elijah’s encounter with the
starving widow in Zarephath, and Elisha’s role in the miraculous healing of Naaman,
Jesus added even more weight to Isaiah’s proclamation to the oppressed and
102
A view held by Origen, Augustine and Luther; see W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 429.
103
Davies and Allison, Matthew, 429. Adherents to this view include Chrysostom, Schweizer and
Schnackenburg.
104
J. Andrew Overman, Church and Community in Crisis (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International,
1996), 351.
105
Davies and Allison, Matthew, 430. For further discussion see 428-431.
106
Brower, Holiness, 122.
40
marginalized, by including total foreigners who could not even claim status as gerim.
Luke establishes this principle by including accounts of Jesus’ encounters with people
other than Jews, most significantly with Samaritans (Luke 10:33; 17:16) He reemphasises the point in his final pericope (Luke 24:44-49,) with the imperative that
the gospel must be preached to all nations.
Torah regarded involvement with sinners as contaminating to the Jew.107 The story of
the Good Samaritan presents a serious challenge to Jewish cultural perceptions, as an
outsider is seen to show genuine compassion, whilst those who regard themselves as
the rightful inhabitants of the kingdom of God will not risk ritual impurity through
contact with a helpless victim. In response to the question “who is my neighbour?”
(Luke 10:29) Jesus’ reply, “one of the most brilliant miniature stories ever
composed,”108 removes the covenant boundary- line completely, ending with another
loaded question: “which one of these three acted like a neighbour?”(10:36 GNB)
“Loving Israel’s covenant god [sic] meant loving him as creator of all, and
discovering as neighbours those who were beyond the borders of the chosen
people.”109 The Samaritan, the hated nokri, was the one who epitomized God’s grace
and compassion with a heart that “was full of pity” (10:33 GNB).
3.4 No distinctions
Jesus’ own dealings with Gentiles, their subsequent response to his resurrection, and
their participation in the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:17), where
“both Jews and Gentiles were present,” (Acts 2:11) pointed to an ingathering of
Gentile converts from the start. Rather than a conflict of interests between the
107
Wright, Victory of God, 306 n. 237.
Wright, Victory of God, 306.
109
Wright, Victory of God, 307.
108
41
apostles’ missions to the Jews and to the Gentiles, there is a synthesis in terms of the
recognition of the true Israel: “The Christian church did not begin as a new entity on
the day of Pentecost . . . Gentile Christians are part of Israel, not a “new” Israel . . .
they share in the covenant with Abraham . . . not . . . as outsider[s] laying claim to
Israel’s prerogatives.”110
3. 5 The Church as strangers and pilgrims
The redeemed people of God, the Church, are now designated as the exiles of the
world. Recalling Jesus’ rejection by men, the apostle Peter emphasizes the Church’s
identification with her Lord as “aliens and strangers in the world” (1 Pet 2:11). The
Church is also “God’s elect” (1:1b NIV). Electivity and exile are recurring themes in
this epistle, and evocative of Israel’s history. Like Israel before her, the Church is
“brought back” (2:25) and “called out of darkness” (2:9) and in the designation of a
royal priesthood and a holy nation (1 Pet 2: 9-11)111 there is an implicit sense of
purpose: the Church like Israel is called to be different. Peter uses Hosea’s words
“You who were not people at all” (Hos 1:9, 10) in his description of the former
identity of the believers, adding “Now you are God’s people . . . and the recipients of
his mercy.” (1Pet 2: 11, my paraphrase). Having become God’s people in the
tradition of Abraham they are paroikous kai parepidemous - aliens and exiles – on
the earth. Thus God’s elective purpose for his people is not just rescue from
alienation, but a call to become refugees in this world, seeking another kingdom.
The writer to the Hebrews leaves us in no doubt that the Christian story is
inextricably linked with that of Israel, and “given cosmic . . . significance as it is
110
David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991), 96.
“Christians are here described as sharing with Christ in kingship . . . called to reign as well as to
serve.” A.M. Stibbs, The First Epistle General of Peter (London: Tyndale Press, 1971), 104.
111
42
caught up within God’s larger account of history.”112 Abraham and his descendants
are referred to as xenoi kai parepidemoi - strangers and wanderers, who by faith
“were longing for a better country – a heavenly one” (Heb.11:13b, 16). Like them,
Jesus’ followers are to be conscious of their temporary residence on earth, but are
further exhorted to share in the rejection that Jesus endured “to bear the reproach of
associating themselves with One who in Jewish eyes was rightly rejected because he
hung crucified under the curse of God.”113 They are to follow him “outside the camp,
bearing the disgrace he bore. For here we do not have a continuing city, but we are
looking for the city that is to come” ( Heb13: 13,14). Just as exiled Israel “precisely
in its weakness and lowliness, becomes a witness to God’s victory,”114so the Church,
in her willingness to share the reproach of her Lord, fulfils the elective purposes of
God, finally bringing blessing to “all nations on the earth” (Gen.22:18).
3. 6. The Church as Resident Aliens
3.6.1 Relevance of Covenant Principles
The most important event in Israel’s history was her miraculous rescue from Egypt.
As Israel was entreated never to forget her past slavery and exodus, so the Church is
summoned to recount her own place of alienation “separated from Christ and utterly
estranged” (Eph 2: 12) and her reconciliation through his death and resurrection. Only
this perpetual memory can produce the commitment that is necessary to reach out to
the aliens of the twenty first century. It is from this deep understanding of her own
liberation that the Church can appropriate the principles that were given to Israel in
her treatment of the gerim. For Israel these principles were: love for the stranger,
112
Hauerwas, Stanley and William H. Willimon. Resident Aliens (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989),
55.
113
A.M. Stibbs, Hebrews, NBCR, 1216.
114
Bosch, Transforming Mission, 18.
43
generosity, inclusion of the stranger in Israel’s celebrations, and justice. Finally,
Israel was enjoined to remember that everything she had belonged to God. This is
arguably the most crucial principle within the present discussion and merits a
paragraph of its own.
Israel was exhorted to show familial love for the stranger (Lev 19:34), and in the
same way the Church must welcome the refugee and outcast. God’s faithfulness to
Israel was displayed in his unceasing provision, which the nation was privileged to
enjoy and to share generously (Deut 24:19-22).This principle can also become the
experience of the comparatively wealthy contemporary Church within the western
nations as she gives “out of [her] abundance” (Matt 25:29a) to those who have
nothing. The worshipping Church can learn from Israel’s inclusion of gerim in
religious celebrations and festivals (Deut 16:11). The corporate worship of a vibrant
Christian community is not confined to a building or a series of rituals. As God’s
people meet together there is a koinonia115 that warms the heart of lonely strangers,
offering acceptance that elicits a response regardless of religious beliefs.116 A united
body of Christians that offers help and protection without distinctions of race or
status, creates a place of security that reflects the Father- heart of God, demonstrating
the regard that Israel was expected to show to the alien (Deut 24:14, 17) in just
dealings that pre-empted exploitation and gave dignity and respect to the
marginalised.
115
“Koinonia is the anglicisation of a Greek word (κοινωνία) that means partnership or fellowship . . .
used frequently within Christian circles to describe the fellowship and community of Christians.” n.p.
[cited 20 May 2007]. Online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koinonia
116
This comment stems from first-hand experience of Islamic asylum - seekers finding friendship
amongst Christians.
44
3.6.2 Relinquishing rights of ownership
Rather than assuming personal rights of ownership, Israel acknowledged that the land
belonged to God. Although family property was the basis of Israel’s societal order
(Josh 14:9), the law stated that they were but “aliens and tenants” (Lev 25:23).117 In
most societies today private ownership of land and national boundaries are not seen to
be evils in themselves, rather it is pride of possession and the presumed “right” to
property that undermines faith and trust in God, who exhorted his people never to
forget that the land was his gift, not earned by their righteousness (Deut. 9:4 ff).
Bosch warns against a hedonistic mentality within the Church which can render the
gospel “inoffensive and inoperable” until it is no longer radical and counter-cultural
but “just another societal element.”118 Jesus called his followers to relinquish their
rights to ownership for the sake of the gospel (Matt 19:29). It can be suggested that
the measure in which the Church is prepared to surrender these rights will determine
the effectiveness of her engagement with those who have nothing. “There is a major
case for understanding the broken-hearted . . . as those who have been oppressed,
disenfranchised and deprived of their land.” 119
Israel’s response was to be corporate, as covenant holiness depended on the
participation of all members of the community. The corporate commitment of the
Church is constantly invoked in the New Testament (1 Cor 10:17; 12:12; Gal 3; 28)
and essential for effectiveness within a fragmented society. A church that recognizes
the priority of community over individualism can only advance her witness within a
society that is fragmented and isolationist. Hauerwas sees this as mutually beneficial:
“If we offer ourselves to . . . the community . . . of the Church, we will be
117
Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus, (trans. D. Stott; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 382.
Bosch, Believing in the Future, (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995), 57.
119
Brueggemann, Land, 84 n. 31.
118
45
transformed into people more significant than we could ever have been on our
own.”120
The Church’s mandate as the redeemed community is to impact every area of society
with the gospel. However this study must avoid such a broad focus and concentrate
on the Church’s involvement with the aliens and strangers currently seeking refuge in
Britain. The degree to which the British Church has comprehended her own status as
sojourners on earth, and the cultural influences that may have impeded this must first
be assessed.
120
Hauerwas and Willimon, Resident Aliens, 83.
46
Chapter 4: Welcoming the alien
The present response of the British Church to asylum seekers falls short of the ethical
standards expected of Israel in her treatment of the alien, and more crucially, of the
pro-active compassion that Jesus demonstrated and required of his followers.
Why is the Church in Britain less than wholehearted in welcoming the alien? How
has the current inequity arisen without an effective corporate protest from the
Christian community? This chapter will argue that biblical principles of acceptance
and integration can be appropriated through the ministry and witness of the Church,
but that the values that the British church has unwittingly assimilated must be reassessed before a truly Christian response can be suggested.
4.1 Influence of the British worldview on the Church
To the Apostle Peter, the idea that Gentiles could become part of the Church was
unthinkable: indeed it took a revelation from God to challenge his Jewish mind-set
(Acts 10:9ff ). Until Peter really understood that the gospel must be preached to all
nations (Luke 24:47), his attitude was perfectly reasonable in the context of his
natural worldview. Western worldviews have similarly influenced Christian beliefs.
In the West, Christianity has been an integral part of society for many centuries.This
has led to a subtle cross-fertilization of values between nation and Church, a situation
that echoes the warnings made to Israel concerning the dangers of assimilation ( Lev
47
18:26). The Church must recognise and deal with her weaknesses before she can
become a strong force for good in the nation.
The nineteenth century Imperialist world-view took pride in its identity as primarily
British and secondarily Christian, regarding Christianity as the West’s gift to the
foreign nations of the world and one of “four historic pillars of Britishness - union,
empire, monarchy, and Protestantism.”121 In a year when the 200th anniversary of
the abolition of slavery is being commemorated, Britain’s colonial past is receiving
renewed attention. Slavery is now recognised as shameful, yet many Christians
participated in it, and were enthusiastic colonisers of third-world countries in the 19th
century, bringing power and wealth to Victorian Britain, at the cost of severe
exploitation and oppression of other nations. It is worth noting that the unethical
operations of overseas trading companies attracted the opprobrium of such critics as
William Pitt and William Wilberforce,122 nevertheless it has been suggested that even
“the very origin of the term ‘mission’ . . . presupposes . . . the West’s colonisation of
overseas territories and its subjugation of their inhabitants.”123 This was not
conducive to feelings of compassion for these oppressed foreigners. Britain’s
confidence in her traditional values can be likened to Israel’s complacency as she
turned from God to worship idols (Ezek 16: 4-24, 43), leading to a decline in her
compassion for the gerim (Ezek 22:7).
121
Nick Spencer, Asylum and Immigration (Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2004), 64.
Bosch, Transforming Mission, 307.
123
Bosch, Transforming Mission, 303.
122
48
4. 2 British Legislation for refugees
4.2.1 Historical developments
Britain’s attitude to foreigners in past centuries seems to have been one of grudging
forbearance.124 Cromwell’s reluctant admission of Jews from the Ukraine in the 17th
century, the reception of French Huguenots in the 18th century, even the controversial
acceptance of Irish immigrants in the 19th century, (compelled to leave Ireland
because of famine exacerbated by repressive English rule), were all relatively
peaceful and hospitable events. However, Winder’s description of the “typically
English” attitude to outsiders as embracing “a mixture of grudging, against- mybetter- judgement tolerance with a barely disguised distaste”125is confirmed by
several events, one such being the influx of French exiles from the revolution. The
hostility and public pressure that this caused led to the ‘Aliens’ Bill’ in 1793, an Act
that “has an important place in the history of British Asylum policy,”126 as it included
the powers to refuse “aliens of any description” and the mandatory registration of
personal details. Stevens comments that this restrictive Act “introduced concepts that
were to be reflected . . . over the next two hundred years.”127 During much of the 19th
century the groups of refugees that arrived in Victorian Britain were better received,
and restrictive legislation was largely repealed. However, in 1905 an Act was passed
which not only reflected a disturbing attitude within the British government, but has
influenced legislation ever since.
124
For this and the following paragraph, see Robert Winder, Bloody Foreigners: The Story of
Immigration to Britain (London: Abacus, 2004), 77ff. Dallal Stevens, UK Asylum Law and Policy,
Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2004), 64 ff.
125
Winder, Bloody Foreigners, 77.
126
Stevens, Asylum Law, 19.
127
Stevens, Asylum Law, 19.
49
4.2.2 1905 Aliens Act
The 1905 Bill is significant for two reasons. Firstly, it was provoked by a wave of
anti-Semitism as Jews fled from persecution in Eastern Europe and Russia. This
media-driven “confusion and disagreement over statistics”128 has contemporary
resonance. Secondly, the “right” of asylum was only to be granted to those who could
prove persecution, whereupon they would be classed as immigrants. Stevens
considers that this was to lead to “an ungenerous view of ‘regugeehood,’”129 whilst
Winder comments “it was a fateful day: for the first time, Britain was a club with
sharp restrictions on membership.”130 Winder notes the reaction of the more openminded Home Secretary: “In Parliament [the Home Secretary] wondered what . . .
Disraeli would have thought. ‘On his anniversary you covered his statue with
flowers’ he told the jubilant Tories. ‘But the day before that you introduced a bill
which might exclude from this country such [Jewish] families as his.”131 Other
ministers agreed that there was insidious racism behind the Bill. Ford Madox Ford
was moved to protest “there is hardly a man who can point to seven generations of
purely English blood . . . these fellows are ourselves.”132
The 1905 Aliens Act dealt a severe blow to Britain’s record as a hospitable nation.133
Commonwealth citizens were welcomed after the Second World War, as Britain
needed their labour - indeed employable immigrants are still needed today.134
128
Stevens, Asylum Law, 35.
Stevens, Asylum Law, 67.
130
Winder, Bloody Foreigners, 259.
131
Winder, Bloody Foreigners, 259.
132
Winder, Bloody Foreigners, 259.
133
Stevens, Asylum Law, 33-68.
134
There is a cogent argument for an above-board examination and distribution of the immigrant workforce in Cohen, 2006, in which he states that Canadian and Australian governments hold open dialogue
with their “settled population on appropriate numbers . . . for exclusion,” whereas France and the UK
have “remained secretive” vacillating from the use of gang-masters to the pressure “of right-wing
129
50
However, a crisis occurred in 1972 when Ugandan Asians were expelled from
Uganda en masse by Idi Amin.135 As British citizens, they had expected to be
welcomed as immigrants, but instead were placed in resettlement camps and treated
with wide-spread hostility. This was an overt breach of the 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) agreement that “everyone has the right to seek
and enjoy asylum.”136 Amongst the Ugandans were the present Archbishop of York,
John Sentamu, and the writer Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Both have subsequently
recalled “the prevailing racial suspicion of [the] adopted country.”137 Today the
British seem to have forgotten that they themselves, in common with the biblical
Israelites and countless generations of refugees, originated as diverse groups. “As
descendants of Angles, Jutes, Saxons and other wandering tribes, [they] have no
hesitation in closing their doors against the . . . asylum seekers of the third
millennium.”138
4. 3 Contemporary Responses
4.3.1 Government
From the Government’s position, the problem of refugees has become a political
embarrassment. The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act of 1993 has been closely
followed by three similar Acts139 and two other closely connected Acts concerned
with Anti-terrorism and security. The Government’s desire to manifest a moderate
approach whilst acting decisively has been complicated by the shifting climate of
public opinion since “9/11” in 2001, and the “7/7” suicide bombers in London in
newspapers and political parties.” Robin Cohen, Migration and its Enemies (Aldershot: Ashgate
Publishing Ltd, 2006), 195- 215.
135
“Two -thirds of 74,000” according to Winder in Bloody Foreigners, 380.
136
Winder, Bloody Foreigners, 383.
137
Stevens, Asylum Law, 86.
138
Gordon Mursell, Praying in Exile (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2005), 5.
139
Stevens, Asylum Law, 163 ff for full details.
51
2005. Britain’s relationship with European and United Nations legislation has not
been clear-cut. The breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see above)
continues, as national law determines the procedures for asylum seekers, although
strictly speaking “such procedures must operate within the framework created by
international law.”140 Critics of the Government understand it to be in breach of the
United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) that clearly
states “No contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever
to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account
of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political
opinion.”141
4.3.2 Media
Pressure has been put on the Government by the tabloid press. Ugandan journalist
Robert Egwea, a member of the Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Media Project that
aims to challenge negative reporting of refugees to the UK, has said, “When referring
to asylum seekers or refugees, 85 per cent of the British press - especially the national
tabloids - prefer to use negative words such as ‘illegal immigrants,’ ‘bogus’ asylum
seekers, ‘beggars,’ ‘scroungers’(sic), even though they know the use of these words
or phrases are misleading, racist and offensive.” 142 The public has been misled by
“the media . . . filling what is often a vacuum of accurate information on the
dynamics of social change at the local level.”143 Nevertheless, there are attempts at
140
Stevens, Asylum Law, 163.
Stevens, Asylum Law, 84.
142
Robert Egwea, “Reporting the Vulnerable,”NUJ Ethics Council. n.p. September 7 2002.[cited 10
April 2007] Online: http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=420, 26.03.07
143
“ippr” trading for the Institute for Public Policy Research, “The reception and integration of new
migrant communities,” n.p. [cited 11 April 2007] Online: http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsand
reports.
141
52
impartial reporting and Egwea commends the Guardian for trying “to give balanced
coverage of refugee issues.”144
4.3.3 Public
Public confusion has been compounded by various myths: Britain is apparently home
to a large fraction of the world’s migrant population, comprising twenty percent of
the nation;145 all asylum seekers are “illegal;”146 asylum seekers are responsible for the
increase in violent crime. All of these are easily refuted: for example Refugee Action
has produced a report stating that asylum seekers are more likely to be the victims
rather than the perpetrators of crime and that, in the words of the Home Office, “there
is no evidence that asylum seekers are more likely to commit crimes than anyone
else.” 147
Summary
We have seen how the complacency of a wealthy nation affected the Church and how
the great British virtues of tolerance and hospitality were undermined by
discriminatory legislation and prejudiced reporting. This has been shown to affect the
Government’s attitudes and the perception of the nation with regard to the current
treatment of asylum seekers. Their experiences as they seek a place of safety in the
UK will now be investigated.
144
Egwea, Reporting the Vulnerable, n.p.
“The true figures are nearer to 2% and 4% respectively,” Winder, Bloody Foreigners, 440.
146
“The PCC's [Press Complaints Commission] guidance . . . addresses the confusion between asylum
and immigration and explains why it is not appropriate to describe asylum seekers as 'illegal
immigrants.'” “The Truth About Asylum” Refugee Council Online, n.p. [cited 20 May 2007]
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/ practise/ basics/truth.htm.
147
Beverley Hughes, Immigration Minister, 19.03.2003 Hansard Column 821W, quoted in “The Truth
About Asylum.”n.p. [cited 20 May 2007]Refugee Council Online.
145
53
Chapter 5: Who are the Aliens Today?
Britain’s handling of her asylum problem echoes Israel’s treatment of her gerim in its
juxtaposition of declining moral values and waning compassion. However, any
attempts to see these two situations as completely reflective of one another would be
anachronistic. “Biblical Israel was a unique case and many of its defining
characteristics were rightly inherited by the Church rather than by . . . particular
nation states.”148 One of these defining characteristics, namely the recognition of her
status as “strangers and pilgrims on earth” ( Heb 11:13) can surely be used to provoke
the Church to a greater understanding of her role as salt and light in a society whose
just principles have become eroded and who must at least be made aware of the
current situation facing immigrants and refugees. As we turn to this it will be seen
that Britain’s treatment of her resident aliens does not compare favourably with
Israel’s conduct towards the gerim.
5.1 Immigrants and Refugees
5.1.1 Immigrants
The terminology surrounding immigration to Britain is complex and potentially
misleading. Unlike asylum seekers, immigrants have made a personal choice to leave
their native country for financial, educational, career or family reasons. The majority
of economic migrants are from European access countries, and their numbers are a
cause for concern.
148
Spencer, Asylum, 113.
54
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) acknowledges this pressure “as a
result of rapid population change.” 149 Israel’s national identity was not threatened by
an influx of resident aliens; those who were accepted fulfilled the conditions of
integration, but were also blessed by the benefits incurred. Conversely, contemporary
Britain has not encouraged pro-active integration of its immigrants, and has been
selective in its understanding of boundaries.150 Immigrants to Britain are still
ostracized, and blamed for many social problems, when in reality their contribution
could be turned to the country’s advantage.151
5.1.2 Aliens in Britain (appendix 2: 1)
Unlike immigrants, refugees do not leave their native land for financial gain, or to
further their education. Like the gerim at the time of the patriarchs, refugees are still
“travelling about in search of a place where they could settle down and raise their
families in peace.”152 The internecine struggles of many countries, have led to a rise
in asylum numbers: “the refugee . . . has lost or been denied a basic human need – the
legal and political protection of a government . . .[and the loss] of culture,
community, employment, shelter – all the elements . . .[of] self-worth.”153 In the
British context, a refugee is an asylum seeker who has been given indefinite leave to
remain (ILR). 154 “Failed asylum seeker” is a derogatory term found only in Britain,
and the word “destitute” will be substituted. “Illegal immigrant” is also a derogatory
149
“The reception and integration of new migrant communities” ippr, trading for the Institute of Public
Policy Research, March 2007.
150
Cohen, Migration, 100.
151
“A Home Office study estimated that the foreign –born population paid about 10 percent more to
the Government than it received in expenditure.” Hannah Skinner, A Place of Refuge (London: Church
House Publishing, 2005), 25.
152
Spina, Social Rage, 198.
153
Cohen, Migration, 147.
154
Andrew Bradstock and Arlington Trotman, eds. Asylum Voices (London: Churches Together in
Britain and Ireland, 2003), 2.
55
and usually inaccurate term, as previously stated (4.3.4). Most refugees go to
neighbouring low-income countries. A few (by comparison) travel to the UK in
search of relations, or having fallen prey to unscrupulous ‘agents,’ are taken to a
country not of their choosing. Agents can be found wherever there is unrest, and are
cynical people- smugglers, avaricious and exploitative. After reaching the host
country, agents may abandon refugees, disappearing with their false passports and
papers, for later re-use.
5.1.3 Claiming Asylum
Procedures for claiming asylum are fraught with difficulties. Asylum must be claimed
on arrival in Britain’s ports or airports, when they will be given temporary National
Asylum Seeker Support accommodation, (NASS), or removed to a detention centre.
Although it is illegal to keep a member of the British public in custody without
issuing criminal charges, detained refugees are frequently held indefinitely.155 After
the initial interview, leave to remain is granted to very few people. “Home Office
figures show that in 2005, 83% of asylum claims were rejected at first hearing, while
74% were rejected on appeal.”156 Hidden pitfalls await the refugee, often traumatised
by persecution, and uncertain of her rights. Time restrictions on paper-work confuse
clients who do not speak English and who cannot access legal advice.157 Although
rejections can be contested and financial aid and accommodation are obtainable,
many clients are not made aware of these potential benefits. Once her case is refused,
155
UK is the only country in Europe where immigrants are detained without trial for an unspecified
length of time, in contravention of the European Convention for Human Rights 1953. Bradstock and
Trotman, Asylum Voices, 34.
156
Alan Paxton, et al. I Came Here for Safety. (Coventry: Coventry Peace House, 2006), 26.
157
The New Asylum Model [NAM] implemented in 2005 uses a process of “segmentation” which
divides clients into nine categories which “have not [all] been defined” and deprive some people of the
Statement of Evidence forms altogether, in order to “fast track” them back out of the country. For
details see Paxton, Safety, 41-3.
56
the asylum seeker has to leave her NASS accommodation within two weeks, loses all
support and becomes destitute. If refugees who have been given leave to remain offer
shelter to the destitute, they jeopardise their own position.
Estimates concerning the number of destitute in this country vary from a conservative
30,000 to a colossal 200,000.158 This suggests some internal confusion in the Home
Office and explains the reluctance to release statistics over which there is limited
control. As the destitute cannot claim benefits for food or accommodation, they are
essentially invisible, the “living ghosts”159 of society. They are not allowed to work;
those still awaiting appeal who are finally granted leave to remain, have just four
weeks to register for national insurance, find work and find somewhere else to live.
Out of desperation some refugees sign for “Section 4” support, which guarantees
accommodation and subsistence money on the understanding that they can be
deported at any time.160 The Asylum Support Appeals Project (ASAP) has this
comment to make:
Many failed asylum seekers don’t apply for Section 4 support because they
simply do not know it exists or if they do, how to get it. In a report published
in 2006, “The Destitution Trap”, Refugee Action found that even vulnerable
failed asylum seekers did not know any other type of support existed other
than full asylum support and those who did were confused about their options
and how they could qualify for Section 4 support.161
158
“Reliable statistics are hard to find but agencies that work with asylum-seekers have reported large
numbers since at least January 2003.” Paxton, Safety,8.
159
Church Action on Poverty [CAP] “Living Ghosts” is their campaign title. n.p. [cited 12 April,
2007]. Online: http://www.church-poverty.org.uk/campaigns/livingghosts/
160
“Some destitute asylum seekers may not be able to leave the UK through no fault of their own. If a
destitute asylum seeker is temporarily unable to leave the UK or cannot reasonably be expected to do
so, they may be entitled to a limited type of support under Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum
Act 1999, commonly known as Section 4 support or “Hard Case” support, provided they are destitute.”
Asylum Support Appeals Project, “Failing the Failed,” February 2007. n.p. [cited 20 April 2007],
http://asaproject.org.uk/
161
ASAP, Failing the Failed, n.p.
57
5.1.4 The right to work
Working to support oneself is a basic humanitarian principle, giving “purpose,
fulfilment, worth and satisfaction.”162 Israel’s covenant laws stated that the gerim
were not only allowed to work but were given wages and treated as citizens of Israel
(Deut 5:13; Lev 16:29).A comparison of gerim with the metokoi of Athens showed
considerable advantages for the former. As previously stated, metokoi were heavily
taxed and had to pay for the right to trade (1.5.2). Named as the “underclass” of
ancient Greece, their management was described by Plato as “despotic
prescription.”163 But in “great” Britain today there are thousands of people who are
not allowed to work, although many have qualifications and a “profound commitment
to . . . finding work, but are thwarted at every turn.”164 Having chosen to make
Britain their destination, they hope for security, “the ‘mirror opposite’ of . . . their
homeland,”165 whilst clinging to the “widespread belief that Britain is a country that
respects freedom, democracy and human rights.”166 Having already suffered
persecution in their home country, these disenfranchised refugees must also endure
rejection in Britain.
5.2 Overcoming prejudice with a biblical response
5.2.1. An outspoken community
Such a situation demands a response. Who better to respond than those who believe
themselves to have been called by God to become the resident aliens within this
present world? Unlike Israel, Britain is not a theocracy, nor can it be called a
Christian country, but has become pluralistic and multicultural. However, the Church
162
Bradstock and Trotman, Asylum Voices, 48.
McBride, A Song of Power, 3:71 n.22.
164
Bradstock and Trotman, Asylum Voices, 48.
165
Bradstock and Trotman, Asylum Voices, 18.
166
Bradstock and Trotman, Asylum Voices, 18.
163
58
like Israel has an elective status and a commitment to Biblical truth, and as she
acknowledges her identity can once again raise her voice in the public arena both with
those who share her concern and with those in power who must be made constantly
aware of the continuing plight of refugees in this country today. Challenging injustice
has, in the past, been largely the prerogative of the few, yet “the very act of reading
and preaching from scripture is a deeply moral act in our age, a reminder of the
source of . . . authority,”167 and the Bible is very clear about the duty of God’s family
to raise their voice: “Speak up for people who cannot speak for themselves. Protect
the rights of all who are helpless” (Prov.31:8, 9). There are a number of ways to fulfil
this mandate. Lobbying local councillors or MP’s is an effective way of getting their
attention, both on local issues and “to change laws so that asylum seekers . . . [gain]
access to legal representation . . . [and] to healthcare and education,”168and, it must be
added, to the right to work. Through the publication of interviews with asylum
seekers, the Churches’ Commission for Racial Justice (CCRJ), has not only
disseminated information, but also alleviated the frustrations of many interviewees
who “spoke of their delight at the opportunity to express themselves fully and
freely.”169
Refugee Action had the creative idea of transforming a double-decker bus into a
“virtual reality” tour through which the public could experience for themselves what
a refugee encounters on arrival in England. The presence of this “Escape to Safety”
bus at rock festivals, city centres and parks gives volunteers the opportunities to hold
conversations and distribute literature. Christians need to be encouraged as they
present facts truthfully, tell relevant stories and contend against injustice. Other
167
Hauerwas and Willimon, Resident Aliens, 162.
Paxton, I Came Here for Safety, 132.
169
Bradstock and Trotman, Asylum Voices, 65.
168
59
nations have much to teach us about speaking out courageously. Some of the refugees
who come to Britain are here because they too have voiced their objections to
oppression and political corruption. The price that they have paid is considerably
higher than anything demanded from Christians in the west (see appendix 2:1).
5.2.2 A re-awakened community
The increasing plight of third world refugees has stirred many Christians to reexplore opportunities for practical commitment in the community. Those who are in
the vanguard of active involvement play a crucial role in awakening the Church to her
responsibilities. Faithworks is a movement that encourages local enterprises. Its
leader Rev Malcolm Duncan believes that working with the marginalised is “a key
element of any Christian’s calling,” adding:
It’s important for Christians to be working with refugees, prostitutes and
asylum seekers, because the Bible clearly calls us to speak out on behalf of
those who can’t speak out for themselves. It is the Church’s responsibility to
help them, serve them and to be the hands and feet of Christ to people who are
in a most desperate situation. In doing so we demonstrate God’s love to
them.”170
Church leaders, both local and national, have a responsibility to respond to this
provocation as they exhort, admonish and awaken congregations to a gospel of active
liberation, within a culture that has become sadly self-seeking and self-indulgent.
5.3 The inclusive Church
The Church, like Israel, has been called to fulfil a specific role. Isaiah and Ezekiel
prophesied that the nokrim, the complete outcasts, and the gerim, resident aliens,
would find a home within God’s temple (Isa 56:5; Ezek 47:23). Jesus included the
170
Hazel Southam, “Into the Margins,” http://www.eauk.org/resources/idea/MarApr2007/into-themargins.cfm
60
most marginalised amongst those to be released in the “year of the Lord’s favour”
(Luke 4:18, 19). It is the Church that now has the mandate to extend God’s love to the
world. Whilst the Christian’s ultimate home is not on earth, the desire for security and
a place to call one’s own is a basic human need and the Church in the western world
can meet that need, by sharing hospitality with the destitute. For many refugees the
Church is the only place in a Western nation where family values similar to their own
traditional cultural values are represented. “Western individualism is still . . . seen as
rather peculiar in the context of world cultures.” 171 Many foreigners, irrespective of
their religious beliefs, have understood Britain to be a Christian nation, and are
bewildered as they see this contradicted in the streets, in the schools, on the TV, and
even in the churches.172 British Christians face challenges of their own within a
permissive society and a perceived “influx of foreigners” can compound the
temptation to withdraw from other cultures. However, asylum seekers and refugees
have much to contribute. “Through listening to [their] . . . voices . . . we can gain new
perspectives on the familiar. Whilst most people in this country are unable to relate
directly to the realities of war or persecution, asylum seekers are fleeing them. The
negative aspects of such experience are obvious, but sharing it can be positive for all
involved.” 173 Reaching out in love towards the destitute may require sacrifices but
the Church becomes immeasurably enriched in the process.
5.4 Symbiotic grace
It could be argued that preoccupation with church growth and evangelism, whilst
laudable, has distracted many churches in the West from a commitment to addressing
171
Christine A. Mallouhi, Miniskirts, Mothers and Muslims (Oxford: Monarch Books, 2004), 136-7.
See Mallouhi, Muslims, 79-92 for a detailed description of the Muslim understanding of Western
‘Christianity.’
173
Skinner, Place of Refuge, 53.
172
61
the plight of the marginalised. Churches that resolutely spend themselves “on behalf
of the hungry” (Isa 58:10) will affect not only the vitality of the wider Christian
community, but enable the love of Christ to become visibly expressed. “The only
hermeneutic of the gospel is a congregation . . . who believe it and live by it.”174
Reaching out to the oppressed is not an option. “To fail to act is as culpable as
expressly refusing to do it.”175 In a previous generation Waldron Scott criticised the
tendency to interpret scriptures spiritually, when they had a more obvious practical
hermeneutic, asking “why do we instinctively assign secondary importance to that
which the . . . author saw as primary?” Thus he claimed that Isaiah’s words “If you
pour yourself out for the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted” (58:10)
referred primarily to “the materially hungry and the physically oppressed.”176 Scott
believed that such passages were interpreted theoretically because “most of us . . . are
existentially remote from the world of hunger and starvation.”177 Today we can no
longer distance ourselves from the rest of humanity. Isaiah’s words have a more
urgent focus. “Doing” justice178 distinguishes dynamic faith from abstract spirituality.
Isaiah implies that the righteous living and pursuit of justice that are so valued by
God ultimately impact society itself (58:12-14).
Isaiah also indicates that the fruit of open- handed liberality is reciprocal healing and
blessing for the benefactor (58:6-9). Hermeneutically the symbiotic relationship
174
Newbigin, Pluralist Society, 227.
The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology. (Ed. Christopher Rowland), “The Task and
Content of Liberation Theology” Gustavo Gutierrez, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999),
198.
176
Waldron Scott, Bring Forth Justice, (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997), 222.
177
Scott, Justice, 222.
178
“God is a God of justice . . . as the prophets repeatedly argued, his people must do justice to be
holy,” Gutierrez, Liberation, 204.
175
62
between sacrificial generosity and reciprocal grace has fascinating implications for
the Church in a self-absorbed culture. Jesus’ words re-echo this principle: “Give and
it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running
over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured
to you" (Luke 6:38). The giving of oneself is an act of mercy beyond the customary
financial donations. As strangers are welcomed into the family, so the family benefits,
and in the restoration of others the Church becomes restored.
The possibility for personal intimacy with the Father God through the indwelling
Holy Spirit recognizes neither the boundaries of race or of social standing. Indeed the
realization that every person is created by God and has the potential for personal
relationship with him must inspire respect for the needy, and a desire to see them
entering into relationship with Jesus Christ. Isaiah’s eschatological vision of the
worshipping nations takes them into God’s own “house of prayer” (Isa 56:7). The
fulfilment of this vision, first glimpsed in God’s covenant with Abraham, inspires the
Church to reach out so that finally the homeless and the destitute will find security
and purpose as they encounter Jesus Christ, the ultimate host and head of the Church.
The Church’s privilege is to become co-workers with Christ so that others can be
completely liberated from “all those things . . . that limit their capacity to develop
themselves freely and in dignity . . . from selfishness and sin . . . the last root of
injustice.”179
Conclusion
It has been shown that it was God’s intention for his compassion towards the weak
and the defenceless to be demonstrated in the nation of Israel, and for her to become
179
Gutierrez, Liberation, 26-30.
63
the channel of his grace to the world. The charge that she should include outsiders in
her community has been seen to have been only partially fulfilled, as her commitment
to the covenant principles was undermined by her unfaithfulness to God himself.
This thesis has further shown that the coming of Jesus the Messiah heralded a deeper
understanding of God’s love for the oppressed, as he accepted the outcasts and called
his followers to do the same. It has been recognised that the Church’s selfunderstanding as exiles in the world is fundamental to her role as the agent of God’s
grace to the helpless. However, it has been suggested that until the Church becomes
more fully aware of her distinctiveness, her response to issues of injustice in the
nation will remain ineffectual. The possibility of unreserved commitment to the
destitute has been seen to be realisable only when the Church returns to a clear and
corporate understanding of her calling.
Finally, as Israel was urged never to forget her origins of exile and slavery, or the
miraculous intervention of God on her behalf, the Church is exhorted to remember
her own history of alienation and the cost of her salvation. This is the perpetual
memory that fuels the compassionate praxis of the Church. As sojourners the people
of God travel in the anticipation of the hope that is within them, calling others to faith
in Jesus Christ so that they too “may be enlisted into God’s ministry of reconciliation,
peace and justice on earth.”180
180
Bosch, Believing, 34.
64
65