By Davis Carlton
David Platt has recently spoken up once again in order to shill for mass migration. In a recent interview Platt says that “there is a problem when Christians in the United States are the most resistant to refugees in our communities.” Platt continues by stating, “We believe in Acts chapter 17…God orchestrates the movements of peoples among the nations that they might be found by Him.” Platt then goes on to comment about how God is bringing people here from places in the world that have “little to no access to the Gospel.” The implication being that Christians must support mass migration and refugee resettlement in order to fulfill the Great Commission.
Platt’s vague reference to the Apostle Paul omits any mention of national boundaries. Here’s how Acts 17:24a, 26-27 is translated in the King James Version: “God that made the world and all things therein…hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.”
Virtually every English translation of this verse translates the Greek word, horothesia (Strong’s G3734), as bounds, boundaries, or limits. The reason that I believe that David Platt is being dishonest rather than accidentally misquoting a passage is that his “paraphrase” is so badly butchered that it gives the impression of the exact opposite of what the Apostle Paul was actually saying. Platt also uses deceptive tactics to try to strong arm Christians who dare to express a lack of enthusiasm for seeing their communities colonized by the third world at the behest of our political class.
Platt starts by saying, “We believe in Acts chapter 17…” which implies that what follows is something that all Christians ought to believe because he is simply applying what the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. Platt continues by “summarizing” what the Apostle Paul says as, “God orchestrates the movements of peoples among the nations that they might be found by Him.” This presentation assigns meanings to words that they simply do not have in the actual passage. There is nothing in Acts 17 about God “orchestrating movements.” Instead, the Apostle Paul speaks of God establishing the boundaries of the nations. Other more modern translations say that God determines where and when each nation would be. This suggests that if nation A exists in a certain place then nation B must exist somewhere else. Whatever translation is used, the existence of national boundaries is foundational to the point that Paul is making. This means that Paul isn’t talking about migration at all, but the relative fixity and stability of nations as a blessing for their good.
The next issue with Platt’s “paraphrase” of this passage is how he subtly redefines nations. The original text speaks of God fixing the boundaries of every nation. The Greek word for nation used in Acts 17:26 and throughout the New Testament as well as the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament is ethnos (Strong’s G1484). All traditional lexicons note that the word conveys a sense of a people with a common racial background, among other similarities. The modern notion of nations decoupled from common ancestry and ethnicity has been unknown until quite recently, but this is precisely the meaning that Platt is trying to express.
Platt stated that “God orchestrates the movements of peoples among the nations.” It is evident from Platt’s usage of the words “peoples” and “nations” that he is using “peoples” as a substitute for the traditional understanding of nations as defined by distinct ethnicities. It is common for those who reject the concept of distinct races within mankind to speak of races as “peoples” or, even worse, “people groups.” Platt states that these “peoples” are being moved “among the nations,” and from this it is apparent that Platt is defining nations as mere geographic and political entities. The overall tenor of Platt’s statement is that God is moving people from different ethnic groups across the world for the purpose of them hearing the Gospel. This is the opposite of what the passage actually states, which is that God set the boundaries of the nations (defined by their ethnic/racial identities) in order to facilitate their groping for and finding God.
It might be objected that this view is overly narrow and denies God’s sovereignty in all things, including the movement of different people throughout the world. God’s sovereignty over all of the affairs of mankind is taught in many places throughout Scripture. Perhaps David Platt’s point is correct but he just chose a poor proof text as his foundation. Many good examples of God’s sovereignty over all mankind can be provided. King Nebuchadnezzar is humbled by the God of Israel and ultimately admits regarding Him, “He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Dan. 4:35).
In response I would simply state that what Paul is talking about in Acts 17 presupposes God’s absolute sovereignty, but is directly addressing only God’s action in fixing national boundaries, not the movement of people in general. Paul is alluding to the song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32, in which God “divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam” and when “he set the bounds of the people” (Deut. 32:8). Paul is alluding to God’s blessing the nations by giving them their own distinct inheritances. God is also sovereign over the kinds of “movements of the peoples” that David Platt alludes to, but this is not the blessing that Paul is discussing in Acts 17. It is always a curse to punish nations for their disobedience rather than part of God’s purpose for worldwide evangelism, as Platt suggests.
The clearest passage that indicates that uncontrolled immigration is a punishment for disobedience is Deut. 28:43-44: “The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.” God does indeed “orchestrate the movement of people,” but the reason that he brings about mass migration is for judgment, not a blessing to either the invaders or those being invaded. The prophet Isaiah illustrates how God uses unbelievers as a means to punish His disobedient people in Israel. In Isaiah chapter 10 we are told how God will use the wicked desires of the Assyrians for conquest as a means to punish the northern kingdom of Israel for their apostasy and covenantal unfaithfulness. The Assyrians don’t “get away” with their treachery as God promises to punish them for their sin as well, and this ultimately happens after the Assyrian Empire is conquered by the Babylonians.
David Platt’s point wasn’t to acknowledge that God is sovereign over everything including the rise and fall of nations. Platt alludes to Acts 17 because he wants to associate “the movements of peoples” with the blessing mentioned in the passage, namely that God might be found by the nations, while intentionally omitting the relevant fact that the blessing mentioned in this passage is rooted in national and ethnic boundaries. Platt’s dishonest “paraphrase” isn’t simply misremembering a biblical passage from memory. It is distorting and misquoting the text to fit his left-wing political agenda. Platt wants to shame Christians who don’t want to see their community become the next Springfield, Ohio. Platt’s dishonesty is especially noteworthy because he lives in upscale northern Virginia which isn’t going to have “migrants” resettled there. It’s not David Platt’s problem, it’s yours as far as he’s concerned. Platt’s shaming of Christian opposition to migration resettlement is also hypocritical in light of his providing moral cover to professed Christians seeking to justify voting for pro-abortion policies.
What of Platt’s plea for evangelism and for foreigners to have “access to the Gospel?” This rhetoric is particularly effective for conservative evangelicals who place evangelism as a priority against virtually everything else. Platt is able to guilt evangelicals into cooperation with mass migration because of their desire for evangelism and often their “rapture ready” eschatology which makes concerns for long term problems irrelevant. Shouldn’t we care about evangelism, Platt’s hypocrisy and misappropriation of the Bible notwithstanding? There are three points I would make in response to this kind of argumentation.
First, while evangelism is important it should be pointed out that Jesus envisions His disciples going to foreign lands to spread the Gospel. The Great Commission is not fulfilled through mass migration of unbelievers to (nominally) Christian countries. The second point that I would raise is that while evangelism is important, even extremely important, it can be over-prioritized even to the point of becoming an idol.
Jesus tells his disciples that when they are rejected that they are to “shake the dust off their feet” in spite of the fact that there would be severe consequences because it constitutes a rejection of Christ Himself (Matt. 10:14-15; Luke 10:16). Many of the errors that plague modern evangelicalism are a manifestation of this problem. Sunday church services are made “seeker friendly” in order to maybe, just maybe, convert an otherwise “un-churched Harry” or “un-churched Mary” instead of being oriented toward the worship of God. Likewise, evangelicals are willing to see their neighborhoods and communities burn to the ground in the hopes that just one unhappy foreigner can gain “access to the Gospel.”
Finally, it needs to be said that a “gospel” that harms the health of society is no gospel at all. The spread of the Gospel will never result in or look like the covenant curses for disobedience mentioned in Lev. 26 and Deut. 28. Those seeking to come to America in order to take advantage of the welfare system or worse would rightly perceive a religion that allows this in the name of its god as a weakness. Christians are not loving our neighbors by allowing our towns to be flooded with the dregs of the third world who are clearly bringing third world problems with them. These unloved, non-Christian neighbors are bound to be unimpressed by sanctimonious Christians who don’t care about how this third world invasion impacts them. If David Platt really cares about spreading the Gospel, he could easily start by trying to tackle the problems experienced by poor whites in this country, rather than seeking to import more poverty and dependence while abusing God’s word as a justification.