Interracial Marriage not a good idea

[faithofjob777]

says the author.  While I respect his opinion, I also want to dissect the validity of his arguments.  Regarding white racism, he says this:

Racism can at times be a serious problem.  In Matthew 5, Jesus compares feelings of contempt for others with murder.

We must admit that all groups harbor racist individuals, those who hate in their heart on the basis of race.  The frequency of truly racist individuals is debatable[3], but before we can accept Piper’s assertion, we must see some data that shows white racism to be of greater frequency than other groups.  May I propose a dataset implied by Christ Himself?  If racist individuals are more prone to violence, and white Americans are especially prone to be racist, then surely crime statistics would show massive levels of white-on-black violent crime.

In August 1999 African-American conservative commentator Walter Williams reported[4] on a study that showed that 90% of interracial violent crime involved a black perpetrator and white victim.  The same study found that, after adjusting for blacks’ proportion of the population, blacks were 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa.

Perhaps the ultimate hateful act is that of rape, a crime for which there is no payoff beyond the gratification of hurting the object of one’s contempt.  The statistics for rape are even worse, showing that black-on-white rape is 120 times as prevalent as white-on-black rape[5].

Now, it is outside the scope of this work to debate the ultimate causes of these crime rate differentials, but the data show that racism among whites and blacks, to the extent it manifests itself as violent interracial crime, must necessarily

http://generation5.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/reconsidering-interracial-marriage-the-christian-case-for-intra-racial-marriage-part-four/#comment-51

This is the same article that uses arguments of potential medical morbidities as a valuable deterrent to interracial marriages.  But as I have thought about in the other thread, this is not appropriate, since intraracial marriages can be fraught with medical complications too.  I praise God for giving us the wisdom in realizing there is more to this issue, than mere examples of physical diseases associated with either kind of marriage.

While racism can tend to more violence, the violence does not always take the same form.  This is where I think the author falters again.  It is not in mere rape, murder or any other recognized violent crime that one's hatred for another race can manifest itself.  It can also be in various forms of injustice or slavery. 

In Scripture, the ancient Romans and Egyptians had their own racism towards the Jews, but it showed through preferential treatment for their own kind, while imposing oppressive taxes and other onerous laws on the Israelies.  In short, murder, rape, and the like do not have to necessarily constitute a racist's dislike for other races.  It can also come in the form of malicious gossiping, slander, and certain acts that would involve unjust scales in business and other areas in life.  Indeed, there are always certain kinds of racists around the world who are just more sophisticated in acting righteously.  They are masters of being actors and actresses in their dramas and speeches, while still harboring the same kind of dark hatred in their own hearts.

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

Thus, God has organized men into three primary spheres of identity: family, tribe and nation.  For 99.99% of people throughout human history, one’s tribe and perhaps one’s nation contained the total universe of potential spouses[7].  When we ponder the wisdom of the previously unprecedented possibility of mass interracial marriage, it is not appropriate to justify such a position as normative based on what may be a few Biblical exceptions to a widely established historical norm.

Even these purported exceptions, such as the “Ethiopian” wife of Moses, may not be as they seem.  Let us examine a few Biblical case studies.

http://generation5.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/reconsidering-interracial-marriage-the-christian-case-for-intra-racial-marriage-part-one/

I agree with this statement by the author, though I will also say that we can make the argument that Israel is a physical nation in the Old Testament, while the Israel of God through Christ is what the final fulfillment as we build His kingdom on earth now.  And an integral part of its fulfillment is by separating the tribe of Christ from the tribe of Satan, which is foreshadowed by the ancient Israelites separating themselves from the heathen tribes around them.  And since the tribe of Christ is not by flesh, but by the regeneration of the Spirit, even mixed marriages among Christians can wisely show this very crucial truth.

But what about the twelve tribes?  They are now represented by the twelve apostles as foundational in our understanding of God's kingdom; we do not naively follow the bloodlines of these apostles to trace ourselves back to them, do we?

This reminds me of how Roman Catholics find the woman of Revelation 12 to be Mary.  It makes logical sense to them, since it is consistent with the queen mother of Israel being honored in the Old Testament.  The point being that, if we prefer certain things over the priority of who the Israel of God is, then we would necessarily want literal tribes or Mary to be very necessary meanings of how Israel as nation or mother should be.  Of course Roman Catholics do not deny the Israel of God as being the bride of Christ; they just find it equally important to put much more emphasis on the glories and crowns of Mary.  In the same vein, it may soon appear that kinists do understand who the Israel of God is; it is just that tribalism based on physical attributes also deserve to be exalted for its own crowning glories.

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

I am going through my own posttheonomic phase, and this dying (dead) forum is the final podium for me stating this is so.  I will always follow theonomy, but without associating myself with kinists who can go crazy with their assumptions.

The author in blog entry 2 says this:

The mainstream of Christian and Jewish thought confirms that Moses was the husband of one wife, Zipporah, who was of Semitic, Abrahamic descent; alternative explanations of Numbers 12, implying that Moses was a polygamist who married a sub-Saharan African, are suspect because they have only been promoted as a sophistic device by those already committed to a pre-ordained agenda of interracial marriage.

What does this mean?  I can also say that the interpretation of Zipporah's identity by kinists "are suspect because they have only been promoted as a sophistic device by those already committed to a pre-ordained agenda of intraracial marriage."  More specifically, I will just assert that their interpretation of medical illnesses from interracial marriages is by a sophistic device, to promote their "preordained agenda of intraracial marriage."  

Anyone can play this game.

I like the example of Zipporah, because everyone will agree that she is from Midian.  One value of Midian is how it seems to stand similarly to Jericho; for even while Zipporah was married to Moses, the entire Midianite tribe was eventually crushed by God.  Jericho faced the same fate, after  which Rahab became accepted not only as part of Israel, but also as a notable ancestor of Jesus Christ.

The author uses the word "exception" (in contrast to the norm), and I do agree.  In one very important sense, both women are exceptions.  But they are very significant exceptions that pretty much depict how the elect are regarding their own unique destinies.

God has described Israel as that exception, being a pagan child of an Amorite and a Hittite (Ezekiel 16:1-3).  She was despicable and no one really would care for her, except God alone (v. 5).  Zipporah and Rahab are further examples of people coming from utterly wretched tribes that God would destroy.  I do believe that they are additional evidences of our already abounding hope in God's compassion towards us, even though we, our families, and our nations have also been unworthy of His love.  

So I would suggest that it is not so much that the marriage of Zipporah to Moses was an intraracial or interracial one.  One can argue for one or the other, using his own sophistic devices. Perhaps one better lesson is that which we can also gain from the story of Rahab, and our own.  It is a reflection of the amazing grace of God to sovereignly redeem and betrothe to Himself any person born of any wicked tribe or nation.  To this end, mixed marriages among Christians can wisely point, such that they need not be treated as being so unwise.

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

THE MOABITES WIPED OUT?

The kinist blogger says this:

Ruth As a Moabite
A less-used example of purported interracial marriage is the marriage of Ruth, described as a Moabite, to Boaz.  This is a very weak claim of interracial marriage.  The Moabites were the descendents of Moab, a son of Lot (Genesis 19:37), and thus a kindred Semitic group to the Israelites.

In addition, Ruth may have herself actually been an Israelite.  Biblical history shows that the Moabites were wiped out by the Amorites (Numbers 21:26-29) and the Amorites subsequently wiped out by the Israelites (Deuteronomy 2:23-43, Numbers 21:33-35), and the land occupied by the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Manessah (Deuteronomy 3:12-16 and 29:.  Thus it is likely that Ruth’s being known as a Moabite was a mere geographic term of convenience, much like Moses’ being referred to as an “Egyptian” in Exodus 2:19.  While much remains unexplained (for example, how Ruth was not religiously an Israelite until her marriage, though apostasy to foreign gods was not an uncommon state for racial Israelites in the Old Testament), it is clear Biblically that Ruth could not have been a racial Moabite, despite her residing in that territory.

http://generation5.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/reconsidering-interracial-marriage-the-christian-case-for-intra-racial-marriage-part-two/

I do not think the Moabites were completely extinguished during the time of the judges.  Their fate was not like that of the Amorites, since God was clear in Deuteronomy 2 how the Moabites should be treated by Israel:

Deuteronomy 2:8-9  And when we passed by from our brethren the children of Esau, which dwelt in Seir, through the way of the plain from Elath, and from Eziongaber, we turned and passed by the way of the wilderness of Moab. And the LORD said unto me, Distress not the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their land for a possession; because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession.

God said the same for Edom and Ammon.  By God's providence, these other tribes were not to be attacked by Israel.  Numbers 21 does talk about the Amorites subduing the Moabites---but it seems not to be to the point of total annihiliation. We can argue that the command of God in Deuteronomy predates what happened in Numbers; but it still doesn't fly, because we still Eglon King of Moab in the Book of Judges (chapter 3).  Eglon had an alliance with the Ammonites and Amalekites.  Are we supposed to believe that the other two tribes still remained, while Moab disappeared?  Or is it that what happened to Moab in Numbers 21 is her subduing by the Amorites and not her annihilation, just as Moab would also be subdued again in Judges 3, this time by Israel?

Judges 3:28-29  And he said unto them, Follow after me: for the LORD hath delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand. And they went down after him, and took the fords of Jordan toward Moab, and suffered not a man to pass over. And they slew of Moab at that time about ten thousand men, all lusty, and all men of valour; and there escaped not a man.  So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. And the land had rest fourscore years..

This is the time of Judges, the time of Ruth. We just have way too much evidence to learn that the Moabites still existed in the land, and even more possible that Ruth came from Moab as Scriptures clearly say she did.  It was such a syncretistic time, and hence she did not bother worshipping the God of Israel until her own eyes were opened.  This is in contrast to Orphah, who seemed to have gone back to her own people (the Moabites) and her own gods, as Naomi noted (Ruth 1:15).

As for Moab, we have the words from the prophet Isaiah:

Isaiah 16:13-14  This is the word that the LORD hath spoken concerning Moab since that time. But now the LORD hath spoken, saying, Within three years, as the years of an hireling, and the glory of Moab shall be contemned, with all that great multitude; and the remnant shall be very small and feeble.

The remnant of Moab being very small and feeble is not the same as being "wiped out" (to use the kinist's words).  Nor did the final diminution of Moab happen before the time Ruth was born.  It was long after she was dead, as ordained by God. This judgment upon Moab found in Isaiah 16 cannot be in relation to Israelites residing in Moab, since God refers specifically to Israel as Jacob or Judah (and other names) in many other chapters, while also singling out Moab, Damascus, Ethiopia, Egypt, Elam, Tyre, and Babylon.

As much as I do not wish to be so negative about it, the kinist seems to be doing his very best to read into nature and Scripture what he wants, even if it means getting his facts all wrong about physical illnesses and Moab.  This is disheartening.

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

FINAL WORDS ABOUT THIS KINIST

On the separation from foreign wives stated in the book of Nehemiah:

Most contemporary Biblical commentators spiritualize this passage, emphasizing that the separation was of a religious, not racial or ethnic, nature.  However, the verses make no exception for foreign wives or children who have converted.  For the absolute separation described in Scripture (“Then those of Israelite lineage separated themselves from all foreigners; and they stood and confessed their sins and the iniquities of their fathers” Nehemiah 9:2) to be purely spiritual, we would have to believe that not a single foreign wife or child converted to the Israelite faith.  In addition, surely some of the children would have been infants, incapable of belief, perhaps some of them circumcised; yet these too were ordered to be put away.

This spiritualizing interpretation also conflicts with Paul’s elucidation of the Law in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, where he explicitly forbids divorce of unbelievers except in cases of abandonment.  Since God’s Law is the same at all times and places, how is it that a divorce of a non-believer is permitted in Nehemiah and cited as a righteous act of repentance but is then forbidden as a sin by Paul?

The only explanation that does not implicate a contradiction is that the “putting away” in Nehemiah was of a different kind with a different basis than the marriages referred to by Paul (all of which, in Corinth, were likely intra-racial intra-ethnic marriages among the Gentiles there).

We must be careful here theologically about proving too much.  All I seek to show is that God has at times protected and cared for Israel on a racial and not exclusively religious basis.  This can help show that racial

http://generation5.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/reconsidering-interracial-marriage-the-christian-case-for-intra-racial-marriage-part-two/

I do like his final statement.  It is a word of caution not to prove too much.  I just wish he followed his own warning.  The funny thing is, I AM for a type of kinism, but with the liberty that Christians should have if they should choose that route.  They shouldn't be unjustly branded as racists.  If they so want to preserve their own ethnic and cultural identity in honor of Christ through marriage in their own ethnic group, then they should be free to do so.  There is also great beauty in that, for indeed, we have been created with many distinct features that we should be personally proud about.  That is further exemplified in Scripture by the actual preservation of many nations and their identities as we are all fully glorified with Christ.

My only disagreement is how kinism has been defended by this author.  I have often been sloppy in my arguments, and perhaps this is why I can see how sloppy he is too.  He does not have to be so defensive to the point of mangling the facts.  Sadly, there is a trend, and this seems to be what has happened in his understanding of what happened during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.

We are not told whether God truly approved of what they did with their foreign wives and children.  And with good reason: we are being taught by God to make righteous judgment.  The stunning ending of this episode is so open-ended, with many questions unanswered.  What about the infants, the children?  Why was it not mentioned that provisions and safety were provided for them and their mothers after they were cast away?

Because God chose to reveal these things.  We are not to be distracted, but rather, we should be focused on how far people will go to obey the commandmens of God.  The blogger mentions Nehemiah 9:2, and after making some other arguments, he then assumes that it was not merely something spiritual, but more racial as the reason for the separation of the Israelites from the foreigners. 

But he should then mention what Nehemiah said in chapter 13:

Nehemiah 13:23-27  In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab:  And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people.  And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, 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? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin. Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?

It is the content in Ezra's prayer a few years before:

Ezra 9:10-12  And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments, 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.  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.

Nehemiah and Ezra both understood the reason behind the commandment of God regarding marrying pagans: it was racial AND spiritual.  Since Israel was supposed to be God's chosen race strengthened spiritually and physically by His truths, any kind of marriage or undertaking that would serve to undermine this, must be avoided.  This included marrying pagan women, which sadly, King Solomon in all his supposed wisdom wrongly did. 

So the kinist is right, but I think he tried to prove too much his own theory.  He actually assumed that the bible story about the foreign wives was only racial, and not spiritual.  He should at least have precisely reconciled his understanding of Nehemiah 9 with the words of Nehemiah in chapter 13 regarding the same issue.  The separation cannot be purely racial, since it is also included in God's commandments for the Israelites to be kind and hospitable to strangers in their own land.  The stranger must be respected to dwell in Israel, long as he is willing to follow the commandments of God:

Exodus 22:21  Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Leviticus 18:24-26  Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you.

As for the commandment given by the apostle Paul, I think we simply have to remember that there is a difference between a group of people who should be out of bondage, versus a group of people still coming out of bondage.  There is no contradiction.  It also does not imply that the separation in the time of Nehemiah was purely racial, while in the time of the apostle Paul, it was religious.

Rather, I would say this:

If a nonbelieving Jew had a nonbelieving wife, and he then believed in Christ, should he immediately divorce his wife?  The answer is no.  The gospel is such that the nonbelieving wife is sanctified by her husband.  He can be the vessel leading to her own redemption.  He will serve like Jesus; the Son of God came in the flesh to provide redemption to His own Body and Bride, despite their initial unbelief.

This situation is very different from the situation in Nehemiah's time however, wherein the question is this: if a supposedly believing Jew had a nonbelieving wife, should he have married her even after fully knowing it would compromise his faith, as it did King Solomon's?  This is what Nehemiah implicitly asked.  The answer is no, he should not have married her.  The issue is not redemption, but separation of one's self from any type of wickedness.  It would be similar to a Christian choosing to marry a Muslim; why would he choose to do that, already knowing what typically happens in mixed marriages with nonbelievers?

So it depends on the question.  The apostle Paul still converges with Nehemiah and Ezra, because he then also says that the Christian is not obliged to stay in the marriage if the nonbelieving spouse chooses to separate from him.  Necessary separation commanded in the Scriptures is fulfilled; true holiness is preserved as the Christian then seeks a truly righteous mate.

Jaime

[BB10]

I don't understand why you are bothering to read this racist drivel.

[faithofjob777]

Be careful, Bill, is all I will say.  

It was very difficult for me to do this.  It was recommended by someone at Facebook, someone you very well know and respect.  His group praised the article, one person calling it excellent.  I was stupefied, not because I considered the series racist, but because it was just so sloppy to me.  I cannot say anything more other than that.

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

I already expect that the supposed excellence of the article will be defended either here, or elsewhere by anyone who does find its arguments very compelling.  All I care about is proper use and application of Scripture, which I have enjoyed learning from Rushdoony most of the time.  But not from this series though.  It was a very big letdown.

There is a kinist whom I like, which is my Caucasian friend in Texas.  He also adheres to ethnical exclusivity among Christians, but he drew a distinct line: if he were almost equally attracted in a physical sense to a black and a white female Christian, and he has to choose between them, his choice will be determined by the spiritual maturity of the woman.  That is, if the white Christian is statist while the black Christian is for true freedom, then hands down, he will choose the black Christian---especially since the black Christian simply exudes such as Christlike fragrance in her walk and knowledge that he just cannot resist. I see how he will not shun the possibility of marrying the black Christian, because her beauty is like the Shunammite in the Song of Solomon---very dark complexion perhaps, but just physically and spiritually beautiful in every which way.

For him, kinism takes a back seat, as in way back, compared to the much greater value and beauty of spiritual maturity of a person regarding the most important things in the kingdom of God.

Jaime

[BB10]

One of my daughters is biracial.  I have been over this subject many times over the last 20+ years.  Christians separating from other Christians on the basis of race or ethnicity (including the forbidding of intermarriage) has no place any any church that I would belong to. 

[Tyleragain]

So this is what the death rattle of the board sounds like: Jaime pontificating on thinly veiled racist propaganda. If it weren't for all the good that I got from this board over the years, I'd say good riddance.

[faithofjob777]

So this is what the death rattle of the board sounds like: Jaime pontificating on thinly veiled racist propaganda. If it weren't for all the good that I got from this board over the years, I'd say good riddance.

Ouch!  At least you are spiritually mature enough to consider the good things you have learned from this board, despite my pontification.

I gather you find nothing worthwhile, scriptural, or virtuous in what I said in my verbal diarrhea (what a diarrhea it is indeed).  I have to accept that.  The good thing for me is, I am increasingly at peace that God is our final judge about this. This is why I can accept what you say. 

What I find myself guilty about is how I have been irresponsible about many other things, and here I go pontificating.  That indeed, has always been my much bigger problem.  I do not think it is my knowledge, even if you try to destroy my credibility in sharing that knowledge; it is my way of living my life as a Christian outside this board.  So if it is not too much to ask, I do request prayers about that.

The monkeydoctor shaking the death rattle of this board,

Jaime

[Threshing Flora]

So this is what the death rattle of the board sounds like: Jaime pontificating on thinly veiled racist propaganda. If it weren't for all the good that I got from this board over the years, I'd say good riddance.

In less than 40 words you have pontificated more than Jaime in his 40 (give or take) posts.

His purpose was to try to deconstruct arguments and demonstrate how they are not supported by Scripture.  

What was your purpose?  To make him feel ashamed for somehow diminishing your board experience?

[Threshing Flora]

What I find myself guilty about is how I have been irresponsible about many other things, and here I go pontificating.  

Jaime, don’t.

This is a self-selecting board with self-selecting threads.  If people want different content, then they are free to provide it.  

What exactly was your offense here anyway? Interacting with the arguments of those you disagree with?

Off with your head, then.  Don’t you know? When it comes to race and racism, you don’t make or refute arguments -- you make accusations.

[faithofjob777]

Hey thanks, Andrea.  I am appreciative of Tyler's comment, if only to make me think about my verbal diarrhea.    And as if as a joke from God, I actually had to go see a new patient in the geriatric psychiatry unit of our little hospital after I made my post  Of course, I had the personal experience of more verbal diarrhea...from patients with dementia.

Puritans are notorious with their long essays and sermons, peppered with so much Scripture to prove one point and its various ramifications.  They can sound demented to unregenerate people, because their use of God's Word is in its true power as heavenly language coming down to bless the earth. Unregenerate people do not see that, and all they see from the Puritans is verbose pontification of things that they find meaningless and ridiculous to ponder.

Now I am not a Puritan; I am nowhere close in emulating their godly wisdom and behavior.  But despite their imperfections and sins, they do serve as one of my models.   And I believe that even my naive and exaggerated attempts to be scriptural like them is like a like child seeking his best to draw beautiful pictures to show to his heavenly father, and hopefully make his father proud.  And even if indeed my very best is more demented than Puritan, I would still hope for His blessings and love to make me better, while He rebukes me for my dumb mistakes and poor discipline as well.

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

What I find myself guilty about is how I have been irresponsible about many other things, and here I go pontificating.  

Jaime, don’t.

This is a self-selecting board with self-selecting threads.  If people want different content, then they are free to provide it.  

What exactly was your offense here anyway? Interacting with the arguments of those you disagree with?

Off with your head, then.  Don’t you know? When it comes to race and racism, you don’t make or refute arguments -- you make accusations.

I agree.  It is like my use of the word "the illegals" as a title of a thread was automatically so demeaning, even when the content in the thread itself was not even dissected.  It is indeed about the power to make blanket accusations when one steps out of political correctness this fallen society dictates. To wit, they are not illegals or illegal immigrants; they are "undocumented people", many of whom are hardworking Christians.

It is not about making or refuting of arguments anymore.  It is all about saying politically correct words and statements.  


Jaime