A Historic Christian View of Interracial Marriage (and Those Who Held It)
You're not going to like hearing it. But it's healthy to confront inconvenient facts.
Pastor Joel Webbon, president of NXR, has a unique way with words. And by that, I mean a way that foments anger, indignation, and besides-themselves outrage from his critics for daring to say things that - not long ago - were said by treasured theologians with much less controversy. And one such example was Webbon’s comments on interracial marriage.
On the NXR webcast, Webbon had issued his opinion that interracial marriage is not a sin, but is also neither normative nor ideal. In response to the anger from those who acted like such a position was novel, rare, or scandalous, Webbon said again on X, “Interracial marriage is not a sin. Neither the Bible nor the witness of church history condemn it as such.”
Webbon continue “And yet, many Christian fathers in the West, for centuries, until only recently, believed it was not God’s ideal/normative design for nations, cultures, and humanity” and emphasized that he agreed with that perspective.
The outrage has been palpable, and from largely the same sources who’ve wailed the loudest regarding other controversies related to Webbon’s routine speaking out loud the opinions that those in polite evangelical circles would dare say only in private. At least, as of only a few decades ago. NXR believes it would be helpful to clarify that position, emphasize its biblical faithfulness, and defend its orthodoxy in accordance to Christian history, Reformed epistemology, and Biblical teleology.
THE POSITION STATED
Positions that have official titles are usually those suffering some unbiblical ailment or heretical stigma. And so because this position is ordinary, reasonable, and common, we’ll have to assign it a name for the purpose of our assessment. And so, we will call it for this short article, the “Neither sinful nor recommended” view of interracial marriage.
As the title would suggest and as Webbon articulated, the position is that not every interracial is marriage is necessarily sinful, in the same way that not every intraracial (same-race) marriage is necessarily godly. Sin is well-defined in Biblical terms, because sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). In other words, sin is a violation of one of God’s laws. In the Reformed view, this is speaking of God’s Moral Law, in particular, which are summarized by the Ten Commandments, which are representative of God’s own immutable righteous naature. Every sin, therefore, is a violation of God’s Commandments either explicitly, or implicitly by the failure to uphold their application mediated by the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), loving both God and one another.
Those who hold the “neither sinful nor recommended” view acknowledge that interracial marriage is not in specific violation of any Biblical command in the same way as, for example, one committing adultery. There can therefore be no righteous employment of criminal penalty for interracial marriage, nor act of church discipline, nor any other kind of social or relational sanction.
However, the “neither sinful nor recommended view” also asserts that it is neither commended (praised) nor recommended (advised) in Scripture. And this is where you see the spirit of the age invade the evangelical church in full force. Webbon’s critics are very clear in their insistence that the Bible both advises and praises interracial marriage with some even asserting that it’s worthy of even greater celebration. Like so many today, it’s not enough that the church tolerate their marriage choice, but celebrate it as uniquely virtuous.
Webbon critic, Samuel Sey, made this very claim. Sey - who would later insinuate that Webbon’s position is so overtly overladen with with hatred that he wouldn’t eat with or speak to a black person (despite Webbon having already conversed with him as a friend over a shared meal) - a foreigner and black man, has used his marriage to a Caucasian women as a cudgel, and his residence in the United States to routinely accuse Heritage of Americans of closeted hatred with front-row seat to their humiliation. And he’s expressed in recent days that “God’s support for ‘interracial’ marriage is so clear, that the only way you can state your opposition to it is to make weak, illogical arguments.”
Sey’s use of scare-quotes around the term, ‘interracial’ indicates another point of contention below the surface. Webbon affirms, and his critics deny, the existence of races beyond mere social construct. It’s what I’ve referred to as Racial Gnosticism, the denial of race as a biological or biblical reality.
And so, we will use Webbon’s position as the point, and Sey’s position as counterpoint, to fully explain the current controversy.
A REFUTATION OF RACIAL GNOSTICISM
Those who affirm Racial Gnosticism, like Sey, argue that there is only one human race, with no biologically distinct races. They claim the Bible and history record no interracial marriages, as all humans share descent from Adam, making racial distinctions illusory and contrary to unity in Christ (for example, Acts 17:26). If this is true, then Webbon’s “neither sinful nor recommended” view is wrong at the outset, because no racial categories exist. But this view spiritualizes human diversity (the same way Gnosticism spiritualizes Christ’s flesh), denying race as a meaningful category and treating physical differences as irrelevant to God’s design.
Racial Gnosticism collapses under biblical, historical, and empirical scrutiny. Scripture affirms race as real and multifaceted. Genesis 10’s Table of Nations details Noah’s descendants branching into 70 nations, grouped by kinship, tongues, lands, and nations (verse 31). These are not mere administrative labels but divine acknowledgments of divergence from a common origin into distinct groups. Examples include Semites, Cushites (dark-skinned), and Japhethites, with physical traits noted elsewhere (for example, Jeremiah 13:23 on Cushite skin; Numbers 12 on Moses’ Cushite wife). Zechariah 9:6 refers to a “mixed race” in Ashdod, implying hybrid origins are conceivable only if races exist. Greek terms like συγγενῶν (Romans 9:3, “kinsmen according to the flesh”) distinguish physical racial bonds from spiritual ones. Sey’s monoracial emphasis confuses soteriological equality (Galatians 3:28) with ontological sameness, ignoring preserved diversity even in eternity (Revelation 7:9).
Historically, pre-modern societies recognized races holistically, encompassing descent, language, culture, religion, and geography, not just skin color. Ancient texts and church fathers treated groups like Israelites and Cushites as distinct. Until the 20th century, terms like “American race” or “French race” denoted shared heritage and soil, even with outliers. Denying this echoes a narrowed, post-eugenics view that reduced race to aesthetics.
Aside from irrefutable proof that races exist, genetic science also reveals ancestral population clusters with measurable differences, corresponding to historical migrations like that laid out in the Bible’s Table of Nations. These clusters reflect real biological variation within human unity, not mere social constructs. Race exists as God-ordained diversity (biological, cultural, and geographical) without implying superiority. Denying this spiritualizes the physical world God created varied, undermining Scripture’s witness to human branching and distinction. Simply put, Webbon just isn’t in a position to deny either the Scripture or observable reality.
And he’s not alone, because Webbon’s affirmation of race as a biblical reality aligns with esteemed Reformed theologians who recognized racial distinctions as genuine categories rooted in Scripture, particularly Genesis 10’s Table of Nations. John Calvin, in his Commentary on Genesis, describes the chapter’s genealogy as delineating real human branches: “according to the division of the earth into three great portions, Europe, Asia, and Africa, speaking generally, Japheth was the progenitor of the Europeans, Shem of the Asiatics, and Ham of the Africans.” He adds, “Whence we infer that we are sprung from those nations,” affirming distinct lineages from Noah as observable realities.
Abraham Kuyper echoes this in his writings on common grace, noting diverse racial developments: “In all these regions... the people attained a high degree of development, but stopped there, and, remaining isolated, in no way proved a benefit to humanity at large. This applies more strongly still to the life of the colored races on the coast and in the interior of Africa.” He references “the commingling of blood” and “the American type,” treating races as distinct biological and cultural entities.
J. Gresham Machen, in a 1913 letter, grounded separation in inherent differences, “My view [on race relations] was supported by ‘the facts of human nature,’” implying racial distinctions as natural and real. B.B. Warfield, in his theological reflections, notes, “To Paul, the human race is made up of families, and every several organism... is composed of families, united together by this or that bond,” viewing humanity as diversified into kin-based groups. These voices confirm race’s biblical and empirical existence, supporting Webbon’s rejection of Racial Gnosticism.
A DEFENSE OF PROVIDENTIAL EPISTEMOLOGY
Webbon’s critics, like Samuel Sey, insist that Scripture not only permits but celebrates and endorses interracial marriage as a divine ideal, citing God’s supposed “clear support” for it. However, a careful examination reveals no such biblical commendation or recommendation. The text never praises interracial unions as uniquely virtuous or normative for humanity. At best, critics like Sey point to isolated examples, such as Moses’ marriage to a Cushite woman (Numbers 12) or other figures like Joseph with an Egyptian or Boaz with Ruth (a Moabite, though often debated as interracial). Yet these mentions are descriptive, not prescriptive. They record events without endorsing them as models for all.
Take for example Moses’ case, when Miriam and Aaron opposed his Cushite wife, but God punished them explicitly for challenging Moses’ prophetic authority, not for objecting to the marriage itself (Numbers 12:1-10). The narrative focuses on divine vindication of Moses’ leadership, with the interracial aspect incidental. Moreover, this was Moses’ second wife, following Zipporah. We do not interpret this as a biblical endorsement of polygamy, which Scripture regulates but never celebrates as ideal (for example, Genesis 2:24’s monogamous paradigm).
Similarly, Ruth’s story emphasizes redemptive faithfulness amid cultural boundaries, not a mandate to cross racial lines. If Scripture intended to commend interracial marriage, it would do so explicitly, as it does with virtues like humility or charity. The absence of such praise forces us to discern God’s design through other Reformed means, leading us to Providential Epistemology.
Providential Epistemology is a time-honored method in Reformed orthodoxy for understanding God’s will where direct commands are absent. It posits that God’s normative designs are discernible by looking backward at His providential ordering of history, creation, and human affairs. This is not speculative but a straightforward “no duh” approach: observe what God has consistently ordained as patterns in the world He sovereignly governs. As Reformed theologian John Calvin explained in his Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book 1, Chapter 5), God’s providence reveals His wisdom through the “theater of the world,” where natural and historical orders reflect divine intent. Jonathan Edwards echoed this in A History of the Work of Redemption, arguing that providence unfolds God’s redemptive plan, making normative patterns evident over time.
This epistemology aligns with Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 1.6), which teaches that Scripture’s sufficiency includes inferring good and necessary consequences from its principles, supplemented by the light of nature and historical witness.In essence, knowing God’s design is not difficult because history serves as a retrospective lens. What has been overwhelmingly normative in creation and church history provides evidence of the ideal. For instance, Scripture lacks explicit prohibitions on many practices (for example, certain diets or vocations), yet Reformed thinkers discern prudence from providential norms, such as eating patterns in Eden or apostolic examples guide us without direct laws. This method avoids Normative Principle error (anything not forbidden is recommended) and legalism (adding extra-biblical rules), grounding wisdom in God’s revealed works.
Applying Providential Epistemology to interracial marriage yields clear insights. Biblically, God’s design post-Babel emphasizes diversity through separated nations and peoples (Genesis 10-11; Acts 17:26), with endogamy as the normative pattern in Israel’s laws (for example, Deuteronomy 7:3-4 warning against intermarriage with Canaanites to preserve covenant fidelity, though not solely racial). Historically, for centuries, Christian fathers in the West viewed interracial unions as non-normative, aligning with God’s ideal for nations, cultures, and humanity. Figures like Augustine in City of God (Book 15) discussed human diversity as providential, arising from Noah’s lines without mandating mixture. Puritan divines, such as Richard Baxter, advised against marriages crossing deep cultural-racial divides for familial harmony, seeing homogeneity as providentially wise. Even in America, Reformed leaders like Robert Lewis Dabney noted racial distinctions as God-ordained facts, cautioning against unnecessary blending as contrary to normative designs.
This does not deem interracial marriage sinful, lacking a moral law violation (1 John 3:4), but neither recommended nor ideal. Providentially, societies thriving on shared kinship, language, and heritage reflect God’s order; widespread interracial mixing is a modern anomaly, often driven by secular ideologies rather than biblical norms. Thus, Webbon’s “neither sinful nor recommended” view upholds Reformed orthodoxy: it honors Scripture’s silence by deferring to providence’s testimony, affirming equality in Christ while recognizing diversity’s purposeful structure. Denying this epistemology risks imposing contemporary preferences onto God’s timeless design, as Sey does by demanding celebration where none is warranted.
BIBLICAL TELEOLOGY
Jonathan Edwards provides a profound Reformed lens for understanding God’s purposes in creation and providence, which further solidifies the “neither sinful nor recommended” view of interracial marriage. Edwards viewed all things as directed toward a single ultimate end: the manifestation of God’s glory through the redemption and beautification of the church as Christ’s bride. In his sermon “Approaching the End of God’s Grand Design” (drawing from Revelation 21:6), Edwards describes this telos: God works “to present to his Son a spouse in perfect purity, beauty and glory from amongst sinful, miserable mankind.” Creation, history, and human affairs serve as subordinate means to this grand purpose, ordered by divine wisdom to display God’s perfections in Christ.
Teleology asks not merely what is permitted, but what aligns with God’s intended end. Edwards saw providence as sustaining purposeful distinctions in the world to reflect divine order and glory. Human diversity, arising from the post-Babel scattering into nations (Genesis 10-11), is not accidental but teleologically significant. Separated peoples, with their kinship ties, languages, customs, and territories, facilitate ordered societies where covenant faithfulness, familial stability, and cultural continuity can flourish. These patterns honor God’s design for human thriving as a prelude to the redeemed multitude from “every nation, tribe, people, and language” (Revelation 7:9), where distinctions persist yet unite in worship.
In this framework, widespread interracial marriage, while not sinful (lacking violation of moral law), deviates from the normative teleological pattern evident in Scripture. Biblical endogamy in Israel’s laws (Deuteronomy 7:3-4) preserved covenant identity and faithfulness, warning against mixture that could dilute spiritual allegiance. Edwards would see such norms as providentially wise means toward God’s end: ordered diversity glorifies God more than forced uniformity or unchecked blending driven by modern egalitarianism.
Sey’s demand to celebrate interracial marriage as virtuous imposes a contemporary telos: unity through erasure of distinctions, onto Scripture, ignoring Edwards’ insistence that God’s glory shines through purposeful variety. Webbon’s position aligns perfectly: interracial unions are lawful but non-normative, respecting the teleological order where nations and peoples serve God’s redemptive design without mandating their dissolution through marriage. This upholds Reformed orthodoxy, viewing human distinctions as means to the ultimate end of Christ’s bride, pure and glorious.
Thus, biblical teleology, alongside Providential Epistemology, confirms that God’s design favors normative endogamy for nations and cultures. Denying this risks misaligning human practice with divine purpose, celebrating what Scripture describes rather than prescribes.
THE 20TH CENTURY VIEWS OF RUSHDOONY
In the final analysis, Pastor Joel Webbon’s “neither sinful nor recommended” view of interracial marriage finds its strongest and most explicit parallel in the theology of R.J. Rushdoony, the architect of Christian Reconstructionism and one of the 20th century’s most rigorous Reformed scholars. Rushdoony’s position is not merely similar; it is virtually identical in substance, rooted in the same biblical exegesis, Reformed epistemology, and commitment to God’s providential order.
In The Institutes of Biblical Law (Volume 1, 1973), Rushdoony devotes careful attention to the biblical principles governing marriage. He writes: “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.” He grounds this in 2 Corinthians 6:14’s prohibition against unequal yoking, applying it broadly: “So that if it is inter-religious marriage, or interracial, or intercultural, normally the disparity is too great for it to be a valid marriage in terms of God’s standards.” Rushdoony stresses that marriage requires the wife to be a true “helpmeet” (Genesis 2:18), one who mirrors the husband’s nature, faith, background, and calling. He states unequivocally: “Marriage between persons of very different races generally doesn’t fulfill that requirement... So that, while it can legally qualify, theologically you could say there are factors that normally in almost 99 cases out of a 100 would militate against it.”
In his 1993 lecture “God’s Order for Family, Church, and State,” Rushdoony reiterated this view, emphasizing that God’s design for nations and peoples (Genesis 10; Acts 17:26) includes distinct racial and cultural boundaries as part of divine providence. He argued that these separations preserve covenantal integrity, familial continuity, and societal order, and that blurring them through widespread intermarriage often reflects humanistic rebellion rather than biblical wisdom.Rushdoony’s gravitas is undeniable.
A meticulous scholar of Scripture and law, he influenced countless pastors, theologians, and laymen with his uncompromising application of biblical principles to every sphere of life. His views on race and marriage were not peripheral opinions but integral to his reconstruction of society under God’s law. They echo the consensus of earlier Reformed thinkers who saw nations as God-ordained entities with purposeful distinctions.
Webbon’s position is therefore not innovative or controversial within historic Reformed thought; it is a direct continuation of Rushdoony’s teaching. Critics who attack Webbon as extreme or unorthodox must first reckon with Rushdoony himself. If they deem this perspective racist, heretical, or contrary to the gospel, they will need to explain why one of the most influential defenders of biblical inerrancy and Reformed theology (not to mention the founder of the homeschool movement) held it so firmly and defended it so plainly. The “neither sinful nor recommended” stance rests on firm biblical, historical, and theological ground. Webbon speaks today what Rushdoony articulated yesterday, and what faithful Christian fathers long assumed. The real question is not whether Webbon is right, but whether critics are willing to confront the weight of Rushdoony’s legacy.
THE RESPONSE OF WEAKER MEN AND ANGRY WOMEN
Let the record stand unspotted that Pastor Joel Webbon’s position is not peculiar, novel, or controversial if we’re judging outside the bounds of the 21st Century. It’s not Kinism (which brands interracial marriage as sin, a categorical transgression of divine law, often freighted with notions of racial superiority or mandated separation enforced by ecclesiastical censure). Webbon declares no such thing. He affirms that interracial unions violate no commandment of God’s moral law (1 John 3:4), incur no righteous discipline, and warrant no civil penalty. To smear him with labels or insanely over-emotional declarations of heresy is not mere error; it is malicious libel, a deliberate distortion designed to poison the well rather than engage the argument, and cloaked in complete ignorance of historic doctrines.
Those who howl “heretic” at views once commonplace among the fathers of the faith reveal more about their own captivity to the spirit of the age than about any departure from orthodoxy. They anathematize what Calvin saw in the Table of Nations, what Rushdoony defended with exegetical steel, what Kuyper and Machen assumed without apology. Their outrage is not zeal for truth but panic at the reappearance of ideas polite evangelicalism had buried under layers of cultural capitulation.
Such accusers trade Scripture for sentiment, providence for propaganda, teleology for trendy egalitarianism. They demand celebration where God is silent, brand realism as racism, and wield “heresy” as a cudgel against fidelity. As the Psalmist says, “Let the heathen rage.”
The verdict of history, the witness of Reformed giants, and the plain testimony of God’s Word stand unshaken. Webbon speaks what orthodoxy long whispered; his critics merely shout to drown it out. The charge of heresy rebounds upon them: not for holding yesterday’s truth, but for scorning it today.
Not every article is free. Grab a premium subscription to access exclusive content.