Holy Spirit Activism

Home » Peace & Politics » Why Acts 17:26 Isn’t a Defense for Nationalism

Why Acts 17:26 Isn’t a Defense for Nationalism

Join the Jesus revolution! Write your email adress to follow this blog and get updates about new posts via email.

Archive

Networks

In debates with Christian nationalists and “migration critics” there’s one Bible verse that keeps popping up all the time: Acts 17:26. Many use it as a proof text for why our nations shouldn’t receive refugees and for why we should be nationalists and patriots, celebrating our own country.

As I’ve mentioned in an earlier blog post, my first book in Swedish has just been published! It’s about why Christians should welcome refugees and it has already stirred a lot of controversy among the Christian xenophobic community. Most of those who disagree with us point to Acts 17:26 as the reason for why Christians should be critical to migration. One guy even e-mailed me, providing a link which he said contains “evidence” for why I’m wrong. I clicked it and found a blog post which simply was an angry rant based on one single Bible verse: Acts 17:26.

So let’s take a look at this Bible verse and see if it really says what nationalists want it to say. I actually made a video about Acts 17:26 several months ago as I was in the midst of writing the book. I found the video on my hardrive and published it on YouTube earlier today, so you can both listen to and read my explanation to what the verse is saying. Here it is:

From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. (Acts 17:26, NIV)

The word that migration critics fall in love with is boundaries, horothesia in Greek, a word that is only used here in the entire New Testament. In Swedish, it’s the same word as “border”, which gets them even more excited. Their interpretation is that since God has appointed the boundaries or borders of nations, man should not try to abolish or cross them. God doesn’t like when many people try to move across His boundaries, He wants every people group to remain where they are even if they can be safer somewhere else.

Now, a text without a context is a pretext. This verse is a portion by an apologetic and evangelistic speech that Paul is holding in Athens, Greece. His point is that the God that he’s preaching is relevant to the Greeks as well as everyone else: the God of Israel is a universal God, the God of all people. Here’s the verse placed in its context:

24 The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else .26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

Verse 27 is of particular significance when trying to understand 26: God appointed the times and boundaries for the nations so that they would seek him and possibly find him. God overwatches all nations with the intended purpose of them finding out who He is.

Now, there are three reasons for why Paul’s point is not that migration is bad. The first one is obvious: Paul is not talking about migration. He’s not arguing against it, he’s not even mentioning it. His point is that God so desperately want a relationship with the Greeks that even the lifetime and size of their nation is in accordance with his divine plan of salvation. Paul’s point is not that Greece should stop receiving immigrants.

Speaking of which, Paul himself is an immigrant by nationalist standards when holding this speech. He was a Jew born in Turkey. This leads us to the second reason why Acts 17:26 isn’t criticizing migration: Paul and other early Christians had no motivation for criticizing migration. Jesus never said that they should be against it, that’s why Christian migration critics never refer to Jesus. On the contrary, the Great Commission to evangelize the whole world is dependent upon migration. And in ancient times, migration was very easy. The strict border control of modern nations is a very recent invention.

The third reason is completely devastating for any xenophobic interpretation of Acts 17:26. Paul’s point about God appointing the boundaries of nations isn’t utopian but realist. That is, he’s not describing how it should be, but how it is. This means that all nations have their lifetime and size appointed by God, no matter what they look like, no matter if they’re nationalist or multicultural, no matter if they have free immigration or a giant Trump wall around them.

Similar to Romans 13, Paul isn’t saying that everything a state does is God-breathed and sinless. No, his point is that God is in ultimate control over the entire world, including the political realm. And His purpose is salvation, not apartheid.

Advertisements

6 Comments

  1. itpastorn says:

    Neither in nature nor in grace, neither in the old creation nor in the new, is there any room for ideas of racial superiority. F. F. BRUCE The book of the Acts – The New international Commentary on the New Testament. (On Acts 17:26)

    Those earlier, popular theological interpreters, especially in South Africa and North America, who exploited this text to justify ethnic separatism not only missed its point but succumbed to its negative verdict. All humanity shares a common origin, and the boundaries of peoples and empires are each assigned by Gods sovereignty for certain eras. Far from being prescriptive, these boundaries merely depict the geographic separations established—whether in judgement since Babel or otherwise showing humanity’s limitations—for various seasons, all to be overturned in divinely appointed times. In the same biblical perspective, the more ethnocentric, arrogant empires (e.g., Assyria) had always fallen the hardest. Craig S. Keener. Acts, An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 3. Page 2651.

  2. jhopping says:

    While I agree with your overall point, I’m not sure if I would call St. Paul an immigrant as he spent his entire life within the boundaries of the Roman Empire as a Roman citizen. I know there were different local government puppet kings or governors, but it was the same country.

    I have the same issue with folks who say that Jesus was an immigrant because his parents moved to Egypt and then back to Galilee. While the local government was different, they were both part of the Roman Empire so technically he wasn’t an immigrant. =/

    • Hi Josh!

      If you take a closer look I write that he was an immigrant by nationalist standards. Furthermore, Jesus surely was a refugee as a baby, since he and his parents fled from persecution. And technically, one can still talk about migration even if it happens within a country – someone moving from Colorado to Alabama is a migrant in that sense. But since the common usage is migration between countries, some qualification is needed.

      Blessings!

      • jhopping says:

        What do you mean “by nationalist standards”? I’m not following you on that…

        The word “immigrant” by definition is “a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.” As such, both Paul and Jesus are not immigrants as they moved around within the same country, i.e. the Roman Empire.

        Migration, on the other hand, is a broad word talking about the movement of people from one place to another. Being a broad term, it includes immigrants, but is not limited to immigrants. As in, all immigrants migrate, but not all migrates are immigrants.

        A refugee, by definition, is someone who “who has been forced to leave a country because of war or for religious or political reasons.” Again, since Jesus and Paul never left the Roman Empire I’m not sure if they could be call a refugee in a technical sense. I know they had to flee due to political/religious reasons…but can really be a refugee if they “flee” Colorado to go to Alabama?

        Perhaps I’m being too technical here…it is just that I’m been chewing on the interconnectedness of the Roman Empire lately and how folks moved around within that country. All too often we Christians tend to try 1st century Galilee and Jerusalem as being independent from Rome when in fact it was very connected to and with the rest of the Empire.

  3. jhopping says:

    s/w “try” in last sentence with “think of” (my fingers didn’t quite work for that part) =P

  4. […] tillika apartheidförespråkares favoritvers. Jag diskuterar denna vers i boken och även i detta blogginlägg, men någon som går ännu djupare i att visa varför Apg 17:26 inte på något sätt är ett […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The author

Micael Grenholm - a Swedish charismactivist residing with the Jesus Army in the UK.

Micael Grenholm - a Swedish charismactivist residing with the Jesus Army in the UK.

Check out my YouTube channel!

A Living Alternative

God vs Inequality

Goodreads

Facebook Page

%d bloggers like this: