Interracial Marriage

(Previous Article)

Few things unsettle me like humanists and Christians agreeing with one another. The two come from totally antithetical viewpoints, thus making most agreements between the two camps suspicious at the very least. Given the force with which the humanist sector pushes its agenda, I’m usually inclined to suspect that the humanists have managed to influence Christians who are usually happy to accommodate in the name of love, in much the same way the “tolerant” Christians of Paul’s day tolerated incest in their midst (I Corinthians 5:1). It leads me to inquire into the matter a little more closely than Christians who try to be agreeable with everyone simply because they don’t want to be the bad guy.

Such is the case in regards to interracial marriage. Few churches today, it seems, don’t include at least one interracial couple in its congregation. In my local town, the Baptist church includes a white/black couple, and the Church of Christ has a white/Hispanic couple. Reading most authors of “Christian” literature and sermons shows that interracial marriage is receiving a very strong mark of approval from Judeo-Christian leaders such as John Piper [7] and others. Meanwhile, humanist media push the interracial concept through schools, news, entertainment, and even advertising. The acceptability of interracial marriage is a very new idea that came about only within the last several decades, and thus we can at the very least suspect that Christianity and the Bible had little or nothing to do with its rise in popularity.

Rather than cower in anticipation of pointing fingers and angry accusations of racism, we need to take an earnest look at the facts. Contrary to what most contemporary evangelists and preachers would have us believe, the Bible has a great deal to say on interracial marriage and cultural integration. We should be more worried about what God thinks than we might be about what the current political winds might think.


When God handed His Law in codified form to Israel, He included the following statement: “I am Yahweh your God, which have separated you from other people.” (Leviticus 20:24) He had made Israel a unique and special people, separate from all the other peoples of the world. He drew a line of segregation between them and others so intermingling would not be allowed. By 21st-Century standards, this was racist and evil. Consider also that Israel was expected to keep the Law of God, not only for their own good, but for the good of other nations, so they would see the strength and wisdom of Israel and inquire into their secret (Deuteronomy 4:6-8). If other nations adopted the practices of Israel, they too would become strong – and this included God’s segregationist laws. A pure nation, no matter what its race, will always be a strong nation. A nation of mixed people will be weak. In Deuteronomy 22:9, God bans planting different seeds in the same field, “lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.” If the fruit of crops sown with mixed seed (ie, hybrids) are defiled, then we can and should conclude that the mixed seed of animal and human bring forth defiled fruit as well.

God opposes the mixing of anything: The mixing of animals, crops, and clothing material (Leviticus 19:19) was but a case law reflecting His overall forbidding of mixing what had been made separate. Purity is a recurring theme throughout His word, emphasizing that mingling is contrary to divine will. What God has made is good (Genesis 1:31). If it is good, and if we have been made stewards of what is good, then it is our task to preserve it. Mixing and diluting in this case is not preservation, but rather destruction. The result of our meddling in what the perfect God has deemed good is never an improvement, but rather a degradation and a defiling.

Over time, history has shown this to be true. Mexico and the countries of Central and South America, populated mainly by Hispanic mestizos (literally, Spanish for “mixed”) of Indian/European descent as well as black/white mulattos, have had difficulty rising above third-world conditions. Crime is rampant. Their governments are notoriously corrupt and unstable, their economies are weak, and their morals and ambition are low. Meanwhile, the nations that have stayed pure, particularly in Europe and Asia, have been the great empire-builders, explorers, scientists, inventors, artists, writers, and architects of the world. These are facts that can be verified by anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history.

Muhammad Ali, famed black boxer, understood this concept. In an interview with BBC in 1971, he responded to his interviewer’s assertion that “society has made us [the races] different” by quickly responding, “No, God made us different.” He continued: “It’s nature to just want to be with your own … You [sic] a hater of your own people if you don’t want to stay who you are. Are you ashamed of what God made you? God didn’t make no mistake [sic] when He made us all as we are. … I want to be with my own. I love my people.” And he should, as should any people of any race.

Paul admonishes us not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers (II Corinthians 6:14), but to be unequally yoked can apply to racial differences as well. Deuteronomy 22:10 forbids plowing with an ox and a donkey under the same yoke. As Paul might have argued, “Do you think God is concerned about oxen?” (Deuteronomy 25:4, I Corinthians 9:9, I Timothy 5:18). No, God is here making a point, once again, about mixing together what was made different and was not made to be together. Hybridizing (the breeding together of two different things) is violation of God’s creation and his intent for us to preserve things as they are. The result of man mingling what was not meant to be mingled is not preservation, but rather destruction. Genetics aside, unequal yoking is assured in the case of a man and a woman of different cultural backgrounds trying to be husband and wife.

In scientific studies regarding mixed breeding, researchers crossed a variety of things. After an extensive study involving dogs, scientists at the Cornell University Medical School published a report on their findings in 1941, titled, The Genetic and Endocrine Basis for Differences in Form and Behavior. On page 491 they described how the first generation of hybrids were often similar to their parents, but as the generations continued most of the descendents were “unstable and defective in behavior.”

British biologist Sir Julian Huxley said in 1950, “… The enormous differences, in individual and social group achievement, are of course obvious. At the moment, it is socially and intellectually fashionable to minimize or even to deny such differences. This is sometimes done in the name of democracy, or because of the hypnotic effects of the ideas of the American and French revolutions concerning the equality of man, or as a misinterpretation of the Christian doctrine, or in natural reaction against the errors of racism, and of eugenics when treated as a dogma and not as an applied science.” [8]

In his report entitled, The Biology of the Race Problem, biologist Wesley Critz George, Ph.D, wrote, “… the process [of race mixing] must surely result in evil, not good. Doing evil is not Christian.” Indeed, what could be less Christian than violating God’s laws intended to preserve and protect His creation? Marriage was instituted for the continuation of the human species. Mingling races of men which were never intended to be mingled does not continue the species, but rather breaks it down and makes it weak. Advocates for race mixing might argue that love transcends race, but in the light of the facts and Scripture we can see that love in its truest sense does what is right for all of human society. The emotions between a man and a woman of different races can’t be quantified in this light as anything more than infatuation or lust.

On Mars’ Hill in Athens, the Apostle Paul told his listeners that God “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…” (Acts 17:26) The boundaries of where the various nations of men live were appointed by God Himself. The globe can easily be divided into three major sections where the various races of men were meant to live: Europe for Europeans, Asia for the Asians, and Africa for the Africans. The three major races are even distinguished in their names by their intended continental abodes. If God set those boundaries, who is man to blur or even erase them? If we are good stewards we will do all we can to maintain those boundaries for the preservation of all races.

Today we see high tensions and interracial crime running high in America and Europe. These problems only rise as waves of immigrants pour in. If we observed the divine Law, we would allow sojourners to do business among us and travel through without molestation or doing them any evil, but we wouldn’t see so many of them occupying our cities and turning them into crime-infested slums while living off our tax dollars. Episodes such as Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown would never have happened. Interracial crime wouldn’t be an issue. Race in itself would become a moot point. The real fix for racism is segregation. Mixing the races in a single amalgamated society is like adding fire to gasoline. Miscegenation will naturally lead to racial tension and violence on both sides. Separate the two, and the problems will immediately die. Just as two unequal creatures shouldn’t be yoked together, so two or more disparate races should not be combined while expecting them to work together toward a strong and unified country. The experiment has never once worked in the history of the world, and it never will.

If all men were to obey God’s laws against miscegenation, the races would continue into the future, their cultures, strengths, abilities, and physiological distinctions preserved. If, however, we continue down the path of mingling and mixing, all the races will eventually vanish into a single amalgamated mongrel race of weak, genetically damaged people. If any practice is genocidal, this would be it – the slow but inevitable erasure of, not one, but all races.

Equality is an invention of man that flies completely in the face of Scriptural declaration. The races are all vastly different from each other, mentally and physically, different in ways that reach far beyond the color of the skin. God chose the descendants of Abraham for His own use as a servant people, calling them “a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people” (Exodus 19:5). This is hardly spoken with a mindset of equality. He even goes so far as to call Israel His “sheep” (Matthew 10:6) while distinguishing the other peoples as “dogs” (Matthew 15:26). These are certainly not equal terms. Dogs and sheep are distinct from each other in every way, and mingling them is a ridiculous notion even to the modern mind. All races are unequal to each other – not unequal in terms of humanity, but in terms of identity. Dogs and sheep are both animals. Both have merits. But they are not equal in any way. The same holds true for the races of man.

In Deuteronomy 23:2, God announced that a “mongrel” (Hebrew, mamzer) should not be allowed to live among the Israelites. His determination to keep the people of Israel pure would be called hate and racism today, but maintaining purity among His people ensured their health and strength. The children of such unions would pay the price for their parents’ mistake for generations. He had the good of His people in mind. If all the races adopted the practice, then all races would benefit from it just as much as did the Israelites. Real racism lies, not in the desire to preserve the races, but in the philosophy that harms and ultimately destroys them through mongrelizing.

Conservative” Christians who oppose sodomite unions and yet wink at or even support interracial marriage are certainly not consistent in their appeal to God and the Bible for their justification. They merely emphasize their hypocrisy. The West has accepted intermingling of the races to such a degree that it’s almost become normalized in the minds of all people of all political and religious persuasions. Even the most “conservative” of people often react in horror at the suggestion that interracial marriage is wrong, which reflects the heavy influence that humanist and antichrist thought has wielded over the minds of those who purport to be Biblical. Even humanists understand this. An article in The New Humanist, in “refuting” the “homophobic” argument that “We must preserve traditional marriage”, says, “If marriage was truly traditional, interracial couples would not be allowed to wed…” [9] Marriage, even among “conservative Christian” circles, has become an evolving institution that changes with the winds of political correctness, rather than standing firm on the laws of God.


We’re all from the same man – Adam.”

The belief that all peoples are descended from Adam is contested, and though it is this writer’s inclination to agree that they are, the above argument remains irrelevant. Given the distinctions God makes between the various peoples, backed up by scientific evidence, we need to consider that not everyone is marriageable to each other. God forbade Israel to marry certain peoples, and He forbade hybridization of all his creation. The differences between the races are far deeper than skin color – mentality, physiology, and genetics mark the different races as distinct from each other. Blacks and whites are human, just as donkeys and oxen are mammals or German Shepherds and beagles are dogs, but this does not mean that the two are compatible for reproduction.

Ruth and Rahab were non-Israelites who ended up in Jesus’ lineage (Matthew 1:5). That means God doesn’t feel that strongly about interracial marriage.”

Let’s start with Rahab. Rahab is mentioned in Joshua as the Canaanite harlot of Jericho who saved the lives of the two spies. Later, she was rescued. Notice that after her rescue she was placed outside the camp of Israel (Joshua 6:23). This distinctive separation was in keeping with the command to the Israelites not to mingle with the Canaanites (Exodus 34:15-16, Deuteronomy 7:1-3). This means that in order for Rahab to be an ancestor of Christ, He’d have to be a descendant of a forbidden union and thus a product of sin. Since YHWH would not have allowed for His Son to come through a forbidden lineage, then Rahab, assuming she was the mother of Boaz, could not have been a Canaanitess by blood. Further, the fall of Jericho took place around 1407 BC. The events of Ruth took place around 1140 BC. This approximate 266-year difference makes it impossible for Boaz’s mother to be the harlot of Jericho. It’s much more likely to be another Rahab (and wouldn’t it make sense that the name of a hero might be given to Israelite children?).

As for Ruth, remember that, as in the case of the Canaanites, Moabites were also forbidden lineage, being descendents of Lot through incest (Genesis 19:37), and no Moabite was allowed among Israel to the tenth generation (ie, forever) as per Deuteronomy 23:3. If Ruth were a Moabite by blood then David, the third generation from Ruth, would not have been allowed among the Israelites – but we know he was specifically chosen by God to be king over Israel. Going further, David was the direct ancestor of Christ, meaning if Ruth were of forbidden Moabite lineage then Christ would not have been qualified to rule Israel. By the time of the events of Ruth, the Israelites had long ago fully conquered and occupied the plains of Moab (Joshua 13:29-32, Deuteronomy 3:1-10, 29:1-9), wiping out the previous inhabitants to a man. It’s far more likely that Ruth was an Israelite of the tribes of Gad, Reuben, or Manasseh. She bore the label “Moabitess”, not because she was a descendent of Moab, but because she lived in Moab – just as I’m called an American because I live in America, not because of any bloodline. Also, if Ruth were a Moabite by blood, using her as an argument in favor of interracial marriage remains fallacious considering that Moabites were of the exact same family tree as the Israelites: Lot, their progenitor, was Abraham’s nephew. Moabites were forbidden lineage because they were a product of incest, and thus genetically compromised, not because they were of another race.

God’s laws aren’t just good ideas, nor are they something He ignores for His own ends. His laws are His morality. He would not allow for His Son to be born through violation of His morals. Otherwise He wouldn’t have qualified as our unblemished Passover Lamb (Exodus 12:5, I Peter 1:19).

It’s racist and discriminatory to be against interracial marriage.”

A full examination of “racism” could fill a book, but suffice to say that the general definition of “racism” is “hatred for other races”. The entire idea behind a ban on interracial marriage is to preserve the races. How could that possibly be hateful? A desire to preserve what God has made is the furthest thing from hatred, but rather love and respect.

And yes, it is discriminatory. “Discrimination” has only recently become a dirty word, but think about it! Without discrimination there is no way to tell right from wrong. Of course a humanist society that seeks to break down the moral boundaries of God would teach us that discrimination is evil. Wise men discriminate between what is in accordance with divine will and what is not. God discriminates between people and He has every right to do so. The Bible is filled with discriminatory commands and declarations. Rather than try to fit in with the amoral crowd and decry the practice of discrimination, we should recognize discrimination in a Biblical context and apply it to every aspect of our lives.

(Next Article)

[7] Sermon, “Racial Harmony and Interracial Marriage”: “…interracial marriage is not only permitted by God but is a positive good in our day. That is, it is not just to be tolerated, but celebrated.”

[8] Address at Ohio State University, September 12, 1950

[9] November 16, 2012, “31 Arguments Against Gay Marriage (And Why They’re All Wrong)”