Free Articles for Reprint. Free Articles for your web site and newsletters. Submit Your Articles to Our Articles Directory from FaithWriters.com

by Max Aplin

Opponents of the Christian faith sometimes claim that Jeremiah 13:23 shows a racist attitude towards black people, and they see this as evidence that our faith is not true.

In fact, this verse is not racist at all, as I will try to explain in what follows.

The text and its correct interpretation

Here is the text of Jeremiah 13:23:

‘Can the Cushite change his skin, or a leopard his spots? If so, you might be able to do what is good, you who are instructed in evil.’ (CSB)

‘Cushite’ in this verse refers to dark-skinned people who came from the land of Cush, the area immediately to the south of Egypt, where modern day Sudan is located. Many translations have ‘Ethiopian’ in this verse instead of ‘Cushite’, although modern-day Ethiopia is not really the same location as ancient Cush. For our purposes, however, the details of this are not important, because, regardless of its location, the inhabitants of Cush were known for their dark skin. They were what we would describe as black.

In this verse God is sharply criticising the Jewish people of Jeremiah’s day. He is saying that they are so in the habit of doing evil, that there is no more likelihood of them changing and doing good than there is of a Cushite changing his skin colour or a leopard getting rid of its spots.

Changing the skin colour of a human and changing the visible appearance of an animal are obviously good examples of something that is impossible, which helps to drive home how immersed in sin and evil the Jewish people of that day were.

I think the precise examples of a Cushite and a leopard were chosen because they would both have been unusual and attention-grabbing sights in Judah at that time.

Jews would have known about dark-skinned people from Cush, but it seems that they would have been few and far between in Judah, so if someone saw a Cushite, it would have been a sight that caught people’s attention.

As far as leopards are concerned, these animals clearly have a very distinctive appearance compared to most other animals. And I think they would also have been rare in Judah at that time, which would have made them stand out all the more when they were seen.

The striking appearance of dark human skin and leopard spots seems to have been why these examples were chosen.

Answering an objection

There are a couple of different ways in which this verse is said to be racist against black people.

Firstly, it is sometimes said that the way the verse sets a Cushite alongside an animal is demeaning to the Cushite, as if to some extent the Cushite is being brought down to the level of a mere animal.

This objection is completely wrong. There is no more suggestion in this verse that the Cushite is being brought down to the level of the leopard than there is that the leopard is being raised to the level of the Cushite. Neither is being brought to the level of the other at all.

Instead, what we have here is simply one example of a striking appearance that is taken from the world of human beings and another example that is taken from the animal kingdom. For Jews of the day, the Cushite’s skin colour was an unusual and striking sight among human beings, and the leopard’s appearance was an unusual and striking sight among animals. Humans and animals are not being confused here at all.

Answering a second objection

There is a second and more common reason why this verse is said to be racist against black people, which has to do with the reference to changing appearance.

The Jewish people in view in this verse are evil, and the verse is clearly implying that it would be good if they were able to change for the better (although this is impossible). Some therefore claim that the analogy of the Cushite requires that we understand the verse also to be implying that it would be good if the Cushite were able to change his skin colour. In other words, it is sometimes said that this verse looks at dark skin colour negatively.

This objection also completely misses the mark. Crucially, we need to take note of how in this verse the Cushite’s skin and the leopard’s spots are parallel to each other. The same point is being made about both.

So logically, if we were to say that the verse is implying that it would be good for the Cushite’s skin colour to change, we would also have to say that it is implying that it would be good for the leopard to lose its spots.

But the verse cannot possibly be implying that it would be good for the leopard to lose its spots. Why? Because leopards look fantastic! And there is no doubt that it isn’t just in our day that people think this. Surely people throughout history, including in Jeremiah’s day, have thought the same. The way that the Romans, for example, took great trouble to bring leopards to Rome is just one of many pieces of evidence for this.

This verse, then, is in no way implying that it would be good for leopards to change their appearance. So it cannot be implying that it would be good for Cushites to change their appearance, because exactly the same point is being made about the leopard and the Cushite.

The comparison of evil people with a Cushite and a leopard is therefore limited to the point that there is inability to change. The comparison doesn’t include whether it would be good for change to occur. Of course, it would be good if these Jews were able to change, but this is simply not the point that is being made by referring to the Cushite or the leopard. The point that is being made is just that the Jews in Jeremiah’s day are as unable to turn away from their evil as a Cushite is to change his skin colour or a leopard is to get rid of its spots.

Summing up

The idea that Jeremiah 13:23 is somehow racist against black people, then, is completely mistaken. In reality, this verse just mentions the skin colour of a Cushite as an example of something that cannot change, without anything negative about the Cushite or his skin colour being implied.

Moses married a black woman

While we are on this topic, it is well worth noting that Numbers 12:1-9 tells us that Moses married a black woman and that God approved of the marriage.

In Num 12:1 we read:

‘Miriam and Aaron criticized Moses because of the Cushite woman he married (for he had married a Cushite woman).’ (CSB)

In this verse the Hebrew adjective (koosheet) that is translated ‘Cushite’ is closely related to the Hebrew noun in Jer 13:23 (kooshee) that is translated as ‘Cushite’ in that verse. There is no good reason for thinking that these words have different meanings, which means that Num 12:1 is telling us that Moses married a Cushite woman, who would surely have been black.

We see from v. 1 that Miriam and Aaron criticised Moses for marrying this woman. And then in verses 5-8 God rebukes Miriam and Aaron for their attitude to Moses.

It is true that God’s rebuke seems to be at least mostly because Miriam and Aaron were assuming more importance than they should have, not specifically because they had criticised Moses’ marriage.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the passage is implying that Moses did nothing wrong by marrying the Cushite woman. Verse 1 tells us that the precise reason Moses came under criticism by Miriam and Aaron in the first place was because he married her. So when God then responds to this criticism and describes Moses as ‘faithful in all my house’ in v. 7, this has to mean that God had no objection to Moses’ marriage.

For yet another reason, then, the charge of racism against black people that is sometimes levelled against the Bible fails completely.

Thanks!