Both Chris Heard and Claude Mariottini have taken issue with an article by Tim Gorringe in the Expository Times. I have already commented on Chris’s post, but I wanted to make some remarks about what Claude had to say.
Claude notes that there are two classes of foreigners in ancient Israel: the nokri and the ger. He says that the distinction between the two is that the ger accepted the laws of Israel while the nokri did not.
I would have to disagree with this distinction. The two words do not seem to refer to two different classes. Rather, nokri is an adjective that refers to all foreigners, whereas a ger is a foreigner that has taken up long-term residence in a foreign country. As can be seen from verses like Deut. 18:6, ger has an element of residence with it, even when it does not refer to foreigners. In other words, a ger is a nokri that has come to stay for a long time. Although the ger may follow the laws of Israel, this is not necessarily the case. They were expected to do so, but that does not mean they did. There were even some laws the did not apply to the ger, such as the prohibition against eating that which had died naturally (Deut.14:21). The ger and nokri could both eat of such meat, while the Israelite could not.
As for the political side of the article by Gorringe, I cannot comment on it because I have not read it. But it does seem to me that the Torah makes no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. Such terms would have made no sense in ancient Israel. The Israelites were slaves and gerim in Egypt. Were they legal or illegal?
Instead, the Pentateuch enjoins the Israelites to take care of all foreigners who have come to live in their country. The reason for this, as Claude points out, is that foreigners in Israel were economically disadvantaged, as well as being cut off from family ties that provided a social net. It seems to me that if we were to apply these laws to immingrants, it would mean we have to take care of them regardless of whether they are legal or illegal.
That is why I am glad that the Executive Council of the Episcopal church — the denomination to which I belong and through whom I serve as a missionary — has declared its opposition to legislation which would make it illegal for faith-based organizations to help undocummented immigrants. It has “advised Episcopalians to follow the call of the baptismal covenant in ministering to illegal immigrants, despite any laws that could criminalize such assistance.”1
What does this mean for laws regarding immigration? I don’t know. It is a complex issue and I don’t pretend to have any answers. But I think the Bible makes very clear that as long as immigrants are here (legally or otherwise), we as Christians have a responsibility to care for them.
- Episcopal Life, April 2006, p.6. [back]
On April 29th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Kevin,
I agree with you. The Church exists to help everyone, especially those at the margins who are forgotten by the rest of society. It would be a terrible shame for the goverment to punish churches as they extend love and care to those that need it most.
One other observation about nokri. It seems that there might be an undertone of a somewhat hostile foreign person that might not have adopted the national religion or assimilated into the culture. The Akkadian cognate nakru/nakiru or Neo-Babylonian nekru refers to foreign languages, cities, etc. but also often refers to hostile enemies.
On April 29th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
You are right about these undertones, but I don’t think they are inherent in the word itself. I think they stem from the fear of those who are outside one’s own kin and ken. This is certainly the case in Egypt, where all foreigners were viewed with suspicion.