A Christmas Medley Dec 2025 Longform 12.08.2025
By
Alex Kocman
A generous donor has pledged to match every gift to Christ Over All this December—up to $25,000! Will you join us in this incredible opportunity so that we might expand our reach in 2026 for the glory of our risen Lord?
Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son. . . .” But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, “Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead.” (Matthew 2:13–15, 19–20)
One of the most convincing proofs of the pervasiveness of Christian influence in the West is the compulsive need, even of progressives, to enlist Jesus Christ into the ranks of their moral crusades.
Each Christmas season, this takes the form of the familiar refrain that “Jesus was a refugee” or even an “illegal immigrant,”[1] with the above passage from Matthew’s Gospel documenting Joseph and Mary’s flight to Egypt cited as evidence. Jesus was an immigrant, so the logic of some pastors goes; thus, in all circumstances, illegal immigrants must be welcomed rather than detained, prosecuted, or deported.[2] Whether those making the claims personally adhere to the doctrines of Christianity or the commands of Christ is inconsequential, as long as the story of Jesus can be mustered to defend a particular social cause.
Yet it is not immediately clear if, or how, the claim that Jesus was a refugee falls short. The biblical record, after all, clearly describes the infant Savior and his parents seeking asylum in another country, fleeing a form of persecution that was both religious and political. This fact, taken together with Scripture’s injunctions to show kindness to and exercise justice towards sojourners (Exod. 22:21, 23:9; Lev. 19:33–34; Deut.10:18–19, 24:17–18, 27:19), points us clearly to God’s compassion for the alien, which we are to model.
This point is true as far as it goes. The question is simply: how far does it go? Do today’s terms like migrant, refugee, or asylum-seeker map accurately onto Christ’s circumstances in first-century Rome? And to whatever extent they do or do not map accurately, does it then follow that civil governments today are duty-bound to pass permissive immigration policies?
To understand the issue, we must overlay both the denotations and connotations of today’s immigration vocabulary atop the particular circumstances of Jesus’s flight to Egypt.
Establishing Definitions
According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, a refugee is “any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality . . . and who is unable or unwilling to return to . . . that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”[3] Following this definition, the Office of Homeland Security Statistics reported that in 2024, the United States admitted 37,050 principal refugees (those with a direct claim of persecution) and 63,000 derivative refugees (their spouses and children), for a total of 100,050 refugee admissions under the refugee category.[4] It is worth noting how this number pales in comparison to the total number of migrants to the US, both legal and illegal, numbering in the multiple tens of millions. One may rightly wonder whether the arguments for unfettered mass migration justified on the basis of the moral imperative to receive sincere asylum-seekers are not guilty of intentional obfuscation—the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent. This matter aside, the question for evangelical Christians is not only political, but exegetical.
Joseph, Mary, and Jesus’s flight to Egypt certainly clears the threshold (anachronisms aside, of course) of the modern U.S. legal definition of a refugee. No doubt this polite and lowly Jewish family was outside their country of nationality, unable and unwilling to return on account of well-founded fear of persecution.
But what about the connotation of terms like “refugee” today? One easily recognizable feature of today’s refugees is their relative permanence. In the U.S., fewer than two percent of individuals granted asylum return to their countries of origin,[5] while approximately 83 percent of those eligible eventually naturalize as U.S. citizens—a rate higher than any other legal immigrant category.[6] Today’s refugees, generally speaking, are often not temporary visitors but semi-permanent residents—some assimilating to American language and culture, and others huddling in their own ethnic enclaves. And thirdly, today’s asylum-seekers are generally supportive of more lax immigration policies; approximately 75–85 percent of naturalized-citizen voters who were formerly granted asylum or resettled as refugees either register with or consistently vote for the Democratic Party.[7] None of these general characterizations are definitional of refugee status, of course, and neither should they be taken as prejudicial arguments against receiving verified asylees. These connotations do matter, however, in understanding the rhetorical strategy of those committed to the “Jesus was a refugee” slogan—and in separating what the simple phrase may mean from what it must not mean.
To the Word
Though short, the episode in Matthew’s Gospel recording the flight to Egypt is rife with both theological and political significance—yet relatively little with regard to immigration policy. Consider several features of the passage that should impress themselves upon the reader:The providence of God. Joseph becomes aware of the plot against the baby Jesus’s life through divine revelation via an angelic messenger (Matt. 2:13). This revelation in the form of a dream was necessary in order to preserve the holy Child. Had the life of the young Messiah been taken prematurely before he had lived to minister, preach, and actively fulfill the law of God on behalf of his people, our salvation would not have been accomplished. God, who is sovereign over all whatsoever that comes to pass, was nevertheless particularly active in these climactic events, ensuring the successful mission of Christ and directing the course of events “in the fullness of time” towards his redemptive purposes (Gal. 4:4).
The prophetic significance. Matthew informs his readers: “This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet” (Matt. 2:15). Citing Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I called my son”), the evangelist illustrates that, just as Israel, God’s typological son, was brought out of captivity in Egypt, so too God’s literal Son would recapitulate Israel’s history through his own personal exodus. Literarily, this parallel not only establishes Jesus’s messianic identity but also clarifies his messianic mission to serve as the true, consummate, covenant head of his people who would do for God’s people what they could never do for themselves.
The role reversal. Recognizing the parallels to the biblical exodus reveals rich irony. Jesus’s exodus is inverted. It is Herod, a pseudo-king of Israel, who is recast in the role of the spiritual Pharaoh. Judea is a place of persecution, not the land of promise; Egypt, in turn, is a place of refuge, not slavery. Among other points, this serves to accentuate the spiritual bankruptcy of that generation of the Jewish nation, upon whom would ultimately come the bloodguilt of all the old covenant martyrs (Luke 11:51). Here the two kings stand opposed—Jesus, the rightful King briefly driven out, and Herod, a counterfeit ruler clinging to borrowed authority.
In sum, the flight to Egypt is doing far more literarily than militating for a given political policy on immigration; it is arguably not doing this at all. Having considered the text in more detail, we are now prepared to consider where the comparisons between Jesus and today’s migrants break down.
Not Comparable
Though we may justifiably call Jesus and his family refugees during their time spent hiding from Herod in Egypt, the circumstances surrounding this period of Jesus’s life were qualitatively different from many modern refugees. The stark differences between Jesus and modern refugees subvert progressives’ attempts to use the flight to Egypt as justification for open border policies. Several observations from the text lead to this conclusion.
First, and notably, Jesus and his family remained within the political boundaries of the Roman empire before, during, and after their flight to Egypt. Rather than escape one oppressive regime to flee to a transnational empire a world away, they fled to another jurisdiction a relatively short distance away from their homeland. This fact stands in contrast to the many migrants who pass by numerous other free nations (or, freer nations) in which they could take refuge on their way to the United States. Both geographically and politically, the flight of Joseph and Mary from Judea to Egypt was more comparable to a trek from Manhattan to Pittsburgh than from Haiti to Ohio. Of course, this is not to minimize the plight faced by the holy family, nor that faced by scores of sincere asylum-seekers today; rather, it is simply to demonstrate that the text of Matthew 2 simply cannot be used to justify the dissolution of modern geopolitical borders.
Second, and importantly, Joseph, Mary, and the Lord Jesus retained their national identity and returned home when the threat was gone. Joseph was not a “paperwork Egyptian.” Mary did not campaign about North Africa proclaiming that Egypt was now “just an idea.” Jesus did not become Egyptian simply by touching its magic sands. And as soon as they learned that Herod was dead, they returned to Israel (Matt. 2:19–21). Far from arguing for the fluidity of national identity or belonging, the case of Jesus’s flight to Egypt demonstrates, if anything, that asylum by its nature is ordinarily meant to be temporary and provisional.
Further, and crucially, Jesus’s return to Israel was crucial to maintain his messianic identity. Our Lord was the consummate Torah-keeping Jew whose mission was to live in Israel’s land, keep Israel’s law, suffer Israel’s judgment on the cross, and be raised victorious as Israel’s—and the world’s—king. Had Jesus been anything less—a hyphenated Israelite, if you will—he could not have properly completed this calling. Of course, this observation is by no means to be taken as roundabout way of condemning all forms of immigration or assimilation; instead, it is simply meant to demonstrate that those who claim Christ as a paragon of modern permissive immigration policy have far overplayed their hand.
The question is not so much whether Jesus was a refugee; in a technical sense, he briefly was one as a child. The question is what this does and does not signify.
The More Pressing Issue
That care should be offered to sojourners is easy to demonstrate from Scripture. God is a God who sees those who are on the fringes of society (Gen. 16:13), including the exile and outcast. Faithful Christians can and should adopt strategies to love the foreigner in their midst by treating them justly, meeting physical needs where necessary and appropriate, and proclaiming the gospel to them. Such ministries can be developed without reliance upon arguments from Matthew 2.
What is often forgotten in immigration discussions is that national borders are ordained by God (Genesis 10, Deut. 32:8, Acts 17:26) and they accord with natural law (Deut. 19:14, 27:17; Prov. 22:28, 23:10–11). It is incumbent on the church to be a light and witness to whomever the Lord sovereignly places within her sphere of influence. At the same time, it is also the case that civil magistrates are ordained to serve the temporal good of their people, which includes the task of maintaining relative order and social cohesion for the people over whom they have been appointed—and none other (2 Sam. 23:3–4, Prov. 29:4, Rom. 13:1–4, 1 Peter 2:13–14). In this context, the pervasive ascendancy of foreign persons and the subjugation of the indigenous population is biblically a sign not of blessing but national chastisement (Deut. 28:43–44).
American Christians in the present hour must learn to walk faithfully in the civil sphere while chewing the ecclesiastical gum of compassion for the unreached. We can certainly do both at the same time. This requires clearer categories than many evangelicals have been willing to use. Far too often, immigration debates are framed only in terms of personal charity, as though the civic and spiritual realms were interchangeable. But Scripture never collapses these spheres. The call of the church to welcome sinners to Christ is an intrinsic good; the task of the magistrate to guard the social order is a relative good tied to his office. One cannot simply import the commands of the Great Commission into the responsibilities of the civil ruler.
So while the church should rejoice that many who arrive here in the United States may now hear the gospel for the first time, that spiritual opportunity does not itself justify the national disorder that makes it possible. To welcome the stranger spiritually does not obligate a nation to dissolve the responsibilities God has assigned to civil authorities. Furthermore, national disorder can weaken the witness and stability of local churches. Consider the disproportionately high amount of church buildings in France and Berlin that are vandalized or set on fire in areas marked by high Muslim immigration.[8] Consider how unpunished sexual crimes against girls by immigrants in Ireland and Great Britain affects the resources and focus of the churches there.[9] Again, national disorder due to a government’s failure can inhibit the mission of the church. Yes, the Lord may use even our national instability for his saving purposes, but that does not mean Christians should celebrate or accelerate the conditions that invite such instability. The task, then, is twofold. The church must remain steadfast in her mission—preaching Christ to every person God brings across her path. And citizens, including Christian citizens, must labor for just policies that preserve peace, protect the innocent, and maintain a coherent people capable of fulfilling their own rightful duties.
Conclusion
In the end, Matthew 2 calls us to trust God’s providence, not to hijack the Messiah’s infancy for policy sloganeering. Christ’s temporary flight to Egypt fulfilled prophecy and secured our redemption; it did not offer a blueprint for immigration legislation. The church must show compassion, the state must exercise prudence, and Christians must keep those obligations distinct. Only then can we honor both the integrity of the nations God has ordained and the mission of the gospel he has entrusted to his people.
That care should be offered to sojourners is easy to demonstrate from Scripture. God is a God who sees those who are on the fringes of society (Gen. 16:13), including the exile and outcast. Faithful Christians can and should adopt strategies to love the foreigner in their midst by treating them justly, meeting physical needs where necessary and appropriate, and proclaiming the gospel to them. Such ministries can be developed without reliance upon arguments from Matthew 2.
What is often forgotten in immigration discussions is that national borders are ordained by God (Genesis 10, Deut. 32:8, Acts 17:26) and they accord with natural law (Deut. 19:14, 27:17; Prov. 22:28, 23:10–11). It is incumbent on the church to be a light and witness to whomever the Lord sovereignly places within her sphere of influence. At the same time, it is also the case that civil magistrates are ordained to serve the temporal good of their people, which includes the task of maintaining relative order and social cohesion for the people over whom they have been appointed—and none other (2 Sam. 23:3–4, Prov. 29:4, Rom. 13:1–4, 1 Peter 2:13–14). In this context, the pervasive ascendancy of foreign persons and the subjugation of the indigenous population is biblically a sign not of blessing but national chastisement (Deut. 28:43–44).
American Christians in the present hour must learn to walk faithfully in the civil sphere while chewing the ecclesiastical gum of compassion for the unreached. We can certainly do both at the same time. This requires clearer categories than many evangelicals have been willing to use. Far too often, immigration debates are framed only in terms of personal charity, as though the civic and spiritual realms were interchangeable. But Scripture never collapses these spheres. The call of the church to welcome sinners to Christ is an intrinsic good; the task of the magistrate to guard the social order is a relative good tied to his office. One cannot simply import the commands of the Great Commission into the responsibilities of the civil ruler.
So while the church should rejoice that many who arrive here in the United States may now hear the gospel for the first time, that spiritual opportunity does not itself justify the national disorder that makes it possible. To welcome the stranger spiritually does not obligate a nation to dissolve the responsibilities God has assigned to civil authorities. Furthermore, national disorder can weaken the witness and stability of local churches. Consider the disproportionately high amount of church buildings in France and Berlin that are vandalized or set on fire in areas marked by high Muslim immigration.[8] Consider how unpunished sexual crimes against girls by immigrants in Ireland and Great Britain affects the resources and focus of the churches there.[9] Again, national disorder due to a government’s failure can inhibit the mission of the church. Yes, the Lord may use even our national instability for his saving purposes, but that does not mean Christians should celebrate or accelerate the conditions that invite such instability. The task, then, is twofold. The church must remain steadfast in her mission—preaching Christ to every person God brings across her path. And citizens, including Christian citizens, must labor for just policies that preserve peace, protect the innocent, and maintain a coherent people capable of fulfilling their own rightful duties.
Conclusion
In the end, Matthew 2 calls us to trust God’s providence, not to hijack the Messiah’s infancy for policy sloganeering. Christ’s temporary flight to Egypt fulfilled prophecy and secured our redemption; it did not offer a blueprint for immigration legislation. The church must show compassion, the state must exercise prudence, and Christians must keep those obligations distinct. Only then can we honor both the integrity of the nations God has ordained and the mission of the gospel he has entrusted to his people.
1. See, for example, Russell Moore, “Jesus Was a Refugee,” Christianity Today, January 29, 2025; “Jesus Was a Refugee,” He Gets Us, accessed December 3, 2025; Myal Greene, “Was Jesus a Refugee?,” World Relief (blog), February 10, 2023.
2. Lindsay Popperson, “Jesus Was a Refuge and an Immigrant,” United Church of Christ Southern New England Conference, December 4, 2017; “Jesus Was a Refugee,” SALT Project (blog), December 10, 2024; John Knox, “Pastor Defends Illegal Alien by Saying the Bible Is about ‘God Saving Us through Immigration,’” Not the Bee, November 3, 2025.
3. U.S. Code, Title 8, Aliens and Nationality, § 1101(a)(42), via Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School.
4. Office of Homeland Security Statistics. “FY 2024 Refugees Flow Report.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2024.
2. Lindsay Popperson, “Jesus Was a Refuge and an Immigrant,” United Church of Christ Southern New England Conference, December 4, 2017; “Jesus Was a Refugee,” SALT Project (blog), December 10, 2024; John Knox, “Pastor Defends Illegal Alien by Saying the Bible Is about ‘God Saving Us through Immigration,’” Not the Bee, November 3, 2025.
3. U.S. Code, Title 8, Aliens and Nationality, § 1101(a)(42), via Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School.
4. Office of Homeland Security Statistics. “FY 2024 Refugees Flow Report.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2024.
5. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2022” (Copenhagen: UNHCR, 2023), 9 (global voluntary repatriation rate of recognized refugees was 1.3 percent in 2022; U.S. asylee return rates are consistently lower due to stricter re-availment rules under 8 CFR § 208.24).
6. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Homeland Security Statistics, 2022 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (Washington, DC: DHS, November 2023), Table 15; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Asylee Outcomes” (internal data reported to Congress, FY 2010–2022), cited in Migration Policy Institute, Refugees and Asylees in the United States (Washington, DC: MPI, October 2024).
7. Jie Zong and Jeanne Batalova, “Refugees and Asylees in the United States,” Migration Policy Institute, October 2024; Audrey Singer and Nicole Prchal Svajlenka, “Naturalized Immigrants and Democratic Party Preferences,” Brookings Institution, November 2024.
6. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Homeland Security Statistics, 2022 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (Washington, DC: DHS, November 2023), Table 15; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Asylee Outcomes” (internal data reported to Congress, FY 2010–2022), cited in Migration Policy Institute, Refugees and Asylees in the United States (Washington, DC: MPI, October 2024).
7. Jie Zong and Jeanne Batalova, “Refugees and Asylees in the United States,” Migration Policy Institute, October 2024; Audrey Singer and Nicole Prchal Svajlenka, “Naturalized Immigrants and Democratic Party Preferences,” Brookings Institution, November 2024.
8. Gavin Mortimer, “Desecrations, Threats and Silence: Anti-Christian Violence Grips France,” The Catholic Herald, May 15, 2025; Kurt Zindulka, “Arson Attacks on Christian Churches Rise to Record High in Germany,” Breitbart, November 18, 2025; Thomas Brooke, “Some Migrant Groups Are ‘Disproportionately Criminal’ Due to Cultural Factors, Claims Renowned Swiss Forensic Psychiatrist,” Remix News, April 14, 2025.
9. Michael Dorgan, “Dublin Protesters Clash with Police, Burn Vehicle after Migrant Accused of Sexually Assaulting Irish Girl,” Fox News, October 22, 2025; Kurt Zindulka, “UK: Officials Accused of Covering Up Alleged Asylum Seeker Child Rape,” Breitbart, August 3, 2025; Edward Teach, “British Parliament Rejects Inquiry into the Ongoing Pedophile Rape-Gang Scandal (by a Wide Majority),” Not the Bee, January 10, 2025.
†
Source
9. Michael Dorgan, “Dublin Protesters Clash with Police, Burn Vehicle after Migrant Accused of Sexually Assaulting Irish Girl,” Fox News, October 22, 2025; Kurt Zindulka, “UK: Officials Accused of Covering Up Alleged Asylum Seeker Child Rape,” Breitbart, August 3, 2025; Edward Teach, “British Parliament Rejects Inquiry into the Ongoing Pedophile Rape-Gang Scandal (by a Wide Majority),” Not the Bee, January 10, 2025.
†
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment