So the other day an user posted a pdf entitled
I'm going to dismantle it. Before I begin, let me make my position clear: race mixing is genocide and sin. I'm here to sharpen your iron, not dull your blade.
The opening argument of this PDF is unfortunately unpersuasive. The author begins with an appeal to authority, Gerhard Kittel, which in itself isn't a problem. The problem is that one authority does not constitute a consensus. If the claim of this document is true in regards to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, then I'm afraid that it would appear to anyone closely examining this matter that Mr. Kittel had allowed his personal interpretation to influence his reading of the text. If there are other scholars who would share Mr. Kittel's interpretation of μοιχεύω, I would be delighted to know them.
The author further appeals to the Greek, and then to the Latin Vulgate to substantiate that μοιχεύω can be interpreted to semantically include what is essentially bestiality. They further go on to criticize and cast doubts upon the development of biblical lexical study, claiming that μοιχεύω and adultery have had their meaning contorted by the influence of the Romanists.
That's great and all, but there's a few problems with that line of argumentation.
1. I am going to need earlier citations that show an agreement with Mr. Kittel's wider interpretation of μοιχεύω.
2. The Latin Vulgate has no more semantic authority than the King James or any other translation.
3. If you crossreference the various places where μοιχεύω / μοιχός et al are used in scripture, the context makes it very clear that the authors are referring to marital infidelity. For example, do you think Jesus was referring to race mixing in Matthew 5:28 or 5:32? That would be quite a stretch. I have no need to appeal to authority for this. If you still wish to argue that bestiality is included within the word's semantic domain, the burden of proof is upon you. Show me the evidence. Demonstrate to me from the text that the word is used in this way.
It's not good to base your argument on the definition of a single word.
Brothers, I want you to be better prepared to stand your ground when challenged on this issue. It is my duty, and yours, to make sure the argumentation that you're using has a solid foundation so that we don't harden the very people that we're trying to help by making the truth seem baseless. When thinking through these issues, you need to put yourself into the headspace of your audience and think about what their objections would be.
Riddle me this. Why are so many obsessed with finding a direct commandment against race mixing in the Bible? Do we actually need one? I say no. When the objector demands that you show them in the bible where it says not to race mix, don't you realize that that isn't an argument? The LGBTQIA++ acronym spaghetti mob demand that you tell them where Jesus said marriage can't be between two men or two women. It's the same argument and it's equally invalid! These things have long been considered so unthinkable that it was never even necessary to directly address them. Show me in the bible where it says that life begins at conception! Can't find it? Oh, well I guess abortion isn't murder then! Pro-Choice: 1, Anti-Choice: 0
This sort of argumentation is infantile and it should be identified and called out for what it is: willful ignorance and non-cognitivism. Do not allow your opponent to stand on some imagined moral high ground. Drag them back down to earth and make them deal with reality. Race mixing has consequences. The consequences alone are sufficient moral grounds to condemn the activity. If there's nothing wrong with it, then why did the Marxists need to incite a moral revolution to make it allowable? Why does it slither in under the same banner as gay rights and feminism?