Skip to main content

News Flash- Marriage across race lines is not itself immoral

   I have encountered people in my life who hold to the dogmatic notion that marriage across racial lines is immoral according to "The Bible." I've studied the topic from Genesis to Revelation and I would have to admit that there is no such command which prohibits people from marrying those of other races just based on the category of race or nationality alone. It is therefore morally acceptable for believers in Christ to marry people of other races and nationalities if the spouse is a believer in Christ as well (2 Corinthians 6:14). There is concern throughout the Scriptures, however, when it comes to believers in the true and living God marrying foreigners who worship other gods because of the fact that the foreigners might/will turn their spouses to false gods and idols. One does not even need to understand various paradigms of covenant theology to understand this. One need only look at the various obvious examples which are prominently featured in the arguments concerning interracial marriage.
   Deuteronomy 7 is one of the first direct commands in which God directs people to avoid marrying foreigners. However, the passage must be considered in its full context, not just the surrounding passage, but in historical context, and in the context of redemptive and covenental history.
Deuteronomy 7-
When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you,and when the Lord your God delivers them before you and you [a]defeat them, then you shall[b]utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your [c]daughters to [d]their sons, nor shall you take [e]their daughters for your [f]sons. For [g]they will turn your [h]sons away from[i]following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their [j]Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire. For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for His [k]own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the [l]earth.
[endquote]  
   It should be fairly obvious that the command was specifically given to the children of Israel on their journey through the wilderness to Canaan and concerns how they were to deal with the foreigners who occupied the land which they were to inherit- they were to obliterate them completely. Marriage would have been completely out of the question as the idolatry of the nations had been so prolonged and reprehensible to the Lord God, that it called for judgment in the form of military conquest. Specifically, verse 7:4 gives the reason why Israel was not to marry any of the foreigners from those nations- the spouses would cause them to turn to and serve other gods. Furthermore, the commands to completely obliterate them preclude the possibility of marriages being formed with them. 
   In no way does the passage mean that Christians have license to conquer unbelieving countries by brute force simply because they worship other gods. The biblical New Testament commandments call for us preach the gospel to all nations. I am reminded of Greg Bahnsen's writing on Theonomy, in which although he gave lip service to postmilllenialism, he insisted that the Christian faith must be spread to the whole world by the preaching of the gospel, not the sword, before Jesus returns. What we see in Deuteronomy 7 was part of the Mosaic Covenant (insofar as it was part of the pentateuch, or the books of the law) which was temporal and temporary, and replaced with a better covenant at the cross of Jesus Christ. Ceremonial commands and commands which have to do with preserving Israel's national identity and distinction were done away with (or fulfilled) at the cross of Jesus Christ. The destruction of the temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD brought an end to the Mosaic economy completely in the most practical and necessary sense. 
   Even a study of Ezra and Nehemiah will reveal that concerns about interracial/international marriage had to do with the influence of false religion and idolatry on the people of God. 
   I will have to finish this later. It is a huge topic of interest to me.
   

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nice Dissenting Opinion on the Fairness of the Criminal Justice System

   I was recently having a conversation with someone about the possibility for unreliability and/or unfairness in the criminal justice system. I was reminded of this quote from a Supreme Court case which is from Justice Harry Blackmun's dissenting opinion. The case was Darden v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 168 (1986). Obviously he's talking about the Supreme Court level, but if this could be said about their accuracy, then how shall we communicate about fairness at the trial court level? "JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. Although the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant only "a fair trial [and] not a perfect one,"  Lutwak v. United States,   344 U. S. 604 ,  344 U. S. 619  (1953);  Bruton v. United States,   391 U. S. 123 ,  391 U. S. 135  (1968), this Court has stressed repeatedly in the decade since  Gregg v. Georgia,   428 U. S. 153  (1976), that ...

We Have Freedom of Speech, right?

   How come everyone seems so afraid to speak against the real politik in our country? We used to have lively political discussion and dissent, and now people with minority opinions seem scoffed at and outcast. This is a bad trend, don't go in that way. The first amendment was set up with one of the intentions being that people would be able to criticize those in charge. It is unbelievable that people could say that a scenario happened like Pearl Jams' "Dissident" describes, and these things happen on American soil?    The 1992 Presidential election is something to look to consider the way things used to be. Third party independent candidate Ross Perot was considered as having equal weight as the two other candidates. There was a strong freedom of the thought in the political spectrum. Perot's money went a long way for him. All things considered, though, billionaires still exist. Where are the Ross Perots of our time, then, who are not afraid to jump in and shake...

Link to my new book- "The Semantolkino'hara and Its Applications"

  The book has a been long time in the works, and you can get it now on magcloud. Thanks to the many who helped.    This book is what The Glorious Scenario magazine was supposed to be. It makes a more concise statement than a multi-issue journal, though. The raw creative materials involved in the discussion have many applications and tie-ins across subject areas. The template of the semantolkino'hara will give its user acumen. The Semantolkino'hara and Its Applications: The Eschaton, Musicology, and The Name of God By David Black 122 pages, published 10/10/2014 A practical music theory and composition system became a template for understanding a union between disciplines- music history, musicology, eschatology, social science, and more. The whole effort started with a simple serial analysis of Trish Phan's "A Letter" and became a huge undertaking once the implications...