The Bible, Salvation, and Immigration

A good discussion on the Bible and Immigration can be found here. I definitely admire Mr. Marnov’s reasoning on why there should be no State-based restrictions on immigration – at least, if you are basing your reasoning on the Bible.


A few quotes from the blog:

The common saying, “Best is the enemy of better,” has its inverted version in the mission field, known by heart by all who have ever attempted to do the work of a missionary: “Better is the enemy of best.” Translated in a layman’s language, it means, “The better a culture is, morally and judicially, the more resistant it is to the full message of the Gospel.”

Points to Japan: a nation whose moral integrity, flawed as it is, still puts every Christian society to shame. And yet: despite the many flaws of numerous Christian states – from violent Jamaica to oppressive Zimbabwe, to the frankly murderous United States – those Christian nations are going to have a lot more people, percentage-wise, than Japan will. Tons of lazy Black men who repent of their sins will be in heaven: tons of industrious Japanese who repent of nothing will go to hell.

(But note: God commands us to work. Disobedient Black men who who truly repent are forgiven: but they will still be as poor as dirt. So they have a few choices:

  • Blame their race for their poverty (like the racists would)
  • Blame their circumstances for their poverty (like the Marxists do)
  • Blame their history for their poverty (like a good fatalist would)
  • Get to work, and get out of poverty (as God has told us to do.)

Come on men… why are you letting your sisters – and a nation of nature-worshipping pagans – put you to shame? The White man expects nothing from you… but God expects better!)


As noted by Robert M M’Cheyne in the Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth, Dec 2014 edition:

(Warning: Lengthy post! But it’s worth it…)

The only reason given in the Bible why Christ loved us—and if you study till you die you will not find another—is, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” This is evident from all those that Christ chooses. We read of two great apostasies: one on earth, the other in heaven. First of all, one in heaven: Lucifer, the son of the morning, through pride, sinned, and God cast him and those that sinned with him into hell. The second was on earth: Adam sinned and was driven out of Paradise. They were both deserving of punishment. God had a purpose of love; which is it for? Perhaps angels pleaded for their fellow angels; yet Christ passed them by and died for man. Why did He die for man? The answer is, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.”
The same thing is evident in the individuals Christ chooses. You would think that Christ would choose the rich, and yet what says James? “Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom, which he hath promised to them that love him?” (James 2:5).
Again, you would think Christ would choose the noble; they have not the prejudices that the poor have; but what does the Scripture say? “Not many mighty, not many noble are called” (1 Cor. 1:26).
Again, you would think He would choose those that are learned. The Bible is written in difficult language; its doctrines are hard to be understood. Yet what says Christ? “I thank thee, O Father, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Matt. 11:25).
Again, you would think He would have chosen the virtuous. Though there are none righteous, yet there are some more virtuous than others; yet what says Christ? The publicans and harlots enter the kingdom of heaven while the Pharisee is shut out. “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out” (Rom. 11:33)!
Why did he take the most vile? Here is the only reason I have been able to find ever since I read my Bible: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”
Christ chooses some that seek Him and not others. There was a young ruler came to Christ and said, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” (Matt. 19:16). He was in earnest, yet something came in the way, and he went back. A woman who was a sinner came behind Christ, weeping, and she also was in earnest.
Christ said regarding her, “Her sins which are many are forgiven her” (Luke 7:47–48). What made the difference? “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” He called unto Him whom He would. Be humbled under the sovereignty of God!
God plays hardball.
Or, even to extend the example to the two men I repeatedly harp on in this blog: Ludwig von Mises & Murray Rothbard had a higher level of courage, integrity, intellectual brilliance and good humour than any thousand compromising, go-along-to-get-along Christians in their era. Their names will be remembered with respect for generations to come, and rightfully so. And yet, they are most likely in hell right now, while some repentant mass-murdering Russian or hyper-corrupt Chinese Communist Party thug who truly turned from his wicked ways a few years after retirement – ‘bad dreams’, perhaps – will enter the kingdom of heaven.
No, I don’t understand it either. But I do know that God has the rightful authority to let in whom He chooses… and lock out the rest.

Immigration: from Bojidar Marinov

But, while He has that right to let in or cast out from Heaven (and the New Creation) just as He wisely decides, the Biblical, Righteous Magistrate doesn’t. He – and we – must obey the commandments God has given us, when it comes to letting in or locking out who can enter the country.
Waits for the bleatings of “Not Fair! NOT FAIR!!!” to rise and fall.

Returning to Mr. Marnov’s post:

Hoffmeier’s legal argument is based on his claim that in the Law, only the ger was given legal protection, while the nekhar or the zar were not given such protection

[…straining at gnats and swallowing camels snipped…]

But Hoffmeier doesn’t stop to consider the implications of his position. If legal protection is limited to certain classes of people, what of those left outside that protection? He – deliberately or not – fails to mention the most important verse in this regard:

You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt (Ex. 23:9).

The word used here is ger, as in the examples Hoffmeier gives above. The question now is, following Hoffmeier’s logic, does the Law give moral and legal permission for oppression of certain groups of people? Certainly, if the nekhar and zar were excluded from legal rights, based on the omission of the specific words in the specific laws, this law would free the Israelites to oppress the nekhar and the zar. Hoffmeier doesn’t mention any other specific law that would protect the basic human rights of these categories, he just says they don’t have legal protection.

Well, then, are they protected against murder, theft, kidnapping, rape? Could an Israelite freely commit sin and crime against a nekhar and not be responsible to either God or the civil government? That’s what follows logically from Hoffmeier’s logic. Even worse than that, since he specifically says that modern illegal immigrants are excluded from the category of ger – and therefore ineligible to have legal rights – this must mean that modern immigrants should be completely left without any protection of life and limb whatsoever. If he is not saying that, he must have some place in the Law that gives those people at least some protection. But there isn’t such a place in the Law. The Law only protects the ger. Are the nekhar and the zar beasts to be hunted at will, then? If not, why?

The unique proposition in the Law of God, compared to the customs of the pagan nations was that God was the God of all, not just the God of one people, and His statutes applied to all. The universal power of God was to be manifested in the universal applicability of His Law. Moses said that the nations around Israel would see all the laws and in their wisdom would acknowledge the majesty of God (Deut. 4:5-8). The nations in Canaan were driven out by God for violating His Law (Lev. 18:24). The prophets in Israel declared judgment against the surrounding nations because of their violations of the Law of God. Under the Law, there was no privileged position for this or that individual, for this or that group of people, when it came to responsibilities and legal protection. (There was discrimination only in terms of privileges: political participation.) How would God’s Law appeal to a stranger if that same Law declared that stranger unworthy of protection and open to oppression? If even a runaway slave from another nation was supposed to be left alone and not oppressed (Deut. 23:15-16), how could the case be built for anyone to be left without protection in Israel based on our modern bureaucratic notions?

As I keep pounding away here: “One God, One Law!”

That is the key different between Christian societies, and Islamic societies – which are quick to humiliate Christians any chance they get (the Islamic State is the premiere example, but I like to point out the extermination of pigs in Cairo by the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically to spite Christians and underscore who has power, and who does not.)

I am sure that our well-spoken leadership will insist that our noble, compassionate, Secular States will never do such a thing. I recommend that you take a look at those legal ruling regarding homosexuality, and the judges comments. Then, you can go ahead, and expand just how Our Masters – who have only the deepest concern regarding Our Christian Heritage, of course (and never with the Lord, Creator, and Judge of Heaven and Earth) – deal with Christian freedoms that go against the ‘nothing above the State, nothing outside of the State’ goals of Our Leadership.

(Or just take a short cut, and consider all those Hate Speech, Hate Crime, Anti-Discrimination laws have placed on the books, by hook and by crook. Each and every one of them is designed to protect a favoured minority, stripping power from the people the Establishment hates, and give it to the people the Establishment loves.)

Christians are not to follow their example of Our Leaders. We are to stick to the Biblical standard: “One God, One Law.” If this means that racists are to be free to discriminate who they wish, or bigots, or even *gasp* Muslims and Atheists, then so be it.

One God. One Law.

God has so structured the universe so that, for His people to be free, His enemies must also be free in this life, so long as they don’t publicly violate His Law. His Law only suppress the most outrageous and defiant actions of His enemies, and – unlike secular ‘law’ – cannot be lawfully expanded to control and enslave everyone, everywhere.

And a good thing too, for His enemies, who have an insatiable lust for power ‘for the best reasons’ will then hit roadblocks and difficulties, if they manage to lie their way into the magistrate. When you protect the lawful rights of the wicked – to a fair trial, to lawfully gathered evidence, etc. – you are protecting your own lawful rights, as well.

One God. One Law.

Immigration: From Gary North

In his article Immigration Control: Federal Social Engineering, Dr. North also weighs in against the modern, State-based apparatus of immigration controls, passports, TSA molesters, and all the rest of it.

As he writes:

[As his third objection to free immigration], the conservative says this: “Immigrants will get jobs here. They will take jobs away from Americans.”

I want to focus on this argument, for it is the most common one. It invokes nationalism over liberty. It equates nationalism with restrictions on the freedom of contract. It says: “Not everyone should have the legal right to bid on jobs inside our borders. Only those who are legally inside our borders already, or who will be born to those already inside our borders, should possess this right.” It says: “Our ancestors got here before there were any immigration laws. We deserve the right to bid. Outsiders don’t. It’s first come, first served.”


This attitude is in direct opposition to both Christianity and the free market. A fundamental principle of Christianity is the principle of service to God by service to our fellow men. This is made clear in Matthew 25. “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (v. 40). The context is the final judgment. The principle of service is also basic to free market economics, which teaches that income derives from service to the customer. This goes back to Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776).

[…snipped famous quote…]The fundamental economic principle of immigration control is that service must be made illegal in order to protect the above-market incomes of producers inside a nation’s borders, thereby reducing the availability of services to customers inside the borders. The job holders form a cartel with a goal: to keep out competitors, thereby keeping their wages above market. The job holders prevail on Congress to post this sign facing outward on the border: “No help wanted.” Not wanted by whom? By members of the job holders’ cartel. It is now illegal for customers to post this sign: “Help wanted.”

And again,

Conservatives quote Ronald Reagan. “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” Conclusion: from 1788 to 1882, the United States was not a nation. Silly, isn’t it? Then why do conservatives quote it?

Which leads to


There are eight words in the English language which generally define Americans, as long as they are not in Congress. These eight words are central to understanding the American character. They have been basic to the American character for over 300 years. Here they are:

Live and let live.

Let’s make a deal.

I like this concept. I like it a lot.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s