Does the Old Testament Require Open Borders?
St. Thomas' Comments
Hello, I have decided to publish this as a completely free article for your edification. Please consider becoming a subscriber of this publication (here) or send a $5 one time gift my way (here) if you enjoy the article!
INTRODUCTION
One of the common attacks of traditional notions of citizenship, immigration, etc., given by leftists is to simply quote certain texts of the law such as “you shall not oppress a stranger; you know the heart of a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 23:9) as if such texts contradicted these traditional principles.
Yet, rather than contradicting these principles, a close reading of the Law actually confirms these principles, as St. Thomas demonstrates in ST.I-II.Q105.A3.
A FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION
What these leftists refuse to understand is that there are various distinction given in the law on how to interact with those who are non-citizens. There is not a monolithic standard given in the law.
One of the fundamental distinctions running through the precepts of the law is the distinction between the foreigners who are “peaceful” and the foreigners who are “hostile.”
The former are considered for citizenship in narrow cases, while the latter are to have war waged against them in defense of the polity, although even these laws show a lack of the characteristic brutality of ancient warfare, giving way to a spirit of mildness (Dt. 20), offering peace terms, and (ordinarily) sparing women, children, and fruit trees.
THREE KINDS OF PEACEFUL STRANGER AND CITIZENSHIP
St. Thomas distinguishes three types of stranger under the law, those who pass through the land as travelers, those who dwell in the land, and those who wish to be admitted to the nation of Israel.
For the first two groups, the commands of “you shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him” (Ex. 22:21) and “you shall not oppress a stranger; you know the heart of a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Ex. 23:9) Such individuals spoken of were not citizens in the full sense, but simply those who happened to be in the land, whether temporarily or permanently.
As to the third group, there are special laws given for the admission of such individuals in the fellowship of Israel, both the religious fellowship and civil fellowship.
Such strangers could be admitted into Israel as a religious fellowship on the condition of taking the sign of the covenant,
when a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. (Ex. 12:48)
Yet, it is important to note that, in the case of Israel, there was both the religious fellowship of Israel (i.e., being a member of the covenant) and the civil fellowship of Israel (i.e., being a citizen of the nation). Hence, such laws must be carefully applied in the case of modern states and should be regarded rather as giving principles for union with the Church than it does for civil polity.
This was necessary for that dispensation since God willed that no men be separated from “the worship of God and from things pertaining to the welfare of the soul.” (ST.I-II.Q105.A3.Rep1)
Hence, in the old law, certain groups were excluded temporarily from the civil law of the polity while being received into the liturgical life of Israel.
Thus, the Edomites and Egyptians were allowed to be citizens in the third generation,
You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land. The children of the third generation that are born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord. (Dt. 23:7-8)
Hence, some sort of kinship (Edomites) or common history (Egyptian) could justify giving citizenship in the third generation, but not immediately for reasons that will be given below.
Yet, for others, this was not the case. The Ammonites and Moabites were restricted from citizenship even to the tenth generation due to their rocky history with Israel,
No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none belonging to them shall enter the assembly of the Lord for ever; because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came forth out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Be′or from Pethor of Mesopota′mia, to curse you. (Dt. 23:2-4)
Even more intensely than these were the Amalekites, who the Israelites were to have absolutely no fellowship with, waging constant war,
The Lord will have war with Am′alek from generation to generation. (Ex. 17:16)
St. Thomas gives the reason for the delay in citizenship,
They were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1). The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.
This distinction relies on an important division between citizens simply speaking and citizens relatively speaking. Anyone permitted by law to dwell permanently in the land is a citizen in the second sense. Yet, only those who are able to have the right to somehow guide the state toward the common good are citizens in the first sense, those who have “all the rights of citizenship, for instance, the right of debating or voting in the popular assembly,” which is only granted to those who are “fit to enjoy power in matters pertaining to the common good.” (ST.I-II.Q105.A3.Rep2, cf., the entire discussion of this matter in St. Thomas’ commentary in Polit.Bk3) Hence, there are also restrictions of citizenship on other classes, such as bastards (Dt. 23:2) and eunuchs (Dt. 23:1).
Yet, these laws give way to exception in extraordinary cases where it is obvious that the foreigner does have the common good firmly set in their hearts.
In Judith, we see a Ammonite, Achior, received into the fellowship of Israel immediately due to his praise of Judith so that “when Achior saw all that the God of Israel had done, he believed firmly in God, and was circumcised, and joined the house of Israel, remaining so to this day.” (Judith 14:10)
Further, there is the case of Ruth who was a Moabite and due to her virtue (Ruth 3:11) was joined to Israel herself rather than falling under the permanent ban.
Hence, it is clear that the law offered general principles that gave way to exception in extraordinary cases where it is clear that the common good was not to be harmed so that “it was possible by dispensation for a man to be admitted to citizenship on account of some act of virtue.” (ST.I-II.Q105.A3.Rep1)