3
Israel’s religion was a religion of salvation, not of contemplation – that is what accounts for the mantra of the widows, the orphans, the aliens, and the poor. Not a religion of salvation from this earthly existence but a religion of salvation from injustice in this earthly existence.
Nicholas Wolterstroff, professor of philosophical theology, Yale University[1]
When fighting erupted in Kormaganza, Blue Nile state, Sudan in September last year, eighty-year-old Dawa Musa’s family decided to flee to the neighbouring village of Mafot. Dawa was too frail to make the two-day journey by foot, so her son, Awad Kutuk Tungud, hid her in the bush for three days while he moved his wife, Alahia, and nine children to safety. Awad returned for his mother and carried her to Mafot, where the family remained in relative safety for several months – until artillery began shelling the village.
Awad again fled with his family – this time across the border to South Sudan. For fifteen grueling days, he carried both his elderly mother and his daughter Zainab on his back, until they reached the border crossing at Al Fudj in February. UNHCR transported the family to Jamam refugee camp in South Sudan’s Upper Nile state. They lived in safety for seven months until heavy rains caused flooding, making it difficult for UNHCR to bring clean water to the camp and bringing the threat of highly contagious waterborne diseases.
UNHCR set up a new camp in Gendrassa, located fifty-five kilometers from Jamam and on higher ground, and began the relocation of 56,000 people to the new camp. Among them were Awad and his family. Awad carried his mother once again, but this time it was to their new tent in Gendrassa camp. Awad has plans to begin farming. “Come back in three months,” he said, “and there will be maize growing.”[2]
The problems of refugees and displacement cannot only be analyzed through political and social lenses. A theological and biblical framework for understanding the problems considers the reality of the fallen world we live in. Sin is not only an individual reality but is manifested in social institutions and values. American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr states that evil is often thought of as an individual trait, whereas institutions may in effect represent a far more insidious evil that is more likely to abuse power and prove usually more resistant to change.[3]
There are social, legal, and economic structures in societies that are unjust and inherently evil. These may exist in the form of deeply imbedded social attitudes, legal and economic systems, or religious and social practices that discriminate against specific peoples, groups, and individuals. Racism, apartheid, communalism, sexual exploitation, political oppression, hyper patriotism, human trafficking, forced displacement, and ethnic cleansing are just some examples of how these socially imbedded attitudes surface in everyday life, mostly with tragic results. Often these attitudes are institutionalized through laws, economic policies, and institutions that discriminate against particular groups or favour the wealthy, the elite, and specific social groups.[4]
These societies are the context within which displacement, with its devastating consequences of dehumanizing individuals and whole communities, takes place. It also highlights our role as a society in any refugee or migrant crisis and how displaced people are treated. This is also the context within which God responds and brings healing and wholeness.
The central paradigm for understanding who the foreigner is in the Old Testament is the concept of belonging. Those who do not belong own no land, and as a result have no physical or social security. This concern over not belonging is an ongoing theme throughout Scripture.
Any study of the horrors of displacement has to start with understanding the nature and character of God. Displacement has always been a reality of the human experience. Because of their disobedience, Adam and Eve were displaced from the home God had created for them. Cain was judged for his jealousy and violence and driven from the area where he had made his home. Centuries later, the southern kingdom of Judah was conquered, and the elite were carried into exile because of idolatry and social injustice.
Yet what is remarkable in each instance is the character of God, who extends grace and unmerited favour to those who have been displaced, enabling them to cope with the consequences of their own actions, even though the crisis was their fault. In the case of Adam and Eve, God provided clothing so they could cope with the consequences of shame. Even in their exile from his presence, God never abandoned them but blessed them with children (Gen 4:1) and enabled them to worship him (Gen 4:3–4). God gave Cain a physical mark so that as he wandered, he would be protected and not harmed; despite the hideousness of Cain’s actions, God alleviated his fears and addressed his vulnerability. God never abandoned the Israelites in exile and promised that they would be restored at the right time (Jer 29:10–14). He even instructed them on what to do so that he could bless them in exile (Jer 29:4–8), thus helping to transform their displacement from an episode of apparent hopelessness to a season of refinement and growth.
Other stories are similar. When Hagar and Ishmael were sent out from Abraham’s family and tribe, God saw their desperation, nourished them, and promised them a future. When the tribes of Jacob were humiliated and enslaved in Egypt for four hundred years, away from the land they had been promised, God heard their cry and sent them a liberator. As they wandered in the desert homeless, God provided for their daily physical needs. When Naomi became a widowed migrant in a foreign land, God gave her a non-Israelite, Ruth, as her companion who then became her only family. God in his love then brought the two back to Naomi’s ancestral home and gave them a home and family.
So whether people are displaced because of their own actions, are victims of the brutality of others, or are migrants in trouble in a foreign land, God is concerned for their plight and well-being. God never abandons his creation and in his righteousness will fulfil his obligation to them. God’s character demonstrated through his grace, compassion, and righteousness is the starting point in knowing how God relates to refugees and the displaced.
The formation of Israel as a society and as a nation occurred during the exodus from Egypt and the subsequent wilderness wanderings. It was during this period through the giving of the law that Israel’s social contract was developed. The Torah, or the Pentateuch,[5] weaves the narrative of Israel’s story with the principles and laws that together were to form the basis of society and social discourse. During the period of the prophets, the laws provided the lens through which the prophets critiqued society and its narrative.
According to biblical scholar Roland de Vaux, ancient Israel in the wilderness was a semi-nomadic society and was not divided into social classes.[6] Israelite society as originally structured was non-hierarchical and decentralized. Missiologist Arthur Glasser at Fuller Theological Seminary writes about the value of such a quality. “It protected the social health and economic viability of the lowest unit, not wealth, privilege, or power of any structured hierarchy. Its aim was to preserve the broadly based egalitarian self-sufficiency of each family and protect the weakest, poorest, and most threatened persons in the nation.”[7]
What is remarkable is that according to the traditional dating of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, at least the Covenant Code (Exod 21–23) and the Deuteronomic Code (Deut 12–26) were given during the wilderness sojourn.[8] Even though the Israelites during the wilderness wandering were a very egalitarian society with no class distinctions (among the tribes of Israel, though the population did include non-Israelites also), the law addresses issues of poverty, social vulnerability, and marginalization. It warns against class distinction and the dangers of social polarization. God in his awareness of the depth of human sinfulness and propensity for evil gifted his people with the law before they even entered the land in order to ensure protection and provision for the weak, the poor, and those who live on the margins of society.
As Israel moved from the wilderness to conquest and settlement, Joshua instituted the land tenure system. The objective of these laws was to prevent any sort of absentee landlord system where a wealthy landlord would claim a percentage of the produce from land being worked by tenant farmers. Instead land ownership and use was to be based on the kinship system, which ensured the economic viability of all the Israelites.[9] All enjoyed more or less a similar standard of living with wealth coming from the produce of the land. The ideal that God intended for his people was:
“There need be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today” (Deut 15:4, 5).
But knowing the reality of sin and greed and its consequences, God stated: “There will always be poor people in the land” (Deut 15:11a). This was a statement of fact and of reality rather than of God’s intention for his people. So he added, “Therefore I command you to be openhanded towards your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land” (Deut 15:11b).
Non-possession of land during this period would be the major cause of poverty and vulnerability in society. These vulnerable members were identified as the slaves, widows, fatherless children, the needy, non-Israelites who had placed themselves under Israel’s protection (from the days when they were still in the wilderness), and the sojourners or “resident aliens.” Therefore while the laws ensured that the vulnerable were taken care of, fundamental to everything else was to be the equitable distribution of the land and following the system (the Sabbatical and Jubilee years) that would ensure that equity and justice would continue and that generational poverty would not be perpetuated.
It is within this social context that the status and plight of the foreigners in ancient Israel needs to be understood. Old Testament scholar Christopher Wright identifies the various kinds of foreigners who lived in the land.
• Gēr (plural gērîm) were not ethnic Israelites but were the sojourners, resident aliens, or foreigners.[10] While they were resident in the land, some were members of an Israelite household as slaves, others were not. Those who were not slaves would not have been allowed to own land (since they were not Israelites), but many of them would have been employed to work on the land. They were not slaves, but they were on their own and vulnerable to exploitation. Most were also economically poor and all were socially vulnerable as they did not have the security of land ownership nor were they part of the Israelite tribal system.[11]
The concept is similar to the practice among ancient Arab nomads, where a jar was a refugee or individual who had settled in a tribe other than his own while seeking protection. Similarly, the ger “is essentially a foreigner who lives more or less permanently in the midst of another community, where he is accepted and enjoys certain rights.”[12] Abraham and Moses in the early years were gērîm. Later when the Israelites settled in the land and saw themselves as “the people of the land” and the legitimate owners, all the former inhabitants became gērîm, unless they became slaves or were assimilated into Israelite society through marriage. So while the gērîm were free men and not slaves, they did not have full civic or political rights.[13]
Wright quotes biblical law scholar Jonathan Burnside to further expand this point.
We may understand the ger as a person from another tribe, city, district or country who has left his homeland and who is no longer directly related to his original setting. He is someone who lacks the customary social protection of privilege and who has, of necessity, placed himself under the jurisdiction of someone else. . . . This being so, it is sensible to suggest that the noun ger should be translated as “immigrant.” The phrase “resident alien” is awkward and the term “sojourner” is archaic. “Immigrant” . . . adds the motif of “social conflict.” It does this in three main ways. First it highlights the original circumstances of social conflict that are inevitably responsible for causing people to become immigrants in the first place. People usually become gerim as a result of social and political upheaval. This could be caused by war, famine, oppression, plague and other social misfortunes. Second it is consistent with the conflicts that can result when immigrants try to settle in a new environment. . . . Third, it highlights the immigrant’s “outsider” status in the adopted social setting.[14]
• Nokrīyîm and zārîm were foreigners who were temporary visitors, maybe merchants travelling through the land or mercenary soldiers. They were less vulnerable than the gērîm and usually more independent. They were sometimes viewed with suspicion and antagonistic attitudes because they worshiped idols and could be seen as a religious threat. Yet Wright points out that some kings and prophets understood the missional opportunity that the presence of these foreigners provided. “Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple expressed the surprising assumption that they could be attracted to come and worship Yahweh, the God of Israel, in his temple, that Yahweh would answer their prayer, with amazing missional consequences for Yahweh’s reputation worldwide (1 Kgs 8:41–43). Similarly, Isaiah 56:3–7 holds out the eschatological (and equally missional) promise that foreigners would come to be accepted in God’s house, and their offerings at his altar (cf. Isa. 60:10; 61:5–6).”[15]
Among the foreigners in the land, the focus of concern for social protection in ancient Israel was the gērîm, as they were the most vulnerable among the foreigners. However, foreigners were not included in the original understanding of who were the most vulnerable in society. Glasser identifies the widows as symbolic of those most vulnerable in the community. “Widows were regarded as helpless, needy persons, unable to protect or provide for themselves. . . . In a sense widows represent all the disenfranchised persons in society, those who are deprived of reasonable livelihood and in need of care by others.”[16] Old Testament scholar Norbert Lohfink referring to the context of early Israel and the surrounding cultures writes, “The fixed word-pair ‘widow and orphan’ is old. Israel inherited it from its surrounding cultures as a symbolic name for those in need of help.”[17]
This understanding of “widows and orphans” as symbolic of all the poor and vulnerable in the community would change to include foreigners. As Israel transitioned from a group of nomadic tribes wandering in the wilderness to a nation settled in the land they were promised, the social contract that they established through the laws underscores the importance of care for the vulnerable in society. The first giving of the law in Exodus (the Covenant Code) identified foreigners as a vulnerable group, and the foundation for how they were to be treated is described in Exodus 23:9, “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.” The experience and history of the Israelites in Egypt gave them a personal and deep understanding of poverty and exclusion and should have impacted their understanding of the social contract that was defined by the Covenant Code of Exodus.[18] The Israelites by then understood the devastation that displacement causes. By the time of the second giving of the law, the Deuteronomic Code (Deut 12–26), the fixed word-pair of “widows and orphans” signifying the most vulnerable and poor[19] also included the stranger in the land (Deut 24:20). The term poor whenever used in both the Old and New Testaments always includes the widows, the orphans and the resident foreigners.
The inclusion of foreigners is significant. The texts of cultures surrounding ancient Israel, such as Egyptian wisdom texts and prayers and royal texts of other ancient Near Eastern societies, included the ideology of being just and compassionate to the poor in everyday life, in business dealings, and in the courts. But they said nothing about care for the foreigners who did not belong to the community and nation. A king’s concern was only for his citizens and never the foreigners. This unique distinction of concern for vulnerable foreigners in Israel’s law speaks of God’s compassion for the displaced.[20]
Wright summarizes the laws that supported and protected the vulnerable foreigners in ancient Israel: (a) They were protected from general abuse and oppression (Lev 19:33). (b) They were protected from unfair treatment in court (Deut 1:16–17; 24:17–18). (c) They were included in the Sabbath rest (Deut 5:12–15). (d) They were included in worship and covenant;[21] (e) Employers were to treat foreign workers fairly, just as they treated Israelite workers (Deut 24:14–15). (f) Foreigners were given access to agricultural produce through gleaning rights (Lev 19:9–10; Deut 24:19–22). (g) Foreign slaves were to be granted the right to asylum and not forcibly returned (Deut 23:15–16). And finally, (h) Foreigners were to be treated like the native-born (Lev 19:34).[22]
The command and motivation to love the foreigner is summarized in Deuteronomy 10:17–19. “For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.” Wright adds that the motivation to love the foreigners was Israel’s own history of having been vulnerable foreigners in Egypt, the character and historic actions of God, and the desire of God to continue to bless his people.[23]
Centuries later the critique of social injustice in Israel by the prophets is damning. As ancient Israel evolved as a political entity, a theocratic society based on worship of the living God who had revealed himself and governed by the Mosaic laws, the Israelites were gradually influenced by values and ethics of the surrounding nations. They forgot God’s values. Jeremiah reminds the nation of what was important when he writes about the king, “He did what was right and just, so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?” (Jer 22:15–16). As pagan worship, idolatry, and social disintegration took hold in Israel, God sent prophets to warn his people of impending judgment if they did not return to him. Jeremiah warns them, “If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, if you do not oppress the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your ancestors for ever and ever” (Jer 7:5–7).[24]
Finally, God delivers judgment via the Babylonian conquest and exile. His verdict is damning against his people who rejected him as the God worthy of worship and as the king to be obeyed:
• They had betrayed him and his love for them. They were unfaithful to the covenant they had with God, and they worshiped idols (Exod 32:1; Isa 5:8–24; Hos 2:1–3, 8–13; Amos 2:7–8, 10–17; 5:25–27; Mic 2:1–2).
• They were unjust in their dealings and exploited the poor and the minorities (foreigners) in their midst (Amos 2:6–7a; 5:7–12).
It is important to note that God’s judgment for exploiting the poor is not just limited to Israel. God hates it when any nation abuses and exploits the poor. Ezekiel 16:49 gives an additional reason for God’s judgment of Sodom: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” Professor of Old Testament at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary Timothy Laniak explains that because human beings everywhere bear God’s image and likeness, he has a stake in how humans are treated.[25]
When God created this world he envisaged just societies that would reflect his very nature and character. The laws he later gave to the Israelites were to be the social contract of his people, and they reflected the character of God. There is no duality in Hebrew thought; the physical world is to reflect the reality of the spiritual realm. The unseen God is to be perceived not only through the laws he gave, but also through the attitudes and practice of his people. They are to be a compassionate people because he is a compassionate God. He cares for those who are unable to enjoy the blessings of his creation and live in poverty on the margins of society – the widows, orphans, and foreigners who have no family or community to support and protect them. Such compassion and social justice is fundamental to what it means to be a people of God.
1. Think of the times when you feel your country or society turned away from God and did things that broke the laws of God. Then reflect on ways God has continued to pour out his love and concern for your country and society. How do you see and experience the love and goodness of God in your life and in your community?
2. How welcome are the foreigners in your community? Have they assimilated to the local culture or have they set up their own distinct communities and keep to themselves? How do you feel about the presence of foreigners in your community? Are they a positive or negative influence?
3. Look at the foreigners in your community. What are their reasons for leaving their home and their country to live where they are living now? How do people and employers in your community treat these foreigners?