|
|
INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES - ARE THEY FORBIDDEN IN SCRIPTURE?
A DEBATE
[Gatoba1052@aol.com]:
First lets start with genesis, lets examine the real meaning of the word kind which is misinterpreted by just about all readers as to its true meaning. people think that the word kind in the bible refers to a group of animals with the same ancestry but that's not what the bible indicates, in fact the word kind in the old testament should have been translated as species.
[Animals and plants over time have declined in variety within kind and kinds per se have become extinct. Kind in biblical context means a living entity with the ability to procreate and is NOT the same as what we today call species = an artificial man made taxonomy = a way of defining animal and plant life. The term kind in biblical ancient times is far broader than it is today given the extinction and deterioration of animal and plant life.
BTW: all humans are of the same kind and also of the same species today. Today some species of animal and plant life actually belonged in the past to a kind but due to time and genetic deterioration can no longer procreate with animals that were formerly the same kind and are thus classified in modern taxonomy as a different species.]
Here is the evidence of that; In the book of Deuteronomy God was telling the Israelites the types of animals that they could not eat Deuteronomy 14:14 And every raven after his kind, if the word kind here means all animals of the same ancestry then why would God say every raven after its kind? this verse uses the word kind to refer to different types of ravens but if the word kind means all animals of the same ancestry then this verse doesn't make any sense because there's only one raven kind, so if the word kind here means all ravens all God had to say was don't eat ravens, but because he wanted to make clear that no raven was to be eaten he specified that every member of the raven family which means every species was not to be eaten. Therefore the word kind in the old testament should have been translated properly as species.
[Incorrect conclusion. The single kind of Raven is in view here which are not to be eaten is what the text is referring to. The phrase ‘after his kind’ is simply referring to the kind of bird which is called Raven and is emphatic not instructive as to more than one kind of Raven. This does not mean to say that there are different kinds of ravens. There is only one kind of Raven.]
Now you may wonder why did i went thru that explanation and the reason is in Genesis 6:19-20 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. So in this verses God commands Noah to bring animals into the ark each after its on kind meaning species. My question to you is if God didn't care about race mixing why did he commanded Noah that animals should be brought in to the ark each with its own particular species?
[Race is not the same thing as kind. You’ve interjected something here into Scripture. Race refers in human species as a variation within that species or kind of being called man. Humans remain one kind also, per Scripture within which are variations we can call races. There is no edict for races not to marry implied here. Certainly there is an edict for humans not to attempt procreation or sex with animals or plants which are of a different kind]
Why didn't he just say place the animals that can interbreed in there altogether?
[Because different kinds of animals simply cannot interbreed]
obviously he wanted every animal to reproduce with its own race.
[You are inserting the term race for kinds here – which is not in Scripture. Race and kind are two different things. The former is a variation of the latter]
Tell me what you think about this, I have other verses but i prefer to do this step by step to make it simpler. When you can, give me a reply.
[Finally, there is no correlation between the order God has set for animals and plants and humans unless specifically stipulated.
Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. 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.
[Compare Dt 22:9-11 - a parallel passage which does not have copulation in view]:
DT 22:9 Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled.
DT 22:10 Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together.
DT 22:11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.
The word ‘mate’ is raba (‘lie down’ cf Ps 139:3). It is only used elsewhere in Leviticus 18:23 and 20:16, where it refers to bestial relations. The word is an Aramaic cognate to the common Hebrew rabas, which many times means ‘to lie down to rest.’ Once the word is used for a donkey fallen down under a burden (Exod 23:5). It is never used for copulation.
Is it possible that the figure in Leviticus 19:19 is not sexual at all? More naturally it would forbid causing different animals to bear a load in such a way that it would be an unequal load under which they would fall. If this interpretation is adopted, the law would fit beautifully its parallel in Deuteronomy. Indeed, the LXX on Leviticus 19:19 can be read thus: ‘You shall not hold down your animals with an unequal yoke.’ The word ‘hold down’ is rare and is translated here sexually by some, but its derivatives usually refer to ‘restraint’ in general…. We would suggest for Leviticus 19:19, therefore, something like, ‘Do not make your animals fall down with an unequal yoke.’]
Regardless of what your interpretation of what the word kind means here is where your problems begin.
[Actually no problems at all in view of what Lev 19:19 actually says as paralleled by Dt 22:9-11 which does not have copulation in view and certainly DOES NOT apply to humankind because no stipulation is made in that direction]
so different kinds of animals cannot interbreed. really? then what is this verse saying? isn't it saying don't crossbreed cattle of different kinds?
[Different kinds of animals cannot procreate with one another, should not yoke together; furthermore, different kinds of plants should not be planted together nor different kinds of cloth be sewn together - there is nothing sexual going on here.]
obviously something has to be wrong with your interpretations, if cattle of different kinds cannot be crossbreed then why does God command us not to do so?
[Notice that the mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey and there is no condemnation of donkeys anywhere in the bible. Evidently a horse and a donkey are of the same kind, simply variations of that single kind as are cattle]
He would not command something that's not possible, therefore the word kind cannot mean what you thought.
[God does not command that animals of different kinds not procreate. Animals don't have the capacity to obey or not obey God's commands. God is simply stating that animals will procreate after their own kind. Since the passage refers to yoking and planting and sewing and not to copulation then it is mute on the point of copulation. In any case, human copulation is not in view]
There is no doubt that in this verse God is prohibiting animals of different races {and don't tell me race is not the same as kind in this verse unless you want to contradict yourself and say different kinds can be crossbreed} from being crossed.
[Animals don't have the capacity to obey/disobey God's commands. They were created by God to function as God sovereignly created them. So one will not find an animal choosing to violate God's command and copulating with an animal of a different kind.
Furthermore, since the equivalent of the word race does not appear in any of the passages you cite, you are not authorized to insert it here as equivalent and then make the leap that all of this applies to humans. The bible does not use the race as equivalent to kind anywhere so you simply cannot editorialize]
In the following sentences the same teaching is repeated but with different examples, I don't believe I should explain to you the seeds part
[Seeds don’t copulate hence your point is irrelevant. Suggest another interpretation: don’t mix a wheat crop with a barley one - makes farming difficult. Now that’s common sense because of different times and methods of harvesting different kinds of crops produced by different kinds of seed]
I believe is very obvious what the seeds means in the bible.
[Seeds don’t have sex with one another they are planted in the earth and grow each according to its kind. Seeds also cannot choose to obey or disobey God's command not to copulate with a seed of another kind. They are planted in the ground and produce after their own kind, just like the bible teaches. So wheat seed produces wheat and barley, barley. There is simply no ban on crossbreeding of seeds intended in this passage, but simply a ban on planting two kinds of crops in the same field - which makes farming sense]
The next part says that garments of different sorts cannot be worn, why? is there a sin in wearing different materials? if that's the case then you and I are sinning at this moment.
[Garments don’t copulate with one another either to produce hybrid garments. There is a practical point being made here which parallels those of the seeds. To sew different kinds of garments together which have different characteristics will cause problems which are self-evident. I shall leave that up to your sense of common sense: ever where a pair of jeans with silk seat and woolen legs?]
Hebrews 10:20. By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh. Now I know this verse seems irrelevant but my point is that the veil a peace of clothing means flesh and that is also the meaning of garment in leviticus.
[The veil is a specific veil in the Temple symbolic of Jesus Christ. It does not refer to cloth in general nor flesh in general. Salvation is depicted as through the body of Christ and Him alone, not through flesh in general. You are reading all of this into the verse which has nothing to do with copulation between different kinds of animals, and certainly has nothing to do with banning human interracial marriages]
when you change the words it says flesh of different sorts should not come upon thee. so how do you wear flesh? you don't, this refers to marriage, when you marry a person the two shall become one flesh. And did God commanded what kind of flesh you can become one with?
[Your first mistake is obvious with when said, 'When you change the words'. You simply cannot change the Word of God. Please exegete verse by verse the entire passage on this as I don't find your conclusion specifically stipulated in Hebrews chapter 10
Since humankind is one kind then any human may mate with any human. Notice that the equally yoked passages re: marriage never address different races]
he said only the same type of flesh.
[In what particular passage does it say a human must marry the same type of human flesh???? I don’t find that in Scripture. Flesh refers to all humanity, there is no distinction made within the human kind of different kinds of human flesh]
That's a prohibition of race mixing.
[Not so. There are no passages that prohibit race mixing except for Israel in times under the Law. Are you an Israelite under the Law in OT times? The general instructions in the NT re: marriage have to do with being equally yoked spiritually not racially. No mention of race in these passages - strangely absent if God forbids interracial marriage]
Ecclesiastes 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. What is wrong for the beast is also wrong for man for man is also a beast. Do you think that God would accept man to do that which is wrong for a beast? he says don't crossbreed your animals but its OK for you to do it?
[Your jumping all around Scripture inevitably leads to misinterpretation. Don’t you know that the first part of Eccl is human viewpoint and in error most of the time????? Man is made in the image of God, unlike animals - but Solomon has missed this point entirely until he gets to the end of the book. What God has commanded of animals or plants may or may not apply to mankind. It is needful to find a specific passage that forbids humans to copulate with one another on the basis of race. God on the other hand has established the equally yoked principal of marriage based on spiritual maturity rather than race. There is no mention of race in any of these passages on proper Christian marriage]
1 Corinthians 9:9-10 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
My point here is that when God made commandments about animals they were not just to be kept for animals themselves, but this commandment was also for humans.
[Not every commandment re: animals is applicable to humans. Your exception does not make the rule. One point that shows that a commandment re: animals is applicable does not make the rule - that’s a classic error in bible interpretation and basic logic. Note that the point is specifically paralleled to human experience. Not every point re: animals is paralleled in Scripture as applicable to human behavior. I would venture to say, that one must be silent where the bible is silent. To prove this out, shall we go to every passage re: animals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and demand that they apply to humans? ]
And what did God said about crossbreeding animals of different races? well, you already know that.
[God stated in His Word that animals were created with the capacity to procreate after their own kind - indicating a capacity to only procreate after its kind and no other kind. There is no evidence that animals were to understand what God has commanded and must obey and not copulate with other kinds. Animals don't have the capacity to understand, obey or disobey what God has commanded. The text indicates that God created the animals to only have the capacity to procreate after their kind and no other kind. The verb form ‘let’ indicates that God created the animals to do precisely what He stated they were to do: ‘produce living creatures according to their kinds.’ God did not give living creatures a choice to procreate after another kind:
[GE 1:24-25]:
(v. 24) "And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
(v. 25) God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.]
You probably don't believe that the book of Jasher is a real biblical book but it was mentioned in JOSHUA AND SECOND SAMUEL.
[That does not make it inspired nor specifically identify the book you have in mind as the one referred to in Scripture. It has had the chance to be inspected for centuries as have many other books and we are left with only the 66 which have proven themselves out as inerrant and inspired. The specific references in Joshua and 2nd Samuel have nothing to do with interracial marriage. Hence whatever Jasher has to say on this topic has little weight, especially since it contradicts Scripture if it in fact does ban interracial marriages at all, which Scripture does not ban]
Jasher 4:18 And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals. So here you see that men's crossbreed animals and it was seen by God as corruption. He doesn't see it any differently when it comes to humans.
[You will nonetheless notice, in spite of the fact that Jasher is not inspired and worthy of serious consideration, that the concept of racial intermarriage is not addressed as parallel with human abuse of the animal world. If it is not specifically stipulated, i.e., one human race banned from intermarrying or copulating with another race then one cannot draw such a conclusion from nothing.]