Christian Nationalists like to invoke the Bible in defense of their immigration policies. In a July 10, 2025 opinion piece at World, Andrew Walker, the managing editor at Al Mohler’s World Opinion and associate professor of Christian Ethics at Mohler’s Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes:
[W]e should view borders through two main horizons: First, borders reflect the providence of God in ordering the world He governs. Acts 17:26 states that God “made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.” Throughout Scripture, God decrees the demarcation of nations, even as political bodies carry out these decrees by apportioning the exact boundaries. In this era of redemptive history, a single worldwide government is something Scripture prohibits. The Biblical narrative affirms the legitimacy of nations, languages, and peoples after Babel—not as a curse to be overcome by globalization, but as a providential check on man’s prideful quest for technocratic triumph. Second, borders reflect the wise administration of government and the rule of law. While Christians can and will disagree among themselves on what the best immigration policy should be, we should begin all immigration discussions with a commitment to the rule of law.
Now, that’s a lot of irrelevant content and bad presuppositions packaged into a single paragraph, so let me mention two main horizons and address but one in detail: First, all immigration discussions for Christians should begin with the Two Great Commandments, not a commitment to the rule of law. Second, Acts 17:26 has little to do with legally enforced modern geopolitical boundaries, let alone immigration policy.
A cardinal sin of biblical interpretation is called “cherry picking.” It’s when you take a verse out of this context (usually from the paragraph or chapter where it is located) and apply it in a way the author likely did not intend. Any time you see a person using Acts 17:26 in support of, usually, a policy of limited immigration or no immigration, they are cherry picking. So, what is Acts 17:26 saying?
In Acts chapter 17, Luke, the author, continues chronicling the missionary ministry of the Apostle Paul. Nothing in the chapter (nor the connected chapters) can be excised from this context. In Acts 17:16–32, Luke tells of Paul’s interaction with some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, who, somewhat confused by the apostle’s teaching, invite him to give an address at the Areopagus. This is sometimes called Paul’s Mars Hill Address, after another name for the location.
In part of Paul’s address, he draws his listeners’ attention to an altar “To an Unknown God.”1 The altar, which predated Paul’s arrival by many years, was built at the instigation of a philosopher named Epimenedes so the Athenians, who were desperate to stop a plague, wouldn’t potentially miss offering a sacrifice to a deity they didn’t know. Thus, an altar to an “unknown” God.
Paul’s missiological approach was to draw attention to the altar, then introduce his listeners to the God they didn’t know:
In the context, Paul addressed men steeped in Greek philosophy who were living in the Roman Empire, one of the strongest in history. Both Greeks and Romans had reason for laying claim to being influential, powerful, etc. The influences of both Ancient Greece and Rome are still felt today. Roman citizens were exceedingly proud.
Therefore, what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it—he is Lord of heaven and earth—does not live in shrines made by hands. Neither is served by human hands, as through he needed anything, since he himself gives everyone life and breath and all things. From one man he has made every nationality to live over the whole earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live. He did this so that they might seek God, and perhaps they might reach out and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being…Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God now commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has set a day when he is going to judge the world in righteousness by the man he has appointed. He has provided proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead. (CSB, emphasis added)
Beginning with the word “Therefore” and continuing to the ellipsis is an excerpt from a single paragraph of Luke’s writing. In addition, the second italicized sentence contains a clear explanatory connection to the first sentence: He did this so. Then he further connects the third italicized sentence using the conjunction for.
But, Paul didn’t commend them; he told them the truth: It is God, not your wisdom, history, or military might, that established your boundaries. You all came from the same man, Adam. The reason for God intervening in human affairs is so you might find him, so you might realize you only exist and live because of the Lord God, not lord caesar.
Acts 17:26 is no more about immigration or political bodies carrying out God’s decrees than 2 Kings 7:1 is about grocery prices in 2025, or Genesis 22:3 is about the best way to carry a cord of firewood, or Proverbs 22:28 is about your property line, or that the New Jerusalem (not Heaven) has a wall means a country should have border walls. It is a ludicrous biblical interpretation that should get a red X on any first-year seminary paper.
A better interpretation of this section of Paul’s address is that empires are nothing apart from God’s will and blessing. America is nothing. Russia is nothing. China is nothing. God sets up and takes down; he creates and destroys.
The real danger in the Christian Nationalist interpretation of Acts 17:26 is the necessary and problematic conclusion one must draw about borders: geopolitical boundaries must always represent the express will of God, not merely something God allows within his broader will regarding the world’s history. Thus, violating a border is a sin. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, if successful, will result in new borders. Which borders were God’s express will: the old ones or potential new ones? What if Ukraine stunned the world by pushing the front 50 miles into Russia? Same question. Israel is wiping Gaza off the face of the map. Same question. Canada’s usurping of First Nations lands? Same question.
If all current boundaries are God’s express will, then anything goes, since all future border changes are merely God’s upcoming express will. No war can be illegal, no annexation off limits. The winners get not only the spoils, but the automatic blessing of “God-established borders.”
It’s a problematic hermeneutic (read: goofy approach) to Bible study.
What was Paul’s point? Everyone in the empire, regardless of background, descended from one man. It’s the eternal God, not temporal politicians or “the wise administration of government and the rule of law,” who controls the ebbs and flows of history’s dynasties and empires. It’s this God who is known, who is near to anyone who desires to reach out and touch him. And it’s this God who provided the means of salvation through the one man, Jesus Christ, whom he raised from the dead.
Acts 17:26 is not about immigration. It’s about the power of God to salvation to all who believe.
- The story of the altar is utterly fascinating. A good historical summary is found in the first chapter of Don Richardson’s Eternity in Their Hearts, Revised Edition (Regal Books, 1984). ↩︎
