Answering Questions and Objections Regarding Biblical Immigration and Border Control

I always appreciate pushback from friends on the things that I write, as it helps me to know how to write more precisely. This is true of the Saint family, whose ministry (Future of Christendom) has done good work. Some of you may be aware that there has been a friendly exchange between Luke Saint and me on immigration. If you have not heard Luke’s response to me, you can listen to it here. That podcast interacts mainly with an interview that Kevin Swanson did of me on the Generations radio program, though it also interacts with this brief article. For those of you who are not familiar with the debate, based on my own research on the distinctions of four Hebrew terms and the research that various Hebrew Dictionaries, theological articles, and books have previously written about four kinds of foreigner,¹ I wrote an article that barely introduces the idea of Biblical border control. And to be fair to Luke, my previous email-article had a couple of imprecise statements, two mistakes, and left out a lot of Scriptural exegesis. Even this article will still be fairly brief compared to the chapter in my upcoming book. In this post I will try to restrict my comments to what Luke brought up on his podcast.

Why resort to Hebrew?
Luke starts by saying that he gets a little nervous when people start bringing up the Hebrew in areas of justice. “Are we really saying that until we … know the Hebrew that we cannot establish justice?... what I believe is that anybody can establish justice using the Bible in their own tongue…” While I do believe that all my positions can be established using a literal English translation of the Bible, the reality is that the church has had to face multiple controversies down through history in which theologians have been forced to go to the original languages to demonstrate the truth of what they had been teaching from translations. For example, Martin Luther’s discovery that the Latin Vulgate was wrong in translating the Greek metanoia (repentance) with “do penance” had a huge impact on people’s thinking. It was William Tyndale’s careful study of the original languages that helped clarify the meaning of terms that had changed over time. So he substituted “congregation” for “church,” “elder” for “priest,” and “repent” for “do penance.” Those clarifications were critical in dealing with errors that had crept into the Roman church. In any case, I am Reformed, and the Westminster Confession of Faith says,
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. 5:18) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (Isa. 8:20, Acts 15:15, John 5:39, 46)²
I think Luke would agree that the immigration debate is a controversy that is not yet settled in the church. Yet I would still say that it doesn’t take a degree in languages to realize that Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi mandated separation from certain kinds of foreigners³ while fully embracing Gentiles (goyim) who embraced Yehowah and His ways (Zech. 2:11; 8:20-23; etc.). And it doesn’t take a knowledge of Hebrew to know that the three aforementioned prophets supported the work of Nehemiah and Ezra, and when the five books are taken together, it strongly supports banishing certain kinds of people.⁴ This should immediately make the English reader suspect that there might be more than one kind of foreigner — especially when the law commanded integration of some foreigners. Resorting to the Hebrew can hopefully crystalize what is already there in the English. While brief articles (like the previous one and this one) can’t get into all the nuances, and while ad hoc statements on a radio interview are even less likely to be clear, hopefully this article can at least make a stab at clarifying potential misunderstandings.

Thankfully, he did expose a mistake I made
And speaking of Hebrew, I have a mea culpa to give. Luke pointed out that I told Kevin that the Hebrew word used in 1 Kings 15:12, where Asa is approved for banishing the perverted persons from the land, is the Hebrew word nadach. I should not have trusted my memory. I was wrong. Though nadach is one of four synonyms for banishment, this verse uses a different one. I should have stuck to my notes. But since banishment is later a big point of contention, I'll return to that subject later. But I want to first go through the contradictions he believes I have unwittingly held to.

But is Ruth a proof that our thesis is wrong?
Luke's first example of a purported contradiction of the thesis that I and other scholars hold to is an interesting one. Luke says that Ruth called herself a nekar. That is not technically true, as she uses a different Hebrew lemma⁵ (nokri) that I will discuss when we come to 1 Kings 8. Stating that she did call herself a nekar is a second careless mistake that I made. Nokri means someone who looks different, whereas nekar means a foreigner who is dangerous. But for the sake of the argument, let’s assume that she had used the term nekar — especially since Moabites were indeed treated as nekar elsewhere.⁶ Even though she is a believer who has self-consciously rejected Moab's gods and said, “Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God” (Ruth 1:16), she had a problem that other categories of Gentiles did not experience: Deuteronomy 23:3 is quite clear that a Moabite could not enter the assembly of Israel even to the tenth generation — which the last half of the verse epexegetically interprets to mean "forever" — "none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD forever." Nehemiah 13:1-3 interprets that as meaning that Moabites had to be separated from Israel as a nation, using the Hebrew word בדל (badal), which is a word defined by dictionaries as "to exclude from a place or space"⁷ So what gives? Why were her descendants immediately able to be a part of the assembly (on any definition of assembly — see discussion below) when the law says that Moabites and the descendants of Moabites could not be — ever? (Keep in mind that David was one of her descendants – three generations later.)

The answer is that while most Gentiles would be welcome in Israel as visitors, and while most Gentiles could be treated as fellow-believers without getting circumcised, and while they could even become Ger-permanent residents, Moabites had an extra step that they had to take (as would other nekar). Without that step, Ruth wouldn’t have been allowed in Israel. God's law mandated that every vestige of Moabite identity needed to be put off. Ruth had already given her resolve to do this in Ruth 1:16-17, so technically she was already acting as a believing *Ger-*Gentile. But as I mentioned before, a nekar foreigner needed to go through a ceremonial conversion process that was publicly noticeable by all. With men it involved circumcision, proselyte baptism, and some other ceremonies that I won’t get into now. While there is debate on the process for women, I believe that Deuteronomy 21:10-14 gives the more thorough conversion process for captive nekar females. That passage indicates that before an Israelite could marry a nekar captive (and keep in mind that both parties would have to be agreeable, or it would not be a covenant – this was not a forced conversion or a forced marriage), she had to go through a detailed ritual of shaving off her hair, pairing her fingernails, and in other symbolic ways show that she had definitively put off her old identity and had become a Jew (just like many people of the land "became Jews" in Esther 8:17). In contrast, Ger-Gentiles could believe without becoming Jews and still worship in the court of the Gentiles. It appears that Moabites were not given that option – they were not integrated until they ceased being Moabites (i.e., became Jews).

In one place Luke pointed out that Ruth is still called a Moabitess long after she converts. But that is to identify the miracle of what she had been saved from, not to describe her continuing status (a status which she had explicitly renounced by saying that “your people shall be my people”). Consider other analogical situations. Rahab the harlot is called Rahab the harlot long after she was converted (see Heb. 11:31; James 2:25). Does that mean she continued to be a practicing harlot after salvation? No. Though Simon had been healed of his leprosy prior to His eating with Jesus and the disciples, he is still called “Simon the leper” to show what he had been changed from (Matt. 26:6). The same was true of “Matthew the tax collector” (Matt. 10:3). In the same way, Ruth was accorded all the rights of a Jewish citizen, including the rights of a “kinsman redeemer” (Ruth 3:9ff). Boaz could not have been her kinsman redeemer unless she had somehow become a Jew (see discussion of Esther 8:17 below). This strengthens my argument about her humble use of nokri rather than the untruthful term nekar (which I carelessly used in my last article).

If what I have said is correct, then Ruth the Moabitess is hardly a contradiction of the Hebrew chart that I laid out; she strengthens it. Note that Moabites are identified as one of the prohibited nekar in Ezra 9:1-2 with 10:11,14,17 and Nehemiah 13:1,23 with verse 30. What was God’s call with respect to these nekar? They were to be "separated ...from Israel" (Neh. 13:3). I will deal with the specifics of what that means under one of Luke’s later objections, but here it is sufficient to say that even though Ruth acted in the capacity of a Ger-Gentile initially (in other words, she was still a believing Gentile, not a Jew), she perhaps realized that as a former Moabitess, more was needed. Certainly the law required more.

But while this establishes that at least Moabite-nekar Gentiles were treated differently than other Gentiles, it does not answer the question of why Ruth was let into Israel from Moab in the first place? Part of the answer seems to be that she verbalized her full trust in Yehowah and her complete rejection of Moab. Orpah (who was willing to go back to her gods) may not have fared as well – and Naomi appears to know it. Otherwise why would Naomi have so strongly encouraged her daughter-in-law to return to her gods? She tested Ruth by saying, “Look, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law” (Ruth 1:15). It was only when Naomi was sure of her commitment that she permitted Ruth to come with her (Ruth 1:16-18). Of course, we aren’t told if there were people on the border that noticed them crossing in, but God’s law depended mostly on an informed and active citizenry anyway. Citizens would soon figure out if a conversion was genuine or not. In any case, based on Deuteronomy 23:1-3, Moabite Gentiles would likely have been treated with more suspicion (whether at the border or elsewhere).

Deuteronomy 23:1-8 – Is it at all relevant to immigration?
Of course, Luke disagrees with my use of Deuteronomy 23:1-8 as being at all relevant to immigration.⁸ Let me quote the whole paragraph together:

1 “He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD. 2 “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD. 3 “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD forever, 4 because they did not meet you with bread and water on the road when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. 5 Nevertheless the LORD your God would not listen to Balaam, but the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the LORD your God loves you. 6 You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days forever. 7 “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land. 8 The children of the third generation born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.

Does the reference to crushed testicles in Deuteronomy 23:1-8 eviscerate my argument?
Luke tries to dismiss the relevance of Deuteronomy 23:3’s prohibition of Ammonites and Moabites in the congregation of Israel by pointing to the first two verses — verses which indicate that those with crushed testicles and those of illegitimate birth were also kept out of the assembly. He had a bit of fun with me when he asked if we are to seriously think that there were border patrol agents making everyone lift their skirts to make sure they didn’t have crushed testicles. Since that seems ludicrous (and it is), his conclusion is that since we can't vet testicles, we can't vet who is a nekar. While clever, it assumes a modern system of vetting. Watchtowers were looking for dangerous men (likely groups of men). They were not designed to be interrogation centers for every person who came across the border. As already mentioned, God’s law depended on an active citizenry, not a police state that checked on everyone crossing the border.⁹ But it would become obvious fairly quickly if someone sought to claim gleaning laws and other rights of foreigners if they didn’t meet these qualifications.

Luke had several objections to my use of verse 3 in the radio broadcast. And I totally understand that there is room for disagreement — especially on what is even meant by “the assembly of the LORD.” I was hoping to leave this for my book since this is a hugely controversial topic that has not been settled to date. But I do believe the Scripture is clear. Let me start by listing (and ruling out) each of the theories that you can find in the academic literature:

1. The most common interpretation of “assembly” is the “gathering” that occurred at God’s feast days. They teach that these ethnicities could not participate in or attend such gatherings. Yet (as Luke rightly pointed out), we have to apply any theory of the assembly of the Lord to all the categories of people in Deuteronomy 23:1-8, including eunuchs and illegitimate offspring. Jephthah was an illegitimate child (Judges 11:1-3), yet God appointed him as a Judge, and assures us that he was a man of faith (Heb. 11:32). Given that background, is it likely that he never attended a festival? Likewise, Perez and Zerah were the offspring of an incestuous relationship (Gen. 38). Yet they and their descendants certainly participated in the festivals. David was only nine generations removed from the illegitimate son of Judah (Perez).¹⁰ Likewise, the Sabbath was a high festival, and eunuchs were said to participate in those (Is. 56:4; cf. Acts 8:27). Furthermore, David was only three generations removed from Ruth the Moabitess, yet he and his parents certainly participated in all the festivals.¹¹ This theory simply does not fit all the evidence of verses 1-8.
2. Another interpretation is that the “assembly of the Lord” only includes those who have entered into covenant with God. Problem: eunuchs were able to covenant with God in Israel (Is. 56:4-5). Likewise, just as Jephthah, Perez, Zerah, and their descendants rule out theory 1, they clearly rule out this theory. They and their descendants covenanted with God. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 29:10-11, the Ger Gentiles enter into covenant with the Lord along with Israel’s captains, elders, officers, men, wives, and little ones. Yet the Ger were still distinguished from the assembly in Numbers 15:15 (see below).
3. Another common theory is that the assembly of the Lord is the place of assembly – that is, the tabernacle and later the temple or the synagogue. On this theory, none of these categories of people could set foot in the temple. By now you probably recognize that the exact same problems arise on this theory. And furthermore, verse 6 says that they were not to enter into any treaty with with Moabites or Ammonites (or seek their peace or prosperity). It is referring to more than simply letting them worship (more on that “treaty language” below).
4. Another theory says that the “assembly of the LORD” refers to “the national governing Assembly of the Israelites.”¹² On this theory, no one in this list could be a part of that ruling elite. Problem: wasn’t Jephthah part of the ruling elite? Yes. He was a God-appointed judge (Judges 11). David was part of the national governing assembly, yet he was only the ninth generation from Perez, and the third generation from Ruth. And the reader can probably think of other examples. Likewise, Othniel was a converted Kennezite (Josh. 15:13-17; Judges 1:9-21; 3:1-11; 1 Chron. 4:13), and Kennizites are explicitly listed as part of the Canaanites who were to be dispossessed (Gen. 15:19). Of course, as a full convert, he became a Jew (my whole point in interpreting Deuteronomy 23:1-8).
5. Tigay gives his own view: “Eligibility for membership in the Assembly seems to have been tantamount to eligibility for full citizenship… The point of our law, then, seems to be that certain groups of aliens may never become citizens or may become citizens only after a waiting period, and, further, if any of those mentioned in verses 2–3 are Israelites, that certain types of Israelites do not enjoy the full rights of citizens.”¹³ While this is a very reasonable interpretation, it fails in three ways: Problem 1: Jephthah was a citizen and even a ruler of Israel (Judges 11), yet he was illegitimately born (vv. 1-3). The same was true of Perez and his descendants and Ruth and her descendants. Second, that anyone other than a Jew could be a citizen is highly questionable anyway. It lacks evidence. Though any Gentile could become a Jew (Esth. 8:17), only Jews had full citizenship (and Othniel is an example of a Gentile-Kennizite becoming a full Jew) and only Jews had all the rights of citizenship.¹⁴
6. Another theory that is much closer to the truth is that the assembly includes all people inhabiting Israel (including foreigners). After all, “the assembly of Israel” seems to be used in a similar way to “the assembly of the LORD.” (For “assembly of Israel” see Lev. 16:17; Deut. 31:30; Josh 8:35; 1 Kings 8:14,22,55; 12:3; 1 Chron. 13:2; 2 Chron. 6:3,12,13; 24:6. For “assembly of the LORD” see Numb. 16:3; 20:4; Deut. 23:1,2,3,8; 1 Chron. 28:8; Mic. 2:5.) Though this is very close to the truth, it fails to fit the problem evidence we gave above. Surely Jephthah, Perez, Zerah, and other illegitimate children were part of Jewish-Israel as a whole. But there is another problem: Numbers 15:15 distinguishes between the assembly and the stranger (Ger). It says, “One ordinance shall be for you of the assembly and for the stranger.” That implies that the stranger was not part of the assembly. But as has already been pointed out (and as will be discussed in more detail below) Gentiles could become Jews. This theory would dictate that none of the four categories listed in Deuteronomy 23:1-8 could ever become Jews - something contradicted by many passages (as we will shortly see).
7. Some have seen the problems with every theory presented to them and say that they simply don’t know what it means.¹⁵ My approach is to test every theory, and if it doesn’t work, come up with a new one (which as we will see is not a new theory after all - it’s just a minority theory that I have been forced to by my research).
8. The last theory (mine) is close to theory 6. It is that the assembly of the Lord is the nation of Jews gathered within its borders (and during the wilderness period, gathered within the camp). Though Gentiles couldn’t come into citizenship (theory five), there were at least some Gentiles that could come into the nation of Israel. Just crossing the border wouldn’t make them citizens, Jews, or part of “the assembly”. They would still be strangers. But strangers were welcome to “enter” (provided that they were not unrepentant nekar strangers — and this list gives two other categories that were excluded). But this theory only works if all of Deuteronomy 23:1-8 deals only with immigration of Gentiles. Notice the repeated word “enter…enter…enter…enter…enter…may enter.” This passage is placing immigration restrictions upon certain classes of people. In my opinion, this is the only interpretation that can adequately account for every word in Nehemiah 13:1-3, where, after reading Deuteronomy 23:1-8 they “separated all the mixed multitude from Israel” (Neh. 13:3). If they were separated from Israel, they were outside its borders.¹⁶ Ezra describing the same result of reading Deuteronomy 23:1-8 also made those who married nekar women to divorce them. They judged each case to avoid forcing a divorce of a true convert or even an unbeliever not involved in capital crimes, but they were serious about the need for exclusion. Ezra 10:8 says, “that whoever would not come within three days, according to the instructions of the leaders and elders, all his property would be confiscated, and he himself would be separated from the assembly of those from the captivity.” Dr. Steven R. Cook sums up my argument by saying, "In this section [Deut. 23:1-8], Moses addresses immigration laws in ancient Israel."¹⁷ My interpretation also fits very well with the vocabulary of verse 6, which numerous scholars have demonstrated is clearly prohibiting treaties with the people.¹⁸ Treaties deal with people outside your borders, so at least verse 6 is referring to how those assembled in one nation relate to those assembled in another nation. And finally, my interpretation perfectly matches the Biblical usage of the phrases “outside the assembly” and “outside the camp.” There were people excluded from the camp of Israel, which Meredith Kline says is tightly connected to being outside the assembly (whether in the land or in the wilderness).¹⁹ The law of the leper was that "his dwelling shall be outside the camp" (Lev. 13:46; cf. 14:8; Numb. 5:1-4 for other examples of people kept outside the camp). Captives were kept outside the camp for purification purposes (Numb. 31:19). Rahab and her whole family put their faith in God, but that was not initially enough — they had to stay outside the camp for seven days (Josh 6:22-23). This strongly parallels everything I have said about nekar converts being outside the assembly until they had gone through the ceremonial processes of conversion. Interestingly, there was a period of time when the tabernacle itself was "outside the camp" in the wilderness, yet there were still boundaries of the camp that were kept. (See all references to "outside the camp.") I will fill this theory out in a bit more detail below.

First, let me quote a passage that is a commentary on Deuteronomy 23:1-8. It is Isaiah 56:1-8. Bibles and commentaries label this whole section as referring to salvation to the Gentiles.

1 Thus says the LORD: “Keep justice, and do righteousness, For My salvation is about to come, And My righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold on it; who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.” Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD speak, saying, “The LORD has utterly separated me from His people”; nor let the eunuch say, “Here I am, a dry tree.” 4 For thus says the LORD: “To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, 5 even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. 6 “Also the sons of the foreigner who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants— everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and holds fast My covenant— 7 even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.” 8 The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says, “Yet I will gather to him others besides those who are gathered to him.”

My take on Deuteronomy 23:1-3 and Isaiah 56:1-8 is that it didn’t apply to Jews. Emasculated Jews and illegitimate Jews already had access to worship, fellowship, charity, and other provisions of God’s law. Instead, it is my opinion that these provisions applied to Gentiles outside the country, and that this was establishing some guidelines for the immigration of Gentiles. This is confirmed by the fact that the paragraph as a whole (Deut. 23:1-8) deals with immigration. Every verse is dealing with restrictions on who can “enter,” and verses 7-8 put less restrictions on Edomites and Egyptians (though more restrictions on them than on most Gentiles). Isaiah 56 addresses the question of whether these “forever excluded” aliens can be brought near once they are saved or if they were still required to stay separated from Israel as they have been. Based on a superficial reading of Deuteronomy 23:1-8 it may seem like some of those categories are forever excluded. But Isaiah 56 makes clear that when any of those excluded categories (even the foreign eunuch) becomes a Jew by conversion, circumcision, and the other ceremonies for proselytes, then 100% of those restrictions are waived (see Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8). When they were willing to enter the covenant fully in that way, then Isaiah says that there is no barrier whatsoever. Like the Moabitess Ruth, all other nekar foreigners²⁰ must renounce their old identification and embrace the God of Israel. But when an enemy nekar does so, he is no longer an enemy, and therefore he is no longer allowed to say that he is utterly separated from God’s people (Is. 56:3). Why? Because he was solidly converted, is a true Jew, and now has all his prayers answered (see also 1 Kings 8 below). But keep in mind that if conversion had not happened, then the statement in verse 3 would still be true of that son of a nekar — “The LORD has utterly separated me from His people.” Nekars were by nature separated from God’s people — “utterly separated.” Conversion reverses that. This separation verse needs to also be read in connection with Ezra and Nehemiah banishing nekars from Israel’s borders (see below).

Second, let’s go through each part of Deuteronomy 23:1-8 and see how it ties in with immigration. Where the vast majority of Gentiles could freely travel in and out of Israel as a nation, this placed restrictions on some:

1. First, a Gentile eunuch could not “enter” without full conversion (Deut. 23:1). Some commentaries believe that this verse did not apply to those who were eunuchs by accident or by force, but to eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for pagan religious reasons.²¹ Others do not see the word שָׁפְכָה (shophkah) as referring to a eunuch per se, but rather a person with his penis cut off,²² or even a male prostitute who has been surgically changed to not look male (i.e., gender reassignment).²³ In any case, the vast majority of interpreters see it as simply referring to a person who has made himself a eunuch (whether for the other reasons stated above or not). Whichever interpretation is true, conversion is the remedy. (Note that the Ethiopian eunuch was a convert - Acts 8:27, and it is very unlikely that he volunteered to be a eunuch.)
2. A Gentile bastard could not “enter” without full conversion (Deut. 23:2). There is still plenty of debate on the meaning of the rare Hebrew word מַמְזֵר (mamzer) so I will not be dogmatic on its meaning. Some commentaries believe that this refers to the result of a union with a cult prostitute.²⁴ Others see the term as referring to a child born of incest.²⁵ Others see it as referring to something similar to what was happening in Ezra and Nehemiah — the need to cast out not only those married to heathen nekar enemies, but also their children.²⁶ Others treat it as meaning someone who is an enemy foreigner.²⁷ Davidson cites others who believe that it may “refer to a child ‘dedicated’ to a foreign god, by reason of its conception during some kind of temple fertility ritual.”²⁸ Based on Zechariah 9:1-17 (the only other time this word is used in the Old Testament) some believe it refers to any citizen of Ashdod, or any Philistine, or any Canaanite, or any nekar.²⁹ But on any of these meanings, restrictions were to be placed upon his descendants simply because of the potentiality of the descendants being majorly messed up ethically and following in the steps of their parents. Of course, conversion introduces a whole new component — the transformational power of God’s grace. These “bastards” were quite welcome in Israel when they were soundly converted and “became Jews” (cf. Esth. 8:17 on Gentiles becoming Jews).
3. An Ammonite or Moabite could not “enter” as long as they remained an Ammonite or Moabite. Thus, to “enter” required full conversion, that is, a new identity as a Jew. This was because culturally those two nations were so at enmity with God that even when Moabites envied Israel’s freedoms, they would bring the culture of Moab with them and would soon cause Israel to lose her freedoms. Apart from renunciation of the nekar culture (like the renunciation that Ruth gave) and conversion, people from cultures that are demonically controlled tend to bring that demonic culture with them. Unless there is evidence of a sound conversion to Christianity, such people should be excluded from the country. And why would a country want new immigrants whose goal is to “curse” Israel (v. 5) and destroy Israel’s culture (vv. 4-6) anyway? This restriction makes total sense.
4. But Edomites and Egyptians were treated with less distrust. That is, by the third generation of an Edomite or Egyptian family’s profession of faith (but still remaining a Gentile), they could apply for residency if desired even without full conversion. This hesitancy in the law would of course motivate such Edomites and Egyptians to go all-in and become Jews through the conversion process. But however this change of status was achieved, it is clear that there were restrictions showing that they needed to prove themselves. And who is counting the generations that pass? Obviously there needs to be some record-keeping. Hopefully my chapter on immigration in my upcoming book will document such record-keeping and border control with much more thorough exegetical detail, but this will have to suffice for now. Again, just as with the other categories, Isaiah 56 is quite clear that when there is full conversion, circumcision, laying hold of God’s Sabbaths (sign of the covenant), and following God’s laws, no Gentile needs to stay out of Israel. Those converts were considered to be Jews (Esth. 8:17).

Thus, Deuteronomy 23:1-8 is one of several passages that outlines immigration laws. Certain categories of people needed to renounce their loyalty to their former culture and worldview and completely adopt the culture of Israel by becoming Jews.

I’m sure that people will still have objections with this brief introduction (that’s why I am writing a long chapter on this subject in my civics book), but after reading close to one hundred commentaries and books that have wrestled with this problem, I see only one solution – that Deuteronomy 23:1-8 is a paradigm for immigration control. Where other passages allow the vast majority of Gentiles to come into Israel freely (after all, the temple was to be a house of prayer for all nations), there were certain categories of Gentiles that had to be excluded unless they became Jews. Belief in God was not enough for these categories to come into the nation.

But what about Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kings 8
The next supposed contradiction that Luke brings up is Solomon's prayer in 1 Kings 8 (also 2 Chron. 6) asking God to hear “a foreigner, who is not of Your people Israel, but has come from a far country for Your name’s sake” (v. 41) when he "prays toward this temple." Luke says that a nekar is praying inside God’s temple, which means that nekar can’t mean a separated person. Sounds logical, right? Does this completely overturn my thesis that a nekar foreigner is an enemy? After all, this person prays to God and has his prayers all answered. Well, there are several things to notice:

1. First, the word that is used in both parallel passages is not nekar, but nokri. Nekar and nokri have quite different meanings. As I pointed out in footnote 5, the TDOT dictionary shows that they come from two different roots and have a meaning that is the “opposite” of nekar. The Hebrew meaning given in several dictionaries for the word nokri is “strange” or “different person.” Indeed, a nokri does not even need to be a foreigner. Unlike the word nekar, the word nokri can refer to non-foreigners. Biblical Studies Press says, "The Hebrew expression אִיש נָכְרִי (’ish nokhri, “stranger”) sometimes refers not to a foreigner or someone that the person does not know, but simply to someone else other than the subject (e.g., Prov 27:2). In the light of 6:3–6, it might even refer to the man’s own heirs."³⁰ In strong contrast, the nekar is more than just strange – he is dangerous. For example, the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (edited by Van Gemeren), states of nekar,

   “The foreigner designated by these terms is usually perceived as dangerous or hostile. The nom. נֵכָר often appears in a construct relationship to indicate that which is morally unacceptable. It may refer to those outside the covenant who may join (Gen 17:12; Exod 12:43) or to those unqualified to participate in the cult (Ezek 44:9). It is frequently used of idolatry in terms of foreign gods (Josh 24:20; Jer 5:19; Mal 2:11) or idols (Jer 8:19). It also refers to hostile foreign people (Neh 9:2; 13:30) or enemies (2 Sam 22:45, 46).” H. Konkel, NIDOTTE, 3:109.

   As noted above, Ruth did not consider herself to be a nekar Moabite any longer. Though she considered herself to look different (nokri), she had already said that Naomi’s people would be her people and Naomi’s God would be her God. In her mind she was converted to being a Jew. This is another time when knowing the Hebrew makes everything consistent.

2. Second, even if the reader is not convinced of this clear distinction in the Hebrew between nokri and nekar, all that really needs to be said is that Solomon is contemplating a conversion process for these nokri ("that all peoples of the earth may know Your name and fear You, as do Your people Israel" v. 43). As mentioned under the first objection, any Gentile (including an enemy nekar) who converts and comes to know God just as Israel does, is no longer separated from God’s people; which in turn means that they are a part of His people. But if they are His people, they are no longer nekar. So (to anticipate an objection) why would he call him a nokri then? Because he was different — from a different land, a different nationality, a different language, and perhaps even a different culture. Another reason could be to show where this convert had come from just as Ruth was called a Moabitess — to show what she had come from. She had rejected Moab and claimed Naomi’s people as her people, so she certainly did not consider herself to be a Moabite any longer. But the conversion of a Moabitess is such an extraordinary testimony of God’s grace, that she is still called Ruth the Moabitess. Keep in mind what we said from Deuteronomy 23:3 earlier. If she were truly a Moabite, then neither she, her children, or her other descendants (like David), could have been in the assembly. But this also explains why a person like Rahab the harlot (who was truly a nekar foreigner) had to stay “outside the camp of Israel” (Josh. 6:23) until the rituals of conversion could be accomplished.

3. Third, whether we distinguish between the two words is irrelevant to the point I will be making. The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (edited by Van Gemeren) makes it clear that nekar is an entirely different category of foreigner than the zar, the ger, or the toshav, and the nokri is similar to a zar (different, unknown, not yet examined). And several other dictionaries draw out these differences. My chart of the four kinds of foreigner should not at all be thought of as novel.

What about Ittai the Gittite?
Luke points to 2 Samuel 15:19-20 as David saying that Ittai the Gittite was a nekar. Actually that Hebrew word is also nokri. Ittai was a nokri (he looked different) but not a nekar (dangerous spiritually). Many commentators point out that Ittai was fully in covenant with God. Indeed, they point out that his testimony is even stronger than Ruth's. Where Ruth said Naomi's God would be her God, Ittai can already swear by Yahweh.

Banishment
Having given my mea culpa for specifying the wrong Hebrew word for 1 Kings 22:46, I will now address whether banishment is ever a valid punishment for anything. Luke seems to indicate that he believes it is not. I won’t get into the numerous Scriptures that allow for lesser penalties for capital crimes, but the reader can find those in my booklet, Why God Didn’t Mandate The Death Penalty For All Capital Crimes: A Case For The Flexible and Restorative Nature of Biblical Penology (and the Justice of the Death Penalty). But here I will just highlight the verses he questioned.

1. First, he questions whether the word עבר (abar) in 1 Kings 15:12 should be translated as banished (like the NKJV does). And it is true that you can find some commentaries that believe that the perverted persons were either put away through execution or banishment,³¹ but the vast majority of commentaries that I have looked at say that the more natural translation of עבר (abar) is that he put them out of the country or banished them from the country. Here are some sample quotes from my commentaries: “He expelled the male prostitutes” (Mordechai Cogan),³² “he dismissed the cult prostitutes from the land (Simon DeVries),³³ *“*he banished the ‘perverted persons’ from the land” Dilday & Ogilvie),³⁴ *“*He expelled the qadeshim, ‘sodomites,’ from the land (Cyril Barber),³⁵ *“*He expelled the hierodules from the country” (John Goldingay),³⁶ *“*he sent the fertility functionaries packing” (Dale Ralph Davis),³⁷ *“*He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land” (August Konkel),³⁸ *“*He expelled the cultic prostitutes from the land” (Marvin Sweeney).³⁹ They all understand this as being expelled from the country as a whole. But more importantly, the text makes clear that God approved of this banishment. As James Coffman words it, “This action of Asa, along with his throwing the sodomites out of Judah, were powerful evidences of his loyalty to the Lord.”⁴⁰ In my previous paper I show that for him to have been faithful, this banishment had to be found in the law. And it is.⁴¹ But if banishment is allowed, it implies some control of the borders that they are banished beyond.
2. The word used for banishment in 1 Kings 15:12 and 22:46 (בער, baar) is more ambiguous, and could refer to various ways of removing the perverted persons (death or banishment). Luke is correct that there are passages where baar is carried out by way of the death penalty (Deut. 13:5; 22:24; 24:7; etc.). If there were victims or other citizens pressing charges against criminals, there would be only one option — the death penalty. But when the state itself is the one prosecuting the case for removal (there were no victims or other citizens bringing charges), the state still had options, and commentators point out that the meaning of this word can include the idea of removal (2 Chron. 19:3; etc.). Luke says that this just removes the crime from one jurisdiction to another, but he needs to consider court proceedings that complicate things. I won’t get into it here, but I think there is ample evidence that this was a mass banishment, not a mass execution. But I am glad to see that Luke has finally changed his mind about the need for Hebrew to settle controversies and in a second podcast he has begun using the Hebrew. In any case, of the English translations I have on my shelf, only a couple clearly side with Luke — the ESV and NRS, both of which translate it as “exterminated.” The NIV and a couple of others leave it ambiguous when they translate as “rid from the land.” But the vast majority of English translations I own side with the idea banishment: “banished from the land” (NKJV, NLT, APB, NSLB, SFLDP), “expelled from the land” (NASB, NASU, TLV), “took out of the land” (KJV, DRB, RAEV, Spurrell, CPB, NCPB), “expelled from the country” (Amp, NJB, GNT), “put away out of the land” (ASV, WEB, ABUV, ERV, Tanakh), “took away out of the land” (Young’s), “removed from the land” (NET), “put away out of the land” (HNV), “took out of the land” (TMB), “removed” (HCSB), etc. As can be seen, there are differences of view when using English translations. But in this article I won’t lean on this word too heavily.
3. In Ezra 7:26, Ezra sees it as a good thing that the emperor gave the following decree, “Whoever will not observe the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily on him, whether it be death, or banishment, or confiscation of goods, or imprisonment.” The word for banishment is שְׁרשִׁו (sh erōshiw), and I don’t think there is any controversy on that point*.* Why would Ezra bless God for putting this in the emperor’s heart if it was a slam-dunk violation of God’s law to banish people? As my previous article and my notes above demonstrated, the law of God itself allowed for banishment.
4. But in my last paper I would have been even better served to use a fourth synonym word בדל (badal), that is used over and over in Ezra and Nehemiah as separating themselves from the people of the land. See the extensive definition of בדל (badal) in footnote 7, which shows that this word carries the idea of separation from a space or a region. It is used to speak of the separation of light from darkness (Gen. 1:4), water from land (Gen. 1:6-7), day from night (Gen. 1:14), etc. The separation of Jews from the nekar in Nehemiah came as a result of reading Deuteronomy 23:1-8 (see Neh. 13:1-2), and this separation should therefore be interpreted consistently with what we saw are the possible interpretations of “assembly of the LORD” above. It’s not enough to say that they kicked people out of the 1) festivals, 2) temple, 3) covenant community, because none of those theories of assembly of the Lord fit the evidence of Deuteronomy 23:1-8 (see exposition above). Instead, I follow the commentaries⁴² that say a literal exclusion from Israel of the nekar (dangerous) aliens was what was in view. Nehemiah 9:2 says, "Then those of Israelite lineage separated themselves from all foreigners [nekar]." So what does Nehemiah 13:3 mean when it says, "So it was, when they had heard the Law, that they separated all the mixed multitude from Israel." This was not racism since Ezra 6:21 already made provision for those nekar to convert, in which case they were no longer nekar. As Marvin Breneman words it, "Removal of foreigners should not be viewed as racial exclusivism. As always, foreigners could become part of Israel by conversion (cf. Ezra 6:21; Ruth 1:16–17)."⁴³ But Nehemiah himself states what he had achieved when he says, “I cleansed them from everything foreign [nekar]”.

Were there restrictions on immigration prior to 1882?
Though this is not an important point, he challenged me on it, so here goes. Were there restrictions on immigration prior to 1882? Not many. But there were some. I am not saying that I approve of all of these restrictions, but only to clear the air on what I meant when I said that there were some restrictions. Here are the ones I am familiar with:

1. The 1819 Steerage Act required ship captains to report passenger data to the federal government. This laid the groundwork for tracking immigration.
2. Massachusetts and New York passed laws aimed at excluding paupers, convicts, and others deemed likely to become public charges.
3. Some states targeted Irish immigrants.
4. In 1832, Congress passed a law prohibiting the entry of convicts, and states often excluded people with contagious diseases.
5. The slave trade acts of 1794, 1807, and 1820 gave various restrictions on the importation of slaves.

So Luke is correct that the pre-1882 era was probably much closer to the kind of free travel that you found in the Bible — but it was still immigration control.

One last thought. My take on the need for some immigration restraint is not new among Reformed theologians. Bill Muehlenberg has wisely said, “immigration without integration is an invasion.”⁴⁴ Consider how easily Marxist guerillas, Muslim Jihadists, or other groups intend on taking over a nation could do so by simply coming over one at a time or in smaller groups and then building coalitions once inside the country. Also consider how mass immigration of Hindus, occultists, would eventually change a country. Nor is the idea of some immigration control new to Theonomy or Reconstructionism. Steve Halbrook (a theonomist) pointed out that the Scripture restricted immigration⁴⁵ and he even pointed out that the Pilgrims and Puritans had an immigration policy that restricted certain people who would be hostile to the culture of their colonies – and these Puritans and Pilgrims appealed to Biblical law, not pragmatism.⁴⁶ Yes, Martin Selbrede points out that Isaiah 19:18-19 prophecies a time when there will be a porous border (a highway) between Israel, Egypt, and Assyria, but he also points out that they will still be discrete nations and that those three nations will by that time have fully Christianized.⁴⁷ That is precisely the issue that I address — not allowing people in who would deliberately undermine a Christian culture. Certainly R. J. Rushdoony believed that undue restrictions on immigration undermined liberty. I agree. But he also said,

Well, first of all they [illegal immigrants] have broken the law. And justice to everyone requires that the law be upheld. So if they are illegal aliens they should be deported. Now that’s justice because it’s comparable to breaking and entering into a man’s house.⁴⁸

R.J. also believed that immigration law needed reformation. I agree. But those who claim that he believed in completely open borders have not listened to very much of his stuff. He said,

…most of the inhabitants of the United States are immigrants who came in the early 1600s to the present. The problem, of course, is that now we have a great deal of illegal immigration. We have immigration laws that no longer follow the older pattern and concentrate on European countries. We allow many, many peoples in who have nothing in common with us, who are Moslem or members of other religions and it appears that there is an effort to break the Christian heritage and character of the United States.⁴⁹

His son, Mark Rushdoony also pointed out that though his father (R. J.) was not opposed to inter-racial marriages, he was opposed to marriages to foreigners who held to a hostile culture — like what happened when GI’s married Japanese girls and brought them home.⁵⁰ It’s the hostile culture that is the issue.

Perhaps Gary North was the theonomist of the previous generation who most strongly advocated for open borders. I don’t entirely agree with his take on immigration, but even Gary North said that citizenship should be restricted to those who uphold the Christian culture. He said,

When the immigrant can soon gain access to citizenship, but without any confession of faith other than his promise to obey the law and the Constitution, he thereby gains the authority to participate in the changing of both the law and the Constitution. He can seek to make the law and the Constitution conform to his confession of faith. This is the heart of the matter; this is the heart of the problem. In Mosaic Israel, the immigrant could not become a citizen until he became a member of the congregation by confession and circumcision—major barriers to entry! The nation of Israel tested the commitment of the immigrant family’s confession of faith before it granted to the grandson the right to declare the law as a civil judge. In short, he had to grow up in a family that was under the national covenant before he could declare the law and legally enforce it in the name of God….
It is not the welfare state as such that creates the problem of immigration; rather, it is the confession of faith of the would-be immigrants. If their confession inherently threatens the moral and judicial foundations of the free society, then immigration is a problem, with or without the presence today of a welfare state. Freedom is based on more than private contracts. It is based on a moral vision, which includes a vision of the moral boundaries of the state. For a society to continue to serve as a sanctuary, it must preserve its commitment to both economic freedom and the rule of law. If it transfers the judicial authority of citizenship to recent immigrants who came seeking economic benefits—the fruits of liberty—apart from their steadfast commitment to the moral and judicial bases of economic freedom, then it risks losing its economic freedom. This is far worse than inviting a would-be thief into your home, for the thief has a limited ability to carry off your wealth. It is more like granting the thief the power of attorney over your estate and your children’s trusts, and then inviting in the neighbors and encouraging them to do the same.⁵¹

I would say that what North talked about applies only to the Ger, the Toshav, and the Zar pagans, not the enemy pagans like Moab, Ammon, and the Canaanites. In the New Covenant times, God would not make a distinction between believing Jews and believing *Ger-*Gentiles.

In any case, I also have no illusion that this short follow-up article to my previous one will settle the controversy. That’s why I plan to go into much more detail on my chapter on immigration in my upcoming civics book. But at least I hope onlookers of this debate will have a little better idea of the trajectory of my thinking on this topic. And I do pray God’s blessings on those on both sides of this debate.

To read the paper that started this debate, check out Dr. Kayser's article "Does God's Law Allow Nations To Regulate Immigration".