| YES: Ted Weiland The Seventh Commandment - Mission to Israel |
NO: Kevin Craig Vine & Fig Tree |
|
Forbidden-Lineage and Interracial Relationships |
Please leave your thoughtful and Bible-based comments here.
Imagine you are single and you meet a person of exceptional Christian character, but with a different amount of melanin in her skin. You both agree almost to the letter on the obligations you have under the "Dominion Mandate" (Genesis 1:26-28) to exercise dominion over the earth with a helper meet for you. Is your calling under God being short-circuited by fear or hate of those with different amounts of melanin in their skin? Does the Bible prohibit you from marrying someone with different amounts of melanin in her skin? I think a "yes" answer to that question has to be forced onto Scripture. It seems obvious to me that all human beings descended from Noah, and are therefore all part of "the human race." Christian Reconstructionists have opposed racism for decades: |
| Sandwiched between statutes against marital infidelity (verse 20) and sodomy (verse 22), is a prohibition that at first appears to be entirely out of context: | "Sandwiching" is very common in the Pentateuch. A "moral law" can be "sandwiched" in between two "ceremonial" laws or two "judicial" laws. This is one reason James Jordan has concluded that there is no such thing as "judicial law" or a "civil code" in the Pentateuch. |
|
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am YHWH. (Leviticus 18:21) |
Idolatry violates the Second Commandment. Profaning God's Name violates the Third Commandment. Both "sandwiched" in one verse. |
| This verse is typically interpreted as a prohibition against idolatry. But why would a statement about idolatry (specifically child sacrifice) be included in a chapter devoted to sexual interdictions? Perhaps this prohibition is not out of place after all, provided it is translated and interpreted correctly. | Mention of Molech worship in vs. 21 is a nice transition into the last paragraph of the chapter (vv. 24-30) which speaks in general terms of the destruction of the Canaanites and other idolaters in the Promised Land. |
| The words “the fire” in verse 21 are in italics, indicating that there are no corresponding words in the Hebrew manuscripts and that these two words were added by the translators and do not belong in this verse. Molech worship did sometimes include the offering of children as burnt sacrifices, as indicated in other passages but this is not what is being addressed in Leviticus 18. | Fire is everywhere associated with the sacrificing of children to Molech. The fact that it is not found in this verse should not be used to change the meaning of all the other verses. |
| The judgment for passing seed to Molech is found in Leviticus 20: | Inheritance by Fire | Gary North, Commentary on Leviticus |
|
…Whosoever … giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. (Leviticus 20:1-2) |
|
| The translators did not add “the fire” in the judgment for this sin; its absence, along with some other factors, demonstrates that there is more than one way to offer or sacrifice seed to Molech. | The "absence" doesn't "demonstrate" anything. It is not necessary to specify "fire" or "alter" or "priest" or any other element of idolatrous Molech worship. The point is the sacrifice of children. That is always the case in all verses, and "fire" is mentioned in most of the cases. |
| It should not be overlooked that neither Leviticus 18:21 nor Leviticus 20:1-2 uses the Hebrew word ben, translated “children.” Instead, the word zera`, meaning “sperm” or “future progeny” was used. | This is the word that is often used in promises to the descendants of Abraham concerning the Promised Land:
And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said , Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.
For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it , and to thy seed for ever.
And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered .
And Abram said , Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
And he brought him forth abroad, and said , Look now toward heaven, and tell the tars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
|
| Leviticus 18:21 forbids letting one’s seed pass through to Molech. The phrase “pass through” is translated from the Hebrew word `abiyr. Strong’s Concordance and The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon define `abiyr: | The Hebrew word for "pass" is very versatile; it means a great number of things. The LXX uses a large number of different Greek words to convey the meaning. Over 70 Greek words can be used, which is remarkable. The word occurs 559 times. Drawing big, significant, controversial conclusions from two or three occurrences of the word, and then applying that conclusion to other occurrences, or to verses which don't even have that word, is agenda-driven eisegesis, not exegesis. |
|
…A primitive root; to cross over … specifically, to cover (in copulation).8 |
|
| …Prop. causeth to pass over, sc. semen….9 | |
| The latter lexicon also quotes Job 21 in which the Hebrew word `abiyr is translated “gendereth”: | |
|
Their bull gendereth, and faileth not; their cow calveth, and casteth not her calf. (Job 21:10) |
|
| Other versions of Job 21:10 translate `abiyr as “mates” and “breeds.” It may not yet be evident what specific sexual sin is condemned in Leviticus 18:21, but it should be apparent that this prohibition does indeed agree with the context and is consonant with the other Seventh Commandment statutes found in Leviticus 18. | |
| The statute in Leviticus 18 and the judgment in Leviticus 20 are obviously not meant to be understood as prohibitions against sexual participation with the god Molech itself. Therefore, Molech must represent something or someone else. | Nope. Molech does not represent anything other than a false god.
There are plenty of examples of taking a son or daughter and burning the child as an offering to Molech. See these, where the word "fire," if it appears, was not added by the translators: Deuteronomy 18:10 there is not found in thee one causing his son and his daughter to pass over into fire, [Not "the Valley of Adultery"] |
| The fact that Molech was the national deity of the Ammonites – one of several lineages with whom the Israelites were forbidden to intermarry – is the final clue in discovering the correct interpretation of this prohibition. Passing one’s seed to Molech is a Hebrew idiom prohibiting forbidden-lineage and, by extension, interracial relationships. | This conclusion is not warranted by the text. It is completely out of harmony with all the texts which speak of "passing" "seed" through "fire" to "Molech" or any other false Canaanite god.
Is there an example of a Jewish man marrying a Molech-worshipping woman who is put to death according to the judgment in Leviticus 20:2-5, who did not actually sacrifice the child to a false god through fire? |
The Syriac Translation |
|
| Peake’s Commentary on the Bible questions the customary interpretation of Leviticus 18:21 and then provides alternate analyses and translations: | Peake's Commentary is erratic. |
|
21 is generally interpreted as referring to a ceremony whereby children were passed through fire, possibly burning them as whole-offerings. But it is curious that the prohibition here occurs among sexual matters. The ancient versions have ‘cause to serve’ (Sam.), ‘serve,’ (LXX), ‘cause to lie down for sexual intercourse’ (Syr.), whilst other Greek Versions have ‘compel by force’.10 |
|
| In his book Old Testament Light: The Indispensable Guide to the Customs, Manners, & Idioms of Biblical Times, George Lamsa provides Leviticus 18:21 from the Syriac translation of the Old Testament: | "Overall, Lamsa’s faulty presuppositions insure that his interpretations are not uniformly reliable, helpful, or faithful to the Bible and its authors at many key points."
|
|
“Seed,” in this instance, means “semen.” The Eastern text reads: “You shall not let any of your semen be cast into a strange woman to cause her to be pregnant….” …This ordinance is against cohabiting with pagan women….11 |
|
| At the time that Leviticus 18:21 was written “pagan women” referred not only to non-believers, and more specifically to non-Israelites. During the Old Covenant dispensation, only lineages closely related to Israel worshiped Yahweh; everyone else was considered pagan. Leviticus 18:21 applies to both forbidden lineage and interracial relationships because both results in Israelites marrying pagans. | |
| Lamsa also points out that the word “‘Molech’ … [in] the Aramaic reads ‘a strange woman’; that is, a woman of another race or religion.”12 | Interesting, perhaps, but hardly conclusive. |
The Book of Jubilees |
The Bible is clear enough; why resort to a lot of untrustworthy extra-biblical sources? Anwer: we're driving an agenda. |
| Both the Encyclopedia Judaica and The Jewish Encyclopedia reference the book of Jubilees* while commenting upon the meaning of this idiom in Leviticus 18 and 20: | |
|
The book of Jubilees 30:7ff. connects intermarriage or rather the marrying off of one’s children to pagans with the sin of Moloch. …The prohibition of Moloch … the impregnation of a pagan woman, an interpretation lying behind the Syriac translation in Leviticus 18 and 20. The common denominator of all these traditions is the understanding of Moloch worship as the transfer of Jewish [Israelite] children to paganism either by delivering them directly to pagan priests or by procreation through intercourse with a pagan woman. This tradition, which could hardly be an invention, is now corroborated by the evidence in the Assyrian documents.13 |
|
| In the book of Jubilees intermarriage with all Gentiles** is prohibited, no allowance being made for proselytes (Jubilees, xx. 4, xxii. 20, xxx. 11; comp. Targ. Yer. To Lev. xviii. 21, “Thou shalt not give any of thy seed to make them pass through the fire of Moloch,” which is translated: “Thou shalt not give a child in marriage to a Gentile by which the offspring is turned over to idolatry….)”14 | Nobody denies that Christian parents should work against their children marrying non-believers. The question is whether the Bible prohibits a person from "race A" from marrying a person from "race B," where "race" is defined by external attributes, such as skin color. |
| ____________________ | |
| *Jubilees is a pseudepigraphic work, containing the views and religious practices of the most rigid Hasdaen school at the time of John Hycanus, during whose reign over the house of Judah (135 and 105 B.C.) it was written. | |
| **“The word ‘Gentile’ corresponds to the late Hebrew ‘goi,’ … signifying ‘stranger,’ ‘non-Jew [non-Israelites].’… In its most comprehensive sense ‘goi’ corresponds to the other late term, ‘ummot ha-‘olam’ (the peoples of the world).” “Gentile,” The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York & London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1904) Volume V, p. 615. | |
| ____________________ | |
| A portion of the passage from the book of Jubilees follows: | |
|
…If there is any man in Israel who desires to give his daughter or his sister to any man who is of the seed of the Gentiles, he shall surely die … for he has committed a sin and a shame in Israel…. And to this law there is no limit of days and no ceasing and no forgiveness, but he shall be rooted out who defiles his daughter, among all Israel, because he has given of his seed to Moloch…. And thou, Moses, command the children of Israel and testify over them that they shall not give any of their daughters to the Gentiles and that they shall not take any of the daughters of the Gentiles; for this is accursed before the Lord…. And it is disgraceful to Israel to those that give and to those that receive from any Gentiles any daughters, for it is unclean and accursed to Israel; and Israel will not be clean of this uncleanness of him who has of the daughters of the Gentiles for a wife, or who has given of his daughters to a man who is of any of the seed of the Gentiles…. (Jubilees 30:6-12) |
The nicest thing we can say about the Rabbis is that they are probably justified to speak of marrying one's children to unbelievers as analogous to sacrificing them to Molech. But the analogy depends on the prior exegesis of the true sin of sacrificing children to Molech.
The New Testament application concerns faith, not race. |
| Except for a few rare exceptions, Yahweh was the exclusive God of the Israelites. Therefore to Old Covenant Israelites, both the forbidden lineages and people from other races were considered pagans and gentiles. In Leviticus 18:21, Molech represents not only the Ammonites, but all forbidden lineages and other races of mankind. All such unions polluted Israel’s genes and inevitably led to idolatry. | The leap from faith to "race" is unwarranted. |
| Only peoples of other races and the forbidden lineages of Canaan, Moab, and Ammon are included in the prohibition in Leviticus 18:21. Israelites were permitted to marry other racially alike non-Israelites. The Midianites, for example, were not Israelites, but because they were descendants of Abraham, they were not included in the Leviticus 18:21 prohibition. | |
| Leviticus 18:21 addresses this sin in an idiomatic fashion; the priest Ezra is more direct: | |
|
The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians,* and the Amorites. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands…. Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons … that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever. (Ezra 9:1-12) |
"doing according to their abominations" has to do with faith, not skin color. |
| ____________________ | |
| *Ezra 9:1 lists Egyptians [Hamites – Psalm 78:50-51, 105:23-27, and 106:21-22] among the peoples from whom the Israelites were to separate themselves. The Hamites, as a whole, were not forbidden for the Israelites to marry, which would seem to indicate that the Hamites in this instance had intermingled with the Canaanites. | |
| ____________________ | |
|
We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land…. Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. (Ezra 10:2-3) |
|
| With these witnesses in mind, and because Deuteronomy 20 associates Leviticus 18:21’s sin with whoredom; and because the phrase “pass through” can have sexual implications; and because zera, meaning “sperm,” was used instead of ben, meaning “children”; and because Leviticus 18 is a chapter devoted to sexual perversions and not to idolatry, it should be apparent that verse 21 fits the chapter’s context. This verse prohibits forbidden-lineage and, by extension, interracial relationships – also known as miscegenation – both of which pollute Israel’s genes and often lead to the worship of false gods. | The issue is not genes, it is religion. It's not something that "often leads to" worship of false gods. It is false worship, period. Sacrificing children to a false god is false worship, and it's forbidden by these verses. Being "unequally yoked" is another issue, but the criteria for being "unequally yoked" is worship, not skin color. |
Racial Segregation |
|
| The fact that Israelites were commanded to live separate from all other peoples and that, for the most part, they have remained unmixed for the last several millennia, demonstrates that Yahweh does not want the Israelites* mixing with people from other races. | "Other races" is not what the Bible says. It says other religions. If a Black, Asian or Caucasian man wanted to marry a Semitic Israelite, and he professed faith in the True God, and was willing to get circumcised, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits that marriage based only on skin color or "race." |
| ____________________ | |
| *The term “Israelites” is not meant to indicate today’s Jews, but instead today’s Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, Anglo Saxon, and kindred peoples.15 | This claim is so ludicrous that I don't even want to get started talking about it. |
| ____________________ | |
| Deuteronomy 7:6, 14:2, 32:8-9, 1 Kings 8:51-52, 1 Chronicles 17:21-22, and Amos 3:1-2 all affirm that Yahweh chose Israel out of all the peoples of the earth to be His inheritance: | But all the peoples of their earth could have given up their worship of idols and become part of God's inheritance. While not something that God had predestined, it was also not something that God legally prohibited |
|
…O children of Israel…. You only have I known of all the families of the earth…. (Amos 3:1-2) |
|
| Numerous prophecies reveal that this special marital relationship was to continue between Yahweh and a remnant of Christian Israelites under the New Covenant as well: | There's a huge fudging gap here. How did "families of Israel" get transformed into "Christian Israelites?" Most Christians are not racially Semitic Israelites. In a couple of decades the majority of Christians will be non-white. There's nothing in the Bible that says a Caucasian Christian cannot marry an Asian Christian, if God created one to be a "helper meet" for the other. |
|
Behold, the days come, saith YHWH, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah…. Thus saith YHWH, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night…. If those ordinances depart from before me, saith YHWH, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith YHWH; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith YHWH. Jeremiah 31:31-37 |
At the same time, saith the LORD, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people.
And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed .
And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed
All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.
|
|
…the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea … and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head…. And it shall be at that day, saith YHWH, that thou shalt call me Ishi [husband]…. And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. (Hosea 1:10-11 and 2:16, 1916) |
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Romans 9:26 Gentiles (non-Israelites) have become the People of God, not by changing their race, but by adoption. |
| If the Israelites had mixed with the other races, eventually they would have been indistinguishable from everyone else, and the fulfillment of these prophecies would have been impossible. | |
Creation’s Testimony |
|
| Yahweh’s desire for racial purity can be witnessed in His design for His creation. Ten times in Genesis 1, Yahweh declared how He made His creation to produce after their own kind. This idea was expanded upon in the apocryphal books of Ecclesiasticus and Tobit: | An Asian person and a Caucasian person are of the same "kind." They are both members of the human race. There is no Biblical evidence to the contrary. |
|
Every beast loveth his like…. All flesh consorteth according to kind, and a man will cleave to his like. (Ecclesiasticus 13:15- 16) |
|
|
Beware of all whoredom, my son, and chiefly take a wife of the seed of thy fathers, and take not a strange woman to wife, which is not of thy father’s tribe: for we are the children of the prophets, Noe [Noah], Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: remember, my son, that our fathers from the beginning, even that they all married wives of their own kindred, and were blessed in their children, and their seed shall inherit the land. Now therefore, my son, love thy brethren, and despise not in thy heart thy brethren, the sons and daughters of thy people, in not taking a wife of them…. (Tobit 4:12-13) |
A lot of the "evidence" seems to be coming from non-Biblical sources.
|
| Consider also the following prohibitions: | |
|
…Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. (Leviticus 19:19) |
|
| Was Yahweh only concerned with livestock, produce, and clothing? Or did he also intend for us to refrain from gendering diverse kinds? The answer to this question is found in Deuteronomy 23: | |
|
A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of YHWH; even to his tenth generation* shall he not enter into the congregation of YHWH. (Deuteronomy 23:2) |
|
| ____________________ | |
| *Nehemiah 13:1 demonstrates that the phrase “to his tenth generation” is in Deuteronomy 23:2 is a Hebrew idiom meaning forever. | Probably irrelevant in our day. How many people on planet earth can trace their lineage to a "bastard" who lived more than ten generations ago? |
| ____________________ | |
| The Hebrew word mamzeer, translated “bastard” and “illegitimate birth” in the King James and New American Standard versions, respectively, is defined in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary: | |
|
…To alienate; a mongrel, i.e. born of a Jewish [Israelite] father and a heathen mother.17 |
|
| Because of what “bastard” and “illegitimate birth” represent today, it is a poor translation of mamzeer. The prohibition against entering the congregation of Yahweh only applies to a child of mixed heritage. | |
| Along with other Old Testament passages, Nehemiah’s inspired commentary (Nehemiah 13:1-3) on Deuteronomy 23:3 reveals that the reference to the congregation or assembly of Yahweh is, in fact, referring to Israel as a people. The Bible dictates geographical and, therefore, racial segregation for the Israelites in Exodus 33:16, Leviticus 20:24-26, Numbers 23:9, Deuteronomy 32:8, 1 Kings 8:51-53, Acts 17:26, etc. Deuteronomy 23:2 requires that Israelites segregate themselves from the offspring of forbidden-lineage or interracial relationships as well. | Let's look at those verses allegedly proving "racial" separation.
What made Israel "distinct" from other nations? Skin color? or the fact that Israelites don't sacrifice their babies to false gods?
How does this verse prohibit marrying a person with a different skin color?
How does this verse prohibit marrying a person with a different skin color?
How does this verse prohibit marrying a person with a different skin color?
Believers are to separate themselves from the sinful practices of unbelievers, not their skin color.
See Deuteronomy 32:8 above. God separated the nations at the Tower of Babel, and appointed demonic guardians over them (see, e.g., Daniel 10:13). The "powers" have been bound and overthrown, all authority has been given to Jesus (Matthew 28:18-20), and people of every nation are now commanded to become Christians.
The issue here is behavior and practice, not skin color. Emasculation was probably in the context of pagan worship. And yet in Acts 8:27ff, an Ethiopian eunuch was baptized by Philip and made a member of the Christian Congregation. |
| The judgment upon the offspring of forbidden-lineage or interracial relationships, as described in Deuteronomy 23, may seem harsh, especially because the offspring was not responsible for the initial sin. However, the Bible provides precedent for this kind of judgment. Canaan, Moab, and Ammon were the consequence of incest, and Yahweh judged them and their respective lineages by forbidding Israel to intermarry with or live among them, even though they were racially alike. | |
| Why would Yahweh be so harsh upon innocent victims of the parents’ transgressions? Yahweh knows the beginning from the end and His judgments are remedial in nature for the overall good of His people. Yahweh’s judgment upon the mamzeer or mongrel was meant to deter the perpetuation of the same sin, thereby retaining purity in the bloodlines and preventing the weaknesses that result from genetic interbreeding. | "Purity in bloodlines" was only important to make sure the 12 tribes existed until the coming of Shiloah. It was wrong to marry outside Israel and lose a member of Israel to another nation. But there was no prohibition on allowing a person of another skin color to become member of one of the 12 tribes, as long as that member was willing to submit to the terms of Biblical Faith. |
| Ezra and other leaders of the house of Judah understood the importance of keeping Israel’s bloodline pure: | |
|
…The princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel … have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations…. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands…. Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever…. Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? Wouldest not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping? O YHWH God of Israel, thou art righteous … behold, we are before thee in our trespasses: for we cannot stand before thee because of this. (Ezra 9:1-15) |
|
| This passage is addressing Canaan, Moab, Ammon, and people with whom they had mixed. These were the people in and near the land of Judah in Ezra’s day. The same would have applied to other races if they had been in the land at that time. Nehemiah expanded and applied the prohibition of Deuteronomy 23:3 to preclude all forbidden foreigners: | |
|
…In the book of Moses … therein [Deuteronomy 23:3] was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever…. Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude…. And I [Nehemiah] contended with them … and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? …Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives? …Thus cleansed I them from all strangers…. (Nehemiah 13:1-30) |
|
| The phrase “the mixed multitude” is translated from the Hebrew word `eereb. `Eereb is defined by James Strong: | |
|
…The web (or transverse threads of cloth); also a mixture, (or mongrel race).18 |
|
| The Prophet Hosea rebuked the house of Israel for bearing strange children: | |
|
They have dealt treacherously against YHWH: for they have begotten strange children…. (Hosea 5:7) |
|
| Until very recently, miscegenation was almost unheard of – a historic anomaly. But in the last fifty years, like homosexuality, it has become more and more culturally acceptable. This alone should cause people to question it. If it had been Biblically acceptable all along, why has it taken nearly two millennia for Christians to get it correct? | Separation based solely on skin color was never the Biblical model. Separation was faith-based. |
| Typical of people who have rejected their Biblical moorings and who, more often than not, call good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20), today’s multicultural society condemns segregation as racist and hateful and promotes miscegenation as something good. Man’s desire to integrate and miscegenate will ultimately destroy the different races and their cultures. In contrast, Yahweh’s Biblical design for man to segregate and remain pure protects and perpetuates the different races and their cultures. | Who cares if all the different skin colors are merged together?
"Culture" is purely humanistic. Who cares if one human culture dies out or merges with another. It's as silly as saying the Bible prohibits "baroque" and "impressionist" music from being used in the same symphony. Does the Bible prohibit Americans from playing Polka music from Germany? Will Christians in 5,000 years care about American "culture" or Asian "culture?" |
| Miscegenation adulterates the races, mixing two seeds that Yahweh never intended to be mixed. | |
| Answering the Critics’ Objections | |
| In an effort to counter the Scriptures’ prohibitions against miscegenation, people often provide supposed examples of race mixing in the Bible. Although Moses and Zipporah, Moses and Adoniah, Joseph and Asenath, Salmon and Rahab, and Boaz and Ruth are often exploited as Biblically sanctioned precedents for interracial relationships, none of these instances represent race mixing for the simple reason that in each of these five instances the husband and wife were from the same race. | Ultimately, all human beings are from the same race -- the one descending from Noah. |
Moses and Zipporah |
|
|
…A man of the house of Levi … took to wife a daughter of Levi. And the woman conceived, and bare a son…. And she [Pharaoh’s daughter] called his name Moses…. (Exodus 2:1-10) |
|
|
Now the priest of Midian … gave Moses Zipporah his daughter. (Exodus 2:16-21) |
|
| Only one race is represented in the marriage of Moses and Zipporah. Moses was a descendant of Abraham, an Israelite from the tribe of Levi. Zipporah was a Midianite, a descendant from Abraham through his wife Keturah’s fourth son Midian: | |
|
Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him … Midian…. (Genesis 25:1-2) |
|
Moses and Adoniah |
|
|
And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married…. (Numbers 12:1) |
|
| This woman was not Moses’ wife Zipporah as many people have supposed. She was a woman by the name of Adoniah (Jasher 73:31), who, according to some English versions of the Bible, is purported to be an Ethiopian. However, “Ethiopian,” as it has been rendered in the King James Version, is a poor translation of the Hebrew word Kuwshiyt. Strong’s Concordance defines Kuwshiyt: | |
|
…Patronymically from OT:3568; a Cushite, or descendant of Cush.19 |
|
| The Cushites were descendants of Cush, Noah’s grandson by Ham: | Every human being on the planet is a member of the same race of human beings that descended from Noah. |
|
And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. (Genesis 10:6) |
|
| Cush’s father Ham was a brother of Noah’s firstborn son Shem, a progenitor of the Israelites. Therefore, Ham’s descendants, including Cush, were from the same race as Shem’s descendants through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. | |
| If Adoniah was a racial Cushite, she would have been of the same race as Moses. There is reason to believe, however, that she was not a Cushite but a Canaanite. Although it is not a part of the canonized Scripture, the book of Jasher, cited in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18 and referenced in 2 Timothy 3:8, provides the following pertinent information concerning Moses and Adoniah’s relationship during Moses’ exile from Egypt after he had delivered the Cushites from the children of Aram: | |
|
…They [the Cushites] gave him [Moses] for a wife Adoniah the Cushite queen, wife 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 [half 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…. (Jasher 73:31-34) |
|
| Apparently Adoniah was of Canaanite descent, a Cushite only by citizenship. Although Moses accepted her as a gift from the Cushites, he never cohabited with her, knowing that by Yahweh’s law he was forbidden to do so. For those who would argue that Numbers 12:1 states that Moses married Adoniah, the Hebrew word laaqaach, translated “marriage,” simply means “took” and does not necessarily imply marriage. |
And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father
of Milcah, and the father ofIscah.
Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.
And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.
And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife;and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's
death.
Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah to wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padanaram, the sister to Laban the Syrian.
And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:
And Rebekah said to Isaac, I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these which are of the daughters of the land,
what good shall my life do me?
The word occurs nearly 1,000 times in the OT. We've just gone through half of Genesis, and there is abundant precedent for using the word to describe a marriage.
The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land
hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.
So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son
|
Joseph and Asenath |
|
|
And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnath-paaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Poti-pherah priest of On…. (Genesis 41:45) |
|
| Asenath, although not specifically identified as such, was most likely an Egyptian. Psalm 78:50-51, 105:23-27, and 106:21-22 affirm that the Egyptians of that day were Hamites.* Joseph was an Israelite, a descendant of Shem, the first-born son of Noah, and Asenath was a Hamite, a descendant of Ham, the second-born son of Noah. Only one race was represented in Joseph’s marriage to Asenath. | Every human being on planet earth is a member of the human race descended from Noah. |
| ____________________ | |
| *The Israelites in Genesis 50:11, Moses in Exodus 2:19, and Paul in Acts 21:38 were all misidentified as Egyptians. The Egyptians, or Hamites, obviously, looked very similar in appearance to the Shemites, from whom the Israelites were descended. The Shemites and Hamites were both descended from Noah and his wife, through Noah’s sons, Shem and Ham. This destroys the hypothesis that Hamites were black. Because Hamites looked like Shemites, they had to have been white like the Israelites. | |
| ____________________ | |
Salmon and Rahab |
|
|
And Salmon [a Judahite] begat Booz [Boaz] of Rachab [Rahab]…. (Matthew 1:5) |
|
| Rahab is often alleged to be the Canaanite who helped the two Israelites spies escape from Jericho. There is no conclusive proof, however, that the Rahab who helped the Israelite spies in Joshua 2 is the same woman Salmon married, or that she was even of Canaanite descent. Rahab is never identified as a Canaanite. Although she lived in the Canaanite city of Jericho, it is speculation to identify her as a Canaanite from this fact alone. As an example, Moses, who was unquestionably an Israelite, was identified as an Egyptian by the daughters of Reuel: | It is good speculation that one living in a Canaanite city was a Canaanite. That tells us nothing about her faith, however. |
|
And when they came to Reuel their father … they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds…. (Exodus 2:18- 19) |
|
| Moses was known as an Egyptian, not because he came from the loins of the Egyptians, but because he came from the land of Egypt. | |
| Because Rahab is listed in the book of Hebrews – in the Hebrew hall of fame no less (Hebrews 11:31) – she was very possibly an Israelite slave who resided in Jericho (Numbers 21:1). This could perhaps explain why the two Israelite spies sought her out and also why the king of Jericho suspected her of harboring them (Joshua 2:1-3). | |
| It makes no difference whether the Rahab from Jericho was a Canaanite. Even if Rahab were a racial Canaanite, two races were not represented in Salmon’s marriage to Rahab. As already established, the Canaanites, although a forbidden lineage, were descendants of Ham, the brother of Shem who was a progenitor of the Israelites. Rahab and Salmon were from the same race and, therefore, their marriage was not interracial. | This is astonishing. The Bible forbids marrying people of the Canaanite religion. But Weiland seems to be saying that if they are the same skin color, it's OK. |
Boaz and Ruth |
The whole point of the book of Ruth is that covenantal faithfulness trumps race. |
|
…And Booz [a Judahite] begat Obed of Ruth. (Matthew 1:5) |
|
| Ruth, a resident of Moab, is identified five times as a Moabitess in Ruth 1:22, 2:2, 2:21, 4:5, and 4:10. Once again, even if Ruth were a racial Moabite, she was not from another race. The Moabites were descendants of Abraham’s nephew Lot (Genesis 12:5) through his incestuous relationship with his eldest daughter: | Moabites like Ruth may not be a separate race under Weiland's theory, but they are a prohibited race because of the actions of their ancestors:
"Moab" is emphasized repeatedly by the author of the book (probably Samuel). "Bethlehem" means "house of bread." Ruth's father-in-law left the "house of bread" during a famine to get bread from a race that had historically denied bread to Israel. He was a faithless man. One of his sons married Ruth, who is repeatedly said to be a Moabitess.
|
|
And Lot … dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him…. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father…. And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites…. (Genesis 19:30-37) |
|
| Only one race is represented in Boaz and Ruth’s marriage. In fact, there is no reason to even conclude that Ruth was a racial Moabite. She could not have been a racial Moabite for the same reason that Rahab could not have been a racial Canaanite: the Israelites were forbidden to intermarry with the Moabites. It was for this very reason that Ezra commanded the Judahites to put away their Moabite companions: | The author of the Book of Ruth has done everything possible to indicate that Ruth was a Moabite.
|
|
…The people of Israel … have not separated themselves from the people of the lands … even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites…. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands…. Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons…. (Ezra 9:1-12) |
|
| Had Ruth been a racial Moabite, Boaz would have been required to put Ruth away, if he had even married her in the first place. Ruth must have been known as a Moabite because she had lived in the country of Moab, a possession of the Reubenites at that time. | If Weiland's theory had been put into practice, the Messiah would not have been born. |
| Evidence that Ruth was a Moabite by residence rather than by physical descent was demonstrated when Boaz applied the levirate law to her. The levirate law requires Israelite men to raise up a male heir for a deceased kinsman, in order to preserve his name and estate: | |
|
If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother [or “nigh of kin,” Leviticus 25:48-49] shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. (Deuteronomy 25:5-6) |
|
|
And he [Boaz] said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth … thou art a near kinsman. And he said, … it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit … will I do the part of a kinsman to thee…. (Ruth 3:9-13) |
|
| Had Ruth been from the forbidden lineage of Moab or from another race, the levirate law would not have applied because her previous relationship with Boaz’s kinsman Mahlon would have been unlawful and, therefore, adulterous. Had Ruth been a racial Moabite, the nearer kinsman (Ruth 3:12, 4:5-6) would have only needed to raise this objection to keep from having to redeem Ruth along with Mahlon’s land. | Why would a faithful believer "raise an objection" to caring for a faithful woman and raising up seed leading to the Messiah? |
| Ruth must have been an Israelite, or at least a descendant of a racially alike lineage with whom the Israelites were permitted to marry. Otherwise, Mahlon’s estate, in part or in whole, would have been lost to a non-Israelite descendant, which was one of the reasons that prompted Ezra to command the Judahites to put away their Moabite and other foreign wives in Ezra 9:1 – 10:3. | Mahlon and his father were both faithless people. Yes, their estate would have been lost. But Ruth was faithful, and she pledged her allegiance to the God of Israel, and Boaz and everyone at the gate recognized this. |
| For the point under discussion, it does not make any difference whether Ruth was an Israelite or a Moabite. In either instance, she was of the same race as Boaz her husband. | Every human being on the planet is a member of the human race descended from Noah. |
The Idolatry Argument |
|
| People who condone miscegenation often argue that the Old Testament prohibitions were only to protect Israel from the idolatry that was being promoted by the non-Israelites at that time. This assertion is reflected in the following article published in the December 1995 installment of Home Life magazine’s “Ask Mike and Mary” column: | |
|
Q. What does the Bible teach about interracial relationships or mixed marriages? I am concerned my 13-year-old daughter may be headed in that direction. I have told her this is wrong and I do not approve. The Church doesn’t seem to address this problem. Could this be a sign of a more deep-rooted problem? Do you think I should worry? |
|
|
A. Your question is one that concerns many parents. We would welcome a passage clearly instructing our children not to mix with other races when they date or marry. That would make our parenting assignment easier. The trouble is, I just don’t believe the Bible makes that statement. It does not support the idea of keeping race as a dividing line. True, in Deuteronomy 7:3 the Israelites were told specifically not to marry the members of the nations they would encounter when they would occupy the promised land. But the next verse clarifies this warning. It is not about race; it is about faith in the true God….20 |
|
| Consider Deuteronomy 17:1-4 and its idolatry implications: | |
|
When YHWH thy God shall bring thee [the nation of Israel] into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites … thou shalt make no … marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of YHWH be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4) |
|
| In Ecclesiastes 1:9, King Solomon declared “that which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So, there is nothing new under the sun.” Even if idolatry were the only reason for this prohibition, its consequences still remain. In 1776, approximately 2.5 million people lived in America. More than 99 percent of the population was white Christian Israelite21 Protestants. The remaining one percent was collectively represented by 20,000 Catholics, 3,000 non-Israelite Jews,21 and a few deists. In light of these figures and present-day demographics, it is a fact that the more non-Israelite immigrants allowed to enter and remain in the United States, the less Christian this nation becomes. The more racially mixed and multicultural America becomes, the more pluralistic she becomes, and the more pluralistic she becomes, the more heathen she becomes. |
In the early 1800's, Alexis de Tocqueville was saying the same thing, but he was wrong. Find out why here: |
| In her book The Official Guide to the American Marketplace, demographics specialist Cheryl Russell confirmed this paganizing of America: | |
|
Immigration will slowly change the nation’s [predominately Christian] religious affiliation…. Because most of the nation’s immigrants are from Mexico … the Roman Catholic church is likely to gain adherents. The influx of Asian immigrants should boost the share of Americans who are Buddhist or Hindu.22 |
The answer to our problems is not immigration laws. Find out why here: |
| Martin E. Marty, a nationally acclaimed demographics expert, also confirmed this inevitable consequence of mixing the races: | |
|
No one noticed it at the time, but the biggest event affecting pluralism [the increasing multi-religious composition of the United States] was in 1965, when immigration quotas that favored Europeans were altered.23 |
Are Europeans Christian today? If immigrants were required to profess faith in Christ before becoming citizens, America might still be Christian. But in 1961 the Supreme Court ruled such laws (in existence before the Constitution was ratified and 171 years after it was ratified) "unconstitutional." The menace of "pluralism" is false religions, not different skin color. |
| The Bible repeatedly declares that Yahweh is the God of the Israelites. In other words, Yahweh is the innate God of only the Israelites. Without the religious influence of the Israelites, non-Israelites naturally serve other gods. It is a sad commentary that when Israelites mix with other races, they usually turn to the gods of the people with whom they mix. Nothing has changed since Deuteronomy 7. | This is the kind of thinking that brings the judgment of God:1 Kings 20:28 In the Old Testament, the unclean polluted the clean. But in the New Testament, the clean have a new power which spills out onto the unclean. It's a very different world.
|
No Proselyte Exceptions |
|
| Faith in the true God is central to the Bible’s prohibitions against mixing with forbidden lineages, but it is not the only reason for racial segregation. If it were, the Bible would provide exceptions for believers among the forbidden nations. No exception clause for believers can be found in Deuteronomy 7 or anywhere else. Consider again Ezra’s instructions: | Exceptions were granted, as in the case of Ruth. Exceptions were too rare to be provided for. The practice in the Bible was to grant "exceptions." |
|
…The princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel … have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations…. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves … O my God … we have forsaken thy commandments…. Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons.… Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? …Shechaniah … answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land…. Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them … let it be done according to the law. (Ezra 9:1 - 10:3) |
False worship ("doing according to their abominations") is the key here. |
| Ezra and Shechaniah made no exceptions for foreign wives who had converted to Yahweh or for children who might have been spiritually influenced by their Israelite fathers. Most Christians completely overlook this important fact. | Name one "strange wife" who did not do "according to their abominations" and might have been worthy of an "exception." |
Additional Reasons for Racial Purity |
|
| In addition to idolatry, Ezra provided two more reasons for the Israelites to separate from the other nations listed in Ezra 9: | |
|
…They have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed [race, NASV] have mingled themselves with the people of those lands…. (Ezra 9:2) |
Ezra 9 10 And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments, 11 Which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abominations,
which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness. |
| Mixed relationships were condemned by Ezra not only because they polluted the religion of the Israelites, but because they also polluted or adulterated the genes of the Israelites. | Where does it say that? |
| Verse 12 provides another explanation for why the Israelites were commanded to separate from their foreign wives: | |
|
…Give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever. (Ezra 9:12) |
|
| If these mixed relationships had been allowed to continue, Israel’s land inheritance would have been in jeopardy of being lost or turned over to the mixed progeny born to these relationships. This would have occurred even if both parents of these mixed-blood children or the children themselves were believers in Yahweh. Israel would have been dispossessed of her land. | If a Jewish man marries a believing Gentile woman, and the couple raises faithful children within their tribe, on what ground would their land be lost? The children are adopted into the tribe of Israel. |
| Hosea addressed the same problem: | |
|
They have dealt treacherously against YHWH: for they have begotten strange children: now shall a month devour them with their portions. (Hosea 5:7) |
|
|
Strangers have devoured his strength, and he knoweth it not…. (Hosea 7:9) |
|
| The same thing is occurring throughout the world today. Birthright, history, posterity, and future spurned through miscegenation can never be recovered. Once a child has been conceived and born from a mixed-race relationship, no one can go back and change it. | This is not a Biblical problem. |
False Accusations |
|
| It is politically incorrect to teach that race-mixing is Biblically prohibited. This emotionally charged issue is a lightning rod for false accusations from non-Christians and Christians alike. People who believe that miscegenation is Biblically immoral and who promote the separation and purity of the different races are often accused of racism, hatred, and even white supremacy. The basis for such accusations is emotional rather than rational or Biblical. | |
| People who promote integration and miscegenation of the different races are advancing a position that ultimately destroys the purity and distinct culture of each race. People who promote the separation and purity of the races are advancing a position that promotes the perpetuation and preservation of the races and their distinct cultures. It should be very obvious which position demonstrates less respect and concern for the people of other races. | Humanistic cultures have no value in God's eyes, and there is no need to keep them "distinct." The only requirement is to make all cultures of the world Christian. |
Genocide |
|
| Genocide, as defined by Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, is the inevitable outcome of miscegenation: | |
|
…The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.24 |
|
| The Winnipeg Free Press contained an article by Gwynne Dyer entitled “Tiger Wood’s description of himself says it all. The future is light brown”: | |
|
Just under three-quarters of the present American population (73.1 per cent) is classified as “non-Hispanic white” by the United States Census Bureau. But within 50 years, it predicts, white America will be barely half the population (52.8 percent)…. |
|
| The U.S. Census Bureau is almost certainly wrong. The man who has it right is Tiger Woods … who … outraged practically everybody by announcing on the Oprah Winfrey show that he does not see himself as black, but a “Cablinasian” … a word that describes what may be the largest American “race” by 2050: A mixed-race group in various shades of light brown that combines the genetic heritage of most major groups on the planet. Canada promises to be an even more comprehensive mixture, and Australia and even Britain are moving in the same direction. | |
| Woods made up the word “Cablinasian” because he had no word to describe himself. His father had one white, one native Indian and two black grandparents, and his mother was half Chinese, half Thai. “Growing up, I came up with this name - I’m a Cablinasian,” Woods explained - a mix of Caucasian, black, Indian, and Asian.25 | There is no Biblical reason why the entire world cannot be "Cablinasian" and robustly Christian. |
| Woods’ admission that there is no word to describe himself does indeed say it all. Dyer’s article pointed out that mixed marriages are not only increasing among Caucasians but also, to a much greater degree, among other races: | |
|
…In America, the racial walls are breaking down. Only four per cent of U.S. marriages are inter-racial, but that bald figure conceals a huge generational shift. In the ’40s and ’50s, less than two per cent of black men married white women. In the past decade, the figure has soared to nearly 10 per cent. And other non-white Americans, who do not suffer the special prejudice that weighs on African-American descendants of former slaves, are now [1997] “marrying out” at a staggering rate. |
|
| Some 60 per cent of Asian-born Americans in their 20s marry somebody of another race, and nearly 70 per cent of native American Indians under the age of 25 are doing the same. “In recent years the proportion of both men and women from all racial groups who ‘marry out’ has increased,” concluded University of Michigan demographer Reynolds Farley in a study published last month.26 | |
| The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia defines miscegenation: | |
|
…Mixture or amalgamation of races: applied especially to sexual union between individuals of the black and white races. Individuals sometimes show a desperate desire for miscegenation, but they indulge in it always at the expense of a loss of the respect of both races.27 |
|
| Not only is the white race being destroyed through miscegenation at a staggering rate, but so are the blacks, Asians, and other races. Racial segregation and purity benefit all, not just whites. | Destruction of black, Asian, caucasian and other "races" is not a Biblical issue. God does not care. The only race that matter is whether you are of the First Adam's race, or the Second Adam's race.
|
| Dyer declared, “The ‘melting pot’ is finally working, even in the U.S.” The melting pot may well be working, but not to the betterment of everyone involved. What it is working toward is the genocide of all races and their distinct cultures. | |
| The San Ramon Valley Times ran an article entitled “Working toward one race.” Author Stephen Magagnini wrote of the search for identity by those born from multi-racial relationships: | |
|
SACRAMENTO - On a recent night, the Madrone Room of Berkley’s MLK Student Center is overflowing with young people on a quest for identity, acceptance and a new way of looking at race. They are checking out the Hapa Issues Forum, a 5-year-old organization for people of mixed race.28 |
|
| The fact that these young people of mixed race are on a “quest for identity” indicates a problem in itself. They have no identity, no race, and no culture with which to relate. Magagnini continued his observations: | Their quest should be to become members of The Royal Race of the Redeemed, not some temporary, humanistic "race." |
|
There are now more than 1.5 million interracial couples in America and 2 million mixed-race children, according to the census…. More than 70 percent of American Indians, 60 percent of Japanese-Americans and many California Hispanics and Filipinos marry people of other races or ethnic groups. Their children are redefining California culture and religion.29 |
|
| Children from interracial relationships have to redefine their culture and religion because the heritage that might have been theirs has been destroyed through miscegenation. | Children with parents having differing skin color do NOT have to "redefine their . . . religion." This is weird humanism to say so. |
| From 1960 to 1990, according to the U.S. Census, marriages between blacks and whites increased by 400 percent and marriages between whites and Asians increased nearly 1,000 percent. In 1970 there were 310,000 interracially married couples in the United States. By 1998 that number had increased to 1.6 million, according to a 1998 population survey. As staggering as this increase is, it has only gotten worse in the years since. | |
| Everyone, no matter what his race, needs to take a stand on this issue and condemn this abomination that is quickly becoming an epidemic both here in the United States and abroad. Unless we turn the tide, miscegenation will destroy the races and their individual cultures. | Who cares? |
| Lack of respect for one’s own race and the uniqueness of the other races promotes integration, miscegenation, and the ultimate eradication of the different races. Those who would have us believe that this disrespect is actually love are perhaps best described by the Prophet Isaiah: | Who cares? |
|
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20) |
|
| The brazen promotion and practice of miscegenation is a clear sign of our modern world’s rapid progression into depravity. If we are to change the direction that our nation is presently headed, we must determine to be true to our God, His laws, our ancestors, ourselves, our children, and our race. | There is no Biblical reason to care about mixing skin color. |
|
Please leave your thoughtful and Bible-based comments here. |
|
| 8. James Strong, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary,” The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990) p. 85. | |
| 9. Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, William Gesenius, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979) p. 718. | |
| 10. Matthew Black, General Editor, Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (Nairobi, Kenya: Thomas Nelson and Sons, LTD, 1962) p. 249. | |
| 11. George M. Lamsa, Old Testament Light: The Indispensable Guide to the Customs, Manners, & Idioms of Biblical Times (New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1964) p. 177. | |
| 12. Lamsa, p. 182. | |
| 13. “Moloch, Cult of,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, Israel: Encyclopaedia Judaica Company, 1971) Volume 12, p. 232. | |
| 14. “Intermarriage,” The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York & London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1904) Volume VI, p. 611. | |
| 15. God’s Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever provides a documented dissertation identifying Israel with today’s Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and kindred peoples. God’s Covenant People may be read online, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $14 donation.* | |
| 16. For more concerning Yahweh’s New Covenant marital relationship with Christian Israelites, The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now? may be read online or ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $10 donation.* | |
| 17. Strong, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary,” p. 67. | |
| 18. Strong, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary,” p. 91. | |
| 19. Strong, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary,” p. 55. | |
| 20. “Ask Mike and Mary,” Home Life (Nashville, TN: Life Way Press, December 1995) p. 10. | |
| 21. God’s Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever provides a documented dissertation identifying Israel with today’s Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and kindred peoples. God’s Covenant People may be read online, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $14 donation.* | |
| 22. Cheryl Russell, “Most Americans Claim Religious Affiliation,” The Official Guide to the American Marketplace (Ithaca, NY: New Strategist Publications, Inc., 1995) p. 252. | |
| 23. Martin E. Marty, quoted by Tom Heinen, “Scholar sees strength in abundance of faiths,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Monday, April 26, 1999. | |
| 24. “Genocide,” Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (New York, NY: Random House, 2000) p. 547. | |
| 25. Gwynne Dyer, “Tiger Woods’ description of himself says it all. The future is light brown,” Winnipeg Free Press, Tuesday, May 6, 1997, p. A1. | |
| 26. Dyer, p. A1. | |
| 27. “Miscegenation,” The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia (New York, NY: The Century Co., 1900) Volume V, p. 3786. | |
| 28. Stephen Magagnini, “Working toward one race,” San Ramon Valley Times, November 2, 1997, p. A1. | |
| 29. Magagnini. | |
Please leave your thoughtful and Bible-based comments here: