President-Elect Obama's transition to power seems like a good time to reflect and remember a long Biblical tradition. First, a good recitation of the basics of the story:
The Bible refers to the curse of Cain in the fourth chapter of the Book of Genesis. This passage describes two brothers, Cain and Abel. Cain, the older, "was a tiller of the ground", while Abel "was a keeper of sheep" (Gen. 4:2). Eventually, each of the brothers performed a sacrifice to God; Cain sacrificed some of his crops to God, while Abel sacrificed "of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof" (Gen. 4:3–4). When God accepted Abel's offering, but not Cain's, Cain's "countenance fell" (Gen. 4:5), and he "rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him" (Gen. 4:8).
When God confronted Cain about Abel's death, God cursed him, saying:
"What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth." (Gen. 4:10–12)
When Cain complained that the curse was too strong, and that anyone who found him would kill him, God responded, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over",[3] and God "set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him" (Gen. 4:15).
Now to the history and interpretation:
The modern take in Christian Bible study seems to be that the Mark of Cain is actually the prohpetic foreshadowing of the Mark of the Beast from Revelation that the Antichrist will use to control most of humanity.
But historically, some Christians have interpreted the Biblical passages so that the "mark" is thought to be part of the "curse". In 18th century America and Europe, it was commonly assumed that Cain's "mark" was black skin, and that Cain's descendants were black and still under Cain's curse.
These racial and ethnic interpretations of the curse and the mark have been largely abandoned even by the most conservative theologians since the mid-20th century, although the theory still has some following among white supremacists and an older generation of whites, as well as a very small minority of Christian churches.
The Mormon church has really struggled with the passage, having elevated it to something like church doctrine at one point.
But even in Christian churches the intellectual debate about this passage pre-civil war was robust. From Josiah Priest's "Bible Defence of Salvery" published in 1852:
"Thus has God seen fit to do in the creation of the two races of men, the negroes and the whites; one is degraded by natural tendencies by a curse, or a judicial decree to announce it, and the other with a blessing equally judicial, being dictated by the Holy Ghost from the lips of Noah."
I will not suggest this doctrine is preached anywhere in 2008, though I suspect it may have remnants handed down quietly in front rooms over holiday dinners for many decades since the civil war.
I raise the Mark of Cain doctrine because it demonstrates how, in the span of only 150 years, less than a tenth of the time Christianity has been on the earth, this doctrine went from being part of common parlance to being repugnant in the extreme.
What happened? Did the Bible change? I dont believe that, I dont believe scripture is subject to alteration to suit the cultural or political times in which we live. Did some great new revelation of meaning come to a new generation of Christian scholars? I dont believe that either. The Bible has but one meaning and is not of private interpretation.
The answer? THEY WERE WRONG. Christians for centuries used valid Old Testament stories to justify subjugation and murder (ironic given the origin of the Mark, no?)for their own economic gain. Does any other answer stand up? The preachers of the time knew that slavery was an underpinning of the economic and cultural order of their part of the country. They knew what their parishioners were predisposed to believe, and they played to it. They used the media of communication of their time - sermons, books, newspapers, to propagate a heinous lie.
Imagine that -- whole generations of Christians right here in the United States led astray by their collective greed and fear of the status quo changing.
Are you certain it couldn't happen today? Pious-looking, perhaps even well intentioned Christians being influenced by the loudest voices among them in the most popular media to support lies that serve their short term economic and cultural interests?
No comments:
Post a Comment