Migration

The history of Europe has always been shaped by vast peoples marching from east to west.

Tribal Migration

The ethnic groups that existed in Jesus’ time and subsequent centuries were quite mobile. For example, from the second to the fifth century, new tribal groups moved out of eastern Europe into the Roman Empire. The Visigoths moved through France into Spain. The most extreme example of mobility was the Vandals, who went through France, Spain, and into North Africa and took control of Carthage.

A cause of the collapse of the Roman Empire was the pressure of peoples migrating west from the steppes of Asia. Some came on horseback, but many walked. When these people arrived on the edge of the empire, they were initially held out by the border garrisons, but eventually, the pressure became too great and they invaded the Empire. Over a couple of centuries, the Tervingi, Grethuni, Vandals, Alans, Suevi, Goths, Burgundians, Visigoths and Ostrogoths arrived in Western Europe. Some travelled as far as France and Spain. The Vandals crossed into North Africa and conquered Carthage.

When they first arrived, these peoples were vicious warriors, but over time they settled down in their new land and gradually merged with the rest of the population. Most gradually converted to Christianity.

Safety in Numbers

In ancient times, there were no national boundaries, so people could move freely, but doing so was risky because anyone who moved away from their family and tribe became extremely vulnerable. This is the reason that most of the people moving around travelled in big groups to maintain their safety. They usually had a military leader and armed men to protect them. They were strong enough to take the food that they needed by force. This is why local people feared them.

Abraham had 400 servants travelling with him to look after his flocks and goods, but they also acted as an armed militia if he was attacked. People in the territory that he moved into saw him as a threat and attempted to attack him. His grouping was strong enough to remain safe.

Individual migrants like Ruth and Naomi, who travelled from one tribal area to another, were at extreme risk because they had no protection. They could be killed without any consequences. If they could not survive by begging, they would starve. Ruth was blessed to find a wealthy man who would act as her sponsor.

The Old Testament law was unique in its protections for the sojourner living within tribal boundaries. They were given the same legal protections as members of the tribes (Exodus 23:9; Leviticus 19:33; Deuteronomy 10:18–19). These protections did not exist in the rest of the ancient world.

The benefit of the Roman Empire was that it maintained limited safety for travellers within its borders. But people who travelled outside their home region were still vulnerable. This is why Paul knew it would be dangerous to carry the offering for Jerusalem in coins, so he travelled with a big group of supporters for protection. Paul had the benefit of the greater protection that came from being a Roman citizen. Lower-class people had even less protection if they travelled. They could easily end up like the man rescued by the Good Samaritan.

Modern Nation-State

The pattern of populations arriving from the east was held in check for several generations by artificial borders created by the emergence of the national state, but now it is stirring again. It started with the collapse of the Soviet Union, when people from Eastern Europe began migrating to Western Europe. Polish painters and plumbers arrived in the United Kingdom looking for work.

A new phase of migration from the east has now arrived. We can see it daily on our television screen, with thousands of refugees walking, packing trains, rushing borders in heroic efforts to reach Germanany, Denmark and Sweden. Many are Syrians, but others have come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other parts of West Asia.

In an article called "Some Tips for the Long-Distance Traveller" in the London Review of Books, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad describes how this migration has been unleashed by the information revolution. In the past, information about how to get from one country to another was held by the people smugglers. They kept this information to themselves, so that they could charge exorbitant prices to those seeking help. Many of them were cheats, taking money from helpless people and giving them nothing in return.

For decades, the paths that led out of war, destruction and poverty into the safety of life in Europe was a closely guarded secret, the property of smugglers and mafias who controlled the routes and had a monopoly on the necessary knowledge. They conducted their illicit trade out of dingy cafes in the back streets of Aksaray in Istanbul and - for the lucky few who reached Greece - the district of Omonia in Athens, where those who had got that far were handed on from one network to another, to be lied to and manipulated again. After all, they had no choice but to hand over their cash in exchange for a promise and a hope.

Very few people had sufficient money to pay the price demanded by the smugglers. Those who trusted them were usually disappointed.

This situation has now changed. The information about how to migrate from West Asia to Western Europe is now available to anyone with access to social media.

A Kurdish friend of mine in Sulaymaniyah in northern Iraq recently posted an image of a hand-drawn diagram on his Facebook page. With little arrows and stick figures and pictures of a train and boat or two, the diagram shows how to get from Turkey to the German border in twenty easy steps. After you've made the thousand-mile trip to western Turkey, the journey proper begins with a taxi to Izmir on the coast. An arrow points to the next stage: a boat across the Aegean to a 'Greek island', costing between $950 and $1200. Another boat takes you to Athens. A train leads to Thessaloniki. Walking, buses and two more worm-like trains take you across Macedonia to Skopje, and then through Serbia to Belgrade. A stick figure walks across the border into Hungary near the city of Szeged. Then it's on to Budapest by taxi, and another taxi across the whole of Austria. At the bottom of the page, a little blue stick figure is jumping in the air waving a flag. He has arrived in Germany, saying hello to Munich, after a journey of some three thousand miles, taking perhaps three weeks, at a total cost of $2400.

Migration is the topic of almost every conversation in the cafes of Baghdad and Damascus—in towns large and small across Syria and Iraq and beyond—along with the pros and cons of social aid given to migrants in different countries. The best routes are common knowledge, and information on new developments and up-to-date advice spreads quickly on social media, via Viber, WhatsApp and Facebook. These days, all you need to reach Europe is a couple of thousand dollars and a smartphone.

Anyone with a few thousand dollars can make the journey to Eastern Europe.

The mobilisation techniques used in the Arab Spring, which brought thousands of demonstrators to a given place, were now being used to organise the new waves of migration. This was no longer an exodus of the wretched and downtrodden - though many still were - but a pilgrimage, predominantly, of the young, educated and middle class. The breaking down of Europe's borders left two groups of people angry and struggling to find a way to restore the old order: the smugglers, and EU officials.

This explains why the refugees we see on television speak good English and carry smartphones. They come from the middle class with sufficient wealth to invest a few thousand dollars in getting their sons and daughters to Europe.

Migration from the East to the West has been going on for a long time. The information revolution makes it easier. I doubt that the national governments of Europe will be able to stop it, even if they wanted to.

Protection by Nation-State

The security of migrants has been changed by the emergence of modern nations. Nation-states control the boundary of the area that they claim as their territory. They usually control ports and airports to prevent people from moving into their territory without permission. This eliminates the tribal migration that occurred during biblical times.

In contrast, the modern nation-state provides protection for individual migrants moving from one region to another, which encourages this type of migration. Social welfare benefits have also changed the situation. If people from poor nations can get into richer western nations, legally or illegally, they can usually get a social welfare benefit of some kind after they have arrived. If they have brought their family with them, they can get an even bigger benefit. Even if their benefit is small by western standards, they are usually better off than they would be if they had remained at home. Migrants can get ripped off by people smugglers, but once they get to a new nation, they often gain economic security.

This situation creates a strong economic incentive for poor people to migrate from Africa and West Asia into Western Europe. The same incentive exists for people in Central and South America to migrate to the United States and Canada.

Modern states eventually give people living within the boundary of their control citizenship and income. This means that tribal groups no longer need to stay together for economic and physical security. Individuals and families can travel to a new nation-state and survive without the support of the community they left.

In the modern world, economic support often goes the other way. Migrants to western countries often provide economic support to the family they left behind by sending some of the money they earn home. Migrant transfers are often a significant source of income for poor nations.

Cultural Gathering

Unlike the movement of tribal groups that occurred in biblical times, most modern migration is by individuals or nuclear families. However, cultural differences mean that migrants tend to gather together in the same suburb or town as other migrants who have come from the same place. Thus, although they have not travelled as a tribal group, they become a tribal group in the town or suburb in the western nation that they have moved to.

The result is that large tribal groupings of people with a common culture and religion are forming in western nations at the same time as the local culture and religion are declining in vitality. The reality of being a minority in a strange land strengthens the attachment to the culture and religion that they brought with them. People whose faith was nominal in their home country attach far more importance to it when they are surrounded by what seems like a hostile culture.

Seeing these strong cultural groups emerge in their nation tends to make the host people nervous. Even though their religion is less important to them, they see the vibrant culture and religion of the migrant groups as a threat. They feel like they are losing their culture. Some fear that their society is being taken over by a foreign culture.

Governments in Europe have allowed huge numbers of migrants and refugees from different cultures into their nations. However, there was never any political debate about whether this was desirable. Governments assumed it was the right thing to do, because they needed to do the poorly-paid and dirty physical work that locals are not willing to do.

Uneasiness about the effects of cultural migration that they have never had the opportunity to vote against is the reason for the emergence of the so-called right-wing political parties in Europe. They are not right-wing in the traditional sense. Rather, they express the fears of people who feel that migration is a threat to their culture. Germany is an example.

An increase in the diversity of German society, whether in the form of naturalized Germans with family backgrounds of migration, or in the form of foreign migrants living long-term in Germany. This transformation is by any standard dramatic and must be taken seriously if one is going to come to terms with contemporary Germany.

In 2025, the German population currently stands at roughly 84.4 million people, of those, roughly 25 million are in one way or another people of migrant heritage.

(13 million German citizens either themselves were not born with German citizenship, or have at least one parent who was not born with German citizenship. 12 million foreigners live in Germany).

To put those impressive numbers in perspective, at the time of unification in 1989, there were 62.7 million people living in West Germany and 16.4 million in the East. The migrant population of Germany today outnumbers the original GDR population by 50 percent.

A shift of this scale and drama demands a structural response. That is what the voters of the AfD want.

The big tribal groupings that migrated into Western Europe during the time of the Roman Empire swamped the culture when they arrived, but they eventually settled down, partly by being assimilated into the local culture, but partly by reshaping it. The outcome depended mostly on the vitality of the pre-existing culture.

Although the process is different (mostly individual migration) the outcome of modern migration will be the same. The large tribal grouping forming will partly assimilate into the existing culture, but will also reshape it. Unfortunately, in western Europe, this is happening at a time when the local culture has lost its vitality, so the migrant cultures and religions may end up with greater influence than is expected.

Hypocrisy

The Bible teaches God's people to welcome strangers and sojourners in their land and bless them (Deut 10:17-19). The decisions were made locally within strong communities.

What is happening in the modern world is a bit different. The politicians decide that various communities should host refugees from overseas. The politicians do not receive them into their communities. They have very little to do with the refugees, unless they employ them as cheap gardeners and house cleaners.

The people who live in the communities that the refugees are sent to have very little say in what happens. Enforced hospitality to strangers is not what the scriptures have in mind.

Immigration debates bring out a lot of hypocrisy.

Those whose forebears came to America when entry was unrestricted often seem to be the most strident in wanting immigration restrictions now. "I am in, so shut the door and keep the rest out".

On the other hand, I doubt that many of the Christians who support migration would invite a hundred refugees to come and live in their neighbourhood.

The people who are most enthusiastic about immigration seem to reside in neighbourhoods where refugees cannot afford to live. Very convenient.

Migration and the Promised Land

When God led the children of Israel into the Promised Land, he intended to drive the Canaanites out before them.

He brought you out of Egypt by his Presence and his great strength, to drive out before you nations greater and stronger than you and to bring you into their land to give it to you for your inheritance, as it is today (Deut 4:38).

The Israelites disobeyed and allowed them to stay, but God wanted them out to clear the land of evil spirits that they carried.

However, once the Israelites were in the land, and it was clear of evil, God was quite happy for aliens to return. The only condition was that they agreed to serve the Lord and live by his laws.

But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things (Lev 18:26).

Foreigners were welcome in the land, but they must not do anything that would compromise the spiritual protection of the people. Detestable activities that would open the way for evil spirits were prohibited.

Once they had returned to the Land, these foreigners were entitled to equal treatment under the law.

The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you (Ex 12:49).

You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the Lord your God (Lev 24:22).

The laws must be the same for foreigners and native-born people. Foreigners must not be treated badly.

Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt (Ex 22:21).

Do not deprive the foreigner or the fatherless of justice (Deut 24:17).

When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God (Lev 19:33-34).

There are no restrictions on this command. You do not love people by shutting them out. God did not say to only love those with essential skills.

The community is to have the same rules for you and for the foreigner residing among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the foreigner shall be the same before the Lord: The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigner residing among you (Num 15:15-16).

Foreigners should not be seen as an inconvenience. God loves them as much as native-born people.

He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt (Deut 10:18-19).

Nations

God has not given nations authority to shut other people out of the land where they live. God owns the land, and in his eyes, we are all aliens.

The land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and tenants (Lev 25:23).

Since we are all foreigners and tenants from God's perspective, human governments do not have authority to label other people as foreigners. Humans are all God's tenants, so we cannot decide who will live in a particular part of the world. Governments that try to decide who can live in a region are taking authority that belongs to God.

God decides where the people of the nations will live.

He has made from one blood every race (ethnos) of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord (Acts 17:26).

The places where different races reside are determined by God. We do not know where he might be leading people in order that they would find Jesus, so we should be careful about interfering with what he is doing.

If modern migration laws were in place, Jesus' parents would not have been able to take him to safety in Egypt, unless he had got lucky in the green card lottery. Ruth would not have been able to marry Boaz, unless she had "essential skills".

In biblical times, there were no restrictions on migration. A Moabite like Ruth was free to walk into Israel and live there. There were no border controls. There are no biblical laws preventing free migration. Migration of people was the normal response to war and famine.

Jesus challenged his followers to welcome refugees and foreigners.

Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you a foreigner (xenos) and invite you in?' The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.' (Matt 23:38,40).

Foreigners and refugees are Jesus' brothers. Those who follow Jesus must welcome them in the same as he would.

All people are Equal

We glibly claim that all people are equal, but immigration laws ensure that all people are not equal.

Support for Refugees

Modern states make the mistake of trying to control who has access to their land, while offering full social welfare payments to those they accept as refugees.

The biblical model is the opposite way around. People are given freedom to travel and live where they choose, but there is no state-funded social support.

Naomi's husband was free to move to Moab when a drought caused famine in Judah (Ruth 1:1). This has been a normal way of dealing with crisis and disaster throughout human history. When war breaks out, people flee to a safer place. When famine strikes, people move to where food is still available.

The law allowed foreigners to migrate to Israel, provided they honoured God and accepted his law. However, the foreigner would not have any land in Israel, unless they could afford to buy some. They would not get any state-funded social support. They would have to work to live. They might also get some support through gleaning, but they had to work to get it.

When Ruth and Naomi moved to Israel, Ruth was a foreigner. She was free to move into the land, but she had to find her own financial support. She went out gleaning, so that she could gather enough grain to feed herself and Naomi until she got paid employment, probably as a servant.

The biblical model is freedom of migration, but family responsibility for earning income and producing food.

Fear of Islamic Refugees

Many Christians are afraid of refugees from Islamic nations and want to exclude them to keep their nation Christian. This is an Old Testament attitude.

In the Old Testament, the people had to separate themselves from evil influences, because they had no spiritual protection. That is why they had to expel the Canaanites from the Promised Land. God did not want his people to pick up the evil spirits that they carried. That changed with the cross, because the cross and resurrection of Jesus destroyed the powers of evil. This spiritual protection means that evil cannot touch this.

This change is reflected in the attitude toward lepers. In the Old Testament, people kept separate from lepers because if they touched them, the evil spirits that had harmed them might hurt them too. Jesus took the opposite approach, he touched the lepers and healed them. He knew that any evil spirits attacking the leper could not touch him. He knew the power of the Holy Spirit that was upon him could restore the leper.

The same applies to the nations of the world. In the Old Testament age, God's people had to keep separate from the nations, because they might corrupt them by opening them to evil spirits. Following the cross, Christians are to go into the world and make disciples of the nations. The spiritual protection provided by the cross keeps them safe from evil spirits. The power of the Holy Spirit upon them means that they will transform the nations, rather than being transformed by the nations.

The same applies to Islamic refugees moving into so-called Christian nations. Prior to the cross, we would have had to keep separate. In the New Testament age, we have spiritual protection from any evil spirits they are carrying. More important, the power of the Spirit that is available to the church is so strong that the refugees should be overwhelmed by his influence.

If the power of the Spirit on the churches in Europe is so weak that it cannot draw a few refugees into the gospel, then it is already dead. The refugees are just exposing its real state.

Modern Israel

Modern Israel is a modern example of migration by a large tribal grouping from Europe and Africa. This migration was successful because it had the backing of the British, and the United States after the Second World War and the discovery of the holocaust in Nazi Germany.

Jewish migrants did not bring an Old Testament culture to Palestine. They brought a militaristic European culture in which security comes through military strength, rather than trust in God.

This migrant western/jewish culture has dominated the culture that already existed in Palestine. However, the migration of a dominating culture has revitalised Palestinian culture, and it is not going to go away. Pushing these two cultures into a single nation-state has exacerbated the tension. This is not a problem that a nation-state cannot resolve, because a nation-state needs a single dominant culture to remain viable.

Kingdom of God

When Jesus spoke about the Kingdom of God, he was not envisioning a nation-state with national boundaries. He envisioned a boundaryless situation more like the Roman Empire, which dominated the known world.

The Kingdom of God will be made up of communities of people who are united by their commitment to serving and obeying Jesus. They will support people of all cultures who live in their midst. People will be free to travel wherever in the world that they choose to go. Wherever they choose to live, they will find a Kingdom Community that welcomes them and will support them.

As the Kingdom of God grows, nation-states will wither away as they become irrelevant and lose their viability.

When the Jewish people come into the Kingdom of God, the modern Israeli state will become redundant. Jewish and Palestinian people will come together in Kingdom communities and live in peace together as they support and protect each other. Hostile people will be united by the love of Jesus, as Paul described in Ephesians 2 and 3. His prayer at the end of Ephesians 3 is for hostile cultures that have been united in Jesus.