Moses’ Cushite Wife
Numbers 12 is a passage familiar to all woke professors of the gospel; that of Moses’ marriage to the “Ethiopian” woman. Familiar to the “woke”, because they see it as validating their views of racial fluidity. In this passage, which takes up the entire chapter, Moses’ brother Aaron, and sister Miriam, confront Moses over his marriage to an “Ethiopian” woman, and sought to usurp his place of leadership over such a cause. The LORD intervened, and Miriam was smitten with leprosy, and made to abide in that state for a season for her humbling, perhaps because she was the instigator, or perhaps because she was a woman and therefore far more out of place in an attempted usurpation. And thus both were corrected.
The modern interpretation of this passage is to affirm that any prohibition of racial mixing in marriage is an unwarranted human invention, and that the practice is entirely validated by the example of this passage. For those who dissent from this conclusion, what reply might be made? Firstly, it’s plain that Moses married outside of his race. And Aaron and Miriam complained about it. But they didn’t just, complain about his marriage. They challenged Moses’ leadership over it. They didn’t just say, as it were, “Moses has contracted an unlawful marriage, and needs to separate”. That is not the issue. They said, as it were, “Moses has contracted an unlawful marriage, and we need to take, or at least share, his office because of it”. And that is a point such advocates entirely fail to reckon with in all the conclusions they reach in evaluating this passage.
Numbers 12:2 KJV “And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it.”
The Lord “heard it” and came upon the scene and reproved Miriam and Aaron, and in this reproof the only thing He reproved was their attempt to supplant Moses, and not a thing in regard to his marriage:
“And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed.” Num.12:6-9
Aaron and Miriam had both asserted that God had spoken to them as much as unto Moses, and God’s reply was that this was entirely false, in as much as the calling of Moses’ office was unique to all others, including that of Aaron, and certainly to the mere place of kin that Miriam enjoyed. Further, no vindication or even mention is made of Moses’ marriage, as it wasn’t the issue. We certainly conclude that if Moses’ wife were Hamitic, (likely, but not even that is certain), then it obviously didn’t his calling to this office, or his marriage would have been made an issue of in this reproof. Thus is demonstrated that the only thing God defended Moses over, was his unique calling. He said that He talked to Moses face to face as with no other man, and unlike He spoke to any other, and they should have feared to question his leadership in such a case over such a cause. That’s it. He never said, “Moses’ marriage is sanctioned by me, so your actions are uncalled for.” He said I have chosen him as My entirely unique messenger. Therefore you actions are uncalled for.” And unless someone is willing to aver that one must be sinless to have legitimate authority then they can make no point whatever.
True, God said that Moses was “faithful in all my house”, but that is far from saying he’s sinless in all my house, or of sanctioning his marriage, which had less to do with Moses’ faithfulness as Israel’s leader in God’s house. Many biblical references have referred to Moses as faithful ever after, despite the fact that he egregiously sinned in smiting the rock, etc.
But let us suppose that Aaron and Miriam had attempted their insurrection upon the grounds the known sin of Moses’ smiting the rock, rather than upon the grounds of his marriage. What then? Then we could prove that Moses’ smiting the Rock was all good? It’s then a lawful thing to alter a command at whim over anger? Who will say that? No one? Then why do so many rush into such a preposterous conclusion in this case? The reply would have been precisely the same in either case, and no one would dare contest the point. God would have vindicated Moses had Aaron and Miriam’s complaint been in regard to his marriage, his smiting the Rock, or for any other such matter. God’s vindicating Moses’ calling and prophetic office would have no more have vindicated him over smiting the rock, than it would have warranted his marrying a Hamitic woman.
And lets be clear about that as well. Cushite would be the proper transliteration of the Hebrew word translated into the English, “Ethiopian”. Cushites were a Hamitic tribe, and Ethiopians would be presumed to be Hamitic tribes as well as Cush. Just like Egyptians, and many other peoples. So the ethnicity of the woman involved is only broadly signified, and she might have been an Egyptian or from some other people. That she was a negroid/African is more than anyone can be certain of, though that’s certainly possible.
But to hear the modern interpretation of this passage one would imagine that God came down and smote Miriam with leprosy for being a racist, not for being a feminist and an insurrectionist. Had Aaron and Miriam but expressed concerns about Moses’ marriage, and solicited God’s will regarding it, and awaited a divine reply, who would have foreseen a judgment such as followed for such an inquiry? Moderns are but imposing their Cultural Marxist Critical Race Theory upon the bible in all of these perspectives. But they are entirely unsupported by the specifics of the passage.
It’s worth noting as well, that neither Aaron nor Miriam were likely to appeal to something in Moses that their community would have defended. Doubtless the camp of Israel at that time would have broadly supported them in their views of Moses’ marraige, or it would have been grossly ineffective to find sympathy for their attempted insurrection.
Likewise, when Esau engaged in this same practice it grieved Isaac and Rebekah. So, what? They were they racists that hated every other race? Were there no godly people among these other races? Were they ALL idolaters? Well, now…. that’s quite a racist thing to affirm. Or did they simply understand that as a people they were generally an inferior stock of humanity, which the extreme Marxist egalitarian heresies of the 20th and 21st centuries would not be imposing upon?
It is tirelessly replied that this was to protect the seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. But two things. First, God is a racist then. It’s an admission that God Himself is issuing such commands based upon purely racial considerations, and excluding others for that sake. It will be replied that this was but to fulfill the promise that He had made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Then the promise was racist. The promise was to Abraham and to his seed…..are the Marxists affirming that it was not the seed of Abraham if mixed with other races? 🙂
But secondly, there was never any indication anywhere by anyone that this progeny had to be free from other races. And in fact it wasn’t. Judah married outside of his race, and it didn’t stop the promises. So did Joseph. And people go…. seeeee …. there was no such prohibition! But the claim that there was such a prohibition was the excuse given why other races were being excluded by the patriarchs. Are we now prepared to accept the conclusion, then? They rejected them for racial reasons, and not because of the promise, etc.?
But besides this contradiction, there are others. Firstly, we don’t say David’s calling Bathsheba into his house was lawful, just because David did it, or because God used it. That God brings good out of evil is His peculiar prerogative, and His only. Ours is to trust and obey.
Secondly, it’s an admission that the promise is NOT dependent upon such considerations, and leaves you with nothing but the blank result that Isaac and Rebekah didn’t want an inferior race intermingling with theirs for their children….. NOT because it had ANYTHING to do with preserving a line for the (racist) covenant by God’s (racist) command.
In other words…. they were Nazis, fascists, hate mongers, racists, and vile scum of the earth. Because….. that’s what everyone gets called by modern CRT babblers for believing exactly the same thing in modern times.
And that’s pretty much where this conversation finds the advocates of Marx. They simply hate God, hate His people, and hate his Truth. May God deliver those believers deceived by these corrupters of the church, and may the Lord grant a better and more discerning mind to the moderns content to be led about by the nose ring of antichrist media.
An let it be admitted freely that these points don’t attempt to establish the lawfulness or unlawfulness of marriage outside one’s race. It very simply is seeking to obviate the point that this passage of scripture is not such as can be rationally appealed to support such a cause.
But to give a paragraph or two to the general point… Many of us have concluded that races are of God. And amalgamation destroys races, and attempts to recreate humanity in the image of Babel, not the way God made it. And no one should see that as godly. God’s mercy and covenant faithfulness to all who dissent. But you can never argue that the idea of a single race is of God, nor that which tends to it. Plus the entire idea is hilarious. Alienists: “We must intermarry to become one people, thus bringing peace and unity to humanity.” Also Alienists: “Those evil racists scum who think to have only one race of people!” Somewhere along the line, one would suppose this problem may have crossed their minds.
Further is the argument of nature. No species of bird will breed with any other species, no matter how miniscule the differences. A house wren will not breed with a Carolina wren, for instance. Whether avians, mammals, fish, or any other genus, rarely will they cross this line. But there is one exception. When you lock diverse species up in a cage and put them in captivity, then you can come up with things like a “Liger”, and so on. But in nature it happens but rarely.
Why is that? Did Nazi’s convince them? Or is a divine order from God programmed into their genetics? Plainly the latter. 😀 And why so programmed? Because God wanted the diversity of HIS making, not of ours. The idea that we should all interbreed to achieve diversity is imbecilic, in as much as it obviously has the exact opposite tendency. And when this happens easily when an animal is in captivity, what does that say for our current circumstance when massive powers of media brainwashing alone have altered a nearly universal belief system in regard to this subject? It tells us one thing very clearly. We are in captivity of the mind, and have been abused against our own nature.
But it’s necessary to leave a warning to those who see this point clearly as well. Aaron and Miriam were wrong also, for disqualifying Moses over this issue, and it behooves us to be kind and loving to all such erring persons, whether they see it or not, and indeed I personally am aware of many who do see that they have erred in this way. Nor should they be barred from ministry, if showing signs of being gifted. This is warranted by the passage, yes? Supposing they are believers, they remain so in such a case, and as such are to be warmly “accepted in the beloved”. That does not mean that such are due any accommodation of the error, should they still hold to it, and certainly charitable and open teaching upon the subject should be preserved in any case. Most of those in this circumstance are dutiful to their Marxist programming to imagine hatred from such a response, but then, let us give them no such grounds, but love and receive them as brethren, when they give good witness of it.
