The Tribal divison of Deuteronomy 27

Scholars have long been puzzled by how the Tribes of Israel are divided in Deuteronomy 27:11-13, placing half on the mountain of Blessing and half on the mountain of Cursing.  It doesn't correspond to the split between Rehoboam and Jeroboam, it doesn't line up to their mothers exactly either, it seems random.

As someone who's spent a lot of time comparing in my mind the tribal allotments of Joshua to the how Israel was geopoliticaly in the Time of Christ based largely on how Herod's domain was divided upon his death.  I've noticed an interesting correlation here.

Those on Mount Gerizim seem to equate to what was directly under Rome via Pilate's governance, which had at Herod's death been inherited by Archleous mentioned at the end of Matthew 2.  While those on Ebal equate to what was inherited by other sons of Herod, or perhaps even specifically by Antipas.

First listed on Ebal are Gad and Reuben, the southernmost of the Trans-Jordan tribes thus making them equate pretty well to Perea.  Galilee as it was in NT times wasn't just Zebulun and Naphtali but also included much of Assher and perhaps even some of Dan.  Dan could also equate well to what Philip inherited.  But I still think it could also be Antipas, usually Antipas isn't thought to have extended that far north, but when Antipas and Aretas went to war, Damascus got tangled up in that.  Or it could be notable that Dan's original allotment being adjacent to the Philistines could be in what Herod's sister Salome inherited.

On Gerizim were Judah, Levi and Benjamin, the three core Tribes of the Kingdom of Judah which became Judea.  Simeon's original allotment equates well to NT era Idumea.  And the house of Joseph became Samaria.  What Archelus inherited is defined as Judea, Samaria and Idumea.

The only possible issue is Isschcar, which I'll get into later.

But first, if this is true, what is the theological significance of it?

Luke 23:6-7 shows Jesus as a Galilean was of Herod Antipas jurisdiction.  Jesus grew up in Galilee and did most of his ministry there, but He also said "no Prophet is accepted in his own country".  It was in Judea that his Birth, Death, Resurrection and Ascension happened, and where Pentecost happened.  Perea being under Antipas control is why he had the authority to arrest John The Baptist.

During the time of of the 66-73 AD war, the same lands Antipas ruled and beyond were under Herod Agrippa II's control.

Issachar is often considered also part of NT era Galilee.  Mainly because the traditional site of Nazareth is adjacent to what is traditionally identified as Japhia/Jafia, a city of Issachar.  But I have reasons to think one or both of those traditional identifications is wrong.

Both Isaiah 9:1 and the New Testament passages that quote it (Matthew 4:13-15) only mention Zebulon and Naphtali.  I think Isaiah's original context was possibly only intending to define Naphtali as Galilee, (other OT references to Galilee mention just Naphtali not Zebulon).  In New Testament times Galilee as Antipas ruled it definitely extended further west then just Naphtali, possibly because of how Greco-Roman Jews interpreted Isaiah 9.  Meanwhile Matthew 4 could be viewed as saying Jesus going from Nazareth to Capernaum was going from Zebulun to Naphtali.

Zebulun and Issachar are often paired together, like in Deuteronomy 33 and arguably also Genesis 49.  And there are other passages that seem to mention only one and not the other.  But also in general the different views on how to map out the allotments of the tribes are often most confusing when it comes to these two tribes, both in how they relate to each other and in how they relate to Asher and parts of western Manasseh.  The most popular map gives neither any coast land while Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 both seem to predict at least Zebulon will be by the sea.  (Note, in Deuteronomy 33 the "West" linked to Naphtali is the Hebrew word for Sea and so probably refers to the Sea of Galiee.)

The city of Samaria itself is possibly a reason why I think perhaps Issachar should be considered part of Samaria not Galilee. 

First you should know that in the Hebrew text the spelling of Samaria often has an N at the end.  Meaning it's spelling is basically the same as Shimron, a son of Issachar in Genesis 46:13 who had a clan in Numbers 26:24.  And Joshua 12:20 mentions a Shimron near Meggido.

As the name of a city Samaria didn't exist before Omri founded it (there is a Prophetic reference in the time of Jeroboam).  But he's said to have named it after who he bought the hill from.  At first glance it seems like it's saying an individual, but it could mean the clan.

Omri had just overthrown a Dynasty who came from Issachar, Baasha's, and was fighting a civil war with Tibni who could have been of the same tribe for all we know.  Choosing a capital at the border of Issachar and Manasseh-Joseph could have been a unifying gesture.  Like David's move in choosing Jerusalem for his capital, just on Benjamin's side of the Benjamin-Judah border.

Even if this moves south what's typically viewed as Issachar it's still moving Samaria north of it's traditional location, since it's traditionally south of Tirzah and this would make it north since Tirzah was firmly Manasseh.  But perhaps it also makes more sense of some things to place Samaria closer to Jezreel (which was in Issachar), Ahab's capital, then it is usually placed.

Psalm 45, The Tune of The Lilies

The traditional view of this Psalm doesn’t sit right with me.  But nothing I argue here will really go against how I use this Psalm in the Bride of Christ post on my Prophecy Blog.

The traditional view has the person being addressed in the Psalm change a few times.  The first verse isn’t the Psalm proper at all but just the author's preface, that I agree with.  Then the traditional view says verses 2-9 are addressing “The King” and 10-15 his Bride, and then 16-17 are addressing The King again.  Of course the King’s Bride is presumably first introduced in verse 9.  I don't see these changes in who’s being addressed as being all that justifiable.

Nothing in the sections presumed to address the King actually calls them King.  In fact verse 5 is referring to the King as separate when it says they defeated the King’s enemies.  Verse 1 says this Psalm concerns the King in some fashion, but doesn’t clearly say how.

Verses 13-15 say.

“The king's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold.  She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.  With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace.“

Again, the King and the subject are separate, the King’s daughter is being brought to the King first then given to the subject.  These verses tell me that the King like in my view of the Song of Solomon is serving as the father of the Bride, not as the Groom.

I think it’s much more coherent to interpret the subject of the Psalm as being the same person all throughout.  And that this person is being given the King’s daughter.  

Now it’s possible in that view the subject could still be David, but that in this context the King is God or Saul.  But that will become less likely later.

The word translated “Queen” in verse 9 in reference to the subject’s bride is not a feminine form of Melech or Sar like a lot of other words translated Queen in The Bible.  The word is Shegal, which is translated “wives” when Daniel 5 uses its plural form though it’s not a usual word for wife either.    The verb it’s derived from is Shagal, a word usually translated “lie” or “ravished”, and in all contexts seems clearly about sex.

Nothing all that controversial so far.  Till we look at verse 10 which clearly called the subject a daughter.  Verse 11 is the primary basis for saying this is a woman the King is marrying, but I think that is jumping to conclusions.  Verse 10 is also the basis for seeing the woman here as a foreigner, but I feel that terminology could simply be her not being of the same Tribe.  The word for “people” is Am not Goyim.  Genesis 48 foretells Manasseh will be his own Am.

Verses 6 and 7 are quoted in Hebrews chapter 1, verses 8 and 9 as being about Jesus (Paul says “the Son” not “a son”).  

First of all I can again reference my Song of Solomon studies as precedent for a female personage being a type of Christ.  And many think the Wisdom of Proverbs is Jesus, which is clearly referred to with Feminine pronouns, and the Hebrew and Greek words for Wisdom are all grammatically feminine.

Secondly this isn’t the only place where a New Testament quotation is being kind of creative with the Old Testament context.  I think it’s also possible Paul was paraphrasing and that this doesn’t justify the Septuagint translation as much as one might at first think.

On the subject of translating these verses, the words for Throne in both Hebrew and Greek are words for Seat or Chair not solely limited to Royal Thrones the way that English word usually is.

Alternate translations of Psalm 45:6 include "your divine throne endures for ever and ever"[Rhodes 78] and "the eternal and everlasting God has enthroned you"[Dahood 269].  Verse 7 could also read “Elohim thy God has anointed thee” or “Elohim has anointed thy God”.  The Hebrew Bible calling a human an El in the right context isn’t as weird as you at first think, just look at Exodus 7:1.

The word for God used in verse 6 is Elohim.  But in verse 7 the word for God with the Thy/Your suffix attached is not Elohim though the Strongs categorizes it like it is.  It does have a Heh however, which makes it possible to view as Grammatically Feminine.  Actually it’s possible to even interpret Elohim as partly grammatically feminine, but that is a much bigger rabbit hole.

The subject possibly being or representing Jesus isn’t actually the most controversial implication of making the subject a woman all throughout it.  The biggest issue is the implication that this daughter is being given, either in marriage or in some sexual fashion, the King’s daughter.  Meaning I have just argued this Psalm is about a Lesbian couple.

Now at face value you can say the last two verses are clearly making this about a Heterosexual couple since they have children.  But the application of this to Jesus and His Bride does not view these children as literal offspring of sexual reproduction, but as the “remnant of her Seed” of Revelation 12:17, or more controversially in my view The Man-Child.  There is also the Suffering Servant’s Seed in Isaiah 53.  

What is special about Psalm 45 however is it doesn’t even say Seed, so it is the most linguistically justifiable to apply to children by Adoption, or any other means by which a Lesbian couple could have kids.

The word for Earth in verse 16 also just means land, and refers to specific lands many times.  It doesn’t always mean the whole Planet Earth.  That is how I interpret it when applying this Psalm to Jesus, but as far as this original woman who married into the royal family, they may have been given a specific region, maybe a whole Tribe’s allotment at most.

Now what I’m about to mention is just an interesting coincidence.

I started seeing this possible Lesbian implication to Psalm 45 before I noticed this is one of the Psalms that is to the Tune Shoshannim as it’s transliterated in the KJV.  

What does Shoshannim mean?  Well first of all the im suffix makes it plural.  And Shoshan/Shushan is the Hebrew word for Lily.  Meaning Shoshannim means Lilies.  But what does Lily/Shushan translate to in Japanese?  Yuri!!!  

Meaning this Psalm was “to the Tune of the Yuries”.

The last verse is a bit of an issue if the original subject of the Psalm is some random woman otherwise forgotten by history.  So let’s see if we can identify her with someone else mentioned in Scripture.

The Gold from Ophir tells me this isn’t a proper Davidic Psalm but from the time of Solomon at the soonest.  The word for “Daughter” can also refer to a granddaughter or more distant female descendant, basically any woman of the Royal family could be the King’s Daughter in question.  I note that here though it may not be relevant.

1st Kings 4:7-19 lists officers Solomon placed over the Tribes of Israel, it’s most well known for how two of them are said to have married daughters of Solomon.  One of those two, Ahimaaz in verse 15, is also unique in being the only one of these 12 not called the Son of someone.  The English translation uses a male pronoun, but that could be a product of the limitations of English.  In fact there are other places where this same Hebrew prefix Hu is translated more gender neutrally, and Genesis 29:12 uses it of Rebecca.

The other references in the Hebrew Bible to people with the name Ahimaaz mostly seem to clearly be males (though it’s not impossible that for some reason Ahinoam wife of Saul was referred to as the daughter of her mother), but it wouldn't be the only name used by both Sexes.  The name ends with the letter Tzadiq, the Hebrew word for Earth/Land is Eretz which also ends with a Tzadiq and is considered grammatically feminine according to the Strongs.  

The meaning of Ahimaaz being interpreted to have “brother” in it doesn’t mean anything in regard to their gender, David had two wives whose names mean father of something, Abigail and Avital.  Ach, the part taken to mean brother, is used at the start of a few feminine words and names, like the name of Ahinoam.

So perhaps Psalm 45 is about the marriage of Ahimaaz to Basemath?

This might be a good time to note my personal hunch that Basemath was probably the daughter of one of Solomon’s Edomite wives, given that name’s association with wives of Esau.

Ahimaaz was placed over Naphtali, Genesis 49 calls Naphtali a Hind, Ayalah in the Hebrew, a specifically feminine word for a deer like animal.  So maybe a woman being in charge of Naphtali fits that prophetically.

The land allotted to Naphtali is where most of Jesus ministry was. Isaiah 9 defines Galilee as Zebulun and Napthali, though the traditional site of Nazareth is closer to Zebulun, Capernaum which seems to be the main base of operations in the Synoptic Gospels was firmly in Naphtali.  Tiberias, a capital of NT era Galilee, was also in Naphtali.

I proposed a theory on my now semi defunct revised chronology blog that the Amazons of Greek mythology might have come from Dan.  Dan was the full sibling of Naphtali.  The goddess of the Amazons was sometimes viewed as being Artemis, who was often associated with female Deer.  And I could conceivably connect the name of Artemis to Ahimaaz, or the etymology of the word Amazon itself to Ahimaaz.  And the husband of a daughter of Salmoneus was also relevant to that post.  Perhaps the distorted Greek memory changed Ahimaaz to a brother of Salmoneus because of the name’s meaning having brother in it?

Update November 2018: It's also possible Ahimaaz could be a Trans woman or a Trans man, I'd consider a Trans woman more likely.

The Torah failed it's own Prophet Test

I obviously do not believe that, I'm saying it Rhetorically.

You see, these Hebrew Roots people insisting The Torah says it will last forever have a problem, it didn't.

You see the verses that say something will last for Olam or "All of the Days", are not saying simply that's how long this will be Yahuah's preferred way or doing things.  They are saying that is how long it will last.

At the latest The Torah stopped being practiced in 70 AD, but a lot of these Torah only people insist the true Torah system was abandoned well before that, when The Temple replaced the Tabernacle at the latest.  That is a subject I'll probably discus in future posts, not sure which Blog I'll put it on.

So you can't just pick and choose which parts of these verses to apply the most extreme interpretation to.

Especially when it comes to the Aaronic Priesthood, that was a Promise to Aaron and his Sons that they wold be Priests, not simply that only they were allowed to be, because as I remind you Yahuah never shut down Jethro's Priesthood.  Today the descendants of Aaron have nothing other then special Synagogue reading privileges.  So if Yahuah's promise to Aaron was FOREVER then He failed to keep it.

"But doesn't the foretold Captivity imply a temporary ceasing of the system?"  You may ask?

1. I believe the true Captivity didn't fully begin till the 130s AD.  Everything before was just lesser warnings.

2. During the time between the first and second temples the Elephantine Temple was functioning in Egypt.  In 66-73 AD the Egyptian back up Temple was also shut down.

3. Since I believe The Torah was only for an Olam, I believe the Captivity begins after that Olam ends.

Torah as The Foundation of The Canon

A few posts I've made over the last two months have been addressed to people who's view on Canon I've described as "Torah Only".  The Remember The Commands YouTube channel rejects that description it seems, preferring to say it's the Torah as the Foundation.

Thing is it's basically the same thing, when you're using an extreme interpretation of the Prophet Test to discredit any book that has any apparent conflict with The Torah.  But of course they have a different attitude towards alleged places where The Torah contradicts itself.

Numbers 12:6-8 is cited as explaining why Moses is distinct from other Prophets, why what Moses said and wrote is more Canon then anything else.

But Deuteronomy 18:15-19 foretells a future Prophet like Moses, who's authority will be exactly like how Moses was described in Numbers 12.

I believe that Prophet was Jesus.  That belief requires a great deal of Faith, as does placing one's Faith in the God of Moses.  So anything Jesus quoted as Scripture must be Scripture, and He also passed on His authority to the 12, starting with Peter.  And Peter called Paul's writings Scripture.

It's interesting in the context of this title of Jesus to remember what Exodus 7:1 says.  Typologically that's another place where Moses represents Jesus, and Aaron all New Testament believers, since now we are all Priests.

Basically what I'm saying is, to Christians Jesus is our Cornerstone, and His Apostles who wrote the New Testament are our Foundation.   The dispensation of The Torah is over.

Update November 25th 2017:

Some who aren't Christians or Rabbinic Jews seek to deconstruct the whole idea of Messianic Prophecy.  They might insist that Deuteronomy 18 wasn't meant to be about a single individual.   But that it would be an office.

Meanwhile the context in Numbers 12 is Yahuah explaining why Miriam and Aaron' authority are not like that of Moses.  So you can argue the intent was only that while Moses lived no one else's authority equals Moses.

The end of Deuteronomy does clearly say there was no one like Moses during whatever time separated it's authorship from the Death of Moses.  However....

When you look at Samuel's story in 1st Samuel 3, it's easy to conclude that perhaps that author meant us to think of Samuel as the Prophet like Unto Moses, and he was contemporary with other events foretold in Deuteronomy, in chapter 17.  Samuel is often considered the first Prophet in the sense of how that Office functioned during the Kingdom period.  And most of the Prophetic books are arguably defining themselves as being like how Moses is defined in these passages of Numbers and Deuteronomy, with only Daniel fitting Numbers 12's description of the not Moses like Prophets.

This view can be reconciled with the Christian view.  The Prophet like unto Moses is ultimately Jesus, but other Prophets foreshadowed Him, and then He passed His Authority onto The Apostles.

The Bible is not against "Interacial" Marriage

The Torah's commands against marriages with the Canaanites were about mixed marriages on Spiritual grounds.  The issue with the marriages Balaam helped arrange is deliberately explained as the daughters of Moab leading them to into idolatry.

Lots of people want to deny this, yes even today some still try to preach against White People marrying Black People (as if that modern ethnic divide could possibly correlate to any tribal relations in The Bible).

Even going off just The Torah  Who Israelites are allowed to marry, and who they're not, makes no sense if it's purely Ethnic or genealogical lines, they're too arbitrary.  The commands against it are primarily directed at Canaanites, which would work in that context.  But then Moab and Ammon, who descend from Lot, Abraham's Nephew.  One could speculate their gene pool was corrupted by their Incestuous origin, but in Deuteronomy 2 Yahuah still recognized their right to their land as much as he does Edom's.  Their idolatry is I believe the reason they normally can't marry Israelites, yet God's promise of the land he gave to the family of Abraham still applies to them in spite of that.

However marriages to Mizraimites, other descendants of Ham, same son of Noah as Canaan, are repeatedly shown to be okay.  Hagar and Abraham's relationship was not disapproved of by God.  Then Ishmael married a Mizraimite.  Joseph married the daughter of a Mizraimite Priest.  Leviticus 24 records the son of a Danite Woman and a Mizraimite man being an Israelite.  You can conjecture his ancestry related to his Sin all you want, but the text doesn't say that, his Punishment shows he was considered a citizen.  Later the Book of Chronicles tells us of other marriages with Mizraimites that happened pretty early on.

I just did a post on the Cushite Wife of Moses.  It can be viewed as an oversimplification of the passage to say it's explicitly approving that marriage, yet if Moses was wrong to marry her, Yahuah would have said so as Moses Sin at Meribah is not glossed over.

Edom is not included on those prohibited to marry either.  On the one hand you could say that makes sense, they are closer related to Israel then them, coming from Jacob's Twin.  Yet Edom himself married some Canaanites he wasn't supposed to, so why wasn't that condemnation inherited by their descendants if genetics not who they worship was the issue?  Plus in other contexts The Torah mentions Edom right by Moab and Amon.  The difference is Moab and Amon worshiped Idols, Chemosh and Molech, while Edom as I've talked about before seems to have worshiped Yahuah, often worshiped Him wrong perhaps, but still worshiped Him.  Compare Deuteronomy 23:3 to 23:7.

And in a post I'm working on for my Prophecy blog, I'm going to suggest the Mizraimites (often translated Egypt and Egyptian) of the Torah may not have worshiped Idols yet either.

The Levites had many special restrictions, they were not allowed to even marry women of other Tribes of Israel.  You can't use their restrictions to interpret general Laws for all the people.

Deuteronomy 7:3 is the primary verse cited by anti-Mixed Marriage people. They ignore the very next verse.

Now, going beyond The Torah, since most Christians consider all of The Bible canon.

The Book of Ruth.

One website obsessed with saying Interracial marriage is wrong regardless of faith, insists Ruth was not a Moabitess.  This was not a Torah only website obviously, or they'd just do what I've seen some Torah only people do and reject the line of David.  They seem to overlook that if you want to be selective about Canon only the Book of Ruth places a Ruth in Davids ancestry in the TNAK, and Matthew does not repeat her Moabite status.  Though I feel Matthew's mention of her name does Canonize the book of Ruth for all Christians, since there is no other Biblical source he could have gotten it from.

This website argued the Country or Plain of Moab mentioned in Ruth is not in what you usually see Moab limited to on Maps, south of Reuben and the river Arnon, but land that was Moabite before the conquest.  (I think this website was trying to argue it wasn't even Trans-Jordan.) This forgets that Deuteronomy 2 explicitly says God wasn't going to give Israelites any land of Edom, Moab or Amon.  The Trans-Jordan tribes decision to stay Trans-Jordon when that wasn't the original plan arguably complicated this, but I still think it was mostly only Canaanite and Ishmaelite territory they borrowed.

The word Sojourn is used in the very first verse, a word that is usually used of dwelling in a foreign land. Used of Non-Israleites in Israel, and of Isrealites when they Sojourned in Egypt.

They say it doesn't matter that Ruth is called a Moabitess, they believe she was an Israelite, yet is the only Israelite ever repeatedly called a Moabite.

Some verses do say ___ite when referring to a geographical association rather then genealogical ancestry.  But there are usually of Non-Israelites, or of the Patriarchs back before they were their own tribe, hence them being called Arameans even though they descended form Arphaxad not Aram.   Or if it's used of Israelites it's only in a sense that confuses what Tribe they are, like Samuel as a Levite being called am Ephraimite, or the mother of Hiram being both a daughter of Dan and a Widow of Naphtali.

Even if the land they were in can be argued to be formally Moabite territory then belonging to Gad or Reuben.  That hardly rules out Ruth being ethnically Moabite, as the Moabite population of that region would hardly disappear.

Either Ruth was not an Israelite, or the author of Ruth wanted to deceive their readers into thinking she wasn't.

But regardless of all their technical arguments about what terms mean.  To any literary analysis of the book it is absurd to deny that Ruth was a foreigner and that it is advocating for allowing a foreigner to marry into Israel if they are faithful to The Torah.  Ruth is ignorant of the ways of Israel at the start and needs to learn them from Naomi.  And in Ruth 4:5-6, why else would the kinsman in line before Boaz reject her out of concern of his inheritance being barred unless he was concerned with the laws against marrying Moabites?  Obviously people who thought those laws were purely Ethnic existed back then, Ruth is a book written to argue against that belief.

Uriah The Hittie's marriage to Bathsheba was not an issue either, because he was clearly someone who worshiped Yahuah and who Yahuah considered His Servant.

Ezra and Nehemiah.

Some argue that it is specifically Ezra and Nehemiah who's decisions strongly leave no room for allowing ethnically mixed marriages.  Skeptics of The Bible see them as clearly philosophically opposed to the Book of Ruth (and try to claim Ruth was written about the same time by an opposing camp).

Now I haven't studied these two book as much I as should yet.  Maybe they too are being miss-characterized by those who oppose mixed Marriages.  If so I apologize that I can't adequately defend them here just yet.

What I am going to say is that while I believe the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are canonical inspired records of History.  Ezra and Nehemiah were still flawed fallible humans who's interpretations of The Torah we don't necessarily have to agree with.  Even Paul sometimes said "says I not The Lord", and I trust Paul's Judgment more then theirs.

The website I have in mind says The Messiah (they believe that is Jesus) upheld the rulings of Ezra and Nehemiah.  But I see no place in The Gospels where Jesus does that.  The book of Ezra is never directly quoted in the New Testament, there is one verse where arguably Jesus is referencing Nehemiah, but that is disputable.  But even then, the verse of Nehemiah in question is not one of their rulings but describing the Manna miracle in the Wilderness.

Jesus acknowledgment of the Second Temple in John 4 is only upholding Zerubabel and Jeshua, Ezra and Nehemiah came later.  Likewise the Prophetic books of the return from Captivity period uphold those two a lot but don't mention Ezra or Nehemiah.  And I think even they possibly built The Temple on the wrong location.

Malachi who was clearly quoted by Jesus as a Prophet, says in chapter 2 verse 11 that the issue is marrying "the daughter of a strange god".  He was a contemporary of the same concerns Ezra and Nehemiah were dealing with.  And the only specific people group spoken of negatively in Malachi is Esau, who were not among those prohibited to marry in the Torah as I laid out.

In The New Testament, Paul taught that there is neither Jew or Gentile in The Church in Galatians 3, and about Gentiles being grafted into Israel Unnaturally in Romans 11.

Wives of Moses

I want to dedicate a post specifically to this question, since it's something I haven't made up my mind 100% on yet.

Most famously is Zipporah, daughter of Jethro also called Raguel, a Priest in Midian.  That could imply they were ethnically Midianite (descendants of Abraham by Keturah) but maybe not.

There is a controversy in Numbers 12 about Moses marrying a Custhie Wife.  There have been two common theories about who this is.

Either it's the same person as Zipporah, thus making this relevant to speculation about the Tribal identity of her and her father Jethro.

Or the extra-Biblical tradition recorded in Josephus that Moses married a Nubian Cushite Princess when he conquered Kush for Egypt way back when he was still a Prince of Egypt.  (This is in DeMille's The Ten Commandments 1956 film, but it doesn't make their marrying explicit, cause it's 1950s America).

In either of those cases I'm inclined to question, why was it just becoming an issue now?

It's often overlooked that in Exodus 18:2 Moses sent Zipporah back to Jethro in Midian.

That Miriam and Aaron are condemned by God for objecting to Moses marriage is taken as proof their objection was wrong.  While that can suit my own agenda well, it's perhaps an oversimplification, since what God was directly angry at was their implying their authority was equal to Moses.  So it's more like this was a minor issue bringing a greater one to the forefront.

What were they objecting to however?  This passage becomes relevant to two debates about Marriage.  Mixed or "Interracial" Marriage, and Polygamy.

Zipporah is last mentioned by that name in Exodus 18. And this passage seems to be the only place after that Moses having a wife comes up.  So whether or not Polygamy is possibly relevant here is not just dependent on if they are the same woman.   Zipporah could have passed away by this point, leaving Moses free to remarry regardless of how okay with Polygamy you interpret the Torah as being.  If Polygamy was their objection, I think they would have said "in addition to".

None of the verses in the Torah taken as condemning mixed marriages even address descent from Cush, they seem to be about Canaanites, Moab and Ammon.  Intermarriages with Mizraimites are not objected to at all, so the ban on Canaan can't be inferred to include all Hamites.  I believe these are in truth about spiritually mixed marriages, not ethnicity, I'll be doing a post on that later.

That proves Yahuah wouldn't have objected to a Cushite wife, but Miriam and Aaron are a different story.

In The Torah Zipporah and Jethro's clan is never explicitly called Kenite.  So people who limit their Canon to the Torah might insist they aren't.

But for those of us who consider Judges a worthwhile source.  Judges 1:16 says the Father in Law of Moses was a Kenite.  Going off that verse alone it could be a different Father in Law is who was meant.  But later Judged 4:11 clarifies these are people who descend form Hobab, and again calls them Kenites.  Now this verse as it's rendered in English at least can be accused of contradicting Numbers 10:29.  Numbers Says Hobab was the son of Moses Father In Law, while this verse in Judges looks like it's saying Hobab was Moses Father in Law.  It might be something is lost in translation here, that it meant to call Hobab and the Father in Law of Moses ancestors of this clan.

Or maybe Numbers 10:29 can be taken as calling Hobab not Raguel the Father in Law of Moses, either way this verse means Jethro wasn't his only name.  Exodus 2:18 could have been referring to Reuel was Zipporah's father even though he was really her grandfather, the patriarch of the clan.  Exodus 2 is the only time Reuel is mentioned as someone clearly still alive, Jethro isn't mentioned till 40 years later in the first verse of Exodus 3.  Every time someone is called Moses' "Father in law" in the KJV the "father" part is added by the translation, the Hebrew just uses a word for in-law.  So maybe Reuel, Jethro and Hobab were three different male members of Zipporah's family.

Only Numbers 10:29 calls Raguel a Midianite, and not simply of the region of Midian.  But even then Midianite can mean that and not stickily ethnically.  Genesis 15 lists the Kenites as people who already existed at this time, that is different from other places in Genesis where I think the narrative voice is mentioning people who'll exist later.

People who don't want The Bible to make sense love to accuse Kenites of being the descendants of Cain, who's line logically perished in The Flood.  However if you look at Kenite's placement in the Strongs, the Pre-Flood patriarch name it's closest to is Cainan or Kenen of Genesis 5, the son of Enosh son of Seth.  Luke 3 tells us another person with this same name (in the Greek text it's spelled identically to the Genesis 5 Kenen) existed after the Flood as a son of Aprhaxad son of Shem.  My theory on this extra name of Luke 3 is that Shelah was a younger son of Arphaxad who married his niece Kenen's daughter.  The Kenites could be people who paternally descended from this Kenen.

That Exodus 4 strongly implies Jethro's family didn't practice Circumcision, I think is also evidence against them descending from Abraham.

I myself had strongly argued for Zipporah being the Kushite wife in my post about Cushites in Arabia.  However that argument was by no means dependent on that, I had another verse implying Cushites and Midian being associated with the same area.

Now my conclusion is most likely this was someone Moses married at the time this controversy broke in Numbers 12, or just a little before.  Given where they were, in Arabia, this Wife of Moses is still evidence for Cushites in Arabia.

For the Josephus tradition, you could get around my first question by saying Moses was obviously separated from her when he fled Egypt, and perhaps they were reunited now.   But still, I feel Josephus is recording a story someone before him imagined to explain this mysterious verse in Numbers while also making Moses more awesome.  I think it's also dependent on assumptions about "Egypt" that may be wrong.

Numbers 11 ends with the Israelites settling at a place called Hazeroth.  Could be this was a place where Arabian Cushites dwelt? and Moses married one of them?

Modern Americans have a distorted view of what Conservatism is.

Both ones who are conservative, and ones who attack Conservatism.  I'm not saying American Conservatives aren't conservative, mostly they are, I'm saying they are delusional in how they define themselves.

The origins of the Right Wing/Left Wing terminology are from the French Revolution, where those who supported the King sat on the right side of the Assembly, and those who opposed the King sat on the left (well some "Constitutional Monarchists" may have been seated on the Left, depend son how Monarchal they wanted the Constitution).  The word Conservative comes from the idea of conserving how things were, and thus throughout 19th Century European history and literature the Conservatives were the Monarchists and Royalists.  And the way things were before the Revolutions was that the State headed by the King held absolute authority, and regulated aboslutly everything.  (Though within how the State was organized the King was never truly absolute.)

So the idea that Conservative = Small Government, is totally wrong.

And American Conservatives don't support small government.

They support laws to enforce morality from Prostitution to Gambling to Drugs, they support Wars, they supported the Patriotic Act.  They talk a lot about cutting Government spending, but are offended by any suggestion to cut what actually is the most expensive part of our Government, military spending, but they also like to spend money on police and prisons.  So the actual fists of big government they don't want to defund at all.

They don't want to make Government small, they just want to prevent it from accidentally doing anything good.

For the most part, the only position I hold that modern America considers the Conservative position is on Guns, I'm firmly against any and all restrictions on Gun Ownership.  However in 19th Century Europe that was not considered a Conservative position, that was the position held by Karl Marx.