(How funny, I thought it was just a couple weeks ago that she revealed she was actually Jewish all this time, but here she is wishing a Merry Christmas. How queer...)
She is patently wrong in this tweet, as Joseph and Mary were returning to his hometown to report for the census, thus, they were legal residents of Judea. When people rightfully push back on her narrative (and some others, wrongfully), she tweets out a 2017 article by America Magazine to support her position: "Were Jesus, Mary and Joseph refugees? Yes." Oh, well then... case settled, I guess, right?
Not exactly.
In the second chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, we read the story of the “Flight into Egypt” in which, after the birth of Jesus and the visit from the Magi, an “angel of the Lord” comes to Joseph in a dream and warns him to leave Bethlehem for Egypt. Why? Because King Herod was planning to “seek out the child to destroy him.” Mary and Joseph do leave, along with Jesus, and, according to Matthew, make their way into Egypt. Afterward, King Herod slaughters all the male children in Bethlehem under two years of age.
Agreed. Jesus was born in his homeland and the Magi (wise men) tipped off Mary and Joseph to King Herod's plans, so following the warning of the Lord's angel, they escape to Egypt. But there are some details missing in the above account that have to be filled in by the Gospel of Luke, chapter 2:
21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.
22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”),
24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”
So we have at least eight days after Jesus's birth, and probably as many as 40 days after his birth (Leviticus 12:2-4: a woman must wait 33 days after circumcision of her son to be ceremonially clean to enter the sanctuary). We also see that Mary brought "a pair of doves or two young pigeons" as her sacrificial offering, meaning that Joseph was too poor to afford a lamb (Leviticus 12:8). This strongly implies that the Magi, with their gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, had not yet visited the young couple. Further, Matthew 2:11 says that the Magi came to the "house", where they worshiped the new king. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that Jesus was still living in a stable by the time the Magi visited, despite myriad Nativity scenes to this day depicting such a scene.
Next, using the UN High Commissioner on Refugees' definition of "refugee" (is there a more legitimate definition than that?!), Ocasio-Cortez's super credible source says:
The Holy Family, as Matthew recounts the story, was fleeing because of a “well-founded fear of persecution” because of their “membership in a particular social group,” in this case people with young children living in Bethlehem. I am not sure how you could get any clearer than that.
(emphasis added). But what does the Bible say? In Matthew 2:13-15, Scripture clearly states that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt to hide (most likely to Egyptian-held Gaza) until after Herod's death, when they returned to their home country. So was this brief stint in Egypt enough time to warrant the designation of refugee upon Jesus and his earthly parents? Here, I think the better definition is the one for internally displaced person, found on the same page as refugee:
An internally displaced person, or IDP, is someone who has been forced to flee their home but never cross an international border. These individuals seek safety anywhere they can find it—in nearby towns, schools, settlements, internal camps, even forests and fields. IDPs, which include people displaced by internal strife and natural disasters, are the largest group that UNHCR assists. Unlike refugees, IDPs are not protected by international law or eligible to receive many types of aid because they are legally under the protection of their own government. (emphasis mine)
Obviously God does not need to make arbitrary distinctions between refugees and internally displaced persons, although He does draw a clear distinction between His followers' place in Heaven and their time here on earth ("I am a sojourner of this earth, hide not your commandments from me!" Psalm 119:19; "To God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces..." 1 Peter 1:1). But because Egypt was under Roman rule at that time, I think it's disingenuous to say that Jesus fled Roman-held Judea to hide out in Roman-held Egypt. That would be akin to someone running away from Oregon to hide out in Georgia... hardly a "refugee" by the modern meaning or usage of the word. In fact, the author concedes this very point:
Did Joseph and Mary apply for official refugee status? Of course not. Those kinds of regulations were most likely not in effect. There may not have even been any borders at the time. . . . Egypt, which came under Roman control in 30 B.C., was outside the jurisdiction of Herod. Egypt had been the traditional place of refuge for Jews both in biblical times and in the Maccabean era when the high priest Onias IV fled there. (emphasis added)
He admits that there were "no borders" and both places were under Roman control, and yet he doubles down in the very next sentence, saying "Thus, we see a family fleeing to a foreign country out of fear of persecution." So which is it? A foreign country, or a Roman territory?
So why does any of this matter? The simple answer is that it doesn't, and I freely admit that. We should love our neighbors as ourselves, and sometimes that means offering refuge to those who are suffering. But the stronger, more nuanced answer, is that if the political Left wants to use the Bible to justify their pet policies or accuse the Christians--not even the political Right--of being hypocrites, then they had better be prepared to have four (or more) fingers pointing back at them. After pointing out that Jesus was a refugee, the common tactic is to quote Matthew 25, Jesus's famous parable about the sheep and the goats:
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.
32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’" (emphasis added)
You see, Jesus calls blessed those who invited the stranger in, therefore, we must invite all refugees seeking asylum in, too. However, the Left always neglect to read the entire parable. In verse 40, Jesus continues,
40 “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.’" (emphasis added).
Jesus says that those who helped "the least of these brothers and sisters of mine" helped him. Who are his brothers and sisters, then? Jesus's brothers and sisters are the children of God, "heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." (Romans 8:17). "[To] all who did receive him, to those who believed in [Christ's] name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God." So if the Left wants to make the argument that we should accept all Coptic Christian refugees, or persecuted believers in China, then I think they'd have a lot more support (not that some of the Central Americans migrating up aren't Christian). Christians are called to love their neighbors, certainly, but this particular precept in Matthew applies to how Christians treat other Christians.
By using the Bible to justify their preferred policy position, the Left ultimately undermines their argument because they have an incomplete understanding of Scripture, let alone who God is. Their constant appeals to "helping the poor" sound noble--of course, history shows again and again that the steps that could alleviate the poor's status are maligned by the Left--but the Bible is meant for individual relationship with God, not a recipe book for a political caste to pick and choose from as they see fit. Given, I firmly believe that if everyone surrendered to the will of God and lived out the truths of the Bible, earth be a utopia, but Scripture also makes clear that just won't happen. "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them." (Romans 1:18-19). The truth isn't just "out there", it's been fully revealed, yet people suppress and reject it for their own vainglory and power-seeking.
No comments:
Post a Comment