The Fundamentally Flawed Theology of Mike Johnson

Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, Republican from the state of Louisiana’s 4^th congressional district, on February 3, 2026 published on X “The Christian Case for Border Security.”[1] In it he reasons three main theses:

• The Scriptural admonition to love the immigrant applies only to individuals and not to the government
• The Bible tells us to support a strong national border as a means of keeping out people dangerous to our country
• Calling for loving the immigrant is a call for totally open borders and allowing unlimited numbers of migrants of questionable character to enter our country

The Scriptural admonition to love the immigrant applies only to individuals and not to the government

Speaker Johnson notes:

Perhaps the verse most often cited by the Left is Leviticus 19:34. Whether they know it or not, that passage happens to be from the instructions Moses delivered to the Israelites when they were on their journey through the wilderness in Sinai, before they reached their own Promised Land. The verse reads as follows: “But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” (KJV)

And he admits that,

It is, of course, a central premise of Judeo-Christian teaching that strangers should be treated with kindness and hospitality. We are each called to love God first and to love our neighbors as ourselves (Deut. 6:5, Lev. 19:18, Matt. 22:36-40, KJV).

But he argues that this command “was never directed to the government, but to INDIVIDUAL believers.” The context of Leviticus 19, he says, makes this clear.

He says,

the Bible teaches that God ordained and created four distinct spheres of authority— (1) the individual, (2) the family, (3) the church, and (4) civil government—and each of these spheres is given different responsibilities. For example, while each INDIVIDUAL is accountable for his or her own behavior (e.g., Exodus 20), the FAMILY is commanded to “bring up children in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4) and “provide for their relatives” (1 Tim. 5:8). The CHURCH is commanded to make disciples and equip people for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:11-13), and the CIVIL GOVERNMENT is established to faithfully uphold and enforce the law so that order can be maintained in this fallen world, crime can be kept at bay, and people can live peacefully (Rom. 13, 1 Tim. 2:1-2).

So he asserts that commands for moral behavior must be understood as applying only to individuals, not to the government. The command to “turn the other cheek” given by Jesus in his sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:38-40), which he interprets as a directive to practice mercy and forgiveness, cannot be obeyed by the government, because the government is responsible for punishing crime. [This is a failure to realize that the striking of the cheek that Jesus is referring to is not a criminal action but an insult.]

But, does the context of Leviticus 19, or Matthew 5, in fact clarify that the moral commands enjoined upon God’s people can not be applied to the government? Johnson is right that “To be properly understood, anytime a command is given in Scripture, one must first determine to WHOM that command is directed.” But he hasn’t done that with the commands in Leviticus 19.

Here is the text of Leviticus 19,

Leviticus 19:¹ Yahweh said to Moses, ² “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, Yahweh your God, am holy.

Yahweh tells Moses to address this to the entire assembly of Israel. Does that not include those assigned in Israel to do law enforcement and governance?

³ “‘Each of you must respect your mother and father, and you must observe my Sabbaths. I am Yahweh your God.

Is it okay for those assigned to do law enforcement and governance to disrespect parents when they are penalizing them for crimes or misdemeanors? No! Is it okay for law enforcement to disregard the Sabbath? Perhaps, when, as Jesus argued, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, and law enforcement might need to be done on the Sabbath.

⁴ “‘Do not turn to idols or make metal gods for yourselves. I am Yahweh your God.

Is it okay for the governing authorities to make idols? No!

⁵ “‘When you sacrifice a fellowship offering to Yahweh, sacrifice it in such a way that it will be accepted on your behalf. ⁶ It shall be eaten on the day you sacrifice it or on the next day; anything left over until the third day must be burned up. ⁷ If any of it is eaten on the third day, it is impure and will not be accepted. ⁸ Whoever eats it will be held responsible because they have desecrated what is holy to Yahweh; they must be cut off from their people.

⁹ “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. ¹⁰ Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am Yahweh your God.

¹¹ “‘Do not steal.

“‘Do not lie.

“‘Do not deceive one another.

Is it okay for the governing authorities to steal and lie? Many have argued that it is necessary, but then how do the governing authorities punish theft and deceit in others if they are guilty of the same? If government could not lie, would that mean the government couldn’t conduct espionage or spying? But it may be argued that it is expected for states to use espionage for purposes of maintaining security (there is an international code of espionage[2]) and that there is no compelling reason for spies to announce that they are spies.

¹² “‘Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am Yahweh.

¹³ “‘Do not defraud or rob your neighbor.

“‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.

¹⁴ “‘Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am Yahweh.

¹⁵ “‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

This is explicitly a command of pertinence, not just to individuals in Israel, but to her governing authorities, who are tasked with judging cases of wrongdoing.

¹⁶ “‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people.

Do governing authorities have the right to slander people? No!

“‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am Yahweh.

¹⁷ “‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt.

¹⁸ “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am Yahweh.

Do government officials have the right to avenge themselves, using their governmental authority, against the citizens they govern? No!

¹⁹ “‘Keep my decrees.

“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.

“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

²⁰ “‘If a man sleeps with a female slave who is promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. ²¹ The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the tent of meeting for a guilt offering to Yahweh. ²² With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the Lord for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven.

Here again is a specific law directed to those in governing authority, who have responsibility for judging guilt or innocence and imposing penalty. These laws apply to everyone.

²³ “‘When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. For three years you are to consider it forbidden; it must not be eaten. ²⁴ In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to Yahweh. ²⁵ But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit. In this way your harvest will be increased. I am Yahweh your God.

²⁶ “‘Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.

“‘Do not practice divination or seek omens.

²⁷ “‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

²⁸ “‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am Yahweh.

²⁹ “‘Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness.

³⁰ “‘Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am Yahweh.

³¹ “‘Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am Yahweh your God.

Law enforcers must judge those who turn to mediums and spiritists, so how could they be permitted to turn to mediums and spiritists themselves with impunity?

³² “‘Stand up in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am Yahweh.

³³ “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. ³⁴ The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am Yahweh your God.

³⁵ “‘Do not use dishonest standards when measuring length, weight or quantity. ³⁶ Use honest scales and honest weights, an honest ephah and an honest hin. I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of Egypt.

³⁷ “‘Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am Yahweh.’”

Here is Mike Johnson’s inconsistent thinking. With regard to the command to love the immigrant he is arguing that this requirement cannot apply to the government or law enforcers because to arrest and deport someone here illegally is not loving them. But that is not true. Penalizing lawbreakers is not a failure to love them. Treating them with disrespect, abuse, and punishment beyond the level of their crime is the failure to love them. And we do have laws against mistreating immigrants, which the government must enforce, but that would mean enforcing it in their own behavior.

So Mike Johnson is wrong when he says,

Read in its context, the passage in Leviticus 19 makes perfect sense. Showing love and kindness to a stranger was not a command given to civil government, but instead to individual believers. That same principle is emphasized in the New Testament. When Jesus spoke of embracing, caring, and providing for “the least of these” (E.g., Matt. 25:31-40), His instruction was given to His disciples, and not the local authorities.

The local authorities and the national authorities are just as subject to the law as every individual. That is a basic tenet of our Constitution. Article VI, Clause 2 (the so-called Supremacy Clause) of the Constitution states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

If the governing authorities were not responsible for obeying the moral laws of the Bible or of the Constitution, they would be a law to themselves, and the governing authorities have given in to this pathway at times. But such behavior has always been condemned by the people of the United States.

 

The Bible tells us to support a strong national border as a means of keeping out people dangerous to our country

Johnson writes:

Many on the Left today, and even some at the highest levels of our government, consider themselves “globalists” who envision a utopian world order where there are no borders between countries at all. Their fantasy will simply never be realized, and their basic premise (that man is inherently good and perfectible on his own) is the opposite of the Biblical truth that man is fallen and in need of redemption that is available only through salvation in Jesus Christ.

The Bible speaks favorably and consistently about distinct nations of people (see, e.g., Gen. 18:18, Num. 32:17, Psalm 67:2, Matt. 28:19, Rev. 5:9, 7:9, NIV), and about borders and walls that are built to guard and secure people, property, and jurisdictions (see, e.g., Deut. 19:14, 27:17, 32:8, Acts 17:26, NIV).

The first two passages that Johson quotes are not referring to national boundaries, but to boundaries within the nation between the tribes of Israel. The second two passages are referring to national boundaries. But the passages are saying nothing about the importance of restricting crossing of those boundaries to ensure the safety of a given country. In fact, the restricting crossing of boundaries, requiring a visa, and setting quotas for who can come into the country or gain citizenship is a feature of the modern nation-state. It was foreign to the nations which existed during the time of the Old and New Testaments. There is no direct Scriptural support for maintaining “strong” national borders, by which Johnson means restrictive allowance of people to emigrate to another country.

This does not mean that there isn’t wisdom in putting some restrictions on who we allow to emigrate to our country. Too many people coming to our country could hurt parts or the whole of our country. Too many people, and especially people who can’t contribute to our economy, could choke our economy and tax our resources (law enforcement, housing, jobs, infrastructure, etc.). And because Americans are the kind of people who want to help those who are suffering, it would be a taxing of our people resources.

The large number of immigrants allowed in the United States under the Biden administration[3] has led to such a claim. It has been demonstrated that on average the number of immigrants in our country today has actually benefitted our country.[4]

Calling for loving the immigrant is a call for totally open borders and allowing unlimited numbers of migrants of questionable character to enter our country

Johnson states:

Any time liberals attempt to bolster their “open borders” agenda by citing Scripture out of context, they should be kindly corrected with the facts (2 Tim. 2:24-25). Christians are called to love unconditionally, serve selflessly, and defend the defenseless. We are also called to stand for, and work to ensure, just government. Justice and mercy are not mutually exclusive pursuits. To the contrary, God specifically requires His people to practice both (Micah 6:8). Despite the unfounded claims of the Left, supporting a strong national border is a very Christian thing to do. The Bible tells us so.

This very partisan statement is a propagandist’s delight. There are, of course, “liberals” who would call for open borders,[5] but this is not really a position by the “liberals” in government to whom Johnson is referring.[6]

As we have seen, calling for loving the immigrant, as Scripture commands, does not conflict with having regulated borders and restricting the number of immigrants who come to our country, nor the restricting of immigrants who have bad character. Scripture allows for countries to protect themselves when allowing immigrants and it also requires us to treat immigrants with what Johnson calls “kindness and hospitality.” We can do both.

[1] https://x.com/SpeakerJohnson/status/2018777016607060089

[2] https://www.justsecurity.org/85486/a-right-to-spy-the-legality-and-morality-of-espionage/

[3] “The claim that 20 million illegal immigrants entered the United States under Joe Biden is misleading. While border encounters have been high, encounters do not equal successful entry, and the total unauthorized population did not increase by 20 million during this period. The figure cited in the claim is not supported by publicly available data or independent analysis.” [https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-20-million-illegal-immigrants-enter-us-under-joe-biden-11121014]

[4] “Overall, the average new immigrant reduces the federal budget deficit and expands the economy, but this is not true of all categories of immigrants. Immigrants without college degrees receive more government benefits than they pay in taxes, even when we consider only their preretirement years. By contrast, immigrants who finished college or obtained an advanced degree contribute millions of dollars more in federal taxes than they receive in government benefits, and they save substantial amounts of interest on the debt while growing the economy.” [https://manhattan.institute/article/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-2025-update#:~:text=Overall%2C%20the%20average%20new%20immigrant%20reduces%20the%20federal,even%20when%20we%20consider%20only%20their%20preretirement%20years.]

[5] https://newrepublic.com/article/179320/immigration-journalist-makes-case-open-borders

[6] “The disagreement rests on scope and intent: critics (House committees, state AG offices, senators) portray the cumulative effects of policy reversals, parole programs and releases as an “open borders” crisis with national-security and fiscal frames. Defenders and neutral analyses point to concrete enforcement tools used by the administration — Title 42 reliance, presidential proclamations, and legal channels — and emphasize global migration drivers beyond U.S. control. This pattern suggests political messaging and litigation are important motives shaping whether observers call the situation “open borders.”´[ https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/biden-administration-open-border-policy-515d3d]