My wife said, "Many Middle Eastern people have hair like wool." And I told her, "Truth is, I don't care what color Jesus was. But, I do love to point out to people that, more than likely, he looked something like Osama Bin Laden, given the area he came from.
Heck, Jesus was even known to wear a turban, if you believe the Prophecies about the Messiah in the Jewish Bible.
Anyway, the conversation turned a bit, and I said to my wife, "Well, you know, Moses' wife was black."
And, my wife said, "No, she was an Israelite. So, I would assume that she too looked like Middle Eastern people."
I replied, "Well, I know I read somewhere that she was black, and I counted the source as being pretty authoritative, but I don't remember it right now."
So today, since I have nothing better to do than to clear the detritus of my mind, I looked it up on one of my favorite Bible answer sites, "Got Questions?" (I link to Got Questions? over at CUANAS, because I sometimes use it as a resource.)
Anyway, here's what Got Questions has to say about Moses' wife, and black people in general in the Bible:
Question: "Are there any black people mentioned in the Bible?"
Answer: The Bible does not specifically identify any person as being black-skinned. The Bible also does not specifically identify any person as being white-skinned. The vast majority of the Bible took place in the Middle East, in and around Israel. Neither "black" nor "white" people are common in these regions. The vast majority of the people in the Bible were "Semitic," light to dark brown in complexion. Ultimately, it does not matter what skin color the people in the Bible were. Skin color is meaningless in the message of the Bible. We all need to take our eyes off of the skin and focus on the soul.
Some scholars guess that Moses’ wife Zipporah might have been black since she was a Cushite (Numbers 12:1). Cush is an ancient name for an area of Africa. Some propose that Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:3) was black. Some believe that the Queen of Sheba who visited Solomon (1 Kings 10:1) was black. The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:37 may have been a black man. Ethiopians are mentioned around 40 times in the Bible, and the Prophet Jeremiah asked, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin ..." (Jeremiah 13:23). The "Simeon called Niger" in Acts 13:1 may have been black.
The Bible, though, does not specifically say that any of these people were black. Most Bible teachers believe that black people are descendants of Noah’s son Ham (Genesis 10:6-20), but we cannot be sure since the Bible does not specifically say.
It does not surprise me that the Bible does not specifically address the color of the skin of the various characters in it's pages, because it doesn't really matter to the Biblical worldview.
And, on that subject, I thought this was interesting, once again, from "Got Questions?" ...
Question: "What does the Bible say about ethnocentrism?"
Answer:
Ethnocentrism is the belief that a particular race or ethnic group is superior to all others and all other races and ethnic groups are to be subjectively measured in relation to that race or ethnic group. It is a system of belief that leads to extreme pride and lack of concern for others.
Simply put, ethnocentrism is another name for racism, which has been a plague on humanity for centuries and the cause of the death of millions.
There is no place among God’s people for the ethnocentric attitudes which lead to racism. Such attitudes are contrary to Scripture and displeasing to God.
Biblically, ethnocentrism is sin.
All men and women are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27,9:6), although that image is corrupted by sin. It is because we are created in His image that God does not show partiality or favoritism (Deuteronomy 10:17; Acts 10:34).
Jesus did not lay down His life for a particular race of people, but by His death He “purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9).
The Israelites were ethnocentric by virtue of being God’s chosen people, but His choice was not based on their merit, but on His mercy and grace. The Scriptures tell us that Jesus came to save the world, both Jews and Gentiles. Paul bears this out by saying, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28) and “there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all” (Colossians 3:11).
Jesus destroyed all barriers of race and ethnicity with His death on the cross. As Paul said inEphesians 2:14, “For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility.”
Ethnocentrism, whether based on historical grudges or on the erroneous teachings of men, is wholly contrary to God’s Word. We are commanded to love one another as He has loved us (John 13:34), and such a command precludes any discrimination based on race or culture.
Yeah, I'd say that pretty much sums it up. That is the worldview which informs me and upon which I base my positions on whether we ought to ally ourselves with this or that Ethnic Nationalist Political Party.
10 comments:
How great minds think!:-)
http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-racial-conflicts.html
I just read that and commented over at your blog.
I like your theory about how the different races and tribes began. Makes sense.
I've always assumed it was a gradual process which took place over millenia, and I believe the melting pot of America derives its power from the mixture of races and cultures. So many different types of knowledge, so many great genetic features all mixed together, more and more.
The "Cush" (Cushim) are the people of ancient Egypt.. they were Pharaoh and the Egyptians. The Cush are black,,as in Ethiopian and Somali... not related to the African "Negro".
The Hebrew term for blsck people is "Cushim" [Coosh-eem].
Batsheva was Ethiopian.
Sin has no colour , racists suck...and they are all going to meet Arafat and Hitler.
And everyone who has enabled them;
http://thelastcrusade.org/2009/10/17/radical-islam-tightens-ties-to-black-community/
Michael,
You said: Batsheva was Ethiopian
I say: No wonder David couldn't resist her.
Skin color is an evolutionary compromise between rickets and melanoma.
We ally with this or that political party because generally it's them alone who oppose Islamization and mass Muslim immigration, not because they're nationalists of the ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural or otherwise kind. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I think that there's a happy medium between mutually antagonistic nationalisms on one hand, and the leftist utopian hell of One World Government on the other: Civilizationism. Our civilization is the greater European world, aka the West, and we will increasingly compete with other great civilizations like China, India, the Islamic world, and to a lesser extent Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and Buddhist SE Asia.
Not every nation will fit in neatly with this or that civilization. But we should recognize that we in Europe, Russia, N. America and Australasia for the most part share a common history, ethnicity, religion, language group and culture. We are by far the most successful civilization in world history, yet we are on the verge of being divided and conquered by rival civilizations.
Mass immigration from the Muslim world is transforming Europe and Russia, that from Hispanic America is doing the same to the US, and immigration from Asia is swamping tiny Australia and New Zealand. Soon enough there won't be an identifiable entity known as "the West", its place being partitioned and shared among the subsequently enlarged Islamic, Latin American and East Asian civilizations.
Does the Bible say we must welcome this outcome with open arms and happy hearts?
Jeppo,
The Bible recommends using wisdom in political matters. Read Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, or any of the books about the Kings.
Our policy is foolish and foolish men suffer, according to the Bible.
There is nothing wrong with Nationalism. There is something wrong with Ethnic Nationalism.
Progress is made, both culturally and genetically, when cultures mix. However, progress is not made when one culture overtakes another culture completely, unless it is an entirely ruinous culture like the Aztecs, Mayans, and "Palestinians" with their child sacrifice rituals.
And finally, India is not a competitor of ours as much as you might think. There are outposts of civilization and burgeoning civilization in the East. Indians, Filipinos, and Armenians are people more like Westerners than you might realize at first glance.
India may not be a major competitor of ours right now, but with a fast-growing population of 1.15 billion they will be in the near future.
But the real competition I believe will be from an almost 3 billion-strong anti-Western alliance of China and the Muslim world. That's why we'll need a united West to defend ourselves and our interests from this hostile behemoth.
I don't believe that progress is made culturally or genetically when tens of millions of Muslims, mestizos and Asians are allowed to overrun the once solidly European West. Or maybe progress is made on the part of Islamic, Latin American and Asian civilizations, but not on our part.
We should be content to try to hand down to our descendants roughly the same successful Judeo-Christian-, Greco-Roman-, and Anglo-European-rooted society that we inherited from our ancestors, not engage in some massive socio-biological experiment in multiculturalism that can only end in disaster.
Our interests should include expanding the West to include Eastern Europe and Russia, and consolidating the resultant political/military/economic alliance. And they should also include preserving a coherent ethno-cultural commonality throughout the West by stopping the ongoing Third World immigration invasion from dividing and conquering us.
Shiva,
You said: I don't believe that progress is made culturally or genetically when tens of millions of Muslims, mestizos and Asians are allowed to overrun the once solidly European West ...
AND
You said: ... We should be content to try to hand down to our descendants roughly the same successful Judeo-Christian-, Greco-Roman-, and Anglo-European-rooted society that we inherited from our ancestors ...
I say: In the first paragraph I agree with you, except for the word "European".
Why do I object to the word "European"? It's not because I object to Europe. I think Europe is great.
You second paragraph explains why I think the word "European" is misleading at best.
Europe itself is born of a melting of various previous cultures including the Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian, and Anglo-European you cite.
Europe is a melting pot which has become to cold to melt. And thus, it has become hostile.
Post a Comment