We’re considering Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible
The Cushite wife
The authors give several examples where racial and ethnic distinction drive the drama of a biblical narrative. Perhaps the most striking is from the Torah —
(Num 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.
The NET Bible translators note —
The Hebrew text has הַכֻּשִׁית (hakkushit, “the Cushite”) as the modifier of “woman.” The Greek text interpreted this correctly as “Ethiopian.” … The most natural understanding would be that it refers to an Egyptian/Ethiopian woman. … It is clear that it was a racial issue, by virtue of the use of “Cushite.”
Ethiopians are dark skinned. There was considerable commerce and immigration between Ethiopia and Egypt, because the Nile provided easy transport between the two lands — and there is no obvious evidence of Egyptian racism or condescension connected with the race of the Ethiopians.
Miriam and Aaron are punished by God for criticizing Moses’ choice of wife.
(Num 12:9-10 ESV) 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.
“Kush” refers to a region populated by Sub-Saharan Africans — and so there’s an irony in God’s turning Miriam white. If being married to black woman is so bad, then God seems to say, I’ll show you what it’s like to be white — with leprosy.
In response to Moses’ prayer, Miriam was cleansed of her leprosy after being shut out of the camp for seven days.
There’s a plain lesson here against racism, which is rarely preached. We miss the implications of the passage because many translations prefer “Cushite” — a meaningless term to most Americans — to “Ethiopian” or “African.”
The authors take the argument a step further. The Jews, you see, were a slave race. They were the underclass of Egypt. They were the ones discriminated against. The Cushites were not. In fact, there was a time when Pharoahs came from Cush.
Therefore, the authors suggest, Miriam was not necessarily concerned with race — an American/Western obsession. Rather, she was likely more concerned with class — the fact that Moses had married above himself, “taking on airs” by treating women of his own ethnicity as inadequate and “marrying up” to an Ethiopian!
That, of course, is exactly backwards to the American reader, but makes quite a lot of sense in light of what we know about the world of Moses. It’s just that we Americans struggle to imagine a world in which Jews are the underclass and blacks are the upperclass. But their world is not our world.
The deacons of Acts 6
In Acts 6, we read that the Jerusalem church had been overlooking the needs of certain Hellenistic widows. “Hellenistic” refers to Greek-speaking Jews from outside Judea, especially those Jews from west of Judea, such as Asia Minor. Those Jews appear to have spoken little Hebrew, because their native language was Greek.
Indeed, recent studies suggest that these Jews used the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures — the Septuagint — as their Bible (since they could not read Hebrew), and that the rabbis had little influence west of Jerusalem and Syria.
Why would the Jerusalem church have overlooked Greek-speaking Jewish widows? Well, they likely weren’t part of the social network. They likely didn’t attend the local synagogues — where scriptures were read in Hebrew by men who’d learned Hebrew as a second (or third!) language. (The Judean Jews spoke Aramaic natively.) I imagine that synagogue attendance built social structures in Judea much as church attendance does here in the U.S. South.
Indeed, it’s easy to imagine the early church — which was very Jewish both racially and culturally — considering these Hellenistic widows as inferior. They read the wrong version of the scriptures. They were ignorant of the language of the scriptures. And they weren’t up on the latest rabbinic interpretations of the text.
It would be like a class of Church of Christ members in the 1950s who couldn’t read the thee’s and thou’s of the King James Version and who were unaware of the latest debates in the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation. (And if you have trouble following the analogy, I’m glad those days are being forgotten.)
Interestingly, five of the seven deacons who were appointed to deal with the problem had Greek names. Seems like a wise move to put some Hellenistic Jews in a position to take care of these widows – and an important statement by the congregation to nominate such men as deacons.
The apostles’ concern — and the recording of this event in Acts — surely indicates a deep concern that the early church not tolerate such discrimination — a discrimination we generally don’t even notice in the text.
Timely.
“Therefore, the authors suggest, Miriam was not necessarily concerned with race”
If Miriam was nor concerned with race/skin color, what was God’s point in making her “white-er” ?
Jay, as an elder of your church, hire, or even suggest hiring a black preacher, and see how many true Christians you have.? In Alabama !!!
I have often applied the Moses marrying a Cushite (Ethiopian) story to race relations. And also the cultural disconnect between the Jews of Judea/Jerusalem and the Hellenistic Jews of Acts 6 is not as “hidden” as all that! Just think of the disconnect in Israel among Jews from various parts of the world today! I don’t think I’m smarter than others – though I can easily see how Cushite and Ethiopian may not be identified as the same by many people. Yet, it’s more a matter of not thinking things through if we miss points such as these. The points you brought up in the first post on this book are likely more cogent – that plus failure to read the text closely. I’ve also mentioned the famine in sermons – but I did take it as possibly having always been there, but just not a major factor as long as the prodigal son had money, which shows that I did not read the text closely enough! I failed to get the point you made about God using the famine to help bring the prodigal to his senses. The book really sounds interesting. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
While growing up in the CoC I often heard white members in speaking of the Civil Rights Movement say, “Good colored members of the Lord’s church don’t go for that mess”. That was intentional denial and blindness. After my teens when, thank God, I began to come out of the poison of racism, I learned that many African American elders, ministers and members fought openly and courageously for Civil Rights.
The other “mistaken notion” was that fighting the Civil Rights Movement was simply politics, that it had nothing to do with being a Christian. Wrong again. I will give two examples.
I remember as a young teen watching the Birmingham demonstrations on the news in the early sixties with a relative who was a preacher, whom I admired greatly. When a policeman hit an African American man with his club, the preacher relative of mine yelled at the TV, “Hit that _ _ _ _ _ _ again!” And what did I do? I yelled, “Yeah, hit that _ _ _ _ _ _ again!”
I am ashamed of what I was then. Am I forgiven? Yes indeed. But I never want to forget it; I never want to forget the poison, and that is what I call it, I was drowning in.
I grew up in the deep South and graduated from a high school that was two thirds African American. Later I lived 27 years in a county that was over 95 per cent white. Now I live in Baltimore City which is over two thirds African American. I am often struck by the different perspectives on racial issues that tend to characterize whites and blacks. The root difference seems to me to be the historical perspective each race tends to take. Whites of good will often want to assume a color blind society and dismiss any mention of the previous regime of legal segregation and discrimination or its legacy still today as divisive and objectionable. For many African Americans that past is still very much present in terms of its continuing consequences today. A white relative once almost became angry at me when I mentioned the huge disparity between blacks and whites when it comes to the generational transfer of wealth. She vehemently denied it. Outof respect for her age I did not point out that she had inherited a nice home that was completely paid for. It is interesting that historical perspectives on race have been a major factor in family and other relationships going back at least to Moses.
What should be of grave concern to the church are messages that are passed around on Facebook and other social media, by many white Christians, such as, “No black or white person today is responsible for what was done to others generations ago”. That is simply the old, “Well, I never owned slaves; so why am I being held responsible for what black people are going through today” cleverly dressed up as fair and equal.
Whether we wish to admit it or not, old prejudices dressed up in a new political coat and tie, carrying an American flag, is going to keep many churches seen only as cultural and political cells that will simply be ignored and brushed aside, never to be taken seriously except as shameful.
[deleted]
AJ — copying an entire article from another source is a copyright violation. Next time, please just post a link.
All — this is not a forum for political conversation. I’m deleting this entire thread.
[deleted]
The responsibility of one generation for the acts, commitments and injustices of their ancestors is a well attested biblical principle. See 2 Samuel 21, 2 Kings 24:3, Exodus 13:19 and Leviticus 26:40.
However “Fathers shall not be put to death for their son, nor shall sons be put to death
for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sins.” Deut 24:16
Ezekiel 18: 20 “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for
the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the
righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked
will be upon himself.”
Exodus 20:5 is among the Ten Commandments which are arranged in covenant form.
The Suzerain-Vassal treaty pattern of the ancient near east is followed in the Ten
Commandments. This arrangement included an introduction of who was making the
covenant. Exodus 20:2 what the covenant maker had done; laws 20:3-17; rewards
20:6,12 and punishments 20:5,7.
Covenantally when a father misleads his family, the effects of that misleading are often
felt for generations. This is because the father is being covenantally unfaithful and God
has stipulated that there are punishments for breaking the covenant with God. That is
the case with these verses that deal with the sins visited upon the children. If a father
rejects the covenant of God and takes his family into sin and rejects God, the
children will suffer the consequences, often for several generations.
[deleted]
[deleted].
Whatever we do don’t read Patrick Mead’s latest. It will only start trouble 🙂 What seems strange to me is Patrick banned me from commenting on his blog, for saying the very same thing he is now saying. go figger 🙂
I remember reading a comment from many years ago, “There is nothing new under the sun”. I also read that in the history of mankind in the Bible there have always been divisions between races and nationalities, and many other insignificant attributes created divisions between men. What nation or country in the world has outdone Rome as the collector of authority to govern over men? Actually, I would guess that man cannot locate a time in history when all men were treated equal by all other men. Oh, do you remember that our God even set into motion many of these divisions, were not the Canaanites a people that were not displayed as being in a positive relationship with God?
In light of history how could anyone remotely believe that all people on earth would ever attain the status of being fully equal in the sight of all men?
In other words there will always be divisions in the world; races, nationalities, abilities, wealth and any other division that can be devised. Those things can only come together in a unity of beliefs that will allow men to see another man as an equal in his relationship with God.
Laymond,
I am confused, in your reference to Patrick Mead’s post were you referring to #398 Inspiration and Balaam’s Donkey? As I read it I did not see any likeness of some of the communications that I have read of yours, in fact I thought you were a stickler for book chapter and verse very often just a single verse. I see Patrick portraying that what is on the reading surface is only exposing some principles or guidelines that we need to understand, sometimes the text as written cannot even be documented as accurate with the other writers. But, the concepts displayed do coordinate enough that we can understand the message that inspiration intended.
Larry, does that sound like all scripture was whispered into the ear of the writer, word for word ?
I have always argued, inspiration, meant motivation, inspired, means motivated. unless my memory fails me Patrick was on the “whispered it in the ear” side. And that included all the letters Paul wrote. Like Mark said “opinions change” .
I find the comments above, by AG and Larry, truly unbelievable. When I read Jesus of the gospels I do not see one syllable of what the two of you have written.
You might be interested to know that there is more to being a Progressive Christian than no longer believing that the other church down the street is going to hell; but, maybe not.
That is all I have to say. My jaw is still on the floor.
Larry Cheek says: “Laymond, I am confused,”
That is really not news to me Larry. 🙂
Some portions of the chapter ethnicity and race are very weak. On the redeeming of Naomi’s,land, the kinsman declines because of inheritance rules. But these authors say “He cites inheritance rules, but we suspect his real motivation is ethnic prejudice.” Really. With no evidence other than speculation — likely, an example of the authors misreading the book of Ruth through American race-obsessed eyes.
Even worse, the authors make no attempt at explaining the proclamations of God regarding the Moabites. (Deut 23:3) Was God himself being racist? And if not, can you really blame the Jews for excluding the Moabites from their assembly? It requires some real ethical gymnastics to make that wrong for the Jews without finding fault with God.
They also present the theory that the divisions in Corinth (Paul, Apollos, Cephas, Christ) were ethnic in origin. That’s an interesting theory but there is no evidence in the text one way or another. So it carries no weight in proving the authors’ case.
It crossed my mind that Paul made an ethnic generalization about Cretans (TItus 1:12). I can either conclude that he was accurately describing the general case, or that God permitted Paul to make a racist statement in scripture, and to allow it to go unchallenged. I believe that Paul’s letters are inspired by the Holy Spirit so that leads me to one conclusion. My point is just that these authors are more reluctant to make general critical statements about an entire ethic group or race than the Holy Spirit appears to be.
I bought this book on Kindle with high hopes. But the unsubstantiated theories advanced in this chapter have dampened my enthusiasm. I hope it gets better.
Laymond,
I sure am glad that you did address and clear up the confusion that I had about your comment. You seem to have explained that at a prior time Patrick thought that God breathed the message of the scriptures into the ears of the writers, and that each word was Gods own, but has now changed his mind.
I guess that it has been your own quoting of scripture as if it was word for word God’s own penmanship holding to the authority of each word, even if it did not support the concept of the that was being discussed that helped me to be confused about your own interpretation.
John,
I really have been intrigued at your comment. Could you supply some examples from scripture that portray why you see this differently than I have explained? After you pick up your jaw.
Jay,
“five of the seven deacons who were appointed to deal with the problem had Greek names. Seems like a wise move to put some Hellenistic Jews in a position to take care of these widows”
It also seems that this is a justification of “let them take care of their own.” The church is amplifying the segregation by sending the lowly esteemed Greek Jew Deacons to tend to the lowly esteemed Greek Jew widows.
Thoughts?
Dwayne asked,
“The church is amplifying the segregation by sending the lowly esteemed Greek Jew Deacons to tend to the lowly esteemed Greek Jew widows.
Thoughts?”
Except two of the seven had Jewish surnames and — if we think of these men as deacons, and if we think of ministry leadership as an honor, not a mere burden, then the apostles gave to 5 Hellenistic Jews and 2 Judean Jews the honor of serving the widows of the church.
In the contemporary CoC, we tend to think of ordination as a deacon as an honor — a job, but an honored job — and it seems clear from the Acts 6 narrative that these men were held in very high esteem: “men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom.” (Act 6:3 ESV)
Hence, it strikes me as truer to the text to consider the apostles as working to elevate the perception of Hellenistic Jews in the congregation.