680136

research-article2016
SCE0010.1177/0953946816680136Studies in Christian EthicsTheocharous

Article

Studies in Christian Ethics

Refugee Asylum:
1­–11
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Deuteronomy’s sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0953946816680136
‘Disobedient’ Law sce.sagepub.com

Myrto Theocharous
Greek Bible College, Athens, Greece

Abstract
Taking the contemporary definition for ‘refugee’ by the UN High Commission for Refugees as a
starting point, this article examines the law on refugee asylum in Deut. 23:16-17 for parallel points
and concerns, in order to gain insight into the ethics that have driven
֤ its composition. This law is
commonly included in discussions on slavery due to the use of ‫ֶעבֶד‬, but the identification of this
‘slave’ as a foreign refugee seeking asylum in Israel has not been adequately noted. Examining the
law under this identification sheds light on refugee experience and Deuteronomy’s ethical stance
on refugee asylum.

Keywords
Asylum, Deuteronomy 23:16-17, fugitive, Old Testament ethics, refugee, runaway slave

Introduction1
According to the definition of the UN High Commission for Refugees at the Geneva
Convention of 1951 and its subsequent modification in the Protocol of 1967, a refugee is
someone who:

As a result of events occurring before 1 January2 and owing to well-founded fear of being
persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or
political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear,
is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality
and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is
unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.3

  1. A summary of this article was presented on June 13th, 2016 at the Oxford Center for Mission
Studies for the Stott-Bediako Forum 2016, The Refugee Crisis: A Shared Human Condition,
INFEMIT.
  2. The phrase ‘as a result of events occurring before 1 January’ is removed in the 1967 Protocol.
  3. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria
for Determining Refugee Status (reissued; Geneva: UNHCR, 2011), p. 10. For a broad

Corresponding author:
Dr Myrto Theocharous, Greek Bible College, Chr. Adamopoulou 8, 19009 Pikermi, Attiki,Greece.
Email: mtheocharous@grbc.gr

Downloaded from sce.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2016

2 Studies in Christian Ethics 

Although this definition is too narrow to include all possible causes of flight, we can
nevertheless identify in it some characteristics of the refugee that are also present in the
law of Deut. 23:16-17[15-16]: (a) the fact that it most probably concerns foreigners who
seek refuge in another land, (b) the element of fear that is clearly discernible and (c) the
obvious urgent need for asylum protection.4 These three elements will be examined indi-
vidually so that we may acquire an idea of how this ancient book, an indispensable part
of our Christian tradition and consequently a voice to be considered in discussions on
Christian ethics, understands refugee asylum ethically, theologically and politically. The
law reads as follows: ‘You will not hand a slave over to his master, who is [seeking to be]
rescued to you from his master. With you he will dwell, among you, at the place that he
will choose, in one of your gates (towns), wherever he likes. You will not oppress
(enslave) him’ (Deut. 23:16-17[15-16]).5

What is the Law’s View of Refugee Asylum?

֤
The topic of this law is the slave (‫ֶעבֶד‬, ʿebed). In antiquity this term is not restricted to
slaves but it generally characterizes whoever is under authority. The king is regarded as
the slave of his god, royal officials are known as the king’s slaves, the vassal king is a
slave to the suzerain, and so on.6 But, even if this term refers to an actual slave—as the
case seems to be in this passage—since his experience involves the elements of fear,
flight from dangerous circumstances and asylum seeking, then the slave must also come
under the category of ‘refugee’ as it is defined by the UN. Understanding the slave as
‘refugee’ allows the reader to examine what the law says, not only with respect to slav-
ery, but also with respect to refugee asylum. In this article I shall focus on the latter.7

examination of current international refugee law see Fleur S. Houston, You Shall Love the
Stranger as Yourself: The Bible, Refugees, and Asylum (New York: Routledge, 2015), pp. 5–30.
  4. Aaron A. Burke notes the difficulties in identifying refugees in archaeological research and
employs anthropological criteria to identify such groups; see ‘An Anthropological Model for
the Investigation of the Archaeology of Refugees in Iron Age Judah and its Environs’, in Brad
E. Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames and Jacob L. Wright (eds), Interpreting Exile: Displacement
and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts, Ancient Israel and its Literature, 10
(Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2011), pp. 41–56.
  5. Translations of the biblical text are the author’s throughout. For exegetical purposes, the
translations will attempt to maintain the Hebrew form as closely as possible. Although the
masculine pronoun is used in the translation, the text may refer to either male or female. It is
probable that the word for ‘slave’ may refer to either a man or a woman on the basis of Deut.
15:12-17.
  6. For the term ‘slave’ see Daisy Yulin Tsai, Human Rights in Deuteronomy: With Special Focus
on Slave Laws (BZAW, 464; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), pp. 114–17.
  7. This is by no means exhaustive of the Old Testament’s ethic with respect to refugees, migra-
tion and asylum. Indeed there is a variety of voices subject to factors such as social position
and historical circumstance. See, for example, Casey Strine, ‘More Than Neighbours? The
Old Testament as a Resource for Thinking about Migration’, Transmission (Spring 2015),
pp. 5–7. Online: https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/uploads/content/bible_in_transmission/
files/2015_spring/BiT_Spring_2015_Strine.pdf.

Downloaded from sce.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2016

Theocharous 3

The Law Concerns the Foreigner

The majority of biblical scholars agree that this law concerns a slave from a foreign
land.8 Some of the reasons for preferring this view are the following:

1. Since this law gives the slave the right to dwell among the Israelites, this means
that up to that point he was outside the Israelite community.9 Five different
clauses are used in verse 17 to describe the geographical and communal context
of the asylum: a) with you, b) among you, c) at the place that he will choose, d)
in one of your towns, e) wherever he likes. These instructions are probably nec-
essary for someone coming from outside. Had the slave been an Israelite he
would have probably fled to his relatives. For a foreigner from outside, however,
specific instructions would be needed.10
2. One example where asylum is offered to a foreign refugee is the case of Abraham
in Gerar in Genesis 20. The connection of this incident with the passage in
Deuteronomy is the clause ‘wherever he likes’ (‫ַבּטֹוב לֹו‬. baṭṭôb lô) in combination
with the verb ‘to dwell’ (‫יָשַׁב‬, yāšab) in Gen. 20:15, the only other place outside
Deut. 23:17 where this combination occurs. After Abraham explains how God
made him a wanderer from place to place, Abimelech is described as fulfilling the
demands of Deut. 23:17 by responding: ‘Here is my land before you. Wherever
you like (‫ַבּטֹוב‬. , baṭṭôb) you may dwell (‫שֵׁב‬, šēb).’ Thus, in this text we have the
offer of asylum in a foreign land. The land of Abimelech is generously offered to
the outsider as an asylum that will put an end to Abraham’s wanderings and, on
the basis of the shared theme and expressions with Deut. 23:16-17, we are justi-
fied to suppose that the latter is also representative of a similar ethic.11
3. The flight of slaves, as well as free persons, from their land to a foreign land is a
common phenomenon in the ancient Near East (ANE). From very early on it was

  8. Also J. Gordon McConville, Deuteronomy (Leicester: Apollos, 2002), pp. 350–51; David W.
Baker, Tight Fists or Open Hands? Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament Law (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 133–34, Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy (NIVAC; Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 2012), pp. 543–44. Contra David J. A. Clines, ‘Ethics as Deconstruction,
and, the Ethics of Deconstruction’, in David J. A. Clines (ed.), On the Way to the Postmodern:
Old Testament Essays, 1967–1998, vol. I (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1998), pp. 95–125. Chris Wright sees this as referring to all slaves in general; see
Deuteronomy (NIBC, 4; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), pp. 249–50.
  9. See Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), p. 215.
10. Houston֤ proposes that Ruth’s son was named Obed because the name resonated with the
noun ‫( ֶעבֶד‬ʿ ebed) and she connects the name with theʿ ebed of Deuteronomy 23:16. The ʿebed
of this text who is a foreigner escaping from his master and finds refuge in Israel was to be
treated humanely by the locals. Houston finds this to have been true of Ruth’s experience as a
foreigner in Israel and would warrant the connection of Obed’s name with this Deuteronomic
law, Houston, You Shall Love the Stranger as Yourself, pp. 90–91.
11. We need not suppose that Deuteronomy is following Genesis chronologically. The example
here is given only to show that there exists a literary parallel in Israel’s tradition of someone
offering the choice of residence to a foreigner.

Downloaded from sce.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2016

4 Studies in Christian Ethics 

deemed necessary for some system to be put in place between various states and
kingdoms. This was not only in order to avoid political disruption in cases of
political refugees, but also to safeguard against economic disorder that could
come about when those who would become bankrupt, and should normally
remain under slavery in order to repay their debts, fled for asylum to neighbouring
countries. In those cases, economic benefits would be gleaned by the receiving
country since the number of slaves contributing to its economy would now
increase at the expense of the refugees’ country of origin.12 For this reason as well
as others it was necessary to establish international treaties. Non-compliance to
these treaties was considered serious enough even to warrant war among the par-
ties.13 In one of the Hittite treaties between Mursil II of Hatti and Duppi-Tesup of
Amurru, the Hittite king warns the king of Amurru that failure to return refugees
back to him but says to them instead “go where you (will)”, then the relationship
of the two kings would be damaged since the king of Amurru would have “broken
the oaths”.14 The Sefire III treaty from the 8th century B.C. says: “You shall not
provision them with food, and you will not tell them: `Stay in your place!’”.15

In these international treaties, as well as in ANE law codes,16 the rights of the master
were more highly regarded than the rights of the worker and the securing of the worker’s
survival did not factor in the framing of legislation. However, we must keep in mind that
the Mesopotamian texts are primarily composed in royal contexts, so they naturally reflect
the ideas and interests of the ruling class. Therefore, we rarely expect to read about revolu-
tions or social disruptions, incidents that would mar the image of the ruling classes. On the
contrary, what we have in the Bible was not preserved in a royal context, nor was it written
on inscriptions, as per normal royal practice, but was instead written on perishable material

12. Mario Liverani, International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600–1100 BC (New York:
Palgrave, 2001), p. 67. People who would have been capable of congregating an army against
the ruling class while in exile were considered a threat. Others were not as threatening. The
flight of a prince, for example, was a threat as he could return in order to free more people.
See Daniel C. Snell, Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East, Culture and History of the
Ancient Near East, 8 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), p. 86.
13. Jürgen Lorenz and Ingo Schrakamp, ‘“Our Master! Do not destroy us!” The Fate and Role
of Non-Combatants in the Wars of the Hittites’, in Davide Nadali and Jordi Vidal (eds), The
Other Face of the Battle: The Impact of War on Civilians in the Ancient Near East, Alter Orient
und Altes Testament, 413 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014), p. 40; D. Elgavish, ‘Extradition of
Fugitives in International Relations in the Ancient Near East’, in H. Gamoran (ed.), Jewish
Law Association Studies XIV, The Jerusalem 2002 Conference Volume (Binghamton, NY:
Global Academic Publishing, 2004), pp. 43–45.
14. Kenneth A. Kitchen and Paul J. N. Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near
East. Part 1: The Texts (3 vols; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2012), pp. 474–477. Also,
Lorenz and Schrakamp, “Our Master! Do not destroy us!’’, p. 41.
15. Kitchen and Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East. Part 1: The Texts,
p. 913. Also, Tigay, Deuteronomy, p. 215.
16. Laws of Ur-Nanna (LU) 17 (p. 19), Laws of Lipit-Ishtar (LL 12–13) (p. 28), Laws of Eshnunna
(LE) 49–50 (pp. 66–67), Laws of Hammurabi (LH) 16–20 (pp. 84–85), Hittite Laws (HL)
22–24 (p. 220), in Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd
edn; Writings from the Ancient World, 6 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997).

Downloaded from sce.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2016

Theocharous 5

mostly by dissident groups. It is, therefore, perhaps to be expected, that when it comes to
the issue of flight, we will find more sympathy in biblical texts.17

The Element of Fear

A basic characteristic of the refugee according to the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR) is the presence of fear of an actual or possible danger in the
country of origin.
Deuteronomy 23:16-17 documents the fear of the refugee by the use of the verb
‘rescue’ (‫נָצַל‬, nāṣal). The verb is in the yiqtol conjugation which possibly communicates
that the ‘rescue’ of the slave is not yet completed. Instead, he is ‘seeking’ to be rescued.
His appeal is pending. The same verb is used three more times in Deuteronomy, but the
closest occurrence to our text is in the immediately preceding verse (23:15) where
Yahweh is portrayed as walking ‘in the midst’ of the Israelite camp in order to ‘rescue’
his people from their enemies. The connection of verse 23:15 to 23:16-17 is important
because, even though the two texts differ thematically, Yahweh’s continuous salvific
engagement with them is highlighted and in this way prepares the ground for the people’s
call to imitatio dei: it is now their turn to rescue the seeker of help.
The verb ‘rescue’ implies that we are not dealing with safe migration. This verb on its
own is adequate to alert the reader to the circumstances from which the slave is fleeing,
and, according to Jeffrey H. Tigay, it specifically reveals the abuse the slave is subject
to.18 At the same time, the law does not clarify the motives of flight. We do not know
whether the slave had committed a crime for which he is now persecuted by his master.
The law seems indifferent to the slave’s measure of responsibility and expects he will be
cared for regardless.
Fear is very common among refugees of the ANE. Amnon Altman says that fear is
present in all categories of refugees in the second millennium BC because during that
period many ANE territories were connected through a network of international treaties
where obligation to return refugees back to their overlords was a high priority.19 Returning
a runaway slave to his master meant harsh punishment such as tearing out of the tongue
and the eyes, mutilation of ears and feet for the slave and perhaps for his family also, even
death.20 This fear is true for every age. Even today, the deportation of Syrian refugees back
to Syria constitutes a serious threat to their lives and their fear is often taken lightly.21
The refugee was also fearful of the dangers of flight. There was no protection for
anyone in the deserts and on the mountains. Survival was a tremendous challenge during

17. Snell, Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East, pp. 6–7, 117–18.
18. Tigay, Deuteronomy, p. 215.
19. Amnon Altman, Tracing the Earliest Recorded Concepts of International Law: The Ancient
Near East (2500–330 BCE) (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012), p. 81. E.g., see the
treaties between Hattusil III of Hatti and Ramesses II of Egypt (c. 1259 BC) in Kitchen and
Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East. Part 1: The Texts, pp. 573–594.
20. Liverani, International Relations in the Ancient Near East, pp. 67–68, Elgavish, ‘Extradition
of Fugitives in International Relations in the Ancient Near East’, p. 39, Snell, Flight and
Freedom in the Ancient Near East, p. 101, Baker, Tight Fists or Open Hands?, p. 132.
21. ‘Turkey Putting Syrian Refugees “at Serious Risk of Human Rights Abuse”’, http://www.
theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/27/amnesty-international-turkey-syrian-refugees-human-
rights-abuse (accessed 4 June 2016).

Downloaded from sce.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2016

6 Studies in Christian Ethics 

the journey. This is evident in the fear of the refugee Cain who said, ‘Today you
are driving me from the face of the land and I will hide from your face, a wandering
refugee on the earth. Whoever finds me will kill me’ (Gen. 4:14). God responds by
taking Cain’s side and marks a sign on his body that functions as a sort of portable
asylum (Gen. 4:15).22
Some refugees would join gangs of robbers in order to survive.23 Ideally, though,
their preference would be to find a welcoming place where they could settle and work.
Still, there is another kind of fear that is not mentioned in the UNHCR definition and
is commonly not taken into account in the treatment and decisions regarding the
placement of refugees: the fear of the foreign land.24 Being an outsider in a foreign
country meant that one would be prone to exploitation by locals.25 This possibility of
exploiting the refugee was the reason that reception of refugees was economically
beneficial in the ANE.26 It was a given that the refugee would be enslaved in the new
land he found himself. Yet, as we shall see, Deut. 23:17 removes all economic motiva-
tion in receiving a refugee. It could even be financially unprofitable for the Israelite.

Asylum Appeal
In 23:16-17 the refugee’s appeal for asylum from the Israelite is apparent. The text says
that the slave ‘is [seeking to be] rescued to you’, probably meaning, ‘in your household’.
The prepositional phrase ‘to you’ (ָ‫ ֵאלֶיך‬,ʾēlêkā) is juxtaposed with the preceding phrase
‘to his master’ (‫אֶל־אֲדֹנָיו‬, ʾel-ʾădōnāyw), contrasting the sphere of oppression with the
sphere of potential emancipation.
Since the slave chooses to appeal for asylum to an Israelite, deportation would be a
disregard of his freedom of choice. Of course, it is an oxymoron that someone can be a
slave and simultaneously enjoy the freedom of choice. But here, this slave’s individual
‘exodus’, an act so foundational to Israelite tradition, is ‘sacralized’ to the point that it
nullifies the claims of the existing system of slavery. This freedom of choice is secured
for the slave in an unprecedented way in verse 17.
The asylum, as it is described here, does not segregate the refugee but requires his
incorporation into Israelite society. Through the use of five parallel clauses, verse 17
stresses the location, the circle, the community or the proximity of the refugee to the
local. The fact that the verse begins with ‘with you’, altering the common Hebrew word
order, shows where the emphasis of the whole sentence lies. It is with you that this out-
sider should be, in a context where social equality may be developed and the danger of
marginalization, targeting and exploitation may be minimized. Rabbinic comments from

22. Raymond Westbrook, ‘Personal Exile in the Ancient Near East’, Journal of the American
Oriental Society 128.2 (2008), pp. 317–23, at p. 318.
23. Westbrook, ‘Personal Exile in the Ancient Near East’, p. 319.
24. There are serious doubts, for example, that Turkey is a safe third country for refugees; see
Orçun Ulusoy, ‘Turkey as a Safe Third Country?’ (29 March 2016), https://www.law.ox.ac.
uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2016/03/
turkey-safe-third (accessed 4 June 2016).
25. Altman, Tracing the Earliest Recorded Concepts of International Law, p. 81.
26. Liverani, International Relations in the Ancient Near East, p. 67.

Downloaded from sce.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2016

Theocharous 7

the Tannaitic period emphasize that this verse does not want the refugee to be ‘in the
town, by himself, nor at the edge of town’ (Pisḳa 259).27
Daniel A. Frese argues that the ‘gates’ in the book of Deuteronomy refer to Israelite
covenantal settlements within the land of Canaan. They are synonymous with ‘among
you’ and essentially mean ‘in your towns’.28 The text may even imply hospitality within
the extended household of the Israelite, since the Israelite patriarchal house (‫בֵּית אָב‬,
bêt ʾāb) included additions for relatives of various degrees of kinship, but also for non-
relatives such as adopted children, hired workers, foreigners and slaves.29 The poor and
the foreigners were dependent on the good will of the Israelites, and kindness to these
groups was regarded by the Israelites as the way of ‘justice and righteousness’.30 We
must note, however, that this slave is not called an ‘alien’ ‫( גֵּר‬gēr), at least not yet. This
is probably the term adopted once the outsider is received in the land of Israel.31
What is perhaps most surprising in this law is the right given to the refugee to choose
the place of his dwelling. As we have already seen, the right of choice of dwelling was
given to Abraham by Abimelech, therefore, such a generous act has parallels in patriar-
chal tradition.
In Deuteronomy, the use of the verb ‘to choose’ (‫בָּחַר‬, bāḥar) with ‘place’ (‫מָקוֹם‬,
māqôm) as its object is used only of God. He is the one who chooses the place where his
name will dwell (e.g. 12:5, 14:23, 15:20). This freedom for a dwelling place that only
Yahweh enjoys is not even available to the Israelite whose place of inheritance was
already predetermined (Josh 13-14).
Although the ‘place’ in 23:17 does not carry any cultic connotations as is the case with
the place God chooses for himself, it is nevertheless interesting that the expressions
selected for the dwelling of the refugee reflect the choice of God’s own dwelling. Jeffries
M. Hamilton says that this text likens the refugee to Yahweh, thus giving him, in this case,
parallel rights.32 This ‘scandalous’ language of Yahweh’s identification with a stranger
may have been the reason why the Septuagint translation does not include it.33 Such
identification of Yahweh with the stranger cannot but remind us of Jesus’ remarks of his
identification with the strangers and the marginalized people of society (Mt. 25:31-40).34

27. Reuven Hammer (translation, introduction and notes), Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the
Book of Deuteronomy, Yale Judaica Series, XXIV (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1986), pp. 257–58.
28. Daniel A. Frese, ‘A Land of Gates: Covenant Communities in the Book of Deuteronomy’,
Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015), pp. 33–52.
29. The other case in Deuteronomy where something has to stay ‘with’ (ָ‫עִמְּך‬, ʿimmĕkā) the
Israelite is in 22:1-2 and refers to the Israelite’s obligation to keep in his house (ָ‫בֵּיתֶך‬, bêtekā)
the ox or the sheep of his neighbour until it is returned to him in safety.
30. Avraham Faust, The Archaeology of Israelite Society in Iron Age II, trans. Ruth Ludlum
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), pp. 12, 105.
31. For the development of the status of the alien in the Pentateuchal laws see Christiana Van
Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law (JSOTSup, 107; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991).
32. Jeffries M. Hamilton, Social Justice and Deuteronomy: The Case of Deuteronomy 15, Society
of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, 136 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992), p. 118.
33. οὐ παραδώσεις παῖδα τῷ κυρίῳ αὐτοῦ ὃς προστέθειταί σοι παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ μετὰ σοῦ
κατοικήσει ἐν ὑμῖν κατοικήσει ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ [ … ] οὗ ἐὰν ἀρέσῃ αὐτῷ οὐ θλίψεις αὐτόν.
34. Houston describes this identification from the slave’s side emphasizing the slave’s imita-
tion of Yahweh: “the slave is to imitate YHWH in the free choice of a `place’ and live fully

Downloaded from sce.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2016

8 Studies in Christian Ethics 

The law does not only subvert the idea of slavery but it also destabilizes the privi-
leges of the Israelite against the foreigner.35 If the foreigner can now live in safety
wherever he wants in the land of Israel, then the distinction of ‘Jew and Gentile’ begins
to be relativized. Gordon McConville says that the status of the foreign refugee
becomes identical with the status of an Israelite who has completed his six-year debt
service and now returns to an independent status.36 Although one could not conclude
this from this text alone, it nevertheless seems to encourage an openness to the nations
to be integrated, especially if we read it in conjunction with the command in 10:19,
‘love the stranger for you were strangers in the land of Egypt’.37 The Bible’s emphasis
on the alien is unprecedented in the ANE. Although the widow, the orphan and the poor
show up in extrabiblical texts, the legislated protection of the alien is lacking. Τhis
difference is probably due to the special understanding Israel had of their identity as
‘aliens in Egypt’.38
The prophets develop this openness to an eschatological level, envisaging the nations
running to Yahweh (Isa. 55:5, 60:3, Zech. 8:22), which is something the New Testament
sees as being eventually fulfilled in the church (Eph. 3:6).
The case of Philemon in the New Testament may also be relevant. Even though Paul
returns the slave Onesimus to Philemon, something radical has already taken place. In a
sense, Paul is functioning as Yahweh, as the ‘deliverer’ of Philemon who now owes his
life to Paul (1:19). This gives Paul the right to instruct Philemon (1:8) but he prefers that
Philemon acknowledges how hierarchical relationships are relativized within the body of
Christ by himself. Paul’s expectation is that under this framework Philemon will receive
his fugitive slave as if he was receiving Paul himself. Paul identifies completely with
Onesimus, calling him ‘my heart’ (1:12), therefore, Onesimus returns, not as a slave but
as Paul. Philemon receives him—not as a master but as debtor.
Asylum would not necessarily secure the safety of the refugee in the ANE nor in
Israel.39 Asylum, as Deuteronomy prescribes, has to secure the safety and the freedom of
the refugee. Exploitation and oppression of the stranger by locals was a common phe-
nomenon that is attested by Deuteronomy’s repetitive opposition to it through numerous
injunctions concerning his protection (e.g. 1:16, 10:18-19, 14:29).
For this, 23:17 closes with the command ‘you will not oppress him’. The verb
‘oppress’ (‫יָנָה‬, yānâ) is used only here in Deuteronomy. Elsewhere in the Old Testament

integrated in Israel’s midst (`among you’), just as YHWH does.” Houston, You Shall Love the
Stranger as Yourself, p. 91.
35. See also Clines, ‘Ethics as Deconstruction, and, the Ethics of Deconstruction’, p. 96.
36. McConville, Deuteronomy, p. 351.
37. Although the alien seems to be introduced to the same covenant (29:10-11, 31:12), he is,
nevertheless, allowed to maintain his own eating habits (14:21). Moreover, he has court
rights (1:16), rights to the Sabbath (5:14-15), food allowance (14:29), participation in
festivals (16:11, 14), and the rights to regular salary (24:14).
38. Van Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law, pp. 34–36. Unfortunately, she does not comment on
23:16-17 due to the absence of the word gēr (‫)גֵּר‬. Also Hugh G. M. Williamson, He Has Shown
You What is Good: Old Testament Justice Then and Now. The Trinity Lectures, Singapore,
2011 (Eugene, OR.: Wipf and Stock, 2012), pp. 87-89.
39. Westbrook, ‘Personal Exile in the Ancient Near East’, p. 318.

Downloaded from sce.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2016

Theocharous 9

it refers to the oppression of the foreigner (Exod. 22:21; Lev. 19:33), of the Israelite
debtor with respect to land dealings (Lev. 25:14, 17), but also more generally of vul-
nerable individuals (Jer. 22:3; Ezek. 18:7). Tigay thinks that this verb is not abstract but
it very specifically forbids the enslavement of the refugee in the land of Israel.40 Likewise,
Von Rad supports that this law opposes the exploitation of the vulnerable state of the
slave and his re-subjugation into conditions of slavery. He translates the verb yānā as
‘enslave’.41
Slavery was not always imposed. Often the refugees needed to sell themselves due to
the unbearable economic conditions, even starvation. For this reason offering asylum to
refugees was economically beneficial.42 With the addition of this restrictive clause, 23:17
pulls the rug from under the feet of any Israelite who would perhaps be scheming about
ways to profit through the institution of asylum.
In other words, Deuteronomy, by forbidding the refugee’s enslavement, declares that
no one may profit at the expense of the underprivileged position of a fellow human, not
even as a return for saving one’s life through asylum. No one is permitted to turn asylum
into a profitable business.

The Theologico-political Statement of the Law

Such a radical law raises many questions, but we shall focus on the political and theo-
logical impact that it has.
Refusal to return a refugee back to their land or the fugitive slave back to his master
was a privilege enjoyed only by suzerain kings, not by vassals. The suzerain was under
no obligation towards the vassal states in this matter.43 This is especially evident in the
Hittite treaty between Suppiluliuma I and Aziru of Amurru: ‘[If a fugitive] flees from the
land of Amurru [and comes to the land of Hatti, the king of Hatti does not (have to) seize
and extradite him. It is not right for the king of Hatti to return] a fugitive.’44
On the basis of this prerogative, the prohibition to return refugees who seek asylum in
the land of Israel would indirectly claim that Yahweh holds the role of a suzerain king in
the international scene and not that of a vassal. In a way, Israel seems to be ‘mimicking’ the
great empires of the ANE with the purpose of undermining them.45 This phenomenon of
‘mimicking’ the treaties of the great empires of antiquity in the book of Deuteronomy is a

40. Tigay, Deuteronomy, p. 215.

41. Gerhard Von Rad, Deuteronomy (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1966), p. 147.
42. Westbrook, ‘Personal Exile in the Ancient Near East’, p. 319.
43. Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents
and in the Old Testament, Analecta Biblica, 21 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), pp.
24, 33.
44. Gary M. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series
7; Atlanta, GA.: Scholars Press, 1996), pp. 35–36.; Elgavish, ‘Extradition of Fugitives in
International Relations in the Ancient Near East’, pp. 45–46; Liverani, International Relations
in the Ancient Near East, p. 67.
45. This “mimicking” does not necessarily assume that Israel was a vassal state at this point.
Potential threat from an imperial power along with its hubristic claims would have been
adequate to trigger this subversive stance.

Downloaded from sce.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2016

10 Studies in Christian Ethics 

phenomenon parallel to the postcolonial practice of ‘mimicry’.46 In postcolonial mimicry

the weaker imitates the stronger, but this contains elements of ridicule or parody of the
powerful one with the result of destabilizing his authority.47
Essentially, the political message of such a legislation is that Israel does not recognize
the lordship of anyone over humans who flee to their land. Moreover, refusal to return
refugees also declares that this particular people is independent and under no interna-
tional legal obligations of extradition.48 If Yahweh is a god who despises enslavement
and cares for the foreigner, the only way for his agenda to prevail is by rejection of any
international agreement serving the interests of other kings. He establishes his own cov-
enant treaty at Sinai and recognizes only that.49 The loyalty due to Yahweh was absolute,
just like the one demanded by the suzerain lords of the ANE, so it necessarily required
absolute resistance to other political authorities. The absolute and uncompromising
claims made by kings over people could be relativized only by corresponding absolute
and uncompromising claims for devotion to Yahweh.50
Moreover, since Yahweh is in the role of the suzerain Lord, he is the one who has
ultimate ownership of the land even though he is offering it as a gift to Israel. It is, there-
fore, within his rights to determine the land’s use with reference to asylum. The message
here is that just like the land promised peace and security to the Israelites who were
rescued from Egypt, so it will continue to function for anyone who desires to flee to it,
with no racial discrimination whatsoever.

Conclusion
The law of refugee asylum in Deut. 23:16-17 is unique and, in fact, ‘disobedient’ in the
face of international ANE law. The law appears to ‘sacralize’ the individual ‘exodus’ of
the foreigner, his leap from the sphere of oppressive conditions to the land of Yahweh,
and this individual ‘exodus’ is adequate to provide this foreigner with freedom and rights
that approximate those of the Israelite. In fact, the land of the Israelite is not ‘fenced’ but
it is employed as the tool through which the Israelite can now imitate God in doing jus-
tice regardless of the cost that may involve. He has to make room next to him so that the
foreigner will not be segregated, but instead incorporated and protected from potential
exploitation. The refugee may be acknowledged as an ‘immigrant’ (‫גֵּר‬, gēr) with proper
rights, festival participation but also allowance for ethnic distinctives.51 This, however,
is a secondary step that was not explored in this paper. Likewise, today, once the rescue

46. John J. Collins, ‘Deuteronomy and the Invention of the Torah’, Presentation at the Hebrew
Bible / Old Testament Seminar, Oriel College, University of Oxford, 30 May 2016.
47. Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin (eds), Post-Colonial Studies: The Key
Concepts, 2nd edn (London: Routledge, 2007), pp. 124–27.
48. Westbrook, ‘Personal Exile in the Ancient Near East’, p. 319.
49. Robert I. Vasholz, ‘A Legal “Brief” on Deuteronomy 23:15-16’, Presbyterion 17.2 (1991), p.
127.
50. Eckart Otto, ‘Human Rights: The Influence of the Hebrew Bible’, Journal of Northwest
Semitic Languages 25.1 (1999), pp. 10–11, McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, p. 2.
51. See note 37.

Downloaded from sce.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2016

Theocharous 11

is effected then we can move on to more complex immigration discussions that are again
informed by the ethic of this law. The ethic of this law can be informative for the forma-
tion of fair policies whether we are dealing with one refugee or a much greater volume
of refugees, as the case is in our days.
Obviously, in our contemporary secular society, this law has no binding authority on
anyone. Nonetheless, it does raise some questions beyond the rescue which, judging
from the diametrically opposed reactions to the refugee crisis in the West, have not yet
been answered: questions about the handling of land and national borders, questions
about the treatment of refugees and the deprivation of their freedom by the receiving
countries, questions about their security from exploiters and traffickers, from political
agreements that disregard their human rights and resort to imprisoning them and from
organizations and governments that profit financially from the refugees’ state.
Deuteronomy 23:16-17 presents us with its own ethical stance on these questions and
exposes the urgent need for us to present our own.

Downloaded from sce.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2016