On Interracial Marriage: The Moral Status of Miscegenation

Introduction

Miscegenation, more commonly called interracial marriage, is one of the touchiest subjects about which one can speak today. There is widespread pressure, coming from both Christians and non-Christians alike, urging people towards the claimed goodness of racial diversity within marriage. For instance, John Piper contends that “interracial marriage is not only permitted by God but is a positive good in our day.”¹ Similarly, secular humanist Paul Kurtz gives a more comprehensive and forthright affirmation of miscegenation when he states, “The highest good, as I see it, is intermarriage between people of different ethnicities, races, religions, and cultures.”²

Against views like these, it is rare to hear an opposing opinion today, and this is usually because any opposition to miscegenation — even saying merely that it is not a good idea — receives accusations of racism or, if the voice of opposition is a white person, white supremacy. Opposition to interracial marriage, especially if coming from a white person, is usually interpreted to entail hatred of other races. Allegedly, the only reason people would be opposed to marrying those of other races is because they have hatred or animosity for other races. It is because of this allegation that any opposition to miscegenation has been thoroughly and censoriously silenced. Despite such censoring — or perhaps, because of it — it is vital that we thoroughly understand the topic, rather than passively accepting anything with which our unbelieving culture and media might try to inculcate us.

The Historic American Opinion on Interracial Marriage

Before venturing into the subject itself, it would be profitable to understand what others, especially Christians, have thought of miscegenation. The subject is presented today as if it were quite obvious that interracial marriage is both permissible and positively good. It is tacitly assumed that everyone has thought the same way in history, except for a few evil men who thought otherwise due to racial bigotry and especially to “ignorance,” as the accusation often goes. But, shockingly enough, it is only a fairly recent view that interracial marriage should be encouraged.

While the general rarity of biracial individuals today should immediately inform us that interracial marriages are relatively new in history, it is still helpful to look into the stated opinions of men of the past. However, since little ink was spilled on the topic of interracial marriage before separate races even lived amongst each other, I will not be going back terribly far in history, just to the seventeenth century and onward.

The first set of facts which are remarkably significant is the legislation of earlier times. Legislation and criminalization are not things which just appear among a people; they require a substantive consent of the populace (or apathy). Without popular consent, laws will inevitably change. Yet, what is noteworthy here is the persistence of anti-miscegenation legislation for a very large portion of American history. One of the earliest examples of this is Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law of 1691, which forbade the marriage of whites with any non-whites. Similarly, Massachusetts forbade miscegenation by law in 1705, North Carolina in 1715, South Carolina in 1717, Delaware in 1721, Louisiana in 1724, and on and on. Some states, which were formed later in America’s history, still had sufficient popular opinion to illegalize interracial marriage even into the twentieth century, e.g. Montana in 1909. In sum, over 40 states had laws forbidding the marriage of whites with non-whites (though not all laws prohibited marriages with every type of non-white).³ This clearly shows the historic opinion of Americans on the matter.

Besides these laws, which show themselves to be of great weight when considering the propriety of interracial marriage, I would like to look at one specific example of an anti-miscegenation opinion. I have in mind Muhammad Ali, the famous black boxer. He clearly could not be accused of white supremacy for being against miscegenation. In a speech he delivered in 1968, Muhammad Ali said quite directly that all white men and women “in their right minds” would oppose miscegenation, and then he said the same about blacks as well (watch the video here). He shows us a stark example of a black man who, when all the talk of racial integration and black civil rights was on the American political landscape, still viewed miscegenation as unnatural and wrong — and his audience did not brand him as racist and bigoted for doing so. More importantly, he helped to provide more of a rationale behind his position. “We don’t hate those of you who are white. We just want to stay black.” According to Muhammad Ali, opposition to interracial marriage need have nothing to do with animosityagainst other races, so much as having pride and love for one’s own race. This rationale is important to acknowledge as we investigate the moral status of miscegenation.

Consider how America, including blacks, has historically opposed miscegenation. Consider also that many more examples than those above could likewise be produced. I think it is clear that when we discern whether America has morally improved from then until now, it raises serious questions as to the permissibility of interracial marriage today. Is it really sensible to believe that, among all the radical changes in the social fabric of our nation heretofore, most of which have led to severe moral decadence, the changes associated with race and miscegenation have been moral improvements?

The Structure of the Debate

The way the debate over miscegenation is normally construed, the allowed views are basically these: either one believes that interracial marriage is wrong in all circumstances, or one believes that interracial marriage is wrong in no circumstances. However, although the debate is usually construed that way, it is rarely stated that way (i.e. in those exact terms), since it is so obvious that there is a middle ground between “wrong in all circumstances” and “wrong in no circumstances.” Often the debate will be stated as whether interracial marriage is sinful or not, when the meaning of “sinful” is “wrong in all circumstances.” It is unfortunate and misleading that the debate is so often construed that way, but it is just a matter of fact that it is.

For example, when confronted with an argument against interracial marriage, it is not uncommon that an advocate of miscegenation will ask in reply, “But wouldn’t you rather your daughter marry a Christian of another race than an unbeliever of the same race?” The proper choice between those two, of course, is to select the believing spouse of a different race. Thus, this hypothetical advocate of miscegenation will have proven that there are some circumstances (albeit rare ones) in which interracial marriage is permissible; but his error exposes itself when he then presumes that because miscegenation can be appropriate in such unordinary circumstances, then it must be inherently appropriate in all circumstances.⁴

The potentiality that interracial marriage could be wrong in some circumstances needs to be kept in mind here. The answer could lie somewhere on the continuum between “wrong in all circumstances” and “wrong in no circumstances.” It could be, when all is said and done, that miscegenation is wrong in no circumstances whatsoever; it could be that it is wrong in basically all circumstances, extraordinary situations excepted. Whatever the answer is, we must understand that it can lie along a continuum, rather than accepting the false dilemma that interracial marriage must be wrong in either all or no circumstances.

The Witness of Scripture

Any reasonably pious Christian will view the light of Scripture as the inerrant and perfect means by which we approach truth on any issue, and therefore he would presumably desire to know what the Bible has to say about the topic of interracial marriage. Advocates of miscegenation will often make claims that Scripture does mention, and even encourages, interracial marriage. They will sometimes cite the example of Moses and his Cushite wife of Numbers 12, among others. It is not the intention of this article to cover all such alleged instances; but suffice it to say that such passages have not been utilized to encourage miscegenation until very recently in church history, and that other sources have well explained how they do not.⁵ While some advocates of miscegenation might think that Scripture directly and clearly supports their case, I do not appeal to any particular Scriptural passage as the be-all and end-all answer. I maintain that, while Scripture does lend firm support to the anti-miscegenation position, it does not strictly and straightforwardly deal with the topic of interracial marriage. It gives us several helpful parameters, but it simply does not leave the topic to be solved purely by the Bible.

One of the main passages in Scripture concerning whom Christians ought to marry is 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, where St. Paul urges Christians to not be “unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” The direct and obvious import of this passage is that believers ought not to marry unbelievers, for doing so is a clear instance of unequal yoking. Yet, theologian R.J. Rushdoony provides more insight into the passage:

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. . . . 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.⁶

Rushdoony here is noting that, although this passage teaches no strict prohibition on interracial marriage, there is a preponderance against it. Since it is an introduction of uncongenial diversity into an institution, marriage, which thrives on unity, miscegenation has a tendency to work against harmony, and is in this sense abnormal. Rushdoony appeals to the Old Testament legislation against hybridization in order to make this point. Presumably he is operating off of the correct principle that the Old Testament case laws, including those regarding cattle, were meant for our benefit today in their application to human affairs (1 Cor. 9:8-10). At any rate, even if it were not stated in Scripture, it is already obvious to us that it is desirable to “have something in common” with our spouses, and, therefore, it is evident that miscegenation tends, to a certain extent, unto marital disunity.

A second point to consider is the bearing of ethnonationalism on the status of miscegenation. I will not spend time discussing the doctrine’s biblical foundations here as that has already been covered at length elsewhere, but I will look at its implications. If nations are defined along ethnic lines, such that any attempt to define nations otherwise is abnormal (if not sinful), then it follows that sub-units of nations, families, should likewise be ethnically homogeneous. If it is unnatural to consider nations as ethnically heterogeneous, then it also should be unnatural to consider families as ethnically heterogeneous. Of course, if something is abnormal or unnatural, it does not follow that it is always sinful, but this premise still carries moral weight — namely, because it is sinful and contrary to God’s will to value the natural and the unnatural equally. (For instance, it is not sinful to experience pain, but it is sinful to view pain to be equally as valuable as pleasure.) This, like the point above, provides a moral preponderance against interracial marriages.

A third point is the existence of racial diversity in eternity. According to the book of Revelation, the “nations” will be represented in heaven. For instance, John says, “After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands” (7:9). He also speaks of the plurality of nations in 5:9; 14:6; 15:4; and 21:24. (Compare this with the Great Commission delivered to the nations in Matt. 28:19.)

This opposes the more-or-less commonly held eschatological view today that humanity will inevitably but eventually “bleed into one” and become one homogeneous coffee-colored race.⁷ Against this, we should understand the divinely decreed fact that racial and national diversity will exist in heaven. But, once we acknowledge that, then we must understand that actions taken to undermine such a decree are sinful. This, of course, does not ipso facto entail that all interracial marriage is sinful, but, as above, it places a moral preponderance against it. We should view intra-racial and intra-ethnic marriages as the norm, since we would otherwise facilitate and enable such a project of vast racial mixing.

Note, also, one more implication from the fact that racial diversity will be in heaven: our physical identity is not obliterated by our spiritual identity in Christ, nor is it obliterated by our spiritual union with Christians of other races. Often Christians will appeal to verses like Gal. 3:28, which states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” They might use this to argue that ethnic or racial distinctions are meaningless in Christ, and therefore that it could be only a sign of bigotry to oppose interracial marriages between Christians. Against this, however, one can notice that while racial distinctions are meaningless when it comes to one’s spiritual standing in Christ — one is either justified by faith, or he is not — it does not follow that such distinctions are meaningless in all things. For example, we understand that the genders are still significant in some ways (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:11-12), even if being a particular gender does not automatically improve one’s spiritual state. Like gender, race is something that God has created as part of His creation: the diversity of people-groups is a beautiful thing, made good, and He wishes to preserve that in heaven. We should not try to counteract this with widespread intermarriage.

Fourthly, Scripture contains specific prohibitions on intermarriage between Israel and other nations (e.g., Deut. 7:3). These prohibitions were given specifically to Israel, and not to mankind as a whole, so their citation should not be seen as promoting an absolute ethical forbiddance of all interracial marriage. Further, it is evident that the primary motivation in these commandments was religious, not racial or ethnic; the purpose of avoiding intermarriage was for religious purity (e.g., Ex. 34:16). Yet, it still is significant that the commands were done along ethnic lines. Israel was forbidden from marrying other nations, not just unbelievers in the abstract. In principle, Israelites could not marry some foreigners, even if the foreigners were to be believers. This can have import today: there might be danger in marrying into other ethnic groups, even apart from whether the marriages might be interreligious or not. Race should likewise be a factor of consideration for marriages today, rather than disregarded as insignificant.

Intermarriage with foreigners is treated as particularly grievous in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. When it was discovered that many Israelites had intermarried with foreign wives — note again, not necessarily unbelieving, but foreign — Ezra reacted furiously (Ezra 9:1-3), and later commanded that the foreign wives and children be “put away,” or separated (10:1-3, 9-11). Later, similar events occur in Nehemiah (Neh. 9:1-3; 10:28-30; 13:23-27), and Israel separates from the foreigners in response to the naturalization laws of Deut. 23:3-4 (13:1-3). These examples show the prophets to be concerned with more than mere religion. They divided along the lines of nationality (ethnicity), not just religion. We should likewise understand race to be an important and God-created factor when it comes to marriage today.

Before moving on, I want to anticipate one common objection to the idea that race can be a factor of consideration in marriage. The objection is based on 1 Cor. 7:39, where Paul states that a widow “is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” The objection is that, based on this passage, the only restriction on marriage is religious: “only in the Lord.” However, it can be disputed whether “in the Lord” means “so long as the potential spouse is a believer.” Given that we are aware of certain perspicuous marital restrictions involving believers (for instance, a widow may not marry her biological son, even if he is a believer), then we can know that “in the Lord” has a broader scope. More likely, it refers to the total constraints of God’s law; but as soon as that is conceded, the objection to the opponent of miscegenation crumbles.

In sum, I doubt that Scripture presents itself as saying, “Thou shalt not interracially marry,” but neither does this mean that such marriages are universally permissible. The above evidence would lead us to proclaim that interracial marriages are, at the very least, unnatural, and that they should thus be approached with caution, instead of fervor or praise.  

The Witness of Nature

Central to Christianity is the doctrine that the Lord reveals Himself not only in Scripture but in nature. He formed the created order, and therefore it is a revelation of Himself. “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork” (Ps. 19:1).  This raises a point that is obvious for some, but neglected in practice for many: we are not to live our lives in isolation from God’s natural revelation, confining ourselves only to His supernatural revelation (i.e., Scripture). Instead, we are to see them both as springs of information from the Creator. We are to live our lives in the created order, in light of the glorious guidance God provides us in His Word — but we are not to thereby study only Scripture, and close our eyes to the created order. Far from it: we are to thereby see the created order with much more clarity, awe, and reverence!

One doctrine on which many Christians completely neglect God’s natural revelation is race. Many Christians will believe the nice-sounding phrase that “there is only one race, the human race.” More particularly, they will hold to such a view as the default or the norm, and be willing to change to a view of racial realism only if one provides Scripture proofs that race exists. This is a perfect example of ignoring natural revelation and confining oneself to supernatural revelation. It is crystal clear that God has created and ordained the racial distinctions that exist among mankind. To deny this is akin to denying that different breeds of dog exist. No sensible Christian would require a Scripture to prove the biodiversity of animals; neither should he require a Scripture to prove the biodiversity of humans.⁸

In Romans 1:26, Paul describes homosexual activity as being “against nature.” When we consider certain sins like homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc., we easily understand them to be not only immoral, but just plain unnatural. Besides being sinful, there is a distinct way in which such acts go against the way that humans are designed or constituted. Unless our consciences are seared to accept the unnatural as natural, we normally perceive these distinctions — so long as our consciences are functioning properly. But such a natural reaction results from viewing an interracial couple. Apart from the moral issue, there is something distinctly unnatural about pairing together two people whom God sovereignly placed in different subsets of mankind.

Yet, once we understand the unnaturalness of such acts as distinct from their moral standing, we can also understand how this is related to their immorality. Although something can be unnatural and morally permissible (e.g. having six fingers on one hand), there still is a general relation between unnaturalness and immorality, especially when actions (rather than bodily conditions, like fingers) are in view. As mentioned above, this can be summarily stated as the doctrine that we should not value the natural and the unnatural equally. We should be more inclined towards what is natural. To view the natural and the unnatural as interchangeable — to view intra-racial and interracial marriage as equally normal and workable — is itself sinful. Though interracial marriage might be permissible in various circumstances, it does not follow that it is to be valued as equally natural and normative in all circumstances.

There is more to be said about natural revelation, however. When we understand, as I mentioned above, that race is real, and when we further understand that Jehovah’s decrees are purposeful and teleological, then it follows that God intentionally made the different races of mankind, and moreover, that He intentionally made the exact number of races of mankind.⁹ God created racial diversity for a good purpose (Acts 17:26-27), and did not intend for the diversity He created to be undone through amalgamation. Interestingly, this was the specific reasoning of Leon Bazile, the judge whose 1959 anti-miscegenation decision was overturned in the Loving v. Virginia case of 1967:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.¹⁰

This is important: the premise of racial realism immediately points us to the conclusion that racial amalgamation is wrong. If God has created us with a specific racial identity, which we ought to love and cherish, then how could we think it permissible (in ordinary circumstances, at least) to cut off our identity? We ought to preserve our own people, and therefore we ought not to interracially marry. We should, when confronted with God’s creation, perceive all the boundaries He has embedded in His created order, and honor them by maintaining their distinctions. Interracial marriage, consequently, has very strong moral weight placed against it. It is unnatural, and it can run against the purposes and teleology of the Lord in creating the races. It is not hatred of other races, but love of our God, to maintain the diversity with which He has imbued His creation.

The Big Picture

It can be easy to lose an important, wide-scope perspective on this issue. Oftentimes we are concerned with the isolated issue of whether or not this person of race A can marry this other person of race B. It is crucial that, in understanding this issue, we understand marriage within the larger scope of family, tribe, nation, race, and world, not just from a narrowed-in, individualistic perspective.

For example, consider the fact that when one marries, it is not just two individuals who become one flesh, but two families who merge together. Beyond the individual problems that could perhaps result from a racially heterogeneous marriage, it would be important to ensure that racially different families would not be brought into unnecessary disharmony through marriage either. Given the naturalness of people of the same race congregating with one another (e.g. races will naturally segregate in a cafeteria), two whole families of different races could be disharmonious as well. This makes interracial marriage to be that much less desirable and appropriate.

Moving beyond the family, recall the doctrine of ethnonationalism which I mentioned earlier. According to the doctrine, the proper definition of a nation is ethnically based. A corollary of this is that it is more natural to live in an ethnically homogeneous nation, and two corollaries emerge even further: first, it is certainly more natural to marry someone who is ethnically related to you; and second, insofar as intermarriage acts against the divinely sanctioned order of ethnonationalism, it is evil and confusion. This, again, is not to ban intermarriage in all circumstances, but to add even further moral weight on the scales against the propriety of miscegenation.

Given all that has been said concerning the naturalness of intra-racial marriage and the moral preponderance placed against interracial marriage, it would be pertinent to give a “big picture” model of marriage at this point. Except for incest, which is obviously morally forbidden, close relations are generally to be preferred. We should first desire to marry within our tribe, following the example of the Israelite daughters in Numbers 36,¹¹ and if those options are either impossible, impractical, or otherwise undesirable to us, then we should look to find a spouse within our nation, then within our race, and only at that point would it be permissible to marry outside of our race. This model is supported by the naturalness of marrying someone with whom one has “something in common.” If commonality breeds marital harmony, then it would be proper to value closer genetic relations for marriage.

It is this picture of “concentric circles” which, overall, helps greatly to produce community and fellowship through the channel of kinship. The inner rings possess greater moral normativity than the other rings, such that the inner rings are “default”: we ought to look for spouses within the inner rings before progressively moving outward.

This can be contrasted with the more extreme (and more common) view that ethnic and racial ties are absolutely meaningless when it comes to marriage — and that it is bigoted to think that the God-created reality of race is meaningful. According to such a position, there is no respect to be given for God-ordained boundaries; they are to be viewed as worthless in every respect because of Bible verses like Gal. 3:28. It is actually such a mindset which, when multiplied, can lead to the genocide of entire peoples.  For example, if every white person today were to marry a non-white, the entire white race would be gone in a single generation.¹² Therefore, insofar as we wish our own people, and every people on earth, to maintain its own existence and distinctiveness, we ought to consider intra-racial and intra-ethnic marriages as normative. To the extent that we view intermarriage as equal with or preferable to intra-marriage, we are working towards the destruction of entire peoples.

There is no neutrality on this issue. In order to maintain the preservation of the human diversity God has created, both biological and cultural, intermarriage must be seen as unnatural and uncommon. To say otherwise is a denial that it is good to preserve one’s own people, heritage, and culture.

Conclusion

Miscegenation is unnatural and works against God’s purposes, especially when racial admixture occurs in large quantities. Therefore its default status is one of moral wrongness. In unordinary situations, the unnatural may be morally permissible, particularly when it is kept in small numbers (so as to not destroy the distinctiveness of a people or culture), but in ordinary situations, the default status of miscegenation cannot be overturned. We ought not to value the natural and the unnatural equally, and we also ought not to treat race as meaningless or insignificant.

Above, I mentioned that the structure of the debate could result in our saying that miscegenation, morally speaking, might be somewhere between universally prohibited and universally permissible. Given all the above evidence, I would contend that it is much closer to the side of universal prohibition, though I would not be surprised to learn that others may take a different view, seeing miscegenation as permissible in more circumstances than I do, but short of race-destruction. This is fine; it would be an honest disagreement. What is important is to see the commonality we have. Disagreement concerning the precise moral status of miscegenation (along the moral continuum) is small when compared to our agreement on the normativity of intra-racial marriage and the value of preserving our own people and heritage.

In other words, I think the conclusion that miscegenation is wrong in the vast majority of circumstances best accounts for all the evidence, including the historic views of Christians. It is crucial that we see the value of preserving our own people and way of life. There might be some minor disagreements past this issue, but that simply means that brothers and sisters may disagree — not that anyone is a heretic. Many Christians who would disagree with me on the moral status of miscegenation might, following the sinful world, view my mistaken racial doctrine to be blasphemous and heretical. They would think, following MTV and the mass media, that opposition to racial intermarriage is not only incorrect but damnable.

Such an uncharitable and hateful view needs to be absolutely jettisoned. Even if one does not believe that miscegenation is wrong in most circumstances, we should not think others are evil racists or bigots just because we disagree with them. Nor should we think it racist of others to forbid marriage for their own children to other races, as they would be merely following the example of the patriarch Abraham (Gen. 24:1-4), and also of the daughters of Zelophehad (Num. 36:6). We should be willing to fellowship with those with whom we disagree; there is no need for rage or disunity. If anything, rage should be directed at those who see no support for intraracial marriage; these people would not care to see their entire race perish.

Lastly, what might be an obvious corollary should be explicitly stated: if interracial marriageis generally immoral, then other activities related to it are also immoral. This would include interracial dating, interracial extra-marital sex,¹³ and any other form of interracial romance. If interracial marriage is sin, then incipient forms of it (or even perversions of it, such as interracial fornication) are likewise sinful.

Although I have covered a good deal of evidence and topics related to interracial marriage, I do not want to give the impression that this is the final word on the topic. This is intended only to be a brief introduction to the topic; much more is available for study.

(Source: faithandheritage.com)