Race is a blood relationship that can be succinctly and Biblically defined as a group of people sharing common descent from a particular man. As such, it is a pattern that repeats at any scale. In the broadest sense, there is one race, the race of Adam. In the narrowest sense, my son is of the race of me. In truth, the Bible doesn’t deal too much with races, but predominantly uses the broader concept of nations. A nation is a group of people sharing a common race, religion, location, and history. Simply put, the people of a nation share a common identity that forms the basis of a shared understanding.
A shared understanding is the foundation of any functioning community. This is a principle that works at any sociological scale, whether at the macro scale of nations or the micro scale of the family. A man and woman who do not understand each other and who do not possess a harmony of interests should not get married. Healthy, productive, and God-honoring communities are founded on similarity; dissimilarity breeds conflict. Those seeking a spouse should strive for the greatest degree of equal-yoking possible, whether measured by religion, race, location, language, culture, class, intellect, interests, age, etc.
God’s Law is revealed to us in summaries of broad moral principles. The Bible does not explicitly answer every possible moral question, but it nevertheless authoritatively speaks to every possible moral question by means of the necessary and logical consequence of what it does explicitly reveal. The Bible does not explicitly forbid a 16 year-old male orthodox Presbyterian, white English-speaking New Yorker, with a 130 IQ and hailing from an upper middle class family, from marrying an 85 year-old female Pentecostal, black Bantu-speaking Pygmy, with a 70 IQ, coming from the depths of poverty. Nevertheless, I hope we have the moral fortitude to call this something worse than just “a bad idea.” The Bible spends little time defining its terms, and much wisdom could be found simply in contemplating what a marriage is from the standpoint of ultimate purposes.
1. Marriages that are racially and ethnically homogeneous are Biblically normative. A number of verses can be utilized in making that case: Genesis 24:3-4, Genesis 27:46 – 28:9, Exodus 34:15-16, Leviticus 21:14, Numbers 25:1-9, Numbers 36, Deuteronomy 7:3-4, Joshua 23:12-13, Judges 3:5-6, Judges 14:3, I Kings 11:1-6, Ezra 9:1 – 10:44, Nehemiah 10:30, Nehemiah 13:23-27, and Ezekiel 44:22.
2. Adam’s poem upon the creation of Eve in Genesis 2, reads:
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”
Eve’s formation from Adam’s own flesh is a compelling creation pattern for all future marriages. The First Mention Principle of Biblical hermeneutics is: “God indicates in the first mention of a subject the truth with which that subject stands connected in the mind of God.” This is obviously the first instance of marriage, but what about the first instance of miscegenation? The one that comes to my mind is Esau’s polygamous marriage to two Hittite women (Genesis 26:34). These marriages greatly grieved Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 26:35, 27:46, 28:8). You could also make a case for Ishmael’s marriage to an Egyptian woman, but he was half Egyptian himself (Genesis 21:21). Speaking of which, that whole Abram/Hagar episode didn’t work out too well either.
3. Rushdoony’s exposition of unequal yoking is to the point:
…St. Paul referred to the broader meaning of these laws against hybridization, and against yoking an ox and an ass to a plow (Deut. 22:10), in II Corinthians 6:14: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” Unequal yoking plainly means mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers and is clearly forbidden. But Deuteronomy 22:10 not only forbids unequal religious yoking by inference, and as a case law, but also unequal yoking generally. This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong. Man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), and woman in the reflected image of God in man, and from man (I Cor. 11:1-12; Gen. 2:18, 21-23). “Helpmeet” means a reflection or mirror, an image of man, indicating that a woman must have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband. The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish.
Unequal yoking means more than marriage. In society at large it means the enforced integration of various elements which are not congenial. Unequal yoking is in no realm productive of harmony; rather, it aggravates the differences and delays the growth of the different elements toward a Christian harmony and association.
4. Shared identity is a key aspect of community, both on a smaller scale in marriage and on a larger scale in society. The thoughts, actions, and desires of other races are often mystifying, such that the shared understanding necessary for community remains elusive in heterogeneous associations. Husband and wife should be as similar as possible to reduce their potential sources of conflict. The natural consequence of similarity is a harmony of interests that promotes agreement and growth.
5. The progeny of mixed marriages often suffer identity problems. Simply put, they don’t look like either parent or either set of grandparents. The child does not fully belong to the race of either parent, and yet the typical result is that he ultimately identifies with the race of one to the exclusion of the other. The desire for belonging and association is strong, and it’s terribly selfish for parents to bring about offspring who, by nature, are likely to suffer alienation on so many levels. Faith in the near realization of a post-racial future is foolish in light of the millennia of human experience that militate against it, and to wager one’s own children on the basis of its eventual realization is irrational and irresponsible.
6. We fail to honor our father and mother when we marry someone so unlike them, and provide them with grandchildren who are likewise alien. It only takes one mixed marriage to distort many generations of the faithful practice by our forefathers of marrying of their own kind.
7. The principle of mixed marriage, if consistently applied, would result in the elimination of the distinct races. This is not dissimilar to hunting a species to extinction. As God’s image bearers, we exercise dominion as stewards over His creation. Our subordinate role as creatures exercising dominion, under His ultimate ownership, is one of regulation and maintenance, not as creators or destroyers. To meddle with the Creator’s design is to presumptuously claim His position as our own.
8. Miscegenation is often a form of self-justification, seeking to relieve the guilt of being white. This guilt is not a real guilt but a false guilt based on a non-Christian definition of sin. Race mixing is used as a form of burden-bearing and self-debasement to satisfy the wrath of the gods of egalitarianism. But while we are equal in humanity with the other races, we are not equal with the other races in achievement, natural talents, physical beauty, or in many other measures. Every race has its areas of natural superiority, and it is sinful to apologize to the world for the good gifts the Lord has seen fit to give us.
9. Interracial physical relationships are often based on a lascivious desire for the exotic, unusual, and forbidden. Interracial (IR) is a genre of pornography, even having sub-genres such as “Ebony & Ivory”, in which this unaesthetic, taboo-breaking perversion is highly fetishized. Further, physical union with those regarded as more barbaric, brutish, savage, or bestial, is a downward integration in which regeneration through chaos is sought in a revival of the spirit of the Bacchanalia. In an age in which public advocacy for formerly unmentionable perversions is now a matter of boring regularity, it is unsurprising that interracial relationships are also made subject to normalization.
10. We live in a time in which consciences have been seared, and should give close consideration to the beliefs of our forefathers as a safeguard against our own innovations into areas of potential moral madness. When the moral permissibility of a formerly forbidden activity is questioned, it is awfully arrogant to refuse the past a place at the table.
11. Support for mixed marriages is based on an intolerance for the diversity in God’s creation, seeking a monotonous oneness through amalgamation. When a culture rejects the transcendent unity we have in our common Creator, this vacuum is filled by the attempt to create an immanent unity. Distinctions and variety are a hindrance to this immanent unity.
12. A guilty, disharmonious people is an easily ruled people. There are those of other (((tribes))) who would sap us of our strengths and creative energies so that we may be easily dominated. This serves the purpose of those seeking to create a New World Order, with a one-world government, a one-world religion, and a one-world man. The “new man” is an inescapable category in all worldviews. Christianity’s new man is the redeemed man. Though not sinless while yet alive, his natural orientation to sin has changed. The NWO’s new man tends to be mocha-colored and easily dominated. He is impersonal, a drop integrating with an ocean. He is decontextualized, without a history, without a people, without soil. He is cosmopolitan, having no true loyalties beyond the all-consuming State.