The Palette of God

(Author's Note: After completing this entry, I ran across a site that argues for segregation as a moral must.  I have linked to it here, and may very well craft a rebuttal some time in the future.  In the meantime, consider this entry as an extremely generalized argument against such views.)

Fair warning to those who are racially challenged; to those who believe the KKK and other such organizations are correct; and those who view skin color  differences as a clear sign that people should not mix interracially:  This entry will offend you.  You have my word on that.  (NOTE: All links open in a new window/tab)

I'll mainly be focusing on white and black colors, but believe me when I say that this entry is geared towards all discriminatory thoughts towards all races and nationalities.  I've addressed the equality of women in the Bible here on WarriorSoul, as well as the proper place of men and women in the home.  Now, we will address race.


One of the major reasons given over the centuries for differences in skin color, especially black, is that of the Biblical curse.  Beginning with the early Catholic Church, the first instance provided was the so-called "Mark of Cain."  For those who need a refresher, God placed a mark upon Cain after the murder of Abel to set him apart.  The theory set forward in those early years of Church existence was that black skin was the "Mark of Cain," thus making all blacks descended from the first murderer.
There are several things which cause this idea to fall apart, however, and from a strict Biblical standpoint, to boot.  The first is that the mark was not actually to set Cain apart, in that he was not to intermingle- That would violate the first command given to humanity.  If Cain was truly the first black man, and if interracial marriages were forbidden, then God would have forced Cain to violate the command to "be fruitful and multiply."  Secondly, it states in the account that it was a mark, not a covering.  Thus, a localized pigment change, such as a birthmark commonly called a "cask stain," would be far more likely than claiming he was completely black.  Finally, the mark was not a curse, but God's physical sign upon Cain to symbolize to all people that he was under Divine protection- The mark was a blessing, not a curse.

The second instance is that of Noah's curse upon Ham.  This was a severe misreading of the text, but we will come to that momentarily.  In case you can't remember what happened: The theory is based upon Noah's son Ham walking in on his father, who had passed out naked after drinking, and making sport of him.  When Noah was informed of what happened, he cursed his son for his insensitivity and dishonor. Look at the curse, though; examine the wording in Genesis 9:25.  Noah actually places the curse, not on Ham and thus all of his offspring, but upon Ham's firstborn, Canaan.  Thus, the curse rested upon one son and his descendants- Not all of Ham's. If dark skin were the result of some sort of curse that Noah pronounced, then wouldn't the people of Sheba and Dedan be under that curse?  After all, they had dark skin!  Yet Sheba and Dedan were the grandsons of Cush, not Canaan, and thus not under the curse.  No, after careful study, skin color cannot be attributed to any curse.  Instead, it is the result of prolonged exposure to a location specific environment and ecosystem, among other natural factors.


If interracial marriage was a sin in God's sight, then it would have been punished accordingly.  Yet Moses married Zipporah; daughter of Jethro, priest of Midian- And from the land of Moab.  Study the genealogy, and one discovers that Zipporah was the black woman that Miriam and Aaron would later speak against.  When they did, God Himself stood against them, shutting down their objections for good.  (Miriam was struck with leprosy.)  Yet for all of this, nothing ever happened to Moses on account of his marriage.
Another example is that of Ruth, who was a Moabitess.  Indeed, the book of Ruth uses this term to refer to her nearly as often as her own name!  The book of Ruth also refers to her dark skin in the original texts, though this is glossed over in most modern translations, including the King James.  This aside, she marries Boaz and they are blessed, not punished.
As a brief third mention, Rahab was most likely dark skinned also, as well as being covered beneath the curse of Noah- Jericho was in Canaan, the land of the descendants of the cursed son of Ham.


Now, there are three more points to make.  The first is that Jesus wasn't white.  Historical accounts of that time indicate the Jews were a great deal darker, resembling more the people of India rather than the Romans- Much less modern day Caucasians.  Secondly, Christ's lineage comes through at least two black women, (Rahab and Ruth), if not more.  Thirdly, Christ will return to take and marry His bride- and His Bride is made up of all races, colors and creeds.


With this said- If you still have a problem with interracial marriages, and other races in general, it's YOUR issue- Not God's.  The people who call you racist and bigot- They are right.  The proof you think you have does not exist.  You are 100% wrong on this issue, and God DOES NOT stand with you on it.

So... Maybe it's time for a change?  The only alternative is to continue spitting in the face of God.