The Seventh Commandment — 04/10/2021
Updated: Apr 18, 2021
This is Part 3 of Part 6 of our study on The Seventh Commandment.
Answering the Objections
People often provide supposed examples of race-mixing in the Bible in an effort to counter the Scriptures’ prohibitions against miscegenation. 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. However, none of these instances represent race-mixing for the simple reason that race-mixing requires two races and in each of these instances the husband and wife were of the same race.
Moses and Zipporah
“1 Now a man of the house of Levi [the priestly tribe] went and took as his wife a daughter of Levi. [See Exodus 6:18, 20; Numbers 26:59] 2 The woman conceived and gave birth to a son; and when she saw that he was [especially] beautiful and healthy, she hid him for three months [to protect him from the Egyptians]. [See Acts 7:20 and Hebrews 11:23] 3 When she could no longer hide him, she got him a basket (chest) made of papyrus reeds and covered it with tar and pitch [making it waterproof]. Then she put the child in it and set it among the reeds by the bank of the Nile. 4 And his sister [Miriam] stood some distance away to find out what would happen to him. 5 Now the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the Nile, and [she, together with] her maidens walked along the river's bank; she saw the basket among the reeds and sent her maid [to get it], and she brought it to her. 6 When she opened it, she saw the child, and behold, the baby was crying. And she took pity on him and said, “This is one of the Hebrews’ children.” 7 Then his sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter, “Shall I go and call a wet-nurse from the Hebrew women to nurse the child for you?” 8 And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Go ahead.” So the girl went and called the child’s mother. 9 Then Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Take this child away and nurse him for me, and I will give you your wages.” So the woman took the child and nursed him. 10 And the child grew, and she brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter and he became her son. And she [Pharaoh’s daughter] named him Moses, and said, “Because I drew him out of the water.” ”
(Exodus 2:1-10, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
“16 Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters; and they came and drew water [from the well where Moses was resting] and filled the troughs to water their father’s flock. 17 Then shepherds came and drove them away, but Moses stood up and helped them and watered their flock. 18 When they came to Reuel (Jethro) their father, he said, “How is it that you have come back so soon today?” 19 They said, “An Egyptian saved us from the shepherds. He even drew water [from the well] for us and watered the flock.” 20 Then he said to his daughters, “Where is he? Why have you left the man behind? Invite him to have something to eat.” 21 Moses was willing to remain with the man, and he gave Moses his daughter Zipporah [to be his wife].”
(Exodus 2:16-21, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
There is only one race 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, and the Midianites were descended from Abraham through his wife Keturah’s fourth son Midian:
“1 Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. 2 She gave birth to Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah.”
(Genesis 25:1-2, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis added)
Moses and Adoniah
“Now Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite [Ethiopian] woman [Adoniah] whom he had married (for he had married a Cushite woman);”
(Numbers 12:1, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
This woman is not Moses’ wife Zipporah as many people have supposed but a woman by the name of Adoniah, an Ethiopian according to some English versions.
Today, an ethnic Ethiopian would not be of the same race as an Israelite. However, Ethiopian, as it has been rendered in the King James Version, is a poor translation of the Hebrew word Kuwshiy (Strong’s #H3569). Strong’s Concordance defines Kuwshiy:
“…patronymically from OT:3568; a Cushite, or descendant of Cush.”
 James Strong, “כּוּשׁ,” “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary,” The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990) page 55.
The Cushites were descendants of Cush, Noah’s grandson by Ham:
“the sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim [from whom descended the Egyptians], Put, and Canaan;”
(Genesis 10:6, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comment added)
Cush’s father Ham was a brother of Noah’s firstborn son Shem who was a progenitor of the Israelites. Therefore, Ham’s descendants through Cush were of the same race as were Shem’s Israelite descendants through Abraham and Jacob. Even if Adoniah had been a racial Cushite, she would have been of the same race as Moses.
Although 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 Adoniah and Moses’ relationship with her during his exile from Egypt and after he had delivered her people 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 [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 33:31-34.
Apparently Adoniah was of Canaanite descent and a Cushite 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. The Hebrew word laqach (Strong’s #H3947), translated marriage in Numbers 12:1, simply means took and does not necessarily imply marriage.
Joseph and Asenath
“Then Pharaoh named Joseph Zaphenath-paneah [Probably Egyptian for “God speaks; he lives.”]; and he gave him [Moses] Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On (Heliopolis in Egypt), as his wife. And Joseph went out over all the land of Egypt [to inspect and govern it].”
(Genesis 41:45, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
Joseph was an Israelite and Asenath is identified in the book of Exodus as an Egyptian. The book of Psalms affirms that the Egyptians of that day were Hamites:
“50 He [Yahweh] leveled a path for His anger [to give it free run]; He did not spare their souls from death, But turned over their lives to the plague. 51 He killed all the firstborn in Egypt, The first and best of their strength in the tents [of the land of the sons] of Ham.”
(Psalm 78:50-51, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
“23 Israel also came into Egypt; Thus Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham. 24 There the Lord greatly increased [the number of] His people, And made them more powerful than their enemies. 25 He turned the heart [of the Egyptians] to hate His people, To deal craftily with His servants. 26 He sent Moses His servant, And Aaron, whom He had chosen. 27 They exhibited His wondrous signs among them, Great miracles in the land of Ham (Egypt).”
(Psalm 105:23-27, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
“21 They forgot God their Savior, Who had done such great things in Egypt, 22 Wonders in the land of Ham, Awesome things at the Red Sea.”
(Psalm 105:23-27, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
Joseph was an Israelite and the Israelites were descendants of Shem, the first-born son of Noah. Asenath was a Hamite and the Hamites were descendants of Ham, the second-born son of Noah. Only one race was represented in Joseph’s marriage to Asenath, which precludes any race mixing in their marriage.
Salmon and Rahab
“Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab [The woman who assisted the Hebrew spies before the conquest of Jericho (Josh 2:1-21).], Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse.”
(Matthew 1:5, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comment added)
Salmon was a Judahite and Rahab is often alleged to be a Canaanite. However, even if Rahab were a racial Canaanite there would not be two races represented in Salmon’s marriage to Rahab. As already established, the Canaanites, although a forbidden lineage, were descendants of Ham, the brother of Shem and progenitor of the Israelites. Therefore, there was only one race represented in this relationship.
It is, nonetheless, untenable that Yeshua would have been born of a forbidden lineage:
“1 When the Lord [Strong’s Concordance #H3068 YHWH in the Hebrew text] your God brings you into the land which you are entering to possess, and has cleared away many nations before you, the Hittite and the Girgashite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and mightier than you, 2 and when the Lord [Strong’s Concordance #H3068 YHWH in the Hebrew text] your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall not make a covenant (treaty) with them nor show mercy and compassion to them. 3 You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, nor shall you take his daughter for your son;”
(Deuteronomy 7:1-3, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
The seven nations listed in Deuteronomy Chapter 7 were all descendants of Canaan who were forbidden to Israel for marriage.
There is no reason to conclude that Yeshua was born of a forbidden lineage because Rahab is never identified as a Canaanite in the Bible. Although Rahab lived in the Canaanite city of Jericho, it is speculation to identify her as a racial Canaanite from this fact alone. As an example, Moses, who was unquestionably an Israelite, was identified as an Egyptian after departing from Egypt:
“18 When they [the daughters of Reuel] came to Reuel (Jethro) [Reuel’s other name, Jethro (Excellency), may have been a title indicating his rank in the tribe.] their father, he said, “How is it that you have come back so soon today?” 19 They said, “An Egyptian saved us from the shepherds. He even drew water [from the well] for us and watered the flock.” ”
(Exodus 2:18-19, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
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.
If Rahab were a Canaanite, Yeshua, being a descendant of Rahab, could not legitimately sit on the throne. The Law of Yahweh demands that no one but an Israelite is to rule over Israelites:
“you shall most certainly set a king over you whom the Lord [Strong’s Concordance #H3068 YHWH in the Hebrew text] your God chooses. You shall set a king over you from among your countrymen (brothers); you may not choose a foreigner [to rule] over you who is not your countryman.”
(Deuteronomy 17:15, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
Yeshua came from Judah, not Canaan, to rule over His people Israel:
“And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not in any way least among the leaders of Judah; For from you [the Tribe of Judah] shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.”
(Matthew 2:6, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comment added)
Rahab is listed in the book of Hebrews, in the Hebrew and Israelite faith hall of fame − Hebrews 11:31. Rahab, therefore, must have been a Hebrew or Israelite who resided in Jericho, perhaps a slave or a descendant of a slave. This could perhaps explain why the two Israelite spies sought her out and also why the king of Jericho went to her looking for the two spies in Joshua 2:1-3.
For the principle point under discussion here, it does not make any difference whether Rahab was an Israelite or a Canaanite. Either way, she was of the same race as Salmon her husband and therefore their marriage was not interracial.
Boaz and Ruth
“Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab [The woman who assisted the Hebrew spies before the conquest of Jericho (Joshua 2:1-21).], Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse.”
(Matthew 1:5, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
Boaz, the son of Salmon, was a Judahite and Ruth is five times identified as a Moabitess in Ruth 1:22, 2:2, 21, 4:5 and 4:10. However, once again, even if Ruth were a racial Moabite, she would not be of another race. The Moabites were descendants of Lot and his incestuous relationship with his eldest daughter:
“30 Now Lot went up from Zoar, and lived in the mountain together with his two daughters, for he was afraid to stay [any longer] in Zoar; and he lived in a cave with his two daughters. 31 The firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is aging, and there is not a man on earth [available] to be intimate with us in the customary way [so that we may have children]. 32 Come, let us make our father drunk with wine, and we will lie with him so that we may preserve our family through our father.” 33 So they gave their father wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she got up [because he was completely intoxicated]. 34 Then the next day, the firstborn said to the younger, “Behold, I lay with my father last night; let us make him drunk with wine tonight also, and then you go in and lie with him, so that we may preserve our family through our father.” 35 So they gave their father wine that night also, and the younger got up and lay with him; and again he did not know when she lay down or when she got up. 36 Thus both the daughters of Lot conceived by their father. 37 The firstborn gave birth to a son, and named him Moab (from father); he is the father of the Moabites to this day.”
(Genesis 19:30-37, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
Lot was a nephew of Abraham, a progenitor of the Israelites:
“Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his nephew, and all their possessions which they had acquired, and the people (servants) which they had acquired in Haran, and they set out to go to the land of Canaan. When they came to the land of Canaan,”
(Genesis 12:5, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
There is only one race represented in the relationship between Boaz and Ruth. Nevertheless, there is no reason to conclude that Ruth was a racial Moabite. Ruth 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 Moabites:
“1 When these things were completed, the officials came to me and said, “The people of Israel and the priests and Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, but have committed the repulsive acts of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites. 2 For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race [Literally, seed.] has intermingled [Historically, intermarriage with other nations led the Jews into pagan practices which brought God’s wrath and judgment upon all the people.] with the peoples of the lands. Indeed, the officials and chief men have been foremost in this unfaithful act and direct violation [of God’s will].” ”
(Ezra 9:1-2, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
Yeshua could not have become King of the Israelites had He come from a forbidden lineage or mixed race. Therefore, Ruth must have been known as a Moabite because she had lived in the country of Moab, the same as Moses was identified as an Egyptian because of his former residence in Egypt.
Evidence that Ruth was a Moabite by residence rather than by race is demonstrated in Boaz applying to Ruth the levirate law that requires Israelite men to raise up a male heir for a deceased brother, thereby preserving his name and estate:
 In the Hebrew Bible, a form of levirate marriage, called yibbum, is mentioned in Deuteronomy 25:5–10, under which the brother of a man who dies without children is permitted and encouraged to marry the widow. Either of the parties may refuse to go through with the marriage, but both must go through a ceremony, known as halizah, involving a symbolic act of renunciation of a yibbum marriage. Sexual relations with one’s brother’s wife are otherwise forbidden by Leviticus Chapter 18 and Leviticus Chapter 20, Levirate marriage.
“5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother [or “nigh of kin” – Leviticus 25:48-49] shall be intimate with her after taking her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 It shall be that her firstborn [son] will be [Literally, stand on.] given the name of the dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out of Israel.”
(Deuteronomy 25:5-6, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
“9 So he [Boaz] said, “Who are you?” And she answered, “I am Ruth your maid. Spread the hem of your garment over me, for you are a close relative and redeemer.” 10 Then he said, “May you be blessed by the Lord [Strong’s Concordance #H3068 YHWH in the Hebrew text], my daughter. You have made your last kindness better than the first; for you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich. 11 Now, my daughter, do not be afraid. I will do for you whatever you ask, since all my people in the city know that you are a woman of excellence. 12 It is true that I am your close relative and redeemer; however, there is a relative closer [to you] than I. 13 Spend the night [here], and in the morning if he will redeem you, fine; let him do it. But if he does not wish to redeem you, then, as the Lord [Strong’s Concordance #H3068 YHWH in the Hebrew text] lives, I will redeem you. Lie down until the morning.” ”
(Ruth 3:9-13, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
Had Ruth been a descendant of the forbidden lineage of Moab or of another race, the law of the levirate would not have applied because her previous relationship with Boaz’s kinsman would have been unlawful and, therefore, adulterous. She must have been an Israelite or at least a descendant of a racially-alike lineage with whom the Israelites were permitted to marry. Otherwise, the estate would have been lost to a non-Israelite descendant, the very thing that prompted Ezra to command the Judahites to put away their Moabite and other foreign wives (Ezra 9:1 – 10:3).
For the point under discussion here, 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.
Moses and Zipporah’s, Moses and Adoniah’s, Joseph and Asenath’s, Salmon and Rahab’s and Boaz and Ruth’s were not interracial relationships. Interracial marriage is never sanctioned in the Bible but instead condemned.
The Idolatry Argument
People who promote or condone miscegenation (a mixture of races) often argue that the Old Testament prohibitions against mixing with forbidden lineages and other races 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 question and answer that was 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 t/hey 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….”
 “Ask Mike and Mary,” Home Life (Nashville, TN: Life Way Press, December 1995), page 10.
Mike and Mary’s answer is typical of most of today’s churches. But Deuteronomy 7:1-4 does not substantiate Mike and Mary’s limited application of this particular passage in its implications concerning interracial relationships:
“1 When the Lord [Strong’s Concordance #H3068 YHWH in the Hebrew text] your God brings you [the nation of Israel] into the land which you are entering to possess, and has cleared away many nations before you, the Hittite and the Girgashite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and mightier than you, 2 and when the Lord [Strong’s Concordance #H3068 YHWH in the Hebrew text] your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall not make a covenant (treaty) with them nor show mercy and compassion to them. 3 You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, nor shall you take his daughter for your son; 4 for they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord [Strong’s Concordance #H3068 YHWH in the Hebrew text] will be kindled and burn against you and He will quickly destroy you.”
(Deuteronomy 7:1-4, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
Faith in Yahweh is undeniably central to this particular passage. With this in mind, in Ecclesiastes 1:9, King Solomon declared “That which has been is that which will be [again], And that which has been done is that which will be done again. So there is nothing new under the sun.”
Even if idolatry were the only reason for this prohibition, the consequences of race mixing for Israelites have not changed. In 1776 there were approximately 2.5 million people in America. Less than one percent of the population was collectively represented by 20,000 Catholics, 3,000 non-Israelite Jews and a few deists. More than 99 percent were white, Christian, Israelite Protestants. In light of these 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 religiously pluralistic she becomes, and the more pluralistic she becomes, the more heathen and ungodly she becomes. In other words, nothing has changed since Deuteronomy Chapter 7.
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.”
 Cheryl Russell, “Most Americans Claim Religious Affiliation,” The Official Guide to the American Marketplace (Ithaca, NY: New Strategist Publications, Inc., 1995) page 252.
Martin E. Marty, a nationally acclaimed demographics expert and director of the public religion project, also confirmed the inevitable consequences 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.”
 Martin E. Marty, quoted by Tom Heinen, “Scholar sees strength in abundance of faiths,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Monday, April 26, 1999.
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 but when Israelites mix with other races, they usually turn to the gods of those people with whom they mix. This is in fulfillment of the principle found in the Apostle Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:33 that “bad company corrupts good morals.” Nothing has changed since Deuteronomy Chapter 7.
No Proselyte Exceptions
Faith in Yahweh is central to the Bible’s prohibitions against mixing with forbidden lineages, but it is not the only reason for racial segregation. If it had been, the Bible would have provided exceptions for believers among the forbidden nations. No exception clause for believers can be found in Deuteronomy Chapter 7 or anywhere else. Consider again Ezra’s instructions:
“1 …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…. 2 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…. 5 I fell upon my knees, and … 6 said, O my God … 10 we have forsaken thy commandments, which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, … 12 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. … 14 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? … 10:1 Shechaniah … 2 answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land…. 3 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, KJV)
Ezra and Shechaniah made no exceptions for foreign wives who had converted to Yahweh nor for the children born of these mixed relationships who might have been converted by their fathers. This important fact is completely overlooked by most of modern Christianity.
The prohibition against mixing with certain racially-alike lineages and other races did not pertain merely to faith in Yahweh.
Additional Reasons for Racial Purity
In addition to idolatry, Ezra provided two other reasons why the Israelites were commanded to separate from the other nations listed in Ezra Chapter 9:
“For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race [Literally, seed.] has intermingled [Historically, intermarriage with other nations led the Jews into pagan practices which brought God’s wrath and judgment upon all the people.] with the peoples of the lands. Indeed, the officials and chief men have been foremost in this unfaithful act and direct violation [of God’s will].”
(Ezra 9:2, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
Mixed relationships were condemned by Ezra not only because they polluted the religion of the Israelites but because they also polluted or adulterated the race or the genes of the Israelites.
Verse 12 provides a third reason why the Israelites were commanded to separate from their foreign wives:
“So now do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons; and never seek their peace or their prosperity, so that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it as an inheritance to your children forever.”
(Ezra 9:12, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
If these mixed marriages had been allowed to continue, the land of Israel would have been in jeopardy of being lost or turned over to the mixed multitude born to these relationships. This would have occurred even if both parents of these mixed children or the mixed children themselves were believers in Yahweh – Israel would have been dispossessed of her land.
Hosea addressed the same problem:
“They have dealt treacherously against the Lord [Strong’s Concordance #H3068 YHWH in the Hebrew text], For they have borne illegitimate (pagan) children. Now the New [Instead of a celebration, judgment would occur at the time of the New Moon Festival; 2:11.] Moon will devour them along with their land [bringing judgment and captivity].”
(Hosea 5:7, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
“Strangers have devoured his strength, Yet he does not know it; Gray hairs are sprinkled on him, Yet he does not know.”
(Hosea 7:9, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
This same thing is occurring in America and throughout the world. Someone who spurns his birthright, history, posterity and future through miscegenation can never regain what was lost, even though he may deeply regret his previous actions. Once a child has been conceived and born from a mixed-race relationship, no one can go back and change it.
It is politically incorrect to teach that race-mixing is biblically prohibited. It is an emotionally charged issue that is a lightning rod for false accusations from non-Christians and Christians alike. People who believe that miscegenation is biblically condemned and who, therefore, promote the separation and purity of the different races are often accused of racism, hatred and, in some instances, even white supremacy. The basis for such accusations is emotional rather than rational in nature.
People who promote integration and miscegenation of the different races are advancing a position that ultimately destroys the purity of each race and therefore, each race and its distinct culture. 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 obvious which position demonstrates more genuine respect and concern for the people of other races.
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.”
 “Genocide,” Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (New York, NY: Random House, 2000) page 547.
The Winnipeg Free Press (May 6, 1997) 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.”
 Gwynne Dyer, “Tiger Woods’ description of himself says it all. The future is light brown,” Winnipeg Free Press, Tuesday, May 6, 1997, page A1.
Woods’ admission that there is no word to describe him speaks for itself. Dyer’s article also pointed out that mixed marriages are not only increasing among Caucasians but that they are increasing to a much greater degree among non-Caucasians:
“…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 “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.”
Not only is the white race being destroyed through miscegenation but so are the blacks, Asians, American Indians and other races “at a staggering rate.” Racial segregation and purity benefits all – not just the white man.
Dyer declared, “The ‘melting pot’ is finally working, even in the U.S.” It may well be working but not to the betterment of everyone involved. What it is working toward is the ultimate genocide of all races and the destruction of 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 [Martin Luther King] 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.”
 Stephen Magagnini, “Working toward one race,” San Ramon Valley Times, November 2, 1997, page A1.
The fact that these young people of mixed races are on a “quest for identity” indicates that they have no identity. They are lost because they have no race or a culture with which to identify. Magagnini continued his observations:
“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.”
Children from interracial relationships have to redefine their culture and religion because what might have been theirs has been destroyed through miscegenation.
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.”
 “miscegenation,” The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia (New York, NY: The Century Co., 1900) Volume V, page 3786.
From 1960 to 1990, marriages between blacks and whites increased by 400 percent. During the same period, marriages between whites and Asians increased nearly 1,000 percent (U.S. Census). 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 in miscegenation, it has only gotten worse. Everyone, no matter what race he may be, needs to stand together 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.
Lack of respect for one’s own race and the uniqueness of the other races motivates and 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:
“Woe (judgment is coming) to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
(Isaiah 5:20, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comment added)
Miscegenation is condemned in the Bible. The brazen promotion and practice of miscegenation is endemic of our modern world’s rapid progression into depravity. If we are to change the direction our nation is presently headed, we must determine to be true to our God, His Law, ourselves, our children and our race.
“You shall not lie [intimately] with a male as one lies with a female; it is repulsive.”
(Leviticus 18:22, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comment added)
“9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither [This list of sinners, which continues into v 10, is used by Paul to describe various sinful lifestyles. All such lifestyles are impossible for true believers, who continue to sin but not to live lives of sin.] the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [by perversion], nor those [Lit male homosexuals.] who participate in homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers [whose words are used as weapons to abuse, insult, humiliate, intimidate, or slander], nor swindlers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.”
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
Society has been more disposed to label homosexuality a perversion than they have other sexual iniquities – an indictment with biblical precedence. Leviticus 18:26-30 identifies all of the sexual sins listed therein as collective abominations but only homosexuality is singled out with the same denigration. Genesis 13:13 describes sodomites as exceedingly wicked sinners and Genesis 18:20 identifies their sin as very grievous to Yahweh, a description used only in reference to homosexuality.
The New Testament uses the Greek word pornea (Strong’s #G4202), translated fornication, to identify incest, harlotry and forbidden lineage relationships. But only homosexuality or sodomy is described by the even stronger Greek word ekporneuo (Strong’s #G1608):
“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication [ekporneuo], and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
(Jude 1:7, King James Version (KJV), emphasis and comment added)
Ekporneuo is defined by James Strong and Joseph Thayer:
“…from NT:1537 and NT:4203; to be utterly unchaste.”
 James Strong, “e)kporneu/sasai,” “Dictionary of the Greek Testament,” The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990) page 27.
“…1 aorist participle feminine ekporneusasa; (the prefix ek seems to indicate a lust that gluts itself, satisfies itself completely)….”
 Joseph Henry Thayer, “e)kporneu/sasai,” The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1981) page 199.
While this perversion is especially repugnant to Yahweh, the extra attention given to this sin by man sometimes contributes to dulling Christians’ judgment of other sins. Homosexuality is not the only sin that should be identified as a perversion. The Apostle Paul’s statement to Elymas the sorcerer in Acts 13:9-10 indicates that anything contrary to the ways of Yahweh is perversion. Even the lesbian practice of wearing men’s clothing and the homosexual practice of wearing women’s clothing is abominable to Yahweh (Deuteronomy 22:5).
Homosexuals are accurately described as perverts; they have perverted what Yahweh ordained as the normal and accepted act of sexual relations between a husband and wife. For the same reason that homosexuals are perverts so are those who participate in any kind of sexual relationship prior or in addition to the marriage relationship between a man and a woman.
Tragically, many sexual perversions have become acceptable. Once a society tolerates any perversion, it opens the door to all perversions, including homosexuality. A little leaven eventually leavens the whole lump (1 Corinthians 5:6-7).
The 1975 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary accurately defines perversion:
“…2: a perverted form; esp: an aberrant sexual practice esp. when habitual and preferred to normal coitus.”
 “perversion,” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1975) page 856.
This definition correctly defines any abnormal sexual conduct as a perversion. However, it does not provide the standard by which abnormal is to be determined. Consequently, one person’s standard would appear to have just as much merit as the next persons.
Calling Evil Good and Good Evil
Without Yahweh’s Law, we have no standard by which to determine right and wrong. Without this moral standard, nothing can be judged as being sinful because “sin is the transgression of the Law [of Yahweh]” (1 John 3:4). A society that rejects Yahweh’s Laws will eventually fall into anarchy and chaos. The United States of America finds herself today upon this very road. This moral deterioration is evidenced by her many politicians and citizens who have inverted nearly everything, calling good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20). Whereas society once identified sodomites as perverts and queers, it now identifies them as gays and their perversion an alternate lifestyle.
In The Institutes of Biblical Law, Rousas John Rushdoony cites a column by Ann Landers wherein Landers recommended psychiatric help for a devastated mother rather than for her homosexual son:
“Confidential to Heartbroken Mother of a Boy With a Twisted Mind: – Yes, I recommend psychiatric help – not for him, but for you. Your son has learned to live with his homosexuality. In fact, he seems to have adjusted very well. Now you must learn to accept him as he is and stop torturing yourself.”
 Ann Landers, Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, Monday, September 1, 1969, p. A-14, quoted by Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1984) page 426f.
The National Education Association (NEA), which has a virtual monopoly on public schools, determines what children between the ages of five and eighteen are taught in the public school system. A publication titled Homophobia and Education: How to Deal with Name Calling, designed for classroom use, can be found in the NEA’s professional library in West Haven, Connecticut. A “fact sheet” in this publication says it is a myth that homosexuality is unnatural. It justifies sodomy, declaring that “this behavior is found in practically every culture throughout history.” It stands to reason, then, that on the same grounds, the NEA also could promote murder, rape and robbery.
 NFD Journal, July/August 1984, quoted by Curtis Dickinson, The Witness.
A Denver continuing-education course presented teachers with a guide entitled “Gay and Lesbian Youth Tools for Educators.” This teachers’ guide recommended that pamphlets such as “I Think I May Be Gay,” containing telephone numbers for homosexual support groups, be distributed to students. The following questions are from a questionnaire found in this same guide:
“…3. Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may outgrow?... 5. Is it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?... 7. If you have never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know that you would not prefer to do so?... 14. How can you hope to become a whole person if you limit yourself to an exclusive heterosexual … choice and remain unwilling to explore and develop your normal, natural, healthy homosexual potential?”
 Colorado for Family Values, “Equal Rights – Not Special Rights!,” 1992, page 2, quoted by Gary Gibbs, Homosexuality: Return to Sodom (Roseville CA: Amazing Facts, Inc., 1996) page 25.
Rejecting Yahweh’s Laws
“20 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever and shrewd in their own sight! 22 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who are heroes at drinking wine And men of strength in mixing intoxicating drinks, 23 Who justify the wicked and acquit the guilty for a bribe, And take away the rights of those who are in the right! 24 Therefore, as the tongue of fire consumes the stubble [from straw] And the dry grass collapses into the flame, So their root will become like rot and their blossom blow away like fine dust; Because they have rejected the law [Torah-Yahweh’s Teachings and Instructions] of the Lord of hosts And despised and discarded the word of the Holy One of Israel.”
(Isaiah 5:20-24, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
In 1 Kings 15:11-12 and 2 Kings 23:7, Yahweh commended Kings Asa and Josiah for purging the land of sodomites. Unlike the majority of America’s leaders, Asa and Josiah were more interested in being biblically correct than they were in being politically correct.
The underlying reason why homosexuality has become an accepted lifestyle in the United States is that most American pulpits no longer teach Yahweh’s commandments, statutes and judgments as the moral standard for mankind. Instead of condemning this sin as the perversion it is, many liberal denominations sanction and even promote homosexuality:
“The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ECLA), in its December 1991 document Human Sexuality and the Christian Faith, states, “We must distinguish between moral judgments regarding same-sex activity in biblical times and in our own time.” ”
 National & International Religion Report, Volume 5, No. 26, December 16, 1991, quoted by Gary Gibbs, Homosexuality: Return to Sodom (Roseville CA: Amazing Facts, Inc., 1996) pages 7-8.
“Upon release of its October 1993 edition of The Church and Human Sexuality: A Lutheran Perspective, the ELCA said “it recognizes that many Lutherans take literally the biblical condemnations of homosexuality…. But the task force urges Lutherans to challenge such attitudes. It argues that “responsible biblical interpretation” strongly supports the acceptance and even blessing of same-sex unions and emphasizes what it says is the pre-eminent biblical command – to “love your neighbor as yourself.” ”
 David Briggs, “Lutheran Sex Study Finished,” Associated Press, October 20, 1993, quoted by Gary Gibbs, Homosexuality: Return to Sodom (Roseville CA: Amazing Facts, Inc., 1996) page 8.
“Over 70 bishops of the Episcopal Church signed a “Statement of Koinonia” which says, “We believe that some of us are created heterosexual and some of us are created homosexual. We believe homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally neutral.” The Washington, D.C., diocese officially approved the document and declared that homosexuals who live together in monogamous relationships should be “honored.” ”
 American Family Association Journal, April 1995, quoted by Gary Gibbs, Homosexuality: Return to Sodom (Roseville CA: Amazing Facts, Inc., 1996) page 8.
“The United Methodist Church has also convened panels to determine whether homosexuality is a sin. Though the proposals to loosen church strictures on homosexuality were rejected, the 1991 panel did agree that biblical references to sexual practices should not be viewed as binding “just because they are in the Bible.” ”
 National & International Religion Report, Vol. 5, No. 26, December 16, 1991, quoted by Gary Gibbs, Homosexuality: Return to Sodom (Roseville CA: Amazing Facts, Inc., 1996) page 9.
The real tragedy is that even many well-known “conservative” church leaders, who do take a stand against sodomy, still fall woefully short of Yahweh’s standard as found in His Word:
“If homosexuals want to have relationships with people of the same sex in the privacy of their homes, that is their right.”
 Chuck Colson, Breakpoint, May 26, 1993, quoted in STRAIGHT (Denver, CO: STRAIGHT) Volume 1, Issue 6, page 6.
“[I am] willing to adopt a live-and-let-live attitude toward what others do in private.”
 Gary Bauer, Citizen, June 21, 1993, quoted in STRAIGHT (Denver, CO: STRAIGHT) Volume 1, Issue 6, page 6.
“We … will never support legislation aimed at depriving them of their basic constitutional rights – rights they share with every citizen. …the same Scriptures that condemn homosexuality and premarital heterosexuality also tell us to accept those who are in violation of these ordinances. …I hope you can see that our opposition to the gay and lesbian tidal wave is … one of social justice and common sense.”
 James Dobson, “Dr. Dobson Answers Your Questions,” Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family, July 1993) pages 6-7.
“We believe every human being [specifically referring to those in the homosexual community] … is entitled to acceptance and respect.”
 James Dobson, “Family News From Dr. James Dobson,” (Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family, June 1998) page 1.
In the same newsletter from which the previous quotation was extracted, Dobson stated, “Any nation that mocks the laws of God will ultimately fail. It is inevitable. And each of us is either part of the problem or a part of the solution.” Yahweh’s solution for unrepentant homosexuals is the death penalty, not acceptance and respect. And anyone unwilling to promote this judgment is mocking part of Yahweh’s Law and solution for this sin.
 Dobson, page 7.
At one time, when America’s preachers taught Yahweh’s Laws as the moral standard for this nation, sodomy was a criminal offense in all fifty states. Not until 1961 did these laws begin to be overturned. North Carolina’s original sodomy law read: “Any person who shall commit the abominable and detestable crime against nature, not fit to be named among Christians … shall be adjudged guilty of a felony and shall suffer death without the benefit of clergy.”
In The Ten Commandments for Today, William Barclay made a distinction (one certainly not found in the Ten Commandments) between two different categories of homosexuals – the homosexual by nature who cannot help being a homosexual and the homosexual by choice who deliberately sets out to be a homosexual. The former, declares Barclay, deserves “nothing but sympathy” and the latter “nothing but condemnation.” One wonders if Barclay makes the same distinction between different kinds of thieves, rapists, and murderers.
 William Barclay, The Ten Commandments for Today (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1973) page 173.
Barclay, while suggesting his hypothesis was biblical, continued his ungodly distinctions:
“I do not think that we can escape from beginning with the fact that, if the authority of the Bible is to be accepted, homosexual practices are forbidden as wrong. This would seem to mean, from the biblical point of view that even if it is impossible to blame a man for being homosexual, it is still necessary to blame him for practicing homosexuality.”
 Barclay, page 174.
No one is a homosexual until he chooses to participate in this aberrant lifestyle, any more than someone is a rapist until he rapes someone. No one is born a homosexual. A person becomes a homosexual only when he or she chooses to participate in this sin.
Because preachers and politicians alike have bought into the lie that certain people are born homosexual, sodomy is considered a sickness by some and a choice by others. Even if it could be proven that certain people have a genetic proclivity toward homosexuality does not mean that we should declare this lifestyle normal. If a so-called genetic link is all the excuse needed to justify this abomination, society had better prepare itself to someday sanction rape and murder on the same grounds.
“In the cases in which no cure is possible homosexuals who associate for the only human relationship they know must be regarded with sympathy and understanding, in the awareness that those of us who have never known this problem must be hesitant to condemn something which is outside our experience, and which we cannot understand.”
 Barclay, page 175.
According to Barclay, no one has the right to condemn another unless he or she at some time has participated in the same sin. But Yahweh condemns homosexuals and He certainly never shared in their iniquity and He likewise commands us to condemn those who participate in this perversion.
“There is a cure for homosexuality – it’s called repent or suffer capital punishment at the hands of a godly government.”
 In July 1999, Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder, both homosexuals, were slain by Benjamin Matthew Williams. Williams attempted to use the Bible as justification for his act. However, individuals do not have biblical authority to carry out the death penalty upon homosexuals. Capital punishment is something that must be carried out by a community in accordance with Yahweh’s judicial protocol as found in His Word. Therefore anyone, like Williams, who takes the law into his own hands is a murderer and, according to biblical law, should likewise be put to death by the community.
The Casper Star-Tribune (October 17, 1998) quoted Jimmy Creech in an Associated Press news release entitled “Reverend says church, not gays, has sinned:”
“A Methodist pastor who sparked controversy last year by performing a union ceremony for two women says it is the church that has sinned by promoting unhealthy attitudes about sex…. By turning away homosexuals, the church does “great damage,” Creech said. “It’s the church that’s sinning, not the gays and lesbians,”…. Creech said teaching people to deny their true selves leads to “a form of suicide.” “I think it’s blasphemy, telling children of God that God has played a cruel trick on them,” he said. “I think God loves gay people and lesbian people. Whatever sexual orientation one has is natural and healthy.” ”
 “Reverend says church, not gays, has sinned,” Casper Star-Tribune, page A11, October 17, 1998.
What is blasphemous is playing God, and the cruelest trick of all is telling people that their lifestyle is natural and healthy when Yahweh identified it as a perversion, punishable by death.
Those who play God have no regard for Yahweh’s Word and they have set themselves up as mankind’s moral authority. The Apostle Paul explained that when people reject Yahweh and disobey His Word, Yahweh turns them over to their own depravity, which in some instances includes homosexuality:
Unbelief and Its Consequences
“18 For [God does not overlook sin and] the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who in their wickedness suppress and stifle the truth, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them [in their inner consciousness], for God made it evident to them. 20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through His workmanship [all His creation, the wonderful things that He has made], so that they [who fail to believe and trust in Him] are without excuse and without defense. 21 For even though they [Anyone who attributes the existence of the world to chance or to a different creator is already guilty of deliberately rejecting God, because to deny the true God one must set aside common sense.] knew God [as the Creator], they did not honor [Literally, glorify.] Him as God or give thanks [for His wondrous creation]. On the contrary, they became worthless in their thinking [godless, with pointless reasonings, and silly speculations], and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God for an [Paul’s indictment of idolatry (images) is logical and devastating. He emphasizes that idols are essentially copies of living creatures, whether in human form (as, for example, in ancient Greek myth) or otherwise (as in Egyptian idolatry and metaphysics). These lifeless images are clearly powerless, and even the living creatures which they supposedly represent are either nonexistent hybrids and monsters, or else ordinary creatures on earth who could hardly create so much as a grain of sand.] image [worthless idols] in the shape of mortal man and birds and four-footed animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their own hearts to [sexual] impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin], 25 because [by choice] they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading and vile passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural [a function contrary to nature], 27 and in the same way also the men turned away from the natural function of the woman and were consumed with their desire toward one another, men with men committing shameful acts and in return receiving in their own bodies the inevitable and appropriate penalty for their wrongdoing.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or consider Him worth knowing [as their Creator], God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do things which are improper and repulsive, 29 until they were filled (permeated, saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice and mean-spiritedness. They are gossips [spreading rumors], 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors [of new forms] of evil, disobedient and disrespectful to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful [without pity]. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree and His judgment, that those who do such things deserve death, yet they not only do them, but they even [enthusiastically] approve and tolerate others who practice them.”
(Romans 1:18-32, Amplified Bible (AMP), emphasis and comments added)
Unclean, dishonoring to the body, vile, against nature, lustful, indecent, reprobate and improper are the terms Paul used to describe the sin of sodomy. It is also described as “bitter” in Deuteronomy 32:32, “horrible” in Jeremiah 23:14, and “ungodly,” “filthy,” and “unlawful” in 2 Peter 2:6-8.
Abusers of Themselves
In most Bible versions, the Greek word arsenokoites (Strong’s #G733) is translated homosexual but in 1 Corinthians 6:9, the King James Bible translators chose to render arsenokoites as “abusers of themselves with mankind.” This is an interesting rendition, especially in light of the following statistics:
“70% to 78% of gays reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. The proportion with intestinal parasites (worms, flukes, ameba [sic]) ranged from 25% to 39% to 59%. As of 1992, 83% of U.S. AIDS in whites had occurred in gays….
The lifespan of homosexuals suggests that their activities are far more self-destructive than smoking. 5,371 obituaries from 16 U.S. homosexual journals were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers. …the median age of death of married men was 75 and 80% of them died old (age 65 or older). For unmarried or divorced men the median age of death was 57 and 32% died old. Married women averaged 79 at death; 85% died old. Unmarried and divorced women averaged 71 and 60% died old. The median age of death for homosexuals, however, was virtually the same nationwide – and, overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age was 39. For the 588 gays who died of something other than AIDS, the median age of death was 42 and 9% died old. The 106 lesbians had a median age of death of 45 and 26% died old.
2.5% of gays died violently. They were 87 times more apt to be murdered; 25 times more apt to commit suicide; and had a traffic-accident death-rate 18 times the rate of comparably aged white males. Heart attacks, cancer and liver failure were exceptionally common. Twenty-one percent of lesbians died of murder, suicide, or accident – a rate 532 times higher than of white females aged 25-44.”
 “Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do,” Family Values, January/ February 1993.
This lifestyle would be better termed an “alternate death-style.” It is almost as if King Solomon had homosexuals in mind when he wrote in Proverbs 10:27 that “…the years of the wicked shall be shortened.” Nothing occurs except by Yahweh’s sovereign design; AIDS would seem to be one of His means of fulfilling this proverb among the sodomite community.
Coming Out of the Closet
Today the sodomites have gone far beyond just “coming out of the closet.” Their agenda includes proselytizing and lobbying congress for support.
Roberta Achtenberg, President Bill Clinton’s assistant secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and the first known homosexual appointed to a federal position, waged a two-year court battle against the Boy Scouts of America because they refused to allow homosexuals to be Scout leaders. Clinton himself was very pro-homosexual. He made the following statements in his June 2000 proclamation for Gay and Lesbian Pride Month:
“Gay and lesbian Americans have made important and lasting contributions to our Nation in every field of endeavor…. In recent years … the gay and lesbian rights movement has united gays and lesbians, their families and friends, and all those committed to justice and equality in a crusade to outlaw discriminatory laws and practices and to protect gays and lesbians from prejudice and persecution. I am proud of the part that my Administration has played to achieve these goals. Today, more openly gay and lesbian individuals serve in senior posts throughout the Federal Government than during any other Administration…. This June … we observe Gay and Lesbian Pride Month and celebrate the progress we have made in creating a society more inclusive and accepting of gays and lesbians. I hope that in this new millennium we will continue to break down the walls of fear and prejudice and work to build a bridge to understanding and tolerance, until gays and lesbians are afforded the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America … do hereby proclaim June 2000 as Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. I encourage all Americans to observe this month … and recognize the gay and lesbian Americans whose many and varied contributions have enriched our national life….” WILLIAM J. CLINTON
 William J. Clinton, “Proclamation: Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, 2000,” U.S. Newswire, 2 June 2000.
This was to be expected from Bill Clinton but most people would be surprised to discover that George W. Bush is also very pro-homosexual. Among others, he appointed homosexual Scott Evertz to direct his new Office of National AIDS Policy, homosexual Michael Guest as ambassador to Romania and homosexual activist David Cappoccia to the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts.
Bush supports state-level civil unions between sodomites. On December 21, 2001, he signed a bill that allowed the District of Columbia’s government to fund a program that for the first time gives domestic partners of city employees access to health benefits. Consider the following, reported by World Net Daily:
“Not long after he endorsed “Marriage Protection Week,” President Bush sent a letter of congratulations to a denomination founded by homosexual activists that performs more than 6,000 same-sex “weddings” each year. The president wrote to the founding congregation in Los Angeles of the Metropolitan Community Churches, led by leading homosexual activist Rev. Troy D. Perry, on the occasion of its 35th anniversary. “By encouraging the celebration of faith and sharing God’s love and boundless mercy, churches like yours put hope in people’s hearts and a sense of purpose in their lives,” Bush said in his Oct. 14 missive. “This milestone provides an opportunity to reflect on your years of service and to rejoice in God’s faithfulness to your congregation.” ”
 Daniel J. Sparks, “Bush cheers ‘gay’ church after ‘Marriage Week’… 2003,” WorldNetDaily.com, posted November 12, 2003.
Guide, a popular homosexual magazine, printed a homosexual agenda to win support by means of the news media:
“In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role as protector…. Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, but should instead make anti-discrimination as its theme…. To be blunt – they [anti-homosexuals] must be vilified…. The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits disgust middle America…. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to abstract social questions as much as possible. First, let the camel get his nose inside the tent – and only later his unsightly derrier.”
 Guide, quoted in Gospel Truth, March 1993, page 2.
In The Advocate, the nation’s largest homosexual publication, Steve Warren warned Christians what sodomites expect of them:
“Here are some things you will be expected to affirm…. 1. Henceforth, homosexuality will be spoken of in your churches and synagogues as an ‘honorable estate.’ 2. You can either let us marry people of the same sex, or better yet abolish marriage altogether…. 3. You will be expected to offer ceremonies that bless our sexual arrangements…. You will also instruct your people in homosexual as well as heterosexual behavior, and you will go out of your way to make certain that homosexual youths are allowed to date, attend religious functions together, openly display affection, and enjoy each other’s sexuality without embarrassment or guilt. 4. If any of the older people in your midst object, you will deal with them sternly, making certain they renounce their ugly and ignorant homophobia or suffer public humiliation. 5. You will also make certain that … laws are passed forbidding discrimination against homosexuals and heavy punishments are assessed…. 6. Finally, we will in all likelihood want to expunge a number of passages from your Scriptures and re-write others, eliminating preferential treatment of marriage and using words that will allow for homosexual interpretations of passages describing biblical lovers…. Warning: If all these things do not come to pass quickly, we will subject Orthodox Jews and Christians to the most sustained hatred and vilification in recent memory. We have captured the liberal establishment and the press…. You have neither the faith nor the strength to fight us, so you might as well surrender now.”
 Steve Warren, “Warning to the Homophobes,” The Advocate, September 1, 1987, page 29, quoted by Gary Gibbs, Homosexuality: Return to Sodom (Roseville CA: Amazing Facts, Inc., 1996) pages 21-22.
Many homosexuals are rabid revolutionaries, as demonstrated in the following essay entitled “For the Homoerotic Order,” which first appeared in Gay Community News, February 15-21, 1987. It was written by Michael Swift, a man known as the ‘Gay Revolutionary:’
“This essay is outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.
We shall sodomize your sons.… We shall seduce them … wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us….
All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. All homosexuals must stand together as brothers…. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.
If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies. We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men….
Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigeur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles….
The family unit – spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence – will be abolished. The family unit … must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal settings, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.
All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. …we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough….
We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.
Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.”
 Michael Swift, “For the Homoerotic Order,” Gay Community News, February 15-21, 1981, page 5.
Some in the homosexual community have argued that this piece is satire. But what kind of reprobates produce and publish such satire? Carefully read again the opening paragraph and decide for yourself whether you think this was meant to be merely satirical. When this was written in 1987, no one would have believed that the homosexual community could have had the impact upon our nation’s laws that they do today. No one would have believed that TV sitcoms and Hollywood movies would be so brazen in their depiction of homosexual relationships. No one would have believed it possible to conceive and grow baby boys outside a mother’s womb in a laboratory. No one would have believed that the Bible could be labeled as hate literature and that pastors who preach against homosexuality could be imprisoned.
This concludes our study of Part 3 of Part 6 on The Seventh Commandment. Stay tuned for Part 4 next week.