Moses’ Cushite Wife

In Numbers chapter 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 amalgamation, miscegenation, and ultimately of racial extinction. 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 his place”. And that is a point moderns 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

And thus is made plain the claim that the only thing God defended Moses over, was his proper calling. He said that He talked to Moses face to face as with no other man, and they should have feared to question his leadership 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 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 of Moses’ smiting the rock. What then? They would have had a point? No, not at all. The reply would have been precisely the same, and no one would dare contest the point. And God’s vindication of Moses would have no more have vindicated him over smiting the rock, than it would have warranted his marrying a Cushite.

And lets be clear about that as well. Cushite would be the proper transliteration of the Hebrew word translated into “Ethiopian”. Ethiopians, Africans, would be presumed to be Cushites also, 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.

Likewise, when Esau engaged in this same practice it grieved Isaac and Rebekah. 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 20^th and 21^st 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 in reply, firstly, we don’t say David’s 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.

But it’s necessary to leave a warning to moderns 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 remain “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 such a state.