Offprint From:

For Our Good Always

Studies on the Message and Influence of
Deuteronomy
in Honor of Daniel I. Block

Edited by

Jason S. DeRouchie, Jason Gile, and Kenneth J. Turner

Winona Lake, Indiana

Eisenbrauns
2013
 © 2013 by Eisenbrauns Inc.
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America

www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

For our good always : studies on the message and influence of
Deuteronomy in honor of Daniel I. Block / edited by Jason S.
DeRouchie, Jason Gile, and Kenneth J. Turner.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 978-1-57506-285-3 (hardback : alk. paper)
1. Bible. Deuteronomy—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Block,
Daniel Isaac, 1943 – honouree. II. DeRouchie, Jason Shane, 1973 –
editor of compilation.
BS1275.52.F67 2013
222′.1506—dc23
2013027379

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the
American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper
for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. ™♾
 Contents

Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Peter J. Gentry
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
The Publications of Daniel I. Block: Overview and Bibliography. . xxi
Charlie Trimm
Tributes from the Block Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxiii

Part 1
The Message of Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy and Ancient Hebrew History Writing in
Light of Ancient Chronicles and Treaties . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Alan Millard
“Because of the Wickedness of These Nations” (Deut 9:4–5):
The Canaanites––Ethical or Not? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Richard S. Hess
Admonitory Examples in Hittite and Biblical Legal Contexts . . . 39
Harry A. Hoffner Jr.
“These Are the Words Moses Spoke”: Implied Audience
and a Case for a Pre-Monarchic Dating of Deuteronomy . . 61
Peter T. Vogt
Laws and Ethical Ideals in Deuteronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Gordon J. Wenham
Counting the Ten: An Investigation into the Numbering
of the Decalogue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Jason S. DeRouchie
“Keep These Words in Your Heart” (Deut 6:6):
A Spirituality of Torah in the Context of the Shema . . . . . 127
J. Gordon McConville
The Rhetoric of Theophany: The Imaginative Depiction
of Horeb in Deuteronomy 9–10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Jerry Hwang

v
vi Contents

For Your Good Always: Restraining the Rights of the Victor

for the Well-Being of the Vulnerable (Deut 21:10–14) . . . . 165
Rebekah Josberger
Deuteronomy’s Theology of Exile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Kenneth J. Turner

Part 2
The Influence of Deuteronomy
The Impact of Deuteronomy on the Books of the
Deuteronomistic History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Michael A. Grisanti
Deuteronomy and Isaiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
H. G. M. Williamson
The Enduring Word of the Lord in Deuteronomy
and Jeremiah 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Michael Graves
Deuteronomy and Ezekiel’s Theology of Exile . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Jason Gile
The “Revealed Things”: Deuteronomy and the
Epistemology of Job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Christopher B. Ansberry
“Fear God and Keep His Commandments”(Eccl 12:13):
An Examination of Some Intertextual Relationships
between Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Richard Schultz
The Influence of Deuteronomy on Intercessory Prayers in
Ezra and Nehemiah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Gary V. Smith
Testing God’s Son: Deuteronomy and Luke 4:1–13 . . . . . . . . . . 365
Grant R. Osborne
Paul’s Reading of Deuteronomy: Law and Grace . . . . . . . . . . . 389
Douglas Moo
 Contents vii

Part 3
The Lasting Significance
of Deuteronomy
Making the Ten Count: Reflections on the Lasting Message
of the Decalogue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
Jason S. DeRouchie
Welcoming the Stranger: Toward a Theology of Immigration
in Deuteronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
M. Daniel Carroll R.
Sermonizing in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and the 21st Century . . 463
Elmer A. Martens
The Prophet Who Is Like and Greater Than Moses:
A Sermon on Deuteronomy 18:15–22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485
Daniel L. Akin
Stealing Souls: Human Trafficking and Deuteronomy 24:7 . . . . . 495
Myrto Theocharous
The Book of the Torah as a Gospel of Grace: A Synthesis of
Daniel I. Block’s Biblical Theology of Deuteronomy . . . . . 511
Thomas H. McClendon Jr.

Indexes
Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535
Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
Index of Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569
 Offprint from:
DeRouchie et al., eds., For Our Good Always: Studies on the Message
and Influence of Deuteronomy in Honor of Daniel I. Block
© Copyright 2013 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Welcoming the Stranger

Toward a Theology of Immigration in Deuteronomy

M. Daniel Carroll R.

“Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner,

the fatherless or the widow.”
Then all the people shall say, “Amen!” (Deut 27:19, NIV)

1. Introduction
It is estimated that presently there are over 210 million migrants
worldwide. 1 People move as individuals, as families, or as larger popu-
lation groups for many reasons—to escape armed conflict, to flee po-
litical, religious or ethnic persecution, to seek relief from hunger or
disease, or to secure more secure employment. The multiple pressures
on nation states that have absorbed these outsiders have triggered in-
ternal debates about ethnic identity, social coherence, economic via-
bility, law enforcement, national security, and accessibility to medical
care and education. We are witnessing a new socio-economic and cul-
tural reality created by an increasingly complex and multidimensional
globalization. 2 In response, migration studies and research on diaspora
and transnationalism are booming in the disciplines of anthropology
and sociology. 3
Author’s Note: It is a pleasure to offer this essay in honor of a respected scholar and friend,
Dan Block, someone who is committed to the study of the Old Testament—in particular
Deuteronomy—and to a life faithful to its truth.
1. International Organization for Migration (http://www.iom.int/jahia/Jahia/about-
migration/facts-and-figures/lang/en; last accessed June 4, 2012). This figure in part is
drawn from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
2. See, e.g., T. J. Hatton and J. G. Williamson, Global Migration and the World Economy:
Two Centuries of Policy and Performance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005); C. B. Brettell
and J. F. Hollifield, eds., Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines (2nd ed.; New York:
Routledge, 2008); S. Castles and M. J. Miller, The Age of Migration: International Population
Movements in the Modern World (4th ed.; New York: Guilford, 2009).
3. For helpful introductions, see J. Clifford, “Diasporas,” Cultural Anthropology 9,
no. 2 (1994) 302–38; S. Dufoix, Diasporas (trans. W. Rodarmor; Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press, 2008); and journals, like Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies,
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, and International Migration Review.

441
442 M. Daniel Carroll R.

This massive displacement of populations also has generated a

growing field in mission circles: diaspora missiology. 4 It views the un-
reached peoples of these communities as untapped areas for ministries
of proclamation, mercy, and church-planting. At the same time, there is
interest in gauging the potential impact on their host societies of those
diaspora communities who claim the Christian faith and their possible
involvement in the worldwide mission of the Church. Denominations
have begun to invest in leadership training and the publication of ma-
terials in the languages of these newcomers.
Interestingly, while their presence has spawned creative ministry in-
volvement with immigrant groups, many Christians wrestle theologically
and politically with the phenomenon of immigration. Many are con-
flicted, torn between an impulse toward charitable hospitality on the
one hand and a commitment to support current immigration legislation
as law-abiding citizens on the other. Sadly, a general lack of exposure
to what the Bible might have to say about the issue characterizes this
confusion. For those who hold the Bible as fundamental to faith and
practice, it is important that the Bible be allowed to speak to the topic
in order to explore how it might inform a genuinely Christian position
on the matter. This is a particularly urgent matter, since gracious wel-
coming of the sojourner is a significant matter in Old Testament Law
(Exod 23:9; Lev 19:18, 33–34; Deut 10:17–19). 5 Migration also is a central
metaphor for the Christian life (1 Pet 1:1, 2:11).
Scholarly work on ethnicity in ancient Israel and on Old Testament
diaspora texts and backgrounds is growing, 6 some of which make con-
4. E.g., E. Wan, ed., Diaspora Missiology: Theory, Methodology, and Practice (Seattle:
CreateSpace, 2012); S. Ybarrola, “Anthropology, Diasporas, and Mission,” Mission Studies
29, no. 1 (2012) 79–94. The Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization has hosted
consultations on diaspora (http://www.lausanne.org/en/gatherings/issue-based/diaspot-
ras-2009.html; last accessed June 4, 2012) and has produced Scattered to Gather: Embracing
the Global Trend of Diaspora (Manila: LifeChange, 2010); cf. the Vatican’s Pontifical Council
for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People at http://www.vatican.va/roman_
curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/index.htm; last accessed June 4, 2012.
5. In Making Wise the Simple: The Torah in Christian Faith and Practice (Grand Rap-
ids: Eerdmans, 2005), J. W. H. van Wijk-Bos makes concern for the stranger central to the
ethos of the Torah.
6. E.g., M. G. Brett, ed., Ethnicity & the Bible (Biblical Interpretation Series 19; Leiden:
Brill, 1996); K. L. Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of
Ethnic Sentiments and Their Expression in the Hebrew Bible (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1998); A. E. Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians,
Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel 1300–1100 b.c.e. (SBLABS 9; Atlanta: Society of Bib-
lical Literature, 2005); K. E. Southwood, Ethnicity and the Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra
9–10: An Anthropological Approach (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2012).
 Toward a Theology of Immigration in Deuteronomy 443

nections to the experiences of contemporary immigrant communities. 7

In fact, there is much related to migration throughout the Old Testa-
ment that can contribute to the articulation of a substantive biblical po-
sition on immigration. 8 This essay will concentrate on Deuteronomy.
It is divided into three major parts. The first engages the prospect of
appealing to Deuteronomy as a viable resource for the contemporary
moral and civil debate. The second section presents the relevant mate-
rial on immigration in Deuteronomy. The third suggests ways in which
this might be brought to bear on the modern context. The complexity
of the topic and the challenges to understanding fully the biblical data
are the reason this essay is suggestive, a step “toward” a theology of
immigration from this Pentateuchal book.

2. Deuteronomy:
A Resource for a Theology of Immigration?
Deuteronomy has a good number of verses that refer to the outsider.
These are the focus of the next section. A prior consideration concerns
whether the book should be consulted for contributing to a theology of
immigration. There are voices that decry the appeal to Deuteronomy
for ethics. Doubts about its usefulness arise from the conviction that the
book is fundamentally flawed as an ethical resource.
To begin with, there is the indisputable historical fact that Deuteron-
omy has been employed to sanctify unjust ideologies and regimes. For
instance, it provided part of the biblical foundation for the Afrikaner
theology of apartheid in South Africa (see Deut 7:3–4, 23:2–8, 29:9–11,
32:8). 9 Robert Jewett and John Lawrence ground the conviction of the
United States as a special virtuous people in what they call the “Deuter-
onomistic principle” of Deuteronomy 28, where material blessing and
7. E.g., G. L. Cuellar, Voices of Marginality: Exile and Return in Second Isaiah and the
Mexican Immigrant Experience (American University Series VII/271; New York: Peter
Lang, 2008); J.-P. Ruiz, Reading from the Edges: The Bible & People on the Move (Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis, 2011).
8. Among the several publications of the author on the topic, note M. D. Carroll R.,
Christians at the Border: Immigration, the Church, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008;
translated as Cristianos en la frontera: La inmigración, la Iglesia y la Biblia [Lake Mary, FL:
Casa Creación, 2009]); idem, “Aliens, Immigration, and Refugees,” in Dictionary of Scrip-
ture and Ethics (ed. J. Green et al.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011) 53–58; idem, “Looking at
the Challenges of Immigration Through a Missional Lens,” in Missional Ethics: Biblical
and Theological Perspectives (ed. J. Rowe and A. Draycott; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
2012) 258–77.
9. F. Deist, “The Dangers of Deuteronomy: A Page from the Reception History of the
Book,” in Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of His 65th
Birthday (ed. F. García Martínez et al.; VTSup 53; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 13–29.
444 M. Daniel Carroll R.

victory are contingent on faithfulness to God. They trace this mythic

worldview of being a uniquely chosen nation to declarations John Win-
throp pronounced in 1630. This self-righteous confidence persists to the
present day, they argue, even though in a more secular version. 10 Un-
fortunate appropriations of Deuteronomy could be multiplied. History
is littered with biblically based claims of divine support for selfish gain
and oppression. This reality is pertinent to our topic, as these negative
attitudes and policies have been directed at the “other,” often those of
another race, culture, or homeland. In these reflections, it is important
to decide whether the book itself is abusive or whether the issue lies
rather with its inappropriate use. As we will see, the book is generally
favorable to the one who enters into the community of Israel.
In addition to historical examples of segregationist interpretation,
today there are views that combine socio-historical reconstructions and
ideological criticism with hypotheses about the redactional history of
Deuteronomy in order to argue that the book is problematic. 11 Harold
Bennett argues that its charitable laws are not as sensitive to the needs
of the vulnerable (including the outsider) as they might appear at first
glance. He argues that these measures originally were designed to pro-
tect the financial interests of a struggling religious elite in the Northern
Kingdom (the Yahweh-alone movement of ninth century b.c.e. Israel),
which opposed the state religion of the Omride regime and the popular
religion of the masses. 12 In similar fashion, Douglas Knight recently has
suggested that these laws were the creation of urban elites to manipu-
late the rural poor. 13 The strength of these sorts of positions, of course,
depends on the quality of their historical, sociological, and ideological
reconstruction and the depth of understanding of the sociology of liter-
ature. 14 It also depends on how well they have dealt with the material
in Deuteronomy.
10. R. Jewett and J. S. Lawrence, Captain America and the Crusade against Evil (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 273–93.
11. On a broader scale, in Glimpses of a Strange Land: Studies in Old Testament Ethics
(OTS; London: T. & T. Clark, 2001), C. S. Rodd discounts the entire Old Testament as too
limited to its ancient context to be of use for ethics today.
12. H.  V. Bennett, Injustice Made Legal: Deuteronomic Law and the Plight of Widows,
Strangers, and Orphans in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
13. D.  A. Knight, Law, Power, and Justice in Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel;
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011) 9–86, 153–54, 217–22; cf. M.  Sneed, “Israelite
Concern for the Alien, Orphan, and Widow: Altruism or Ideology?” ZAW 111, no. 4 (1999)
498–507.
14. See evaluative criteria in M. D. Carroll R., “Social-Scientific Approaches,” in Dic-
tionary of the Old Testament: Prophets (ed. M. Boda and J. G. McConville; Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 2012) 734–47.
 Toward a Theology of Immigration in Deuteronomy 445

Another current challenge to any effort to draw ethical guidance

from the Old Testament concerns the exclusionary violence that seems
to be sanctioned in its pages. Even those who generally are positively
disposed to the Old Testament as authoritative for the Church question
the text. Eric Seibert includes Deuteronomy’s laws of war, especially
against the native population in the Conquest (Deuteronomy 7 and 20),
among the difficult passages that he says communicate an unacceptable
portrait of God. His solution to this theological quandary is a “chris-
tocentric hermeneutic”: the God that Jesus presents in the Gospels is
the norm for discerning which parts of the Old Testament truly reflect
his person. 15 Rob Barrett and Caryn Reeder offer careful literary read-
ings of Deuteronomy’s texts of violence in conversation with its an-
cient background and modern culture. Barrett deals with passages that
contain Yahweh’s threats of wrath against Israel (chs. 4, 9–10, 13, 28,
32), while Reeder studies those that command the execution of house-
hold members for certain unacceptable acts (13:7–12[6–11], 21:18–21,
22:13–21). Both, however, are more affirming of the Old Testament than
Seibert. Barrett calls his approach one of “engagement and sympathy”;
Reeder calls hers a “hermeneutics of trust.” 16
There are laws in Deuteronomy concerning outsiders that appear
discriminatory. For example, various ethnic groups are barred from
the assembly for several generations (Deut 23:4–9[3–8]). These passages
raise questions about the value of what Deuteronomy might have to say
about migration and the treatment of those who have migrated into the
community of faith. Is there an openness to the sojourner (if so, how
much and why?), or does Deuteronomy present an exclusionary per-
spective that would raise questions about its viability for moral guid-
ance today?
The point to be made at this juncture is that probing Deuteronomy
for ethics is no simple matter. A survey of its teaching follows in the
next section, but these moral challenges cannot be ignored. How then
are we to utilize Deuteronomy as a basis for a theology of immigration
that is grounded in a commitment to the text––one that approaches the

15. E.  A. Seibert, Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009). E. W. Davies surveys various approaches dealing with diffi-
cult passages in the Old Testament in The Immoral Bible: Approaches to Biblical Ethics (Lon-
don: T. & T. Clark, 2010).
16. R. Barrett, Disloyalty and Destruction: Religion and Politics in Deuteronomy and the
Modern World (LHBOTS 511; London: T. & T. Clark, 2009); C. A. Reeder, The Enemy in the
Household: Family Violence in Deuteronomy and Beyond (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012).
446 M. Daniel Carroll R.

book’s teaching through “engagement and sympathy” and “trust,” (to

use Barrett and Reeder’s labels)? That is the concern of the third section.
Along with the need to grapple with the content of Deuteronomy,
it is necessary to specify the text to be studied if one does embrace the
book for ethics. What follows does not attempt to locate its teaching
along some diachronic continuum. 17 Instead we will work with the re-
ceived, or canonical, form of Deuteronomy that is the Scripture of the
Church. I am interested in the Old Testament for Christian ethics, es-
pecially in its role as Scripture for the moral life of Christian commu-
nities. The canonical shape is the only text these communities know
and own. 18 Therefore, I will not engage hypotheses about the possible
provenance of the document and the hypothetical steps in its produc-
tion, 19 even though it is an important dimension of scholarly discourse

17. Such as C. van Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law (JSOTSup 107; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1991); J. E. Ramírez Kidd, Alterity and Identity in Israel: The GR in the Old
Testament (BZAW 283; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999).
18. See M. D. Carroll R., Contexts for Amos: Prophetic Poetics in Latin American Perspec-
tive (JSOTSup, 132; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992) 140–75; idem, “Ethics and
Old Testament Interpretation,” in Hearing the Old Testament: Listening for God’s Address (ed.
C. G. Bartholomew and D. J. H. Beldman; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012) 204–30; cf. idem
and D. L. Bock, “The Bible and Ethics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology (ed.
G. R. McDermott; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) 371–88.
19. There are several scholarly options about its origins, although all admit that the
book contains early material. These include: (1) Late Bronze Age (see, e.g., K. A. Kitchen,
On the Reliability of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003] 283–306; P. T. Vogt,
“ ‘These Are the Words Moses Spoke’: Implied Audience and a Case for Pre-Monarchic
Dating of Deuteronomy” in the present volume); (2) the Assyrian period of the 7th cen-
tury, including the Josianic reform (see J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy [Apollos OT Com-
mentary 5; Leicester: Apollos; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002] 21–41; idem, God
and Earthly Power—An Old Testament Political Theology: Genesis—Deuteronomy [LHBOTS
454; London: T. & T. Clark, 2006] 28–29; B. M. Levinson, “Deuteronomy,” in The Oxford
Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible [ed. M. D. Coogan; Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2011] 192–209); (3) Josiah’s reform in the last quarter of the 7th century (see, e.g., F. Crüse-
mann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law [trans. A. W. Mahnke;
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996] 207–15; M. D. Coogan, The Old Testament: A Historical and
Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures [New York: Oxford University Press, 2006]
173–90); (4) the Postexilic, or Persian, Period (see, e.g., S. E. Balentine, The Torah’s Vision of
Worship [OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999]; J. W. Watts, ed., Persia and Torah: The Theory
of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch [SBLSS; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2001]; E. Otto, “Anti-Archaemenid Propaganda in Deuteronomy,” in Homeland and Exile:
Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded [ed. G. Galil, M. Geller,
and A. Millard; Leiden: Brill, 2009] 547–58). For surveys, see the commentaries. Deuter-
onomy itself suggests a process of compilation (see D. I. Block, “Recovering the Voice of
Moses: The Genesis of Deuteronomy,” JETS 44 [2001] 385–408, reproduced with excurses
in idem, The Gospel According to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deu-
teronomy [Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012] 21–67).
 Toward a Theology of Immigration in Deuteronomy 447

on the book. Our attention is directed elsewhere. Other scholars, who

have worked on Deuteronomy for contemporary ethics, have made the
same choice. 20

3. The Sojourner in Deuteronomy

The Old Testament has several terms for outsiders. This essay will
concentrate on one in particular, ͌͢. 21 The ͌͢, often translated in English
translations (although not consistently) as ‘sojourner’ or ‘alien’, 22 was
someone who had moved from a different part of the country or from
elsewhere. 23 Most occurrences refer to the latter. This Hebrew word oc-
curs twenty-two times in Deuteronomy. 24
In the ancient world sojourners were in a vulnerable and precar-
ious position. In that context most help in time of need would come
through extended family, but sojourners were separated from this fa-
milial network. They would have been forced to be dependent upon the
host population for charitable aid. In addition, these outsiders probably
would have had a considerably difficult time acquiring land, a key eco-
nomic factor for sustenance and survival in a peasant agrarian social
world like Israel’s. 25 The law of Moses and custom stipulated that land
20. E.g., McConville, God and Earthly Power, 1–29; J. G. Millar, Now Choose Life: The-
ology and Ethics in Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); cf. C. J. H. Wright, Old
Testament Ethics for the People of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004); van Wijk-Bos,
Making Wise the Simple.
21. See, e.g., D. I. Block, “Sojourner,” ISBE, 4:561–64; D. Kellermann, “͢͏͌ gûr,” TDOT
2:439–49; A. H. Konkel, “͢͏͌”, NIDOTTE 1:836–39; R. J. D. Knauth, “Alien, Foreign Res-
ident,” DOTP, 26–33; van Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law; R. Rendtorff, “The Ger in
the Priestly Laws of the Pentateuch,” in Ethnicity in the Bible (ed. M. G. Brett; Biblical
Interpretation Series 19; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 77–87; R. Kidd, Alterity and Identity in Israel.
Two other Old Testament terms are ‫תושׁב‬, which does not appear in Deuteronomy, and
‫נכרי‬, which occurs five times (Deut 14:21, 15:3, 17:15, 23:21, 29:21). The ‫ נכרי‬seems to be
an individual, who does not integrate into Israelite society. Some suggest that they were
foreign merchants.
22. Other translations include “resident alien,” “stranger,” or “foreigner.” CEB ren-
ders it “immigrant.” We will use “sojourner” for these individuals in the rest of the essay.
23. The noun ͌͢ and verb ͢͏͌ ‘to sojourn, dwell as an alien’ occasionally are used to
describe Israel’s position before God (e.g., Lev 25:23, 1 Chr 29:15; cf. Deut 26:5).
24. Deut 1:16; 5:14; 10:18, 19 (twice); 14:21, 29; 16:11, 14; 23:8; 24:14, 17, 19, 20, 21; 26:11,
12, 13; 27:19; 28:43; 29:10; 31:12. The verb ͢͏͌ I (‘sojourn’) occurs in 18:6 and 26:5.
25. For the peasant world of ancient Israel, although from different perspectives, see
W. R. Domeris, Touching the Heart of God: The Social Construction of Poverty among Biblical
Peasants (LHBOTS 466; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2007); E. F. Davis, Scripture, Culture, and
Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2009); Knight, Law, Power, and Justice in Ancient Israel, 115–56; cf. P. J. King and L. E. Stager,
Life in Biblical Israel (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001)
85–200.
448 M. Daniel Carroll R.

was to remain in the family and be passed through the male heir (Num
27:1–11, 36:1–12; cf. 1 Kgs 21:1–3). Obviously, this eliminated opportu-
nities for the sojourner. 26 They would have had to seek employment on
Israelite farms. Outsiders, too, are susceptible to suffering discrimina-
tion and marginalization at the hands of the native-born in day-to-day
affairs and legal matters. In all kinds of ways, then, the sojourner was
at the mercy of the Israelites. How does Deuteronomy respond to these
realities? 27
3.1. Positive Laws for the Sojourner
We can classify the pertinent verses in several basic categories. To be-
gin with, concerning the immediate need for provision, Deuteronomy’s
laws allow for the sojourner, along with others who were particularly
at risk (the poor, widows, and orphans), 28 to gather from the fields and
glean from the olive trees and vineyards at harvest time (Deut 24:19–
21). There also was a triennial tithe of produce for these groups, along
with the Levites (14:29; 26:12–13).
Second, Deuteronomy addresses issues of labor. The ͓͗͌͢ ‘sojourners’
were to be granted the Sabbath rest along with the rest of the house-
hold (Deut 5:14). The household was central to Israelite life and identity,
and the welfare of its members was a fundamental ethical expectation. 29

26. In addition to the sources cited in n. 25, see D. L. Baker, Tight Fists or Open Hands:
Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament Law (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) 15–107. Lev
25:47 represents an exceptional case of land in the possession of the foreigner (cf. Deut
28:43–44).
27. In addition to the sources cited in supra, n. 21, note D.  E. Gowan, “Wealth and
Poverty in the Old Testament: The Case of the Widow, the Orphan, and the Sojourner,”
Int 41, no. 4 (1987) 341–53; P. D. Miller, “Israel as Host to Strangers,” in Israelite Religion
and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays (JSOTSup 267; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2000) 548–71.
28. In addition to this grouping, one could also mention the sensitivity to the blind
(27:18), slaves (23:15–16), and even domestic animals (5:14; 22:1–4, 6–7; 25:4). For more on
Deuteronomy’s approach to the disadvantaged, see in this volume R. Josberger, “For Your
Good Always: Restraining the Rights of the Victor for the Well-being of the Vulnerable
(Deut 21:10–14)”; M. Theocharous, “Stealing Souls: Human Trafficking and Deuteronomy
24:7.”
29. C. Meyers, “The Family in Early Israel,” in Families in Ancient Israel (ed. L. G. Per-
due et al.; The Family, Religion, and Culture; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997)
1–47; King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 21–84; D. I. Block, “Marriage and Family in
Ancient Israel,” in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World (ed. K. M. Campbell; Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003) 33–102; cf. Wright, Old Testament Ethics, 327–62. Also note
the “brother” language applied in Deuteronomy to fellow Israelites. See, McConville,
God and Earthly Power, 92–95; W. J. Houston, “ ‘Open your hand to your needy brother’:
Ideology and Moral Formation in Deut. 15:1–18,” in The Bible in Ethics (ed. J. W. Rogerson,
M. Davies, and M. D. Carroll R.; JSOTSup 207; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995)
 Toward a Theology of Immigration in Deuteronomy 449

The sojourners are included in this care. The Israelite kinship group
was to extend to them the basic rights of the native born. The fact that
they are said to be “at the gate” (likely of a town or of the collection of
households comprising a village) and are listed with other individu-
als and animals of the household suggests that they were day laborers.
Perhaps they gathered at the gate and then were brought into family
contexts to work. Taking unfair advantage of foreign labor was (and is)
a real temptation, and the next verse reminds the Israelites of their own
experience in Egypt (5:15). In 24:14–15 the call for the payment of wages
before sunset could imply that work would have been on a day-to-day
basis. Late or exploitative compensation would have been disastrous for
such needy people. Once again, there is a motive clause. It, too, points
to Israel’s experience in Egypt: God will respond to the cry of the needy,
as he had done so many years before on their behalf (see Exod 2:23–25).
Third, Deuteronomy addresses legal matters. Outsiders naturally
fear unfair disadvantage in the adjudication of legal cases because they
must compete with the native-born and are sentenced by them. The
narrative introduction of Deuteronomy harks back to Moses’ delega-
tion of decision-making in Exodus 18 and to his injunction to be im-
partial in judgment to both the Israelite and the ͌͢ (Deut 1:16–17). Two
passages dealing with justice connect the sojourner to the widow and
the orphan (24:17–18, 27:19). In the former, appeal again is made to the
injustices of Egypt; in the latter, to deprive justice from any of these
groups is to incur a curse. Righteousness (͎͍͡͠) and justice (͒͞օ͘) were
to characterize the legal ethos of Israel.
Fourth, there are provisions to allow participation in worship. So-
journers are invited (with the other vulnerable groups) to take part in
the feasts of Weeks (Shavuot, Deut 16:11), Booths (Sukkot, 16:14), and
First Fruits (26:11). The Sabbath has already been mentioned. The com-
mand to permit their involvement in Israel’s religious ceremonies is
significant. It grants the ͓͗͌͢ entry into another arena at the core of the
community’s identity (along with the family). They could come into
Israel’s sacred spaces, embrace its symbols, and engage in its holy ac-
tivities, all of which together defined and structured that community
and provided its rhythms and the meaning of life. The ͓͗͌͢ also were to
gather periodically to hear the reading of the law in order to fear and
obey Yahweh (31:9–13), an orientation necessary for anyone to inte-
grate into a different social construction of reality. This exercise would

296–314; idem, Contending for Justice: Ideologies and Theologies of Social Justice in the Old
Testament (rev. ed.; London: T. & T. Clark, 2008) 179–90.
450 M. Daniel Carroll R.

make Israel’s way of life clearer to newcomers and their children, as

well as secure their allegiance to that context and its norms. Involve-
ment in the cult and at the reading of the law also would have carried
expectations for sojourners on the part of Israelites. Sojourners would
have to acquire Israel’s language to comprehend that reading and to
make informed adjustments to the various spheres of their new context.
The breadth of this legislation is impressive. The question that nat-
urally surfaces is the following: Why should Israel welcome these out-
siders? Deuteronomy offers at least three reasons. The most repeated
was the recollection of Israel’s tragic experience in Egypt. Several in-
junctions concerning the ͓͗͌͢ are coupled with a call to remember the
past. 30 What cannot be missed is that this memory of oppression in-
cluded life under a brutal legal system of a people, whose gods and
religion legitimized the exploitation of immigrants and their labor. 31 In
other words, the historical memory was caused by the unjust laws of a
cruel culture. It must not be so in Yahweh’s new society, Israel.
The role of collective memory (the verb ͕͐͢) is an important theme in
Deuteronomy. 32 The people’s history was to be periodically rehearsed
and reenacted in home and cult (in processions, the celebration of the
feasts, the making of booths, and song), because it was foundational to
defining Israel’s responsibilities of faithfulness to Yahweh and of char-
ity toward others. In these rituals, memory is made tangible at indi-
vidual, familial, and community levels. These practices (and here I am
thinking of the meaning of practices in virtue ethics) 33 were to inculcate
and transmit those memories across generations.
In The End of Memory, Miroslav Volf contemplates how to deal with
memories that hurt and haunt us. 34 There is the need to grapple with
the wrongs endured, but also the challenge to discern the grace of God
in the midst of that experience then, in the present, and into the future.
30. Deut 5:15; 10:19; 16:12; 24:18, 22; cf. 26:6–10. This motivation is not limited to the
treatment of the sojourner; it is applied to the treatment of other unfortunate groups.
31. For details on the oppression of Semites in Egypt during the New Kingdom pe-
riod, see J. K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradi-
tion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996) 112–16. Scenes of bricklaying by Semites
appear on the walls of the tomb of the vizier Rekhmire (op. cit., fig. 8, 9).
32. As is the danger of forgetting (‫)שׁכח‬. The relevant passages are Deut 4:9, 23; 6:12;
8:11, 14, 19; 9:7; 25:19; 26:13; 31:21; 32:18.
33. For a foundational discussion of this feature of virtue ethics, see A. MacIntyre, Af-
ter Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (2nd ed.; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
1984), 186–203. Also G. Mikoski, “Practices,” in Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics (ed. J. B.
Green; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011) 613–17.
34. M. Volf, The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2006). He discusses the Exodus on pp. 103–11.
 Toward a Theology of Immigration in Deuteronomy 451

Ideally, one can redeem that memory and even the perpetrator of the
evil. In the divine demand to remember the exodus, the people are to
turn those ancient stories of long and terrible suffering and the subse-
quent experience of redemption into the basis of their ethical treatment
of the “other.” Israel cannot, should not, must not forget its history, if it
desires to be the people of Yahweh. In Egypt, negative attitudes gener-
ated unfortunate laws. To forget those cultural and legal realities would
lead to their becoming like that very past which they hated, with others
as the victims. Though not in the personal experience of those standing
at the Jordan, they and every subsequent generation were to look back
to inform a perspective pleasing to Yahweh and beneficial to others. 35
Another motivation to show kindness to the outsider is that to do so
would yield bountiful crops by God’s hand (Deut 14:29, 16:15, 24:19,
26:15). This second reason moves us to the third and most weighty
impetus: the love of God for the sojourner. Leviticus 19 contains the
well-known command to “Love your neighbor as yourself,” which is
connected later in that same chapter to the love of the sojourner (Lev
19:18, 33–34). Deuteronomy has its love verse too, but instead of con-
necting care for the ͌͢ to the love of self, Israel is called to mimic the
love of God. Yahweh executes justice for the widow and orphan and
loves the ͌͢, and does so in material ways, with food and garments
(Deut 10:18–19). This provision would have to come through his people.
Charity towards sojourners was an expression of the love of God and
proof of a circumcised heart (10:16). It makes sense then that sojourners
would be invited to come to the sanctuaries and share in the worship
of this unique God, who loved them. Part of the attractiveness of Yah-
weh was the laws of Israel, including those reaching out to the outsider
(4:5–8). 36
There are also broader theological themes that frame the attitude of
graciousness toward sojourners. First, the central section of the book
(Deut 16:18–18:22), which lists the qualifications and duties of the lead-
ership (judges, priests, kings, prophets), counters the centralization
and abuse of power. This is especially notable, when the passage about
kings (17:14–20) is set against the backdrop of ancient Near Eastern
thought. Israel’s kings were to be subordinate to the demands of torah
and the pursuit of the common good. They were not to accumulate the
35. For more on Deuteronomy’s appropriation of the past for Israel’s present ethics,
see J. Hwang, The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigation of the “Fathers” in Deuteronomy
(Siphrut 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012).
36. Interestingly, there is almost nothing in extra-biblical ancient law codes pertain-
ing to the sojourner.
452 M. Daniel Carroll R.

trappings of royalty (armies, harems, and wealth), nor were they to

think themselves better than others. This leveling posture was to be
embedded in the political fabric of that society. 37 It sets a tone and level
of equality that coheres with the value placed on the disadvantaged,
among whom were counted the sojourners.
In addition, acceptance of outsiders in Deuteronomy must be placed
alongside the surprisingly negative appraisal of Israel. The historical
prologue is not shy about pointing out the rebelliousness of Israel (Deut
1:26–40; cf. 9:6–7, 13, 27). This people was chosen not because it was
great, but by the unmerited grace of God (7:7–8). Moses challenges
those of the present generation to respond properly to his admonitions
and so choose life and avoid the mistakes of their ancestors (30:19; cf.
5:3). 38 Future generations would have to make the same decision, and
their decisions would determine if they experienced blessings or curses
(ch. 28; 30:1–10) and fulfilled their calling as God’s treasured posses-
sion (26:16–19). 39 The facts of their history and these warnings reveal
the fault lines in the national character. Israel must steer clear of the
self-deceptive temptation of thinking itself superior to other peoples,
including those who had come to live in their midst.
Literary details in the pentateuchal narrative indicate that the moral
demands of the law predate Moses and are connected to creation and
Abraham. 40 In other words, the values in the law and the obligations to-
wards others are linked with what is expected of humanity in general.
They are woven into what we label “natural law.” The moral appeal
concerning the sojourner, then, can be said to be deep and broad, not
limited only to this particular covenant relationship. This may be a rea-

37. E.g., McConville, Deuteronomy, 293–96, 304–6; Wright, Old Testament Ethics, 229–
39; P. T. Vogt, Deuteronomic Theology and the Significance of Torah: A Reappraisal (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006) 204–26; J. A. Berman, Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with
Ancient Political Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 51–80; D. I. Block, “The
Burden of Leadership: The Mosaic Paradigm of Kingship (Deut. 17:14–20),” BSac 162, no.
3 (2005) 259–78, reproduced in idem, How I Love Your Torah, O Lord! Studies in the Book
of Deuteronomy (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011) 118–39; idem, “Leader, Leadership, OT,” in
New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (ed. K. D. Sakenfeld; 5 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon,
2008) 3:621–26.
38. Note the repetition of “today” in, e.g., 4:8, 39, 40; 6:6; 11:2, 13; 29:11–12[12–13];
30:15–16.
39. D. I. Block, “The Privilege of Calling: The Mosaic Paradigm for Missions (Deut.
26:16–19),” BSac 162.4 (2005) 387–405, reproduced in idem, How I Love Your Torah, 140–61.
40. McConville, God and Earthly Power, 76–78; T. E. Fretheim, God and World in the Old
Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005) 133–47; J. K. Bruck-
ner, Implied Law in the Abraham Narrative: A Literary and Theological Analysis (JSOTSup 335;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002); cf. Wright, Old Testament Ethics.
 Toward a Theology of Immigration in Deuteronomy 453

son that Israel’s law could strike a cord with the surrounding peoples
(Deut 4:5–8).
3.2. The Negative Laws
Deuteronomy offers an impressively positive orientation to outsiders
that is grounded in its history and theology and formalized in its laws.
This orientation to the ͓͗͌͢, however, is not completely uniform. For ex-
ample, one of the curses listed in the litany of disasters as divine judg-
ment for disobedience is, “The foreigners who reside among you will
rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower.
They will lend to you, but you will not lend to them. They will be the
head, but you will be the tail” (Deut 28:43–44 NIV). Evidently, there
could be shame in being beneath an outsider. This curse is a reversal of
the blessing found in 28:12–13, so perhaps the intent is to communicate
that in judgment the usual social order would be turned on its head (cf.
Isa 3:12; Lam 5:8). Deut 29:11 describes the ͌͢ as one who cuts firewood
and draws water, which may reflect their dependency on the Israelites.
This verse portrays this as their duty “in the midst of the camp,” con-
ceivably before the settlement in the land. Whatever the intent or the
context, the expectation of these passages is that sojourners occupied a
lower station (cf. 14:21).
Perhaps the most difficult verses regarding the outsider are Deut
23:4–9[3–8]. 41 Verses 4–7[3–6] deal with the Ammonites and Moabites;
verses 8–9[7–8] refer to the Edomites and Egyptians. The first pair, the
Ammonites and the Moabites, is not to enter the ͖͎͡ ‘assembly’ of Yah-
weh (commanded twice in v. 4[3]) until the tenth generation. Ten is a
symbolic number, so it does not have to be taken literally; it means a
long time (reinforced in v. 7[6], lit. “all your days until forever”). In con-
trast, the Israelites are not to “abhor” (‫ )תעב‬the Edomites nor the Egyp-
tians, who are restricted until the third generation (another symbolic
number) from the ͖͎͡. In both cases the passage appeals to historical
memory.
To begin with, the ͖͎͡ of Yahweh must be identified. 42 In light of the
rest of the book, several interpretive options can be eliminated. It can-
not refer to Israelite society in toto, as this is contradicted by legislation
that grants ͓͗͌͢ permission to become part of the community. Some be-

41. The following discussion follows the Hebrew verse enumeration; the verses of the
English versions are in brackets.
42. This is the only chapter in which the phrase appears. Elsewhere it is simply ͖͎͡
(5:22, 9:10, 10:4, 18:16, 31:30). The verb of the same root (Hiphil) means “to assemble”
(4:10; 31:12, 28). For the options cited in this paragraph, see the commentaries.
454 M. Daniel Carroll R.

lieve the term means religious gatherings of Israel, but this does not
make sense either in light of the explicit reference to feasts in which
sojourners can share. 43 The reference must be to a particular kind of
assembly, possibly a civic gathering of landed males, where certain de-
cisions had to be made, perhaps related to war (Deut 23:10–15[9–14]
deals with matters related to war). What is in view here, therefore, is
not entry into the community or worship, but rather levels of citizen-
ship participation.
The reasons given for exclusion are connected to historical memory.
This is where we meet a surprise. What is cited is not what is mentioned
earlier in Deuteronomy. Elsewhere Yahweh commands Israel not to en-
gage Moab and Ammon in battle and to pass through in peace, since
he had given those nations their own land and earlier helped them dis-
place other peoples (Deut 2:8b–12, 29 and 2:19–21, respectively; cf. 32:8).
Deut 23:5[4], however, recalls Balaam’s effort to curse Israel, an event
not mentioned in the historical prologue of chapters 1–4. Strangely, in
the Numbers 22–24 account, Ammon plays no part. 44
In addition, the oft-repeated warning not to forget the negative ex-
perience as slaves in Egypt is set aside in Deut 23:8[7] to remind Israel
that it had been a ͌͢ there. The implication is that the stay in Egypt was
positive, or at the very least that there had been some level of accep-
tance there. The memory of unfavorable life in Egypt is used in other
passages to foster positive attitudes toward the outsider. Here, this is
replaced with an affirming spin, maybe referring to Jacob’s arrival there
in Genesis 46–47 (cf. Deut 26:5). Here, they are to welcome the perpe-
trators of their misfortunes. The memory associated with Edom is also
historical, but it is of a different sort. It is an appeal to common ancestry:
the Edomite is “your kinsman” (͔͓͑͊). This idea does appear in the his-
torical prologue (Deut 2:4), where, as in the case of Moab and Ammon,
Israel is told not to fight them; Yahweh had given the Edomites their
territory (2:5–8a, 12, 29). Interestingly, in both pairings the apparent
exclusion of other groups is coupled with the historical prologue’s de-
tailing Yahweh’s work on their behalf. Even this marginalization, then,
is not as simple as a quick reading might suggest.
In any case, these laws give a different picture about attitudes to-
ward those of other ethnicity and backgrounds. How then is this wide
span of Deuteronomy’s teaching to be understood and evaluated? It is
43. Perhaps the reference is to a specialized religious gathering, if vv.  3–4[2–3] are
interpreted cultically.
44. Some scholars link the pairing of Moab and Ammon here to the story of incest in
Gen 19:30–38.
 Toward a Theology of Immigration in Deuteronomy 455

overwhelmingly charitable, with the exception of several exclusionary

verses. Can it be appropriated for contemporary society?

4. Lessons for Immigration from Deuteronomy

If the conviction is that Deuteronomy’s teaching is relevant for the
people of God and for the world, then the challenge is to employ suit-
able means to draw out appropriate lessons. 45 The following discussion
will use two standard methods 46 and then offer additional perspectives
that can complement these and respond more adequately to the impli-
cations of the problematic passages.
4.1. Deuteronomy, an Enduring Text
One common way to bring Old Testament law into the modern con-
text is the principle approach, which is championed by Walter Kaiser
and many others. 47 This stance begins with the recognition that this
legislation was given to a covenant people in another time and place.
With the coming of Christ and the birth of the Church, the new people
of God does not stand in exactly the same relationship before him as
did ancient Israel. All strands of the Christian faith agree that things
changed with the ministry of Jesus, even though opinions differ re-
garding the degree of continuity or discontinuity between the Church
and Israel and, consequently, of the implications for Christian daily life,
ethics, and worship.
The principle approach contends that, in spite of the temporal, cul-
tural, and theological (however defined) distance from Old Testament
laws, there is truth in these texts that transcends those barriers (e.g.,
Matt 5:17–20, 23:23, 1 Cor 10:1–13, 2 Tim 3:15–17, Heb 11:39–12:1).

45. This task is inseparable from the perennial Christian debate about how to uti-
lize the Old Testament law. For surveys of evangelical positions, see, e.g., J. S. Feinberg,
ed., Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New
Testaments—Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1988); G. L.
Bahnsen et al., Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996); cf. Wright,
Old Testament Ethics, 378–414.
46. For a helpful overview of the several ways evangelicals move from biblical text to
modern context, see W. C. Kaiser Jr. et al., Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009). Also note the surveys in C. H. Cosgrove, Appealing to
Scripture in Moral Debate: Five Hermeneutical Rules (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); E. W.
Davies, The Immoral Bible: Approaches to Biblical Ethics (London: T. & T. Clark, 2010).
47. E.g., W.  C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1983); idem, “A Principlizing Model,” in Kaiser et  al., Four Views on Moving Beyond the
Bible to Theology, 19–50; J. D. Hays, “Applying the Old Testament Law Today,” BSac 158,
no. 1 (2001) 21–35; W. W. Klein, C. L. Blomberg, R. I. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical
Interpretation (rev. ed.; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004) 406–25.
456 M. Daniel Carroll R.

Aware of the differences in audience and circumstances of that time,

one first identifies the meaning of a particular law in its original context
and then seeks a universal principle undergirding that particular law.
This transferable cross-cultural principle subsequently is applied in a
specific way now. Oftentimes this is correlated with New Testament
teaching.
A second approach is the paradigm method of Christopher Wright. 48
His conviction is that “God’s relation to Israel in their land was a de-
liberate reflection of God’s relation to humankind on earth.” 49 In other
words, in its familial, social, economic, and political structures this cho-
sen people were to be a concrete contextual model, or paradigm, of the
values that God desires for all peoples across the ages in their distinct
settings (Deut 4:5–8). It is not that the nations were (or are) to imitate
Israel’s particularities—their own embodiments of God’s design neces-
sarily would differ—but rather that its life ideally could be a window
into God’s will for all societies. 50 Accordingly, Israel would function as
a priest to the nations (Exod 19:4–6). This view takes us beyond the
more personal application tendencies of the principle approach to con-
sider the possible insights that Israel’s laws and structures can have at
broader community levels.
Wright extends this approach by suggesting that Jesus and the New
Testament messianic community fulfill Old Testament hopes and struc-
tures, and thereby stand in a typological relationship with Israel. At the
same time, there are eschatological pointers and lessons to be drawn
between the Old Testament and the new earth and redeemed humanity
at the end of the age. Wright employs the Jubilee laws as his example
through his three stages of relevance (paradigmatic, typological, and
eschatological).
These two approaches are useful as means for discerning abiding
teaching from Deuteronomy. Here I mention three lessons that can be
drawn for immigration legislation and then add one observation. A
foundational point concerns the commitment to help the vulnerable,
48. Wright has used this approach in various publications. See recently Wright, Old
Testament Ethics, 62–74, 182–211, 314–25. For another paradigm approach, see W. Janzen,
Old Testament Ethics: A Paradigmatic Approach (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994);
cf. E. A. Martens, “How Is the Christian to Construe Old Testament Law?” BBR 12, no.
2 (2002) 199–216. Note the critiques of J. Rogerson, Theory and Practice in Old Testament
Ethics (ed. M. D. Carroll R.; JSOTSup 405; London: T. & T. Clark, 2004) 34–37; Davies, The
Immoral Bible, 101–19.
49. Wright, Old Testament Ethics, 183.
50. Compare the interplay between natural morality, the imperatives of redemption,
and structures of grace in Rogerson, Theory and Practice in Old Testament Ethics.
 Toward a Theology of Immigration in Deuteronomy 457

which includes sojourners, or immigrants. It is noteworthy that they

are categorized with others whose lives were precarious: the poor, wid-
ows, and orphans. That is, for the biblical text, the most important re-
alities are the instabilities and insecurity of the immigrants’ existence.
Deuteronomy responds to their elemental human needs for food, dig-
nified work, and a fair treatment in the judicial system. This is a crucial
perspective today, when many evaluate immigrants and their plight
primarily through the criterion of legal status. In sharp contrast, the law
treats them above all as disadvantaged persons. 51
A second lesson is the need for appropriate legislation to meet these
needs. This is where Wright’s paradigm approach is suggestive. Deu-
teronomy contains laws that correspond to its agrarian world. The
challenge today is to envision legislation that reflects the transcendent
values expected of all humanity (those creation values made concrete
in Israel’s laws) that would be suitable to the realities of the twenty-first
century. It also is crucial to appreciate that the previous principle is the
base line for elaborating that legislation. That is, the laws of Deuter-
onomy are sensitive to the plight of sojourners. The legislation is not
punitive, something that often is the case in the contemporary scene.
Rather, charity and openness toward these needy persons, not harsh-
ness and rejection of foreigners, are characteristics of the Deuteronomic
legislation.
A third lesson deals with the motivations behind whatever laws
are put into place. First, there is historical memory. The law warns
the descendants of immigrants not to forget their immigrant heritage.
Otherwise they will mistreat newcomers and become like those who
committed injustice against one’s ancestors. Everyone (except Native
Americans) in the United States has immigrant roots. The problem is
that the country suffers from collective amnesia. Forgotten are the dis-
crimination against Germans in the mid-nineteenth century, the cru-
elty of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (not rescinded until 1943), the
quotas on the Irish and Italians largely because of their Catholic faith
and their marginalization in inner-city ghettoes, the exploitation of Af-
rican labor and the century of segregation after the Civil War, the incar-
ceration of Japanese Americans in World War II, and the mistreatment
of Hispanics over the last one hundred years. The socio-economic ex-
ploitation and the pressures on past immigrant communities no longer

51. In The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway,
2009), J. K. Hoffmeier argues that the Old Testament legislation applies only to legal im-
migrants. This is too narrow an interpretation of the evidence.
458 M. Daniel Carroll R.

come to mind, so those negative attitudes raise their ugly head again.
This country would do well to rehearse its immigrant history as it for-
mulates its immigration laws.
The other motivation, for those who claim the Christian faith, lies
in the stark decision to incarnate the love that Yahweh has for the im-
migrant or reject the call of Deuteronomy 10. God desires to feed and
clothe these vulnerable persons, and this must be done through his
people. The Christian Church should grasp the connection between the
love of God and the welcoming stance toward immigrants, particularly
in regard to worship. Charitable actions and sharing worship with them
go hand-in-hand. How might the Christian Church extend divine care
for sojourners in tangible ways as individual believers, congregations,
and national bodies and bring them to know Yahweh and worship him?
Dare it proclaim the love of God toward humanity and deny his explicit
love for the sojourner?
My observation concerns immigrant assimilation. As mentioned ear-
lier in this essay, the expectation in Israel surely would have been that
sojourners would integrate into that society linguistically, religiously,
culturally, and legally. This is a reasonable presumption of a host com-
munity, and the Law facilitates that process. The book of Ruth recounts
the complexities this process poses for the immigrant. What many do
not comprehend—and this is tied to the historical memory principle—
is that this is a difficult and painful transition that takes time. There is
a growing body of literature and social science studies that reveal this
reality. 52
These are a few of the principles on immigration that can be gleaned
from Deuteronomy. But what is one to do with the negative laws, such
as Deut 23:3–8?
4.2. Deuteronomy, a Situated Text
The more exclusionary texts testify to the fact that Deuteronomy is
a text of its time. As explained above, these contextual limitations lead
some to critique the Old Testament. Those who defend the ethical via-
bility of the law, however, often respond by appealing to the concept of
theological and hermeneutical progressive revelation.
The premise is that the Bible’s teaching is not static, that there are
trajectories of ethical development. Kaiser incorporates this feature

52. See, e.g., my discussion in Christians at the Border, 39–48; cf. the ongoing work
of the Pew Hispanic Center (http://www.pewhispanic.org/; last accessed June 6, 2012).
Autobiographic accounts, fictional stories, and sociological and anthropological studies
are appearing constantly.
 Toward a Theology of Immigration in Deuteronomy 459

into his discussion of principles; Wright’s system is based on these tra-

jectories across the Testaments. This movement has been worked out
with issues such as the role of women and slavery. 53 The same could be
done with immigration. One can chart development from these laws
(both positive and exclusionary) to the incorporation of the Moabitess
Ruth into Bethlehem and the prophetic hope of inclusion (Isa 56:6), 54
and ultimately to the New Testament, where Jesus embraces the mar-
ginalized, Paul declares that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek
(Gal 3:28) and that believers are citizens of a heavenly kingdom (Phil
3:20; cf. Heb 13:14), and Peter likens Christian faith to migration (1 Pet
1:1, 2:11). A comprehensive biblical discussion on immigration should
incorporate the full breath of scriptural teaching.
A complementary approach looks at the issue of these restrictions
anthropologically. A helpful starting point is to re-conceive for a moment
the nature and purpose of the book. McBride has said that Deuteron-
omy, in particular 16:18–18:22, should be viewed as a “polity” docu-
ment, “political constitution,” or “social charter.” That is, it is a divinely
given covenant text that lays out a sociopolitical and cultural frame-
work for Israel and details laws for securing the viability and pros-
perity of its people. 55 It organizes the social world of Israel in its many
dimensions, even as it locates the nation historically, exposes its rebel-
lious tendencies, and offers it choices for the future. This perspective
underscores that the shape and content of Deuteronomy are related to
the ancient world, while it also speaks across the centuries. In other
words, one may glean direction today from the values behind its legis-
lation and from the shape of the nation and its politics, its social mores,
and the like, but it still belongs to its context. Not surprisingly, it exhib-
its certain limitations of that time.
53. In addition to the sources cited in above, nn. 18, 45, and 46, see esp. W. J. Webb,
Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001); cf. W. M. Swartley, Homosexuality: Biblical Interpretation and
Moral Discernment (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 2003).
54. There are cases of exclusion in Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13, but these also reflect
a discreet historical context.
55. S. D. McBride, Jr., “Polity of the Covenant People: The Book of Deuteronomy,” Int
41, no. 3 (1987) 229–44; cf. P. D. Miller, “The Good Neighborhood: Identity and Commu-
nity through the Commandments,” in Character & Scripture: Moral Formation, Community,
and Biblical Interpretation (ed. W. P. Brown; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 55–72; idem,
“ ‘That it may go well with you’: The Commandments and the Common Good,” in In
Search of the Common Good (ed. D. P. McCann and P. D. Miler; New York: T. & T. Clark,
2005) 14–40; McConville, God and Earthly Power, 85–88; F. Crüsemann, The Torah, 234–49.
D. T. Olson prefers the notion of “catechesis” in Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses (OBT;
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 6–14.
460 M. Daniel Carroll R.

This historical horizon is evident in the fact that there are differences
in the pentateuchal law codes. It is commonplace to observe an internal
dynamic within the law that is visible, for instance, when comparing
Deuteronomy with other legal material. Whether this is explained nar-
ratively or historically, adjustments and new formulations are appar-
ent. 56 The enduring principles are embodied differently, reshaped, and
redirected, yielding suitable changes within the law codes. The point
to be made here is that legislation must change as realities shift—then
and today. The changing demographics and pragmatic challenges of
our day, in this country and around the world, demand the reforma-
tion of current immigration laws. It will not do to adamantly defend
legislation created for a past that no longer exists. The shifts within the
Pentateuch’s law codes are situation-specific; at the same time, their
adaptability offers a timeless lesson.
My experience in the immigration debate and with immigration leg-
islation leads me to offer one final comment to this notion of Deuter-
onomy as a dynamic contextual polity document. What I would add
is that Deuteronomy also is what I might call an ethnographic report. 57
What to us may appear to be a lack of logical and ethical uniformity in
some of its laws is for me culturally and ethnically coherent. Let us re-
turn to Deut 23:4–9[3–8]. Note that, whereas many laws in the book
deal with the ͓͗͌͢ as a socioeconomic group, these verses specify ethnic
identity (Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Egyptian) and present Israel’s
history differently.
Permit me to make some parallels to the competing visions of im-
migration in the United States. On the one hand, we have tales of im-
migrants coming as pioneers, hard-working people forging a new life,
who strove to integrate into American society and contributed to its
growth and development. This image is coupled with the impressive
symbol of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor and the roman-
ticization of Ellis Island. But there also is a more complex side of our

56. Note, e.g., the very different approaches of Crüsemann, The Torah, 201–75; J.  D.
Pleins, The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible: A Theological Introduction (Louisville: West-
minster John Knox, 2001) 41–91; Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament, 147–56;
Baker, Tight Fists or Open Hands?; cf. D.  I. Block, “ ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s
wife’: A Study in Deuteronomic Domestic Ideology,” JETS 53, no. 3 (2010) 449–74, repro-
duced in idem, The Gospel According to Moses, 137–68; J. Hwang, “The Rhetoric of Theoph-
any: The Imaginative Depiction of Horeb in Deuteronomy 9–10” in the present volume.
57. See my comments in “Re-Examining ‘Popular Religion’: Issues of Definition and
Sources. Insights from Cultural Anthropology,” in my Rethinking Context, Rereading Texts:
Contributions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation (ed. M. D. Carroll R.; JSOTSup,
299; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) 163–67 [146–67].
 Toward a Theology of Immigration in Deuteronomy 461

immigrant history. The counterpart to Ellis Island on the West Coast is

Angel Island in San Francisco Harbor, with its sad accounts of interro-
gations and lengthy detentions (1910–1940). 58 There is no need to repeat
the other dark stories of immigration listed earlier.
Clearly, the history of immigration into this country is conflicting, a
mixture of the good and bad, of things to celebrate and others for which
repentance awaits. The history of immigrant legislation is also compli-
cated and contradictory, because the interaction between ethnicities,
between newcomer and native-born, is never easy or tidy. In spite of all
of this confusion, the nation functions (not always in optimum fashion!)
and coheres, with all of its ethnic tensions and inconsistencies. Current
legislation on immigration is neither constant nor quite compatible
with previous laws; sometimes they have been unfair, and there have
been revisions across the decades to meet new circumstances. U.S. im-
migration laws are not always logical or clear. They also are laced with
ethnic sentiments, and occasionally the ideal tales of our history clash
with other realities that impact the national debate. That is, history and
ethnicity are part and parcel of legislative deliberations. It was also so
in ancient Israel. Deuteronomy is a document in which ethnic realities
and attitudes occasionally surface in its sojourner legislation. It reflects
a mix of theological truths, various historical memories, and multifac-
eted ethnic sentiments. It is a complicated legal package.

5. Conclusion
The movement of many millions around the world today demands
the serious consideration of the Bible’s teaching on the topic of immi-
gration. Too many Christians default to arguments devoid of scriptural
content or limit that voice to a very few passages. We have offered a
summary of Deuteronomy’s extensive teaching, which is built upon the
experiences of Israel’s history and the person of God himself.
The movement from that biblical text to modern society is a chal-
lenge, but there is much there that can orient contemporary debates and
legislation. The hope is that this essay, at least in some small measure,
has demonstrated Deuteronomy’s contribution as both a substantive
fund of enduring principles and a useful paradigm, with ethical trajec-
tories developed across the canon, as well as a situated testimony of an
ancient people under God who wrestled with welcoming the stranger.

58. J. Soennichsen, Miwoks to Missiles: A History of Angel Island (Tiburon, CA: Angel
Island Association, 2001); E. Lee and J. Yung, Angel Island: Immigrant Gateway to America
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).