Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Is Interracial Marriage Biblical?

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Georgia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Deutschland
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Gender
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    1,019
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    14
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    26
    Thanked in
    20 Posts

    Is Interracial Marriage Biblical?

    For serious students of the Word of God. Georgia

    http://littlegeneva.com/interracial.html

    Alleged Examples of Interracial Marriage in the Bible


    In order for neo-Babelists to make their lies plausible, they scour the Bible for examples of interracial marriage. The examples typically offered are Rahab, Tamar, Asenath, the "Ethiopian" wife of Moses, Ruth, the Shulamite woman, and Naamah. Most of their proofs fall flat, but the Bible certainly does record cases in which the Shemite, Japhethite, and Hamite lines cross. The Bible also records instances of adultery, murder, and theft, but an instance does not justify a principle. I've lost count of how many times I've heard that Moses married a black woman, therefore interracial marriage is acceptable. Moses was a man, and he sinned, and his sins kept him from entering the Promised Land. We must ask what God requires of us. But first, let us consider the examples presented to us.
    According to Genesis 6:9, Noah was "perfect" in his generations. This is not a reference to his moral fortitude but to his heredity and ancestry. The Hebrew word toledoth ("generations") is defined as family history, and the word tamim ("perfect") means without blemish, just as a sacrificially pure animal is described as being without blemish. Noah was unique at a time when the lines of Seth and Cain were engaged in miscegenation that led to the destruction of the world.
    The post-Flood chosen line diversified very slowly. Abraham married his half-sister. Abraham's brother Nahor married his niece, and these were the grandparents of Rebekah. Isaac was specifically forbidden from marrying a Canaanite and was paired instead with Rebekah, his cousin. Abraham commanded his chief slave, "I want you to swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living, but will go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Isaac" (Gen. 24:2-4). This was centuries before the law of Moses was given, and Abraham did not mention a word about theological belief or godly fidelity (his relatives were pagans), but exclusively limited the search to kith and kin. His daughter-in-law would be chosen from no other people. From Isaac and Rebekah came Esau and Jacob. Faithless Esau loved the Canaanite women, but Jacob married his cousins. In Hebrews 12:16, Esau is called a fornicator, and the conventional understanding is that his disobedience lay in wedding himself to unbelievers. But in Romans 9:13, Paul writes that God hated Esau from the womb. The problem was not that an unbeliever married unbelievers but that Esau was a miscegenist.
    Some argue that Tamar was a Canaanite, and since she was in the line of the Messiah, interracial marriage is acceptable. Actually, Tamar was the daughter of Aram who was the son of Kemuel who was the son of Nahor of Mesopotamia, the brother of Abraham (Genesis 22:21). Judah did marry a Canaanite, but it was not Tamar. He had three mixed sons, and in the providence of God, their lines did not continue. When Tamar had lost two husbands, both of whom were brothers, and was refused the remaining youngest brother, she still had the courage to demand her rights to motherhood by law. It was the duty of Judah, her father-in-law, to fulfill the Levirate (kinsman redeemer) law of marriage, just as Boaz would do later for Ruth. In both cases, the royal tribe of Judah was spared, and both women are given prominent mention in the genealogy of Christ. Tamar's subversive action was righteous, though she disguised herself as a prostitute, and her son Perez was legitimate. Judah acknowledges Tamar as "more righteous than I" for claiming her right to bear the child, and he acknowledges his own guilt in fearfully withholding his son from her.
    It is no coincidence that the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife follows the story of Judah and Tamar. There is a striking contrast between the two.
    When Tamar travailed in childbirth, it was discovered that there were twins in her womb. The child Zarah put out his hand, and the midwife tied a scarlet thread around his wrist. The hand was withdrawn, and Perez (meaning "breakthrough") was born first. This prenatal struggle brings to mind Jacob grasping his twin Esau's heel when they were born.
    Judah apparently took Tamar into his house, but not as his wife. Perez and Zarah, and presumably Tamar, joined Judah and the company of 70 who went down to Egypt. In just four generations, these 70 souls would become a nation of about 2 million.
    Joseph married an Egyptian girl, Asenath, in an act of providence and a token of peace with Pharaoh, who was quite possibly converted, similar to Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, and other pagan kings. Nevertheless, Joseph tells his family to announce themselves as shepherds when they meet Pharaoh. He knew that this would ensure their segregation in the land of Goshen since shepherds were abominable to Egyptians. (The Egyptians probably worshiped sheep.) Joseph wanted his people segregated precisely because he did not want them to intermarry with the natives. The Egyptian rulers of that time were Shemitic Hyksos, not Hamitic Nubians, as in southern Egypt. This explains why Joseph's brothers did not recognize him; he looked like the Egyptians. Later, the Nubians reconquered Egypt and expelled the Hyksos. The Hebrews were enslaved for fear that they would naturally ally with invading Asiatic cousins. This explains why Joseph was purged from Egyptian records, and it also explains why the validity of the Goshen land grant was rejected.
    It is commonly asserted that Moses married a black woman. Actually, there is nothing prior to Numbers 12 about the death of Zipporah, and so we must assume that the chapter refers to her. Zipporah was a Midianite, and her people were related to the Hebrews through the fourth son of Abraham's wife Keturah. The Midianites lived in the land of Cush, which is modern-day Ethiopia. This does not mean that Zipporah was a descendant of Ham. The 1599 Geneva Bible agrees: "Zipporah, Moses’ wife, was a Midianite, and because Midian bordered on Ethiopia, it is sometimes referred to in the scriptures by this name." As Matthew Henry wrote, the sedition of Miriam and Aaron was "because of Zipporah, whom on this occasion they called, in scorn, an Ethiopian woman, and who, they insinuated, had too great an influence upon Moses in the choice of these seventy elders." Miriam and Aaron, consumed with jealousy, tried to slur Zipporah by calling her an Ethiopian. The Book of Jasher gives an alternate account (33:31-34): "...they [the Cushites] gave him [Moses] for a wife Adoniah the Cushite queen, wife [widow] of Kikianus [deceased king of the Cushites]. And Moses feared the Lord God of his fathers, so that he came not to her, nor did he turn eyes to her. For Moses remembered how Abraham had made his servant Eliezer swear, saying unto him, 'Thou shalt not take a woman from the daughters of Canaan [brother of Cush] for my son Isaac.' Also what Isaac did when Jacob had fled from his brother, when he commanded him, saying, 'Thou shalt not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan'..." (Though not inspired, the Book of Jasher is mentioned twice in the Bible, and is therefore difficult to dismiss. It is also difficult to dismiss Tobit 4:12-13: "Beware, my son, of all immorality. First of all, take a wife from among the descendants of your fathers and do not marry a foreign woman, who is not of your father's tribe; for we are the sons of the prophets. Remember, my son, that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers of old, all took wives from among their brethren. They were blessed in their children, and their posterity will inherit the land. So now, my son, love your brethren, and in your heart do not disdain your brethren and the sons and daughters of your people by refusing to take a wife for yourself from among them.")
    God did not even want his twelve tribes to intermarry (see the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 36), even though they all had the same religion, because He knew that they would not remain twelve distinct tribes for long. Likewise, in Lev. 21:14, God commands that a priest should take a wife from "his own people," or his own tribe. If the nation of Israel had intermarried with surrounding nations, there would have been no nation for Jesus to claim as His own. The twelve tribes worshiped the same God but remained tribally pure.
    There is no evidence that the "Rachab" of Matthew 1:5 is the "Rahab" of Joshua 2:1, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that it is the same person. Since the Rahab of Joshua 2:1 is listed in the Israelite Hall of Fame (Hebrews 11:31), she must have been a Hebrew slave in Jericho, or possibly a descendant of a slave. Why else would the two Israelite spies seek for her, and why else would the king of Jericho go to her for information on the two spies? If she was both Canaanite by race and a harlot, it is simply unthinkable that Salmon, a prince of the royal tribe of Judah, would have even considered marrying her. Both Joshua 6:25 and the Antiquities of Josephus 5.1.2-7 state that Rahab was given land in the midst of Israel for her heroic deed, but neither mentions marriage to Salmon. Furthermore, the Israelite armies suffered no further curses as a result of breaking God's law for at least 30 years, which means that there were no illicit marriages for at least that long afterwards. If Salmon had married Rahab shortly after the fall of Jericho, and if Boaz had been born shortly after that, then Boaz would have been about 115 years old when he married Ruth! The New Testament genealogies list only four generations covering the 460 years from the fall of Jericho to the birth of David. The gap in time is simply too long to make the two Rahabs the same person.
    It is commonly believed that the Song of Solomon is about a Shemite/Hamite union between Solomon and the Shulamite woman. It is true that Solomon married many foreign wives and led Israel astray, but I think the Song makes far more sense when interpreted as a love triangle: Solomon, the Shulamite woman, and her Beloved. It is far more in keeping with the character of a man like Solomon, who had 1,000 women at his disposal. If I were a neo-Babelist, I would be reluctant to have Solomon on my side. He blatantly disobeyed the command of Moses to abstain from marrying foreign women and was the inspiration for ethnic cleansing under Ezra and Nehemiah, as we shall see.
    The Ammonites and Moabites were both descended from Lot's incestuous relationship with his daughters. Read Nehemiah 13:1: "On that day they read from the Book of Moses in the hearing of the people, and in it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever come into the assembly of God..." In about 1450 BC, the Moabites were destroyed by the Amorites, led by King Sihon (see Numbers 21:26-29), and then the Israelites destroyed the Amorites (Deuteronomy 2:32-34, Numbers 21:33-35). According to Deut. 2:34, 3:12-16, and 29:8, the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh came to occupy the land formerly inhabited by kings Sihon and Og, which included the "border of the Children of Ammon." See also Numbers 21:30-35. Joshua 13:32 records this territory as "the plains of Moab," which lay to the north of the Arnon River and east of the Jordan River. Three hundred years later, we have proof in Judges 11:12-26 that the Israelites were still in possession of this land, and there were no ethnic Ammonites or Moabites remaining in it. In Ruth 1:1, we are told that Elimelech and his family went to live in the "country," or region, of Moab. The word Moab refers to the territory, not the blood nation, which means that Ruth was a geographic rather than an ethnic Moabite.
    There is an interesting story in Joshua 22. It is said that these two and a half tribes built an imposing altar on the other side of the Jordan, and the other tribes sought to make war against them because it was interpreted as an act of rebellion against God. But it was built as a witness for future generations that the far tribes still had "a share in the Lord," despite
    the Jordan being a boundary between them. In time, the far tribes did become estranged, as seems to be anticipated in Joshua, if for no other reason than the geographical boundary of the river.

    Ruth's quest for Boaz was related to the inter-tribal prohibition of marriage which dated to the daughters of Zelophehad. She had to marry a near kinsman or not at all. In Ruth 2:2, it is Ruth's idea, not Naomi's, to search for Boaz, her kinsman-redeemer. If Ruth had been an ethnic Moabite, how would she have known to initiate this custom? Also keep in mind that the Levirate Law of Marriage only applied to Israelites. No one of foreign blood (as some assume Ruth to be) could have inherited land within Israel, according to this law. Though there were always strangers in the land, this law was intended to prevent the dispossession of the native population. The significance of the book of Ruth, therefore, is the rescue and restoration of the royal lineage, not an apologia for miscegenation, as we hear from most Christians today.
    "Naamah the Ammonitess" can be compared to "Ruth the Moabitess" and probably even to "Uriah the Hittite." Names were given to those who came from faraway lands, just as those in Galilee were called "Galileans." They were still ethnic Israelites.
    Deut. 23:2 is inaccurately translated as: "One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD." According to Strong's Concordance, the Hebrew word mamzer means not what we would call a bastard but a person of mixed lineage, or "mongrel." God commands that a mongrel must not enter the congregation of Israel. Jephthah was the son of a harlot (Judges 11:1-2) and a bastard, but he was not a mamzer, or mongrel, since he was allowed to enter the congregation.
    Some have said that Perez, the son of Judah and Tamar, was a bastard child, which would prevent the next ten generations from admission to the assembly. The trouble with this theory is that David is actually nine generations removed from Perez, and so the genealogy at the end of Ruth does not make much sense if it intends to show that those who are listed prior to David were excluded from citizenship. No, the reason for the genealogy from Perez to David in Ruth 4 is because of the blessing in verse 12: "May your family be like that of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah." As I said, both of these were Levirate marriages. Judah and Boaz are kinsman redeemers. It is also said that Ruth's Moabite ancestry would have prevented subsequent generations, until David was born, from entering the assembly. In other words, no Moabite would be allowed to enter the assembly for ten generations after Moses commanded it in Deut. 23, and after this they could be admitted in the first generation. But remember that Ezra and Nehemiah divorced Hebrews from non-Hebrews even though the ten generations had elapsed. I've heard that rabbis have no logical way around this either, and so they actually say that Moabite women could be welcomed to the assembly. Yet in Nehemiah 8:2, the foreign throng consists of both men and women.
    Ruth was David's great-grandmother, three generations removed. Egyptians and Edomites were admitted to the assembly in the third generation, but there are specific reasons for this. (This is important to remember.) Edomites were closely related to the Israelites through Esau, and the Israelites were themselves foreigners in the land of Egypt. Ammonites, Moabites, and mamzers were not admitted to the tenth generation, but even this is controversial because Deut. 23:3 includes the word "forever," implying that they will never be admitted but will, like the Amalekites, be completely cut off. Don't forget Nehemiah 13:1: "...no Ammonite or Moabite should ever come into the assembly of God..." Therefore, the theory that Ruth was an ethnic Moabitess is contradicted by Scripture. There would have been no King David if this were true.
    There is also a law regarding female captives in Deut. 21:10-14. The Israelites are told in Deut. 20:15: "This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby." The Canaanite nations nearby were to be utterly destroyed (Deut. 20:16-18). Thus we are left with two or three possibilities. One is that the rule applied to wars among the Israelites themselves (see the sacking of Gibeah in Judges 20 and 21). Another possibility is that it applies to nations such as Syria, Assyria, and Babylon. The trouble facing the neo-Babelist is that those were defensive wars, and foreign women were nowhere in the vicinity of Israel. Israel was never engaged in conquest except in the region given to them by God. According to John Gill, the cities far off "were without the land of Israel, even all in their neighbouring nations, the Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, Syrians, &c. for the children of Israel never went to war with any very distant nations, unless they came unto them and invaded them; nor did they seek to carry their conquests to any great distance..." In addition to fellow Israelites, the rule also applies to near kinsmen, such as the Midianites. In Numbers 31, for instance, 32,000 Midianite virgins are spared from destruction. There is some important background information on this story. A few chapters earlier, in Numbers 25, Phinehas is praised as a hero for skewering a Hebrew man and a Midianite woman in the very act. God rewards Phinehas with a "covenant of peace" and "an everlasting priesthood." Notice that the enemies are called Moabites at the beginning of that chapter. Also remember that the Midianites are kinsmen to the Israelites, related through Abraham's wife Keturah. The problem in Numbers 25 is that the Midianites had allied themselves with the Moabites whose king, Balak, had hired the prophet Balaam to curse the Israelites. Moabite and Midianite women seduced the Israelites, and this led the Israelite men to the worship of false gods (and temple sex). In Numbers 31:16, Moses declares that a curse upon Israel had come "through the counsel of Balaam." Phinehas leads the way in turning back God's wrath, and judgment is pronounced on the Midianites. Moses is angered that the women are spared alive, but he allows the 32,000 virgins to survive since they were not of foreign race and could not continue the Midianite line.
    An example given of a Shemite/Hamite union is that of Abraham and Hagar, but this resulted in banishment. God blessed Ishmael, but Ishmael would never have been born if Abraham had faithfully awaited the child of promise. There were countless wars and countless deaths between the Israelites and the Ishmaelites as a result. Other apparent Israelite/Egyptian marriages may be found, such as when Sheshan's daughter is given to Jarha the Egyptian in 1 Chronicles 2:35 and when Mered marries Pharaoh's daughter in 1 Chronicles 4:18. These examples seem to be out of keeping with the rest of Scripture, but as mentioned earlier, God made special provision for the Egyptians and Edomites, and both peoples were Shemitic.
    The pattern seen elsewhere in Scripture is as disastrous as Solomon's multiracial marriages. See, for example, Ahab's marriage to Jezebel, who was Phoenician. While Jacob's sons only pretended to give their sister, Dinah, to a Canaanite prince who had raped her, "disastrous" is a good word to describe that episode.
    According to 1 Chronicles 2:16-17, David's sister Abigail married Jether the Ishmaelite, but this is actually the result of an error in the Septuagint manuscript. Her husband's name is correctly recorded in 2 Samuel 17:25 as Jithra the Israelite.
    There are also possible examples of Shemite/Japhethite marriages. Esther marries King Ahasuerus, a Persian. (Some early church fathers argued that Esther should not be included in the canon of Scripture.) Felix, a Roman official, marries Drusilla, the great-granddaughter of Herod the Great. Timothy is called the son of a Hebrew mother and a Greek father, however, Alexander the Great conquered Israel in 332 BC, and since that time, many of the "Greeks" were in fact Hellenized Israelites (see Acts 6:1). We know from Acts 2:5 that "there were dwelling in Jerusalem" Hebrews, "devout men, from every nation under heaven." Timothy was likely a pure Hebrew but with parents from different countries.
    We must focus on what God commands of us, and to this end, it is wise to turn to Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra 9-10 and Nehemiah 13 record the Hebrew men returning from exile and taking wives from foreign nations. Nehemiah "contended with them and cursed them, struck some of them and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, 'You shall not give your daughters as wives to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons or yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things?" The common interpretation is that Christians should not marry non-Christians, yet if we understand such passages as Ezra 10 to condemn only inter-religious marriage, we will be unable to explain God's apparent change of heart in 1 Cor. 7:10-16. Ezra tells the people to divorce their unbelieving wives. Paul tells us not to divorce unbelieving wives. This is a contradiction, unless Ezra protested race-mixing. The goal in view must have been separation from foreign nations (races). Without such separation, the nation of Israel was sure to be corrupted by pagan influences, just as Solomon, the wisest man in the world, was corrupted by his foreign wives. The lesson to be learned is that interracial marriages are wrong because they lead men astray. God does not say that they are wrong if they lead men astray, or that marriage to foreign women is wrong unless the women agree to convert. Deuteronomy 28 tells us the inevitable price of disobedience: "The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail."
    Recently, I was asked, "why should we be obligated to obey precepts specifically given to the Old Covenant Hebrews as the 'holy seed'?" If "these precepts were to keep the Hebrews, especially the Levites, from mingling with outsiders, then why should they be applied to all people of all times, particularly when there is no longer a Levitical priesthood?" This is a very good question. Many of the neo-Babelists will concede that racial purity laws were in effect under the old covenant, but Pentecost has overturned the judgment at Babel.
    In the first place, notice the contradiction of recognizing that laws protecting racial purity were a temporary measure designed to maintain a pure priesthood and a pure lineage for the Messiah, but at the same time maintaining that the lineage of Christ was polluted. Both propositions cannot be true.

    Secondly, men such as Doug Wilson contend that Pentecost has reversed Babel because language was confused at Babel, and at Pentecost it was unconfused. We kinists certainly agree that after Pentecost, in a sense, the world was taught to speak a common "language." There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. The gift of Pentecost was unity through diversity, which simply reflects God's own Trinitarian nature. Diversity is still needed to protect us from ourselves. That was the whole purpose of judgment at Babel, and that judgment is still in effect. It is not logical to conclude that Pentecost erased the distinctions that God imposed from the beginning. Prior to Babel, the Gentiles had been "separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations" (Genesis 10:5).

    "Just as there are in a military camp separate lines for each platoon and section, men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries. [In this manner,] God, by his providence reduces to order that which is confused." ~ John Calvin

    "It may be said that, in general, nationalism is best for the world in its present state of sin and that to destroy those national boundaries is contrary to God's present will. It may also be said that God's wrath will fall on those people who by creating empires provide conditions that facilitate the increase of sin and so weaken men. God even causes empires to come to an end to hold down the increase of sin." ~ Harold Stigers

  2. #2
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Leofric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, March 13th, 2020 @ 02:18 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Zodiac Sign
    Aquarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Telecommunications
    Politics
    Libertarian/Neo-Imperialist
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    1,193
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    11
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    26
    Thanked in
    25 Posts

    Re: Is Interracial Marriage Biblical?

    This is a very good analysis of the Old Testament's stand on interracial marriage. As it says, it makes it clear that at least up to the time of Christ, interracial marriages were disfavored by God. I thought I'd like to provide a few insights from the New Testament that might pertain to our situation today.

    First let me start with some of the passages of the New Testament that might be used to fight against us — I've tried to pick the strongest possible counterexamples here. And all of the passages below are from the Authorized Version.

    John 11:
    48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. 49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
    Now keep in mind that the word translated as 'nation' here is 'ethnos' (forgive the transliteration — I'm not quite certain how to get Greek letters in this format), so 'nation' refers not to any kind of political nation, but rather to a nation in the ethnic sense.

    Verse 52 of this passage might seem to say that all the nations will be blended together into one giant mix through the sacrifice of Jesus. But the verse doesn't say the nations will be blended in one, but that they will be gathered in one. And one of the verses down below will explain more about that gathering.

    But notice also that Caiaphas, not of himself but under the inspiration he received due to his office as high priest, felt that preserving the nation was more valuable than one man's life, even the best man's life. John lets us know that Caiaphas was prophesying when he said it. So God, who values our individual lives over that of sparrows (which cannot fall without escaping his careful attention), seems to think that preserving nations ("ethnoi") is even more important than any of our individual lives — that is, even more important than the life of his Son.

    Acts 14:
    15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: 16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.
    This last verse might seem to imply that the differences among nations is a past-tense sort of thing, and ought to cease with Jesus. But it needn't be interpreted like that. It might merely mean that since Jesus we are all to leave our old religious beliefs and walk in the one true Way, just as Paul did (see Galatians 1:13–16). The verse taken alone could be interpreted either way, but if sufficient evidence from other passages leans more strongly in one direction or the other (either favoring the nation or destroying it), then the right interpretation of this passage would become clearer — for God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

    Acts 10:
    28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. . . . 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
    This passage from Cornelius's conversion through Peter might be seen as indicating the end of the Lord's commandment against miscegenation, since the command to distance oneself from other nations is being removed. But maybe it's just being removed from the apostles so that they could preach the word. Apostles are, after all, those who are sent forth, as the name implies. If they are sent forth under the Great Commission to preach the gospel to all nations, then they as individual men must be exempt from the command to avoid other nations. That doesn't mean, though, that we are so exempt. Notice that Peter says it "is" unlawful for Jews to come unto other nations, not that it "was" unlawful, even after having been told himself to disregard that particular commandment. God may accept followers from every nation, but that does not necessarily imply that we should all abandon our national distinction — his ways are not our ways, as Isaiah wrote.



    These passages that seemed to me to be the strongest possible anti-ethnic passages in the New Testament do not hold the multiculturalists' water as well as they would like. But when exposed to the sun-bright light of Scripture like the following passages, that water (on which the whore of all the earth sits) quickly evaporates.

    Acts 17:
    24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And 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; 27 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: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
    Here Paul tells the Athenians that their unknown god (who is God our Father) made all the nations of men, and that he did it out of one blood. He wanted the one blood to become many different nations. His goal was distinction and separation of unity, not some great supranational unification. On the contrary, that kind of unification, that kind of erasing national distinction, would be an attempt to undo God's creative work. Wo unto such that would do so! He then goes on to say that God is the one who set the bounds of the nations' habitats — God is the great author of the Lebensraum principle. And all this occurs in a sermon preaching Jesus within the Athenians' own cultural context. He begins the sermon by telling them that God is one of the gods they have long since worshipped, but up to then in ignorance; and he concludes by telling them that God has inspired their own poets to tell them this same truth. He is not trying to destroy their God-given national distinction: he is trying to help them fill in the gaps to make their national character complete.

    This is like what C.S. Lewis wrote in The Great Divorce:
    We are not living in a world where all roads are radii of a circle and where all, if followed long enough, will therefore draw gradually nearer and finally meet at the centre: rather in a world where every road, after a few miles, forks into two, and each of those into two again, and at every fork you must make a decision. Even on the biological level life is not like a river but like a tree. It does not move towards unity but away from it and the creatures grow further apart as they increase in perfection. Good, as it ripens, becomes continually more different not only from evil but from other good.
    As we get closer to God, we do not lose individual distinction but increase it. We do not lose national distinction but increase it. The Christian Athenian should work to preserve Athenian culture; the Christian Ethiopian, Ethiopian culture; the Christian Indian, Indian culture; and the Christian Teuton, Teutonic culture. That is carrying forward the work of God.

    Matthew 25:
    31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
    Here we get that gathering of the nations (still "ethnoi") spoken of earlier. But look at why they will be gathered — to be separated by Jesus! The righteous nations will receive God's glory and the wicked nations will go to everlasting punishment. The gathering of all the nations in one is simply for judgment, not for a great destruction of national distinction. And by the way, the righteous nations ("ethnoi," not political entities) are those that are hospitable and generous. I put it to you to determine which ethnicities are most known for their hospitality and generosity — and conversely, which are most known for their treachery and greed.

    Revelation 20:
    1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. . . . 7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
    Now we get into the Apocalypse. Notice that up until Christ's millenial reign, Satan will deceive the nations. That is, he will "planesthei ta ethnei" (forgive my bad production of Greek — understanding it is a lot easier than creating it). He will cause the ethnicities to roam. That's what it means. He will make them go astray from their rightful places. It sounds like Satan is the one trying to break down our nations — indeed, preservation of our national heritage is fighting directly against Satan.

    But during Christ's thousand-year reign of peace, he will be bound and will cause the nations to roam no more. If Christ were trying to destroy our ethnic heritage, one would expect that during his reign, he would do that. But John says that after the thousand years are up, Satan will be loosed and allowed to deceive the nations once more. The nations will be kept intact during those thousand years, but afterward, Satan will go about trying to cause them to roam yet again. And this is the focus of the passage — this matter of causing the ethnicities to roam. One would think from this that preserving our cultural heritage and keeping it apart from those of other cultures, rather than being against God's will, would be central to carrying out God's will on earth, that his will be done on earth as it is in heaven. And speaking of heaven. . . .

    Revelation 21:
    23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. 25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. 26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. 27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
    This describes the heavenly city of God in which the faithful will dwell with God forever. Notice that it says the nations of the saved will walk in its light, and that the glory of the nations will be brought into it, and that no defiling influence will enter it. This sounds like ethnic preservation forever, as the order of God's heavenly kingdom. The glory and honor of each nation of the saved will not be lost but will instead be rather prominently and triumphantly carried forward into heaven to be saved forever from all defilement and abomination.




    It seems pretty clear where the Lord stands on the issue of ethnic preservation. The question for us is, Who will stand with the Lord?
    Last edited by Leofric; Sunday, March 5th, 2006 at 04:28 AM. Reason: Spelling error

  3. #3
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Leofric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, March 13th, 2020 @ 02:18 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Zodiac Sign
    Aquarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Telecommunications
    Politics
    Libertarian/Neo-Imperialist
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    1,193
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    11
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    26
    Thanked in
    25 Posts

    Re: Is Interracial Marriage Biblical?

    Today while reading in Isaiah, I came across a verse that runs along these lines as well:

    14:12
    How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
    This describes Lucifer as being the one responsible for weakening the nations. The Septuagint version of this verse translates the last word from the Hebrew into the Greek word "ethne." The King James translators went with "nations," which until very recently could only be considered as referring to the same thing as "ethne." Now, however, it can often be confused for countries.

    But Isaiah isn't saying that Lucifer has weakened the countries of the world or the states of the world. He's saying that Lucifer has weakened the ethnicities of the world. The decline of ethnicities, then, would be the product of the devil, according to Isaiah.

    Clearly the effect of interracial marriage (assuming procreation within that marriage, which is the kind of thing we Christians tend to hope for) is weakened ethnicities. Since man cannot pluck evil fruit from a good tree, interracial marriage — which yields something that is the product of the devil — cannot be a good thing in God's eyes.

  4. #4
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    Tuesday, August 14th, 2012 @ 08:01 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    State
    Teutonic Order Teutonic Order
    Gender
    Posts
    840
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    17 Posts

    Re: Is Interracial Marriage Biblical?

    These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his race, and Noah walked with God.
    -Genesis 6:9

    Be sure of this, that no miscegenator or mamzer, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God
    -Ephesians 5:5

    According to this, if you race mix, you are sinning.

  5. #5
    Bloodhound
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,403
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    23
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    126
    Thanked in
    95 Posts

    Re: Is Interracial Marriage Biblical?

    Quote Originally Posted by Veritas Aequitas View Post
    According to this, if you race mix, you are sinning.
    But what was the biblical definition of race? I am not familiar with the Bibel, are there any listings of race? Any recognitions of differnt races? Or is this up to the human to define race?
    Or are the certain lines, e.g the line of Noah, the line of Abrahem, etc.?
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  6. #6
    6th army lives matter
    Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,827
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,269
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,332
    Thanked in
    1,540 Posts

    Re: Is Interracial Marriage Biblical?

    Quote Originally Posted by Veritas Aequitas View Post
    These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his race, and Noah walked with God.
    -Genesis 6:9

    Be sure of this, that no miscegenator or mamzer, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God
    -Ephesians 5:5

    According to this, if you race mix, you are sinning.
    Yeah, I read an article on the American Renaissance website, once, with an author coming to the same conclusion.

    Noah was saved 'cause he was perfect in his GENE-rations. His blood wasn't contaminated by the brotherhood of the snake (infidel angels who took the daughters of man as their wives).

    There are hundreds of myths and accounts from different cultures talking about who war, natural disasters (the great flood!) and disease crippled the ancient civilizations.

    I've seen a priest argue that "You shall not commit adultery" orignally had a different meaning; it would've been a moral law against racial mixing.

    And let's not forget that the ancient world was punished for its arrogant multicultural society. In Babylon, everybody spoke the same language.
    Last edited by Parsifal; Thursday, October 12th, 2006 at 03:16 PM. Reason: + "("
    “As brothers and sisters we knew instinctively that if we were going to stand in darkness, best we stand in a darkness we had made ourselves.” - Douglas Coupland

  7. #7

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    sheriff skullface's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, March 30th, 2007 @ 11:01 PM
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Pennslyvania
    Gender
    Family
    Single, looking
    Politics
    National Socialism
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    131
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: AW: Is Interracial Marriage Biblical?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pervitinist View Post
    Just a silly question from a non-believer: Wasn't Noah Jewish?
    well during the time that Noah was said to exist the kingdom of Judea wasn't even around yet, he was problobly a member of some obscure semitic tribe of antiquity, maybe he was of Sumerian origin

  9. #9

  10. #10
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    Tuesday, August 14th, 2012 @ 08:01 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    State
    Teutonic Order Teutonic Order
    Gender
    Posts
    840
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    17 Posts

    Re: AW: Re: AW: Is Interracial Marriage Biblical?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pervitinist View Post
    the bible is nonetheless a product of Jewish propaganda.
    I can't see how this is possible, seeing as how the Bible (Especially the New Testament) is the oldest source of anti-semitism available. If it somehow propogates the Jewish cause, then why are Jews so desperate to see it discredited and distorted? In Jesus Christ you will find there is no sympathy for Jews and their sinister ways. Only contempt for the accursed race.

    Here is but ONE example of Christ urging all Christians to resist world Jewry:

    My people did not hear My voice, and Israel harkened not to Me ... They gave Me gall for My food, and in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink ... Let their eyes be darkened, and their back bend down always. Pour out Thy indignation upon them: let Thy wrathful anger take hold of them. Let their habitation be made desolate, and let there be no One to dwell in their tabernacles, because they have persecuted Him Whom Thou hast smitten, and they have added to the grief of My wounds. Add Thou iniquity upon their iniquity; and let them not come into Thy justice. Let them be blotted out of the Book of the Living, and with the Just let them not be written. ~ from the book of Psalm

    Jewish propoganda you say? More like a call to arms.
    Last edited by Sùilean Dubh; Friday, October 13th, 2006 at 08:03 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. US Church Bans Interracial Marriage
    By The Aesthete in forum The United States
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Sunday, July 1st, 2018, 03:05 AM
  2. Orthodox View Of Interracial Marriage
    By wild_bill in forum Christianity
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Thursday, June 11th, 2009, 12:48 PM
  3. Interracial Marriage in South Africa
    By QuietWind in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Tuesday, June 20th, 2006, 10:38 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •