Much of the discussion and disagreement between those who would call themselves “Christian Nationalists” or the “New Christian Right” and others in the Reformed world these days (specifically and especially those who have referred to themselves as “theonomists” or “biblicists”) revolves around the subject of what comprises a proper nation. What is a nation? How ought we establish nations (or is there even an ought involved)? Who are the proper citizens of a nation? Are nations required to be composed exclusively (or nearly exclusively) of a particular ethnic group to achieve proper cohesion (a position sometimes referred to as ethno-nationalism), or is a nation properly defined as propositional or covenantal, with people from various ethnic groups covenanting together and pledging allegiance to a nation based on shared principles?
The Definition of a Nation
Part of the problem with the discussion is that there are multiple meanings for the term nation, at least two, and they are both relevant to the discussion. Because of that, the word will often carry with it both of those meanings in the same context, making equivocation a constant threat, often proving to be more than just a threat.
One can speak of a nation as a group of people that share various characteristics, such as skin tone, family history, a certain dialect, etc. This is the meaning we often see of the term ethne in the Greek of the New Testament. People classified this way are also often called “ethnic groups” or “people groups” to help avoid confusion with the other common use of the term “nation” which I describe briefly below.
One can also speak of a nation as a synonym for the word “country,” meaning a political nation or nation-state, such as the United States, Germany, Brazil, etc. This is probably the more common usage of the term today. As is probably obvious to anyone reading this, a nation in this sense is bound together by several things, to include a kind of civil government, a set of laws, etc.
In order to avoid confusion and conflation with this term and its meanings, throughout this essay I’ll refer to nations in the first sense as “ethnic groups” or “people groups” and countries as “political nations” or “nation states.”
The Composition of a Nation
The Ethno-Nationalist Claims
The controversy as it stands in the Reformed community these days is between those who claim that a political nation either will not or cannot properly function unless it is composed primarily of a single people group and those who believe that multiple people groups are fine, provided they share allegiance to common principles. The former ideology is held by those I will refer to as “ethno-nationalists,” and they make their arguments largely on the basis of natural revelation or natural law, sometimes borrowing from the arguments of men like Aristotle to buttress their case.
As part of their argument, they rightly observe that many, even most, political nations in the history of the world were largely (perhaps entirely?) composed of a single ethnic group. Indeed, as one makes his way across the historic landscape of Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, or Asia, one finds that the people groups are often quite similar in appearance and ancestry, with nation-states being formed of those groups. Therefore, as the argument often goes, political nations ought to be formed of people with similar or identical ethnic backgrounds because they always have.
Further, they say, because a homogenous blood line will have a similar history, there is going to be a stronger, natural bond between the people of a political nation of a common ancestry, allowing for greater cohesion between them and therefore reducing conflicts. Such a people will also generally have a common language, further helping cohesion.
Further still, ethno-nationalists often claim that the very term for nation in the Greek language (which is of course the language of the New Testament), the term ethnos, is the very word from which we get the English term ethnic group. So, it follows from that fact that we ought to seek to create nation-states from a single ethnic group; it’s what the very word means, after all.
A Brief Examination of the Ethno-Nationalist Claims
There are several problems with the ethno-nationalist claims as stated.
First, to say that a political nation must be mono-ethnic because of the Greek term ethnos is non-sequitor; it does not follow. Words change meaning over time, something to which anyone who has read the King James Version of the Bible can attest. The English term “nation” is translated from the Greek term ethnos (which generally refers to people groups). This may suggest a similarity in meaning, but by itself it does not follow that there is any requirement for a political nation to be ontologically mono-ethnic.
In short, because words look similar or are translated a particular way doesn’t mean that they must be related, either in meaning over time or as they apply to political nations’ composition.
Second, it also does not follow that because something is or has been a certain way that it ought to be that way. One can look at many examples in history to see this to be the case, one of which being the American slavery system. The African Slave Trade had been a reality in the United States from its inception up until the Civil War. It had always been the case, at least from the beginning of the United States as a political nation, but that particular practice of slavery is nearly (if not entirely) universally condemned in the United States today.
Furthermore, the related claim that because two things are often found together that they are caused by each other (or that one causes the other) is known as the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, confusing correlation with causation. So, just because we very often see political nations being composed mono-ethnically, it doesn’t follow that such a thing is necessary for a political nation to exist. That is, mono-ethnicity is not automatically a necessary cause or required sustaining characteristic for a political nation’s existence. They certainly can work mono-ethnically; however, it doesn’t follow that they must be mono-ethnic to work.
Further, though having a shared heritage and ethnic background (and even a single language) can help create cohesion in a people group, it doesn’t follow that these things automatically do or are necessary for such cohesion, as some claim. Many a war has been fought across Europe with people looking nearly identical and often sharing common languages.
As another example, the Civil War in the United States was fought amongst people of shared language and heritage. There were severe ideological issues that arose between the North and the South that led to a conflict in spite of their shared heritage and language, one that caused separate nations to be formed based on that difference in ideology. A shared ideology (also known as a shared national covenant) is something that is always present, even in nations that are largely or exclusively mono-ethnic, a fact that is often omitted from discussions by those who insist on the mono-ethnic standard.
The Propositional or Covenantal Nation
What kept the North the North and the South the South during the era of the United States Civil War is the thing that binds any political nation together: a shared national covenant (indeed, part of the reason for the war was the belief that the other side violated that covenant!), a standard to which they all agree, regardless of their backgrounds. The members of a political nation swear allegiance to a common standard, one that binds them together ideologically and transcends whatever physical differences they have. Such a commitment will create a common culture with a common language, and the stronger the transcendent standard, the stronger the national unity will be.
The Authoritative Standard to Determine Proper Nations
The last paragraph above is a strong claim, and it requires an authoritative standard for it to be validated. Without such a standard, then arguments about such things will be unending, with one person citing one historical example against the historical example of another, even potentially falling prey to the same error: the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. “Sure, there is a national covenant in nations that are multi-ethnic,” one might claim, “but is that REALLY required for national unity or is it just something that tends to go along with it?”
That standard for Christians, especially for Reformed Christians (who are very often rightly self-conscious about this fact), is that of Holy Scripture. The famous text from 2 Timothy 3 comes to mind:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Is it a good work in the sight of God for nations to be formed properly? I believe it is, and that it is good and proper for Christians to be people to order such nations for the honor and glory of Christ Jesus. All nations are to submit to God and obey the Son:
Psalm 2:10-12 ESV Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. (11) Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. (12) Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
It follows from this that we ought to want nation-states to serve the Living God, being run by Christians and to have biblical laws. Furthermore, it follows from this that we ought to have nations that are composed in the way the Bible says nations are to be composed, and it is my contention that, through biblical exposition, we will see that what properly defines a nation state is not its ethnic makeup, but is rather the national covenant of that nation[2], as numerous examples from the Old Testament Scriptures will make very clear.
Exposition of Relevant Scriptures
The Foundational Text
For texts that establish the reality of a political nation being primarily covenantal and not primarily ethnic in its constitution, one can find nothing better in all of Scripture than chapter 12 of the Book of Exodus. It’s a rather long chapter, but contains a basic process for how someone who was not a native Israelite to be counted as one. Let’s look at the most important part of the text, which I have cited below.
Exodus 12:43-48 ESV And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the statute of the Passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, (44) but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. (45) No foreigner or hired worker may eat of it. (46) It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house, and you shall not break any of its bones. (47) All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. (48) If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.
Before I begin to address the specifics of the text, it’s important to note where this chapter is in the life of the people of Israel. This was not a command that God decided to tack on at some point down the road after the people were a nation so that they could handle some kind of influx of immigrants. No, the giving of this Law from God, through Moses, happened during the Exodus from Egypt and before the Red Sea crossing (which took place in chapter 14).
God never does anything by accident; therefore, there was a divine purpose in providing this Law at the time He gave it. The idea was, among other things, to inculcate into the people of Israel that they were to welcome a foreigner/sojourner into their ranks as an Israelite, provided that the person and his family met certain requirements. If the person did not meet those requirements, then he and his family were to be rejected as citizens.
We see the rejection of the sojourner from being part of the political nation of Israel in verse 43. The foreigner was not permitted to eat of the Passover, the meal of remembrance for the people of Israel which looked back to how God delivered them from Egypt generally and the Tenth Plague specifically. This meal was for God’s people; the foreigner (or foreign worker, verse 45) was not to eat it or participate in it as he was not part of God’s people.
However, in verse 48, we see what looks like a reversal. Here we have the sojourner wanting to participate in the passover, indicating a desire to worship Israel’s God. So, there was a requirement: he and his male family members had to be circumcised. Doing this was proof positive of his desire to worship Israel’s God, and it also meant his status had changed: he became “as a native of the land.” In other words, he was counted as being an Israelite even though he was not born an Israelite.
The implications of this are very significant. He and his family became part of the political nation, not because of family pedigree, but because they assimilated into the people of Israel by entering into covenant with YHWH. They were effectively adopted at the civil level, just as someone who is adopted into a family unit is legally and covenantally part of that family, and how we as individuals are adopted by God at salvation and thus are part of the family of faith in the New Covenant.
The conclusion from this text be this: though the sojourner was originally not permitted to eat the passover because he was a foreigner and not a native Israelite, he later was able to eat it with his family after they were circumcised, showing that they not only entered into covenant with God, but covenant with the people of Israel, becoming part of the political nation as well. Thus, the identity of the political nation was not primarily ethnic but covenantal[1], and anyone becoming part of Israel had to assimilate by means of covenant with God.
Furthermore, ultimately, the political nation or people group the individual came from was ultimately irrelevant. Whether the person was originally descended from Shem, Ham, or Japheth didn’t matter: they were all from Noah, and all from Adam, after all. What mattered was faithfulness to Israel’s God, and therefore faithfulness to Israel. In addition to the directive provided in Exodus 12, this is easily seen in the many examples we have of faithful servants of God throughout the Old Testament
Joseph:
Joseph is our first example. Obviously he lived in the time of the patriarchs in Genesis, long before the time of Moses. However, because he was the progenitor of not one but two of the tribes of Israel, who his sons were and who his wife was are quite important.
Genesis 41:50-53 ESV Before the year of famine came, two sons were born to Joseph. Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On, bore them to him. (51) Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh. "For," he said, "God has made me forget all my hardship and all my father's house." (52) The name of the second he called Ephraim, "For God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction." (53) The seven years of plenty that occurred in the land of Egypt came to an end,
Joseph was the favorite son of Israel, also known as Jacob. Each of Jacob's sons, including Joseph, fathered the tribes of Israel that would eventually inherit the land of Canaan.
Most of Jacob’s sons had one tribe in Israel, named after the respective son. Joseph ended up with two -- both his sons Ephraim and Manasseh became tribes in Israel, Jacob taking them as his own sons for that purpose.
What is very noteworthy for our purposes here is not just that the tribes came from Joseph (Ephraim becoming one of the largest tribes in Israel), but that they came from Asenath. She was clearly not of Abraham, Isaac, or even Ishmael - she was an Egyptian, coming from Noah’s son Ham and not from Shem. So, from the very beginning of the tribes of Israel, the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim were half Shemite and half Hamite -- and no one raised an objection about it in Scripture at all. In fact, when Jacob met Joseph's sons, he was overjoyed with no hint of scorn in him whatsoever[3]:
Genesis 48:8-11 ESV When Israel saw Joseph's sons, he said, "Who are these?" (9) Joseph said to his father, "They are my sons, whom God has given me here." And he said, "Bring them to me, please, that I may bless them." (10) Now the eyes of Israel were dim with age, so that he could not see. So Joseph brought them near him, and he kissed them and embraced them. (11) And Israel said to Joseph, "I never expected to see your face; and behold, God has let me see your offspring also."
So, we can conclude two things about the makeup of the Nation of Israel from its very beginning:
First, the ethnic makeup was not purely from the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Joseph married an Egyptian who, along with their children, would have come to know and worship the One True God through Joseph.
Second, Jacob, being aware of this, didn’t mind at all that she was an Egyptian. He was simply thrilled to be able to bless Joseph’s sons.
The ethno-nationalist claims are undercut by both of these realities.
Moses:
Moses, giver of the Law of God, leader of the people of Israel, and clear type of Christ is our next example. The relevant details of his life for our purposes in this chapter are similar to that of Joseph: his wife, or better said, his wives.
Moses was married not once but twice during his life as recorded in Scripture, and neither time did he marry a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Furthermore, God Himself went to bat for Moses with regard to his second marriage, disciplining those who objected to it.
Let's look at the relevant texts, starting with the Book of Exodus.
Exodus 2:17-22 ESV The shepherds came and drove them away, but Moses stood up and saved them, and watered their flock. (18) When they came home to their father Reuel, he said, "How is it that you have come home so soon today?" (19) They said, "An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds and even drew water for us and watered the flock." (20) He said to his daughters, "Then where is he? Why have you left the man? Call him, that he may eat bread." (21) And Moses was content to dwell with the man, and he gave Moses his daughter Zipporah. (22) She gave birth to a son, and he called his name Gershom, for he said, "I have been a sojourner in a foreign land."
Reuel (also known as Jethro) was not an Israelite; he was a Midianite.[4] However, Scripture gives no hint whatsoever that there was any sin on Moses’s part in marrying her or that she or his children were any less citizens of the people of Israel because she didn't hail from Jacob like Moses did. [5]. Furthermore, that she shared her husband’s faith is quite evident from the text of Exodus.
There was an issue regarding circumcision at one point, but Zipporah’s action demonstrated her devotion, not only to Moses, but to God Himself:
Exodus 4:24-26 ESV At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. (25) Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it and said, "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" (26) So he let him alone. It was then that she said, "A bridegroom of blood," because of the circumcision.
It's no secret that circumcision is a sign of both the Abrahamic and Sinaiatic covenants, though only the former would be relevant here. She circumcised her son in accord with it, showing her commitment not only to Moses (which is explicitly stated here) but also to Moses’s God.
This is why her marriage to Moses wasn’t an issue. Again, it wasn’t ethnicity, but rather covenant. She was part of the people of Israel because of it.
Now let’s look at Moses’s second marriage:
Numbers 12:1 ESV Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman.
Moses married another woman later in life after the Exodus. We were never told what happened to Zipporah; she likely passed away. We’re not told much about this new wife of Moses except for one specific characteristic of her: She was a Cushite, an Ethiopian. She would have been an African, a Hamite, much like Joseph’s wife in our previous example, though arguably even darker skinned.
Aaron and Miriam, Moses’s brother and sister, challenged Moses on this fact about his wife. Her heritage was apparently a problem for them.
The question, however, is not if they had a problem with it, but rather if God had a problem with it. The answer to that question is provided later in the chapter in no uncertain terms:
Numbers 12:6-10 ESV And he said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. (7) Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. (8) With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” (9) And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed. (10) When the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, like snow. And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous.
God made it very clear that He approved of Moses, including his choice of a wife, and provided a very strong rebuke to both Aaron and Miriam to demonstrate that fact. The issue here is just as it was in our previous examples, following the truth we saw in Exodus chapter 12: ethnicity is not the point, not in marriage, and not in membership of a particular political nation. Moses’s wife was a Cushite, an Ethiopian, and therefore much darker than your average Israelite. However, she had apparently come to worship the One True God and joined the people of Israel by way of marriage to Moses himself. She was no less an Israelite than Aaron or Miriam, having become “as a native of the land” in the words of Exodus 12.
Our conclusion here must be the same as it has been all along: one’s ethnicity is not the determining factor to be the citizen of a political nation, and it isn’t even the factor in determining eligibility for marriage. Commitment to the covenant of the nation is the determining factor, with being in covenant with the One True God as the requirement here. [6]
Having been presented with this evidence from the life of Moses and that he, a Shemite, was properly married to a Hamite who was a Cushite, some ethno-nationalists respond by saying that the word used here in Numbers 12 does not actually refer to someone from the region of Ethiopia but rather a much more local region. Therefore, Numbers 12 is not addressing the issue of an inter-ethnic marriage or its propriety.
This claim is preposterous and entirely without warrant. Moses’s wife in numbers 12 is most certainly a woman from Cush or Ethiopia, and would have had very dark skin. This can be proven from a text in Jeremiah:
Jeremiah 13:23 ESV Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.
This verse from Jeremiah clearly refers to an Ethiopian, someone who would have been distinguished as having a different skin tone from your average Israelite (which is why Jeremiah directly referenced it). The proof that we’re talking about the same kind of person here as we were in Numbers 12 is found in the specific word translated as Ethiopian. This term is the exact same Hebrew word used in Numbers 12, except here we have the masculine form (as we’re talking about a man) and in Numbers 12 we have the feminine form (as Moses’s wife would, of course, have been a woman).
Scripture interprets Scripture, and the word usage demonstrates the error of the ehtno-nationalist at this point. The position stands refuted.
Rahab:
Rahab the prostitute from Jericho is next. Her involvement with and membership in the people of Israel became very important for the entire world. Let's have a look.
Joshua 6:25 ESV But Rahab the prostitute and her father's household and all who belonged to her, Joshua saved alive. And she has lived in Israel to this day, because she hid the messengers whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.
Because of her faithfulness to the Israelite spies (as well as her fear of God which she expressed to them and exhibited when she put her own life on the line to hide them), she was welcomed into the people of Israel where she and her family lived out their lives.
Furthermore, they didn’t merely have the status of sojourners, at least not Rahab herself, and it seems reasonable to conclude that the rest of her family integrated into the people of Israel in much the same way. We know this from an important text at the beginning of Matthew’s Gospel:
Matthew 1:5 ESV and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse,
Rahab married a man named Salmon and became Boaz’s mother. Boaz married a woman named Ruth as we can see from the text, but who was she?
Ruth:
Ruth was a Moabite woman who married one of Naomi’s sons when Naomi and her family were sojourning in Moab because of famine conditions in Judah. During that time, Noami’s husband and both of her sons died. Naomi, filled with terrible grief, urged her daughter-in-law Ruth to go back to her people as Naomi’s other daughter-in-law had done. Ruth refused, but the reason for her refusal and the words she spoke to Naomi that day are a beautiful and powerful testimony to the work of God in her life:
Ruth 1:15-17 ESV And she said, "See, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law." (16) But Ruth said, "Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. (17) Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the LORD do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you."
Ruth’s faith in Naomi’s God is evident and will carry her through into the people of Israel, sealed by her marriage to a kinsman redeemer by the name of Boaz:
Ruth 4:9-10 ESV Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, "You are witnesses this day that I have bought from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and to Mahlon. (10) Also Ruth the Moabite, the widow of Mahlon, I have bought to be my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brothers and from the gate of his native place. You are witnesses this day."
Boaz married Ruth the Moabite, and she became part of the people of Israel, having true faith in Israel’s God. Not only that, but God blessed them with a son as well. Referring to our earlier text shows us just how important he was:
Matthew 1:5 ESV and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse,
Obed was the father of Jesse, who was the father of King David. Jesus’s line came from Ruth, a foreigner who was brought into the people of Israel. In fact, there were two foreigners in David’s line that we know of -- Ruth and Rahab.
No one contests David’s status as a true Israelite, nor should they. Some of his descendants were not native Israelites, but they were Israelites nonetheless, making him one too, regardless of his mixed physical pedigree.
Uriah the Hittite:
Uriah was a man who served in David’s army, and, as his name would suggest, was not an Israelite by birth. He hailed from the Hittite people, a neighboring land and people to the nation of Israel. They were descendants of the sons of Heth (mentioned in Genesis 10) and counted among the Canaanites who were largely driven out by the people of Israel during the conquest of the land under Joshua. A few survived, and Uriah was descended from them.
As with the others we’ve mentioned so far, Uriah came to be part of the nation and people of Israel. He would have had to become a worshiper of the One True God and be circumcised (per Exodus 12), and he also married an Israelite woman by the name of Bathsheba.
Uriah’s non-Israelite origins were not a hindrance to his acceptance and participation in the people of Israel. In addition to having taken an Israelite wife, he participated in Israel’s army, even becoming part of a kind of elite soldiers’ organization:
2 Samuel 23:8 ESV These are the names of the mighty men whom David had: Josheb-basshebeth a Tahchemonite; he was chief of the three. He wielded his spear against eight hundred whom he killed at one time.
2 Samuel 23:39 ESV Uriah the Hittite: thirty-seven in all.
Dr. John Gill elaborates and explains:
“Besides Joab his general, who is not mentioned; for these were all military men under him, which are distinguished into three classes; the first and highest consisted of three only, who were general officers; and the second also of three, who perhaps were colonels of regiments; and the third of thirty, who were captains of thousands and hundreds.”
Far from keeping someone like Uriah out of the army because of a fear that he would betray them because of his ethnic and national origins, but rather because of Uriah’s recognized commitment to Israel, David, and Israel’s God, David had him named among his Mighty Men. Why do this? Because Uriah was a faithful Israelite having been grafted into the people and nation.
Ittai the Gittite:
Ittai the Gittite (his title meaning he hailed from the city of Gath among the Philistines) was another foreigner who came to Israel, wanting to worship and serve the One True God regardless of the difficulty he would face. Given when he arrived, the difficulty would indeed be great, as he this wasn’t long after Absalom took over the throne and David was fleeing for his life:
2 Samuel 15:19-22 ESV Then the king said to Ittai the Gittite, "Why do you also go with us? Go back and stay with the king, for you are a foreigner and also an exile from your home. (20) You came only yesterday, and shall I today make you wander about with us, since I go I know not where? Go back and take your brothers with you, and may the LORD show steadfast love and faithfulness to you." (21) But Ittai answered the king, "As the LORD lives, and as my lord the king lives, wherever my lord the king shall be, whether for death or for life, there also will your servant be." (22) And David said to Ittai, "Go then, pass on." So Ittai the Gittite passed on with all his men and all the little ones who were with him.
Ittai wasn’t discouraged from following the King. He had committed to following the One True God and to be part of the people of Israel, having served with David during the latter’s time of exile when he was fleeing from Saul. He understood that David was the true and proper king of Israel and was committed to following him to death if need be. His devotion, though being new to Israel, was true: He and all those who came with him would worship the One True God and follow the one that God had set over His people.
David was so impressed with his devotion (likely a combination of their earlier association from David’s exile and Ittai’s pledge of fealty here) that in no time at all he granted him a senior position over a third of the army to fight against Absalom and his usurpers.
2 Samuel 18:1-2 ESV Then David mustered the men who were with him and set over them commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds. (2) And David sent out the army, one third under the command of Joab, one third under the command of Abishai the son of Zeruiah, Joab's brother, and one third under the command of Ittai the Gittite. And the king said to the men, "I myself will also go out with you."
Ittai wasn’t a native Israelite, but that didn’t matter to David. The former’s commitment to the God of Israel was enough for David to trust him completely and make him a general in a critical conflict.
The Taking of Wives from Conquered Enemies:
We’ve looked at several people across several books of the Old Testament and several hundred years, but there was a particular standing law for the people of Israel that Moses (and therefore God) gave them about cities and nation-states that they would conquer that is very important.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 ESV (10) "When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, (11) and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, (12) and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. (13) And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. (14) But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.
When the people of Israel went out to war, they would often capture cities and entire peoples; this happened with some frequency under David’s rule.[7] When that happened, what was to be done with all those captured?
Clearly, many were put to death as other texts testify, but as we see in this text, if an Israelite soldier wished to marry one of the captives, he was permitted to marry her after certain requirements were met: she would lament her mother and father (who were presumed killed in the attack), and that for a whole month. Then, the Israelite man was permitted to marry her if he still wanted to. If not, then she would go free wherever she wanted to go.
Were they to marry, then she and the children they would produce together would become part of the people of Israel (and of course expected to worship Israel’s God), and they were not treated any worse than any other Israelite. We’re not told how often this particular situation played out, but as the conquering of cities happened more than a few times, it’s reasonable to assume it happened fairly frequently, at least frequently enough for God to provide them a law concerning it. Thus, the “pure blood” of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would have frequently been thinned out, and it was perfectly acceptable in God’s eyes.
The Necessary Conclusion
Political nations are sometimes, even often, largely mono-ethnic. This is neither a feature nor a bug; it’s just common. There are reasons for it, and there is no necessary sin in it. However, this is not a requirement for a political nation as we have seen. Rather, that which truly binds a nation together is a national covenant of some sort, an agreement that ideologically binds the citizens of a political nation together, with a covenant involving the One True God being superior.[8]
Further, it is most proper to consult the Bible on these things, given what we’ve shown from Psalm 2 and 2 Timothy 3. It is good for nations to serve God, and if we are to establish nations that truly do honor and serve God, this will necessarily require consulting the Holy Scriptures, as in them God has given much information on this subject by command and example. Failure to do so will result in great error, and any political nation that may come about as a result of such a failure will not endure or be righteous.[9]
______________________________
This is seen in a couple of ways. First, we see the issue of ethnicity even in the Exodus itself in chapter 12 verse 38. A mixed multitude (non-ethnic Israelites, nearly all of them being Egyptians) went up with the ethnic Israelites, both together forming the backbone of the political nation. Second, the fact that the political nation of Israel was held together by covenant is seen, largely in part, due to the fact that breaking the covenant could cause removal from Israel, be it by censure, banishment, or even death. Texts which demonstrate this are too numerous to list, but searching the Pentateuch for the words “cut off” in any modern English translation with any modern Bible software provides a pretty clear picture.
Of course, as I stated above, the nation also ought to have biblical laws and be run by true Christians. However, I’m looking at the broader biblical understanding of what constitutes a proper political nation, as it is not only descriptive of how nations really are (we see this in the world all over as I have strongly implied) but how nations ought to be pursued. That is, this information was included in Holy Writ to give us a standard on how to form and operate political nations, and is therefore prescriptive.
Furthermore, the example of Joseph (as well as that of Moses, Boaz {with Ruth} and Salmon {with Rahab, see Matthew 1:5}) demonstrates that God has no problem with inter-ethnic marriages at all, provided that His people marry in the Lord, be it in the Old or New Covenant.
Reuel (Jethro), being a Midianite, was a descendant of Abraham as Genesis 25:1-4 records. Midian was one of the children of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine after Sarah died. Because of this, some ethno-nationalists would claim that we are not dealing with differing people groups. However, this doesn’t take into account what we see in Numbers 25 with the Midianites seducing Israelites into idolatry and the subsequent war that effectively wiped them out in Numbers 31. Clearly, there was eventually strong enmity between them, and what was the source? It isn’t ethnic distinction, here or anywhere. Rather, it is due to the pagan idolatry in Midian compared with the worship of the True God in Israel. The foundational issue is that of covenant, here (and most properly), covenant with God as opposed to covenant with false gods.
As we follow the narrative through the Pentateuch, it becomes evident that Reuel/Jethro and his son were followers of the One True God. See Exodus 18 for glorious proof of this (in full), as well as Moses’s interaction with Jethro’s son, Hobab in Numbers 10:29ff.
This is also the requirement for marriage. Whether or not the couple are both from the same ethnicity is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it is a true, biblical, Christian marriage. It wasn’t an issue with Joseph, and it wasn’t with Moses, and it isn’t for Paul in 1 Corinthians. The determining factor of whether or not they can get married is if they are both Christians. Differing ethnicities can present some challenges due to upbringing (habits, culture, etc), but the marriage is still righteous and good and ought to be celebrated as such.
Such as the siege and conquering of Rabbah of the Ammonites (as well as the rest of their cities) in 2 Samuel 12:26-31.
This is borne out clearly by how other nations would view the laws of the land of Israel; see Deuteronomy 4:6-8.
In addition to this, it logically and biblically follows that for there to be a truly Christian Nation it would need to have not only biblical and thus Christian laws but a significant Christian citizenry that would be able to maintain said laws and wield power righteously. However, that is the subject of another essay.
