Comment on Wise as Serpents: A Biblical Look at Immigration by verus

Parent Post: Wise as Serpents: A Biblical Look at Immigration · In Reply To

verus · 12/22/2025, 12:49:56 PM · permalink

You’ve now repeated yourself and added Exodus 19 and Leviticus 26 as if they overturn what I wrote. They don’t. In fact, taken in context, they underline my argument rather than yours.

**1\. The covenant you’re citing was made with Israel, not with modern nation‑states.**

The “promissory covenant” in Exodus 19 and Leviticus 26 is a specific, historical covenant between God and Israel in a defined land. Modern nation‑states cannot “abandon” a covenant God never made with them. These passages are not a universal migration charter, and they do not require every government on earth to treat its borders as irrelevant or to accept unlimited inflows on demand.

**2\. Those very texts affirm particular peoples and lands, not borderlessness.**

Exodus 19:5–6 says: “Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” God’s ownership of the whole earth is precisely the basis on which He sets apart one people from “all nations” and gives them a calling and a land. Leviticus 26:42 speaks of God remembering His covenant with the patriarchs and “the land” He promised to their descendants—again, a defined people in a defined territory. The logic is: God owns the earth, therefore He appoints particular peoples, covenants, and territories. That is the opposite of your attempt to use these verses to erase meaningful national and territorial distinctions.

**3\. God’s ownership of the earth does not cancel human stewardship, government, or borders.**

That “the whole earth is the Lord's” is basic biblical theology. But the same Bible also says God has “determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” for the nations (Acts 17:26), and it charges rulers with protecting those under their care and restraining evil (Romans 13:1–4). Using “God owns the earth” to imply that other peoples have no right to boundaries, no right to prudent screening, and no right to say “no” to hostile ideologies is not exegesis; it is proof‑texting to support a political position.

**4\. Biblical hospitality is ordered and conditional, not an unlimited right to move and remain on one’s own terms.**

The Old Testament commands Israel to treat the sojourner with justice and love, but the sojourner was welcomed under Israel’s law and expected to live within Israel’s covenant order. Scripture does not grant outsiders a right to enter, remain, and reshape the host society, or to agitate to place the host nation under a rival law. That is exactly the distinction my article makes: Christians are called to personal mercy and hospitality, but governments are not commanded to adopt reckless, self‑destructive immigration policies or ignore real threats in the name of “compassion.”

**5\. You are not engaging the actual argument of my article.**

My piece addresses the difference between descriptive narratives and prescriptive norms, the difference between individual duties and the duties of rulers, and the biblical balance of care for the sojourner and responsibility for one’s own household and nation. Simply pasting new verses out of context while ignoring these distinctions does not interact with what I have written. Furthermore, as a Christian, I argue from the authority of the Bible alone; I do not accept the Qur’an as an authority, nor do I believe it can be used to interpret or override Christian doctrine.

I’ve responded here for the sake of clarity, but I’m not going to keep going in circles. If you want further discussion, it would need to involve a serious engagement with the arguments in this article, not repeated slogans, out‑of‑context proof‑texts, or more links to your own material.

10 bumps

tajudeen_bin_tijani · 12/22/2025, 1:31:23 PM · permalink

7 bumps

verus · 12/22/2025, 2:03:39 PM · permalink

5 bumps

tajudeen_bin_tijani · 12/22/2025, 2:18:21 PM · permalink

2 bumps

Signature