Africa & the Bible: the myth of a cursed race

[Ovedya]

I've never done the research to find out where this myth is sourced, but I do know that at one time in our own history it was believed that persons of darker skin were descended from Ham, who was cursed by God. A few months ago I was reading that passage in Genesis where Ham was and sent away for uncovering his father's nakedness. I realized that the descendants of Ham were the Canaanites. Well, Moses married a descendant of Ham (A Cushite who was supposedly a descendant of Ham). Her skin was described as being dark. This may have given rise to the belief that God's curse upon the descendants of ham resulted in dark skin, but it's unlikely to be based in any fact. The myth that darks skin was the result of God's curse could go all the way back to the Roman era, and then passed down through the Roman Church. It stands to reason, since slavery began during the Middle Ages, and was not widely disapproved of by the RC. In fact it may have been a factor in justifying slavery.

[nebula]

Celt -

We have posted the Scripture, more than once, that Moses was married to an Ethiopean. Whether this was Zipporah or a second wife, the Scripture does not say. It just says that Moses had married an Ethiopean woman. When Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses for this, Miriam was punished.

You can't keep denying this.

And honestly, Celt - you are a descendant of a mixed race marriage. I don't understand why you would want to fight for a beleif that you are under a curse that will pass on to your descendants and their descendants and their descendants, and so on.

Again, I ask, what church do you belong to, or what spiritual authority figure or group are you under?

[HouseofGrace]

And per Bible history, the Jews are only represented by the three tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi (see 1 Kings 11 forward). The rest of the tribes exist somewhere else in the world, scattered among the nations.

The myth of the "Ten Lost Tribes" is the basis for "British- Israelism" and other colorful legends, but these stories have no real Biblical basis. They are based upon misconceptions derived from the misreading of various Bible passages. (2 Kings 17:7-23; 2 Chronicles 6:6-11)

When the Northern Kingdom went into captivity (722 b.c.), all 12 tribes were also represented in the south. When the Babylonians took the Southern Kingdom into captivity (586 b.c.), members of all 12 tribes of Israel were involved. Isaiah, prophesying to Judah, refers to them as the "House of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel..." (Isaiah 48:1; cf. vv. 12-14).

Accompanying some of the legends of the so-called "Ten Lost Tribes" are aspersions on the present State of Israel and the people being regathered in the Land. These various theories such as "British Israelism" are by their nature anti-Semitic because they deny the Jewish people their proper place in the plan of God. Let's remember that Genesis 12:3 has never been repealed!

Sources: Mystery of the Myth: The Ten Lost Tribes by Chuck Missler

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/40/

[Ovedya]

Hadn't you heard? Supposedly there was one tribe of Israel that headed out from the Middle East on a boat bound for other regions. They eventually migrated to South America where they lived as a culture for thousands of years.

Where do you think American Indians came from?

Oh....wait......that's the lie of Joseph Smith and the LDS.....never mind.

[Guest shiloh357]

I will be blunt also then.

For Moses' father-in-law to be a Midianite priest, as God's Word says, and in more than one Scripture, he would have had to been a Midianite first, and not Ethiopian. But maybe some think Midianites and Ethiopians then were the same peoples? Well, they were not.

Well then your problem is that Moses' wife is called a Cushite, not a Midianite in Numbers 12:1. Carping on and on about Jethro is pointless. We are not talking about Jethro, we are talking about the Cushite (black) woman married.

Secondly, you have still not explained the interrmarriage of Joseph as his Egyptian wife and their sons who went on to be the figureheads of TWO tribes of Israel. If God was so bent on keeping them racially pure, then why would he choose two men of mixed parentage to be leaders of Israelite tribes?

There's a reason why God gave these geneaology links in His Word. One example was with the Levitical priesthood, because He commanded that only Levites and the sons of Aaron were to hold the priest office to Israel. And in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, some of the Levites had mixed their lineages, and Nethinims (given to Temple service) that had returned from Babylon with Judah were considered "polluted" from the priesthood because their genealogy could not be found of Israel:

Ezra 2:58-62

58 All the Nethinims, and the children of Solomon's servants, were three hundred ninety and two.

59 And these were they which went up from Telmelah, Telharsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not shew their father's house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel:

60 The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two.

61 And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name:

62 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

(KJV)

If Nethinim priests who were foreign born, were put from the priesthood EVEN THOUGH IT SHOWS THEY LIVED AMONG ISRAEL AS ISRAELITE PRIESTS, then why were they considered "as polluted", if it was ONLY about religion? It was because of God's Commandments for Israel to remain separate, and for the priesthood especially!

The Levites were part of a greater picture/shadow that God is presenting to us as it pertains to redemption. YOU are assigning a motive to why they were separated, but the Bible does not assign that motive or value. Everything about the priests carried symbolic importance, right down the garments they wore.

So don't try and tell me that one's genealogy was not important to God per the Old Covenant times, especially within the Levitical priesthood. God even separated the tribe of Levi only, to carry the ark of the Covenant. Anyone else would suffer for carrying it.

It was important, but not for the reasons you ascribe to it.

Judg 1:16

16 And the children of the Kenite, Moses' father in law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lieth in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt among the people.

(KJV)

In that verse, it's alluding to Jethro being of the Kenites, which was a nation of the land of Canaan, a people which God told Israel not to marry into. So what was Jethro, a Kenite, a Midianite, or an Ethiopian?

Again, Jethro is not the issue. The issue is really about the wife of Moses who was a Cushite woman. We are still waiting for an explanation as to why God allowed Moses to marry a an African woman.

Maybe some of you might want to try and go pay some prophet of Baalam to try and put a curse on me for saying all this. You can try, but God will reverse it back to you, because I'm staying in His Word on this matter of genealogy, because God is Who ordained the separation of peoples per the Old Covenant times.

You can play the martyr all you want, but you still have not addressed questions put to you. The truth is that you are reading your racist doctrine into the Bible. No competent, intelligent, spirit-led exegete of the Scripture arrives at the same warped conclusions you have arrived at.

Here's a question within New Covenant timing:

In Revelation 7 is mentioned 144,000, twelve thousand from each of the twelve tribes of Israel, being SEALED WITH GOD'S SEALING FOR THE ENDTIMES AGAINST DECEPTION. Does that mean 144,000 of ALL nations, or just Israelites? If the matter of geneaology is no longer important to God, then why does that still show a separation, even in the New Testament?

Yes, but that does not mean that they are racially pure. The text does not indicate that they were racially pure. There are tribes returning to Israel from countries like Ethiopia, India, even Japan. Many of the Jews living in Israel today are of mixed heritage. There are many Jews who are the children of Gentiles who converted to Judaism and so you have black, hispanic, SE Asian, Indian, Caucasian Jews. Even in the book of Acts, there were Jews at Pentacost from like 16 different nations and many of them were from dark skinned nations like Egypt and there were even Arabian Jews as well. So, it would not be surprising if God picks some of those racially mixed members of the tribes of Israel to be part of the 144,000

What about Timothy??? Timothy was Jewish and Greek and He is one of the first Pastors of the early Church and was an understudy of Paul.

Frankly, you don't know what you are talking about.

[Massorite]

I shouldn't have to defend God's Promises to His chosen Israel, but it's obvious today's doctrines of men taught in many Churches today means someone has to.

Rev 7:1-4

1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,

3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

(KJV)

Rev.9 tells us what that sealing is about. It is God's sealing for the endtime, in the foreheads of His servants, the spiritual opposite of the 'mark of the beast'. Each tribe of Israel is specifically named. Both the "house of Judah" (Judah, Benjamin, Levi) and the "house of Israel" (ten tribes) are included. The only two names not mentioned are Dan and Ephraim (which are put back in, in final per Ezekiel 48). And per Bible history, the Jews are only represented by the three tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi (see 1 Kings 11 forward). The rest of the tribes exist somewhere else in the world, scattered among the nations.

Also, per 1 Kings 11:28-36, God said He would always leave one tribe in Jerusalem, for the sake of His servant David, and for Jerusalem's sake. That tribe was Judah. And a remnant of Judah has remained there, even to today, and will forever. One does not have to be an orthodox Jew to realize that, nor many other of God's Promises that were specific to Israelites only.

AND AFTER THAT, THEN GENTILES ARE MENTIONED:

Rev 7:9-10

9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God Which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

(KJV)

Some may want to lie to theirself and deny that distinction exists between Israelites and Gentiles even in the New Testament Book of Revelation, the Revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. But they'd just be lying to theirself about that distinction of genealogy there.

Rom 3:1-2

1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

(KJV)

Rom 3:9-12

9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

(KJV)

Even the apostle Paul showed an ordained mission God has for Israelites. That's per God's choosing; it has nothing to do with the kind of sinner they are, for it's well proven we are all sinners. The importance is that God gave them a specific 'calling' that no man can change. And that calling for the literal seed of Israel is still... in effect for today, even as shown with the Revelation 7 distinction. And just because The Gospel has gone to us Gentiles, and we received It, still does not make us better than them, because they still..., even today, have that calling God gave them, and many of the promises, even though many of Israel have still refused Christ today.

Gen 49:10

10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be.

(KJV)

Here's a prophecy Jacob gave for his son Judah, meant for "in the last days" (Gen.49:1). That means even for today. What does that show? It reveals part of what the apostle Paul was saying about the importance of God's calling for Israel. So how would Israel mixing up its genealogy go against that? And if one doesn't think it would interfere, then that shows who the truly deceived are. Even though, I doubt one who is deceived knows what that verse means. So to make sure, I'll outline its meaning.

God has a birthright blessing He gave to His chosen Israel. It began with Abraham, and then went to Isaac, then to Jacob, then to Joseph, and then to Ephraim and Manasseh (1 Chronicles 5). And it is a promise involving the 'literal' seed of Israel. Per the 1 Chronicles 5 Scripture, it is in two parts. One part is about the royal sceptre of rule and caretaker of God's law; the other is about the blessings of wealth, blessings of resources, and blessings of the womb (meaning great number of seed, 'literal' seed), as outlined in the promises God gave to Israel (Jacob) in Genesis 27. Of the tribe of Judah was to come the "chief ruler" per 1 Chron.5. That means the royal sceptre, AND caretaker of God's law. That specific Gen.49:10 verse says neither the royal sceptre, nor the position of lawgiver, is to part from Judah's responsibility, ALL THE WAY UP TO SHILOH'S COMING, AND THE GATHERING OF THE PEOPLE TO HIM. The name "Shiloh" in that verse is put as a symbolic name for our Lord Jesus Christ.

Holy Moly he is on a roll.

I have often wondered about some of the "other" races that played a role in the lineage of Jesus that would not appear to be Israelite. But we don't know anything about the blood line of these folks but God does. It really is quit clear that the blood lines were very important to God and I just find hard to swallow that God would move away from that and simply jump out there and snatch some one from among the heathen nations who has no blood relation what so ever.

[Celt]

I guess this means then, most of you are totally against the idea of the royal families who must show their geneaology? I once asked a rabbi if the kingline of Israel couldn't come from the Zarah line also, since Zarah was another son of Judah, and God ordained that the "chief ruler" will be of Judah. He said no, it must continue through the house of David.

It appears many think a certain country is always synonomous with a certain race. Ethiopia in ancient times referred to a much larger portion of land than today. And from the earliest times, Abyssinia was controlled by Caucasian rulers. Not all ancient Ethiopians were of the Black race. Even lower Egypt in ancient times for five hundred years was controlled by a Hyksos dynasty of Hebrew people, a Semitic people. So there's my answer concerning the wife of Moses being called an Ethiopian, and the wife of Joseph being an Egyptian. It's just as probable they were of Semitic origin. And in the case of Num.12:1, it's also just as likely that Aaron and Miriam spoke out because of thinking Moses' wife had a different religion. There's at least 3 verses to show she was a daughter of a Midianite priest (Jethro), so sorry, one cannot just try to throw that evidence out of the Bible in favor of a Num.12:1 reading only.

Nor am I "anti-Semitic", anti-Black, anti-Indian, anti-Oriental, or whatever some of you think to use as propaganda smear terms. It's those who are against God's creation of all the races as they appear that reveal ideas leading to racism, because of belief on man's theories of evolution. If we think that God created one race, and that all other races 'evolved' from that one race, that is saying there must be a superior race that all others came from. But understanding that God created all the races the way He wanted them to appear is just the opposite of that idea. It shows respect for God's creation and all races as His children. It destroys the many curse myths of doctrines of men for the origin of races. Afterall, some still believe that the snake in the Garden of Eden was a real snake, even though our Lord Jesus told us that was but another title for Satan in Rev.12:9 and 20:2.

Concerning Tamar and Rahab in our Lord's lineage, it's not specifically written if they were Semitic or not. It's still possible they were, so merely assigning them as Gentiles is not really correct. The same mistake is done with the wife of Joseph merely because her father was a priest in Egypt. Biblically, we're not told their genealogy. And Wikipedia is not a reliable source for this type of info.

[irishcowboy]

if it were a curse to forbade marriage from other cultures, if they choose to follow the ways of God, then Christ would have been from a line of curses, Ruth, Rahab, Bathsheba was even married from a sinful act...... there are many that have chosen to follow God, some with and some with out Christ......

even if you get into the Celtic region, you will find pagans, that have turned from their ways and have come to know the Lord, either through deed or through revelation.....

God uses things that we throw away to bring His ways about......

mike

[AdriaanM]

The only truth regarding race I regard worthwhile mentioning is the following:

Act 10:34-35

Then Peter opened his mouth and said, Truly I see that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he who fears Him and works righteousness is accepted with Him.

Col 3:9-11

Do not lie to one another, having put off the old man with his deeds and having put on the new, having been renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, foreigner, Scythian, slave or freeman, but Christ is all things in all.

Gal 3:28

There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Rev 5:9

And they sang a new song, saying, You are worthy to take the book and to open its seals, for You were slain and have redeemed us to God by Your

blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation.

Praise the Lord

Adriaan

[Guest shiloh357]

I guess this means then, most of you are totally against the idea of the royal families who must show their geneaology?

That has nothing to do with it.

I once asked a rabbi if the kingline of Israel couldn't come from the Zarah line also, since Zarah was another son of Judah, and God ordained that the "chief ruler" will be of Judah. He said no, it must continue through the house of David.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with racial purity.

Ethiopia in ancient times referred to a much larger portion of land than today. And from the earliest times, Abyssinia was controlled by Caucasian rulers. Not all ancient Ethiopians were of the Black race.

Cushite is used only one way in the Bible. And there has never been another race in human history that was referred to as Chushite.

Even lower Egypt in ancient times for five hundred years was controlled by a Hyksos dynasty of Hebrew people, a Semitic people. So there's my answer concerning the wife of Moses being called an Ethiopian, and the wife of Joseph being an Egyptian.

The problem with that is that Joseph's wife was a daughter of the Potipherah and not part of the Hyksos. The hyksos may have been semitic, but they were not Hebrew. The Hebrews were entirely different. Many of the people the Israelites were commanded not to intermarry with with were also semitic people, which torpedoes the idea that racial purity was the motivation. Many other semitic peoples were worshippers of other gods and that was why God would not let Israel intermarry with them and join them in their sin.

It's just as probable they were of Semitic origin. And in the case of Num.12:1, it's also just as likely that Aaron and Miriam spoke out because of thinking Moses' wife had a different religion. There's at least 3 verses to show she was a daughter of a Midianite priest (Jethro), so sorry, one cannot just try to throw that evidence out of the Bible in favor of a Num.12:1 reading only.

Nice try, but you really don't know what you are talking about. How do you know that Jethro didn't have a Cushite wife? The problem is you are assuming that the woman mentioned in Num. 12:1 is Zipporah. Moses may have had more than one wife and there is no way that cushite and Midianite can be used interchangibly, so you are just out in left field.

Nor am I "anti-Semitic", anti-Black, anti-Indian, anti-Oriental, or whatever some of you think to use as propaganda smear terms. It's those who are against God's creation of all the races as they appear that reveal ideas leading to racism, because of belief on man's theories of evolution.

Actually it is evolutionists and racists who utilize the argument that the races of mankind could not have come from common ancestors. YOU may not be racist, but your views are seedbed for racism.

If we think that God created one race, and that all other races 'evolved' from that one race, that is saying there must be a superior race that all others came from.

The idea that all of the DNA for all races in Adam and Eve is more in line with what the Bible says as opposed to the snake oil you are trying to peddle here. Evolution has nothing to do with it. Evolution pertains to one species evolving into another completely different species.

But understanding that God created all the races the way He wanted them to appear is just the opposite of that idea.

The Bible says that God made man in His own image. It does not say that all races are just the way God made them. That is a teaching that YOU are penciling into the Bible.

It shows respect for God's creation and all races as His children.

No, it just shows a blatant ignorance and disregard for the integrity of the text of Scripture.

It destroys the many curse myths of doctrines of men for the origin of races.

Hardly. It is in fact the starting point from which racists build their belief that all nonAdamic peoples are mongrels and inferior to the White Adamic race.