The Law of Moses has much to say about how the people of God
were to treat foreigners.
Though there is some overlap in the Hebrew terminology,
context makes it clear foreigners were of two very different types. There was:
(1) the person of foreign origin who resided among the people of God,
often referred to as a sojourner; and (2) the true foreigner, whose place
of residence was elsewhere.
The latter term is sometimes translated “alien” or
“stranger”.
Ruth used the word self-deprecatingly to describe her
situation in Israel immediately after she emigrated from Moab, though that quickly
changed. After all, her own testimony to Naomi was that “Your
people shall be my people, and your God my God.” The change in status she
had contemplated from the beginning was permanent; it only remained for the
people she had chosen to fully accept her as one of their own. In the
meantime, she would not presume on their kindness.
A sojourner might have been from a different people group,
but he made his home among the people of God and was bound by most of the same laws they
were. His stay
in Israel might be months or years, even multi-generational, depending on his
reasons for being among God’s people. What made a group of visitors “sojourners”
rather than citizens is that they did not intermarry with the people of God and
kept themselves genetically distinct. Everyone understood their arrangement was
temporary.
On the other hand, a true foreigner did not live among God’s
people. He might pass through their territory while traveling, or visit to
engage in business, but his home, his god (or gods), his allegiances and his kindred
were elsewhere. Interacting with sojourners was a regular feature of Israelite
life, and their law says much about it. Interacting with true foreigners, on
the other hand, required that someone had to first cross a border.
It is the laws about this latter type of foreigner that
interest me today, because they introduce two concepts we may be familiar
with from the New Testament relationship of the people of God to the unsaved
world.
① The people of God should not impose God’s standards on foreigners
The OT people of God had a number of dietary restrictions
imposed on them in the law that were not imposed on either sojourners or
foreigners. For
example:
“You shall not eat anything that has died naturally. You may give it to the sojourner who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God.”
This is one of the few times in the Law of Moses where
sojourners are not held to the same standards as Israelites, and for good reason.
Sojourners were often poor and might be reduced to gleaning
the edges of Israelite fields to survive. Free meat was not to be sniffed
at, even if its provenance was a little dubious. In their case, the meat was to
be given away; Israelites had been instructed to love
and take
care of sojourners. If someone wanted to live in their midst and would play
by their rules, that person was entitled to a few social benefits.
On the other hand, Israelites had no moral obligation to
foreigners from outside their borders, who might be allies and trading partners
one week and deadly enemies the next. The same meat could be sold to
foreigners and profit made from the exchange. The foreigner had no interest in
being held to the same standards as the people of God, and the people of God
had no interest in imposing their own standards on foreigners. What these folks
did was none of their business.
We find a similar thought in Paul’s instructions to the
church in Corinth: “What
have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside
the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside.” The unsaved world
is foreign territory to believers. Beyond sharing the gospel with them, we have
no obligation to meet their moral expectations, and they have no obligation to
meet ours. Our obligations are to each other and to those who desire to
walk among us on our terms, not theirs.
② Foreign standards should not be imposed on the people of God
Just as the people of God did not impose their standards on
the Gentiles around them, so also the heathen nations were not to dictate what
went on among the people of God. This was true first and foremost in
the area of governance:
“You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.”
but it was also true in the matter of day-to-day interaction
between the people of God and outsiders. No matter what a foreigner might think
was reasonable, his
property rights ended right at Israel’s border:
“You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you … You shall not wrong him.”
Where there were two competing claims (the right of the
foreign owner to repossess his property and the right of the escaped slave to
find asylum among the people of God), it was claim of the ex-slave that was to
be prioritized. Tough luck for the former owner of the slave, but a person who
had risked his life to escape to the sanctuary offered by God’s people had
earned the right to their protection. To turn him over to his former owner
would have been a grave injustice. I have no doubt it was necessary for
Moses to put this rule in writing, because the temptation would always exist
among God’s people to kowtow to powerful foreign interests if there was a financial
incentive involved. But the conduct of God’s people was not to be determined by
the will of foreigners.
Again, we find a similar thought in the New Testament with
respect to the relationship between the people of God and worldly authorities.
As individuals, we are responsible to obey the secular authorities over us, but
only so long as they “stay outside the border”, so to speak. When they address
themselves to us as individual citizens benefiting from their rule and living
in their territory, we are to respect their rule and obey their edicts. But
when they “cross the border” and attempt to impose the world’s standards on the
church of God, they have nothing useful to say to us.
“We
must obey God rather than men,” said the apostles. Silencing the word of
truth is crossing a border which secular authorities have no right to cross. It
is like dictating policy to a
sovereign nation. “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” said the
Lord Jesus, “and
to God the things that are God’s.” That last part is often forgotten.
Caesar has his sphere of authority, God has his, and never the twain shall meet. Ceding authority to Caesar in territory claimed by God is a grave mistake. Again,
Paul refers to magistrates and judges as “those who
have no standing in the church”. Educated men may have all kinds of accreditation
in the world, but their standards are not our standards and their rules are not
ours. The greatest secular minds in history are inadequate to pass judgment on the faith and practice of
God’s people.
The rights and authority of foreigners end at the border. As Israel belonged to God, so the church belongs to Christ.
No comments :
Post a Comment