The Curse For Cain

The “Curse,” and the “Mark” Given “to” Cain.
the King James Reads: “the Lord Set a Mark on Cain”
(Gen. 4:15B). the Hebrew, “Wayyasem Lqayin Ot,” Literally Means “the Lord Prescribed a Mark for Cain.” “the Mark” Was Given to Cain As a Sign to Protect Him (Vs. 15).
if the “Mark” Had Been “on” Cain the Hebrew Word “Be” Would Have Been Used. It Was Not but the Hebrew “Le,” Meaning “for,” Is Used. the “Mark” Was “for” His Protection.
in the Text Immediately Cain Went out to the Land of Nod (Vs. 16) and Developed “the City of Refuge.” It Was to Protect Him.
Numbers 35:12, Speaks of Such a City: “There Will Be a Place of Refuge from the Avenger So That No Person Accused of Murder May Die Before He Stands Trial Before the Assembly.”
in Light of All This the “Mark” Given to Protect Cain Might Well Have Been the City of Refuge. It Was the First Such City.
It Is Impossible to Say With Certainty What the Mark Was. Whatever It Was It Was Given to Cain to Protect Him.
Most of the Rest of Genesis 4 Relates to the Culture of the
“City of Refuge” Stressing Its Importance.
the “Curse” (Vs. 11) Was Not the Same As the “Mark” (Vs. 15). the Curse Related to His Future Agricultural Efforts Failing
(Vs. 12.). the “Mark” Was to Protect Him (Vs. 15).
There Is No Hint That This Resulted in the First Black Man.

An Eye For An Eye

Matthew 5: 38, “You have heard that it was said, “An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth.’”
This is found in the oldest known law, the law of Hammurabi, which originated between 2285 and 2242 B.C. This was a law of vengeance. It allowed for paying back an injustice with an equal one, not an excessive one. It allowed only for equal payback. This was originally designed to prevent payback by harsher means than the offense.
Jesus stated it in order to cancel it and introduce a higher law which rejects vengeance and payback. He instructs us to respond to our injustices with a higher form of response —- love. Jesus then gives illustrations in the passage which indicate how we should respond in love.
One, “But I tell you not to resist an evil person…” (Vs. 39). This doesn’t mean not to defend yourself. The meaning of the Greek text is “don’t payback evil with evil means.” It means don’t be aggressive in retaliating by evil means. Don’t escalate the situation by trying to get even.
Jesus continues, “But whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Vs. 39).
There is of course a limit to this but it means, “be very patient and don’t respond aggressively or rudely”. It means to respond in a positive courteous way to show an attitude and speak in such a way as to show the spirit of Jesus. The Bible say we are to be slow to anger. Jesus forgave even those who crucified Him.
Proverbs 16: 32 says, “He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty….”
Jesus is teaching that we should not meet evil with equal or greater force. We are to meet it with a greater positive force, kindness.
This does not mean don’t assert your right if struck. Jesus and Paul were both struck on the cheek. They didn’t strike back but they did appeal to their rights. By saying turn the other cheek He is saying it is best to receive a second affront than to stoop to the same level as the one striking the blow.
The second significant insight from Jesus is: “Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two” (Vs. 41).
Roman soldiers had the right to compel a person to carry their pack a mile. Jesus instruction means go beyond what is required of you, go a second mile, and let him see the love of Jesus. In all things do more than is expected showing a Jesus’ like spirit.
Peter and Paul had a disagreement and confronted each other regarding it. They did it in a constructive way showing love for each other. They dealt with the principles and didn’t attack each other’s character. Their purpose was to resolve the issue in a Christlike way. In these Jesus is not establishing a new form of legalism. He is giving guidelines.
Jesus gives a third example: “If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.” (Vs. 40).  This does not mean do not allow yourself your legal rights. It mean be as gracious and generous as possible before resorting to legal self-defense. The teaching allows for self-protection but does not allow for vengeance.
A final illustration follows: “Give to him who ask you….” (Vs. 42). Jesus is not encouraging us to give endless amounts to money to every con-artists. It is an encouragement to be generous.
If this is interpreted in a mechanical and literal manner it becomes ridiculous. Jesus isn’t encouraging us to not be wise and give to every leach that comes along. The Scripture speaks of a lazy person who won’t work: “If any would not work, neither should he eat” (II Thess. 3:10).
Jesus is appealing to us to not be self-centered and selfish, but to help meet legitimate needs as best we can.
Every right is given to ask questions to determine if a need is legitimate.
The verse doesn’t say, “give to everyone everything they ask of you.” It says, “Give to him who asks you.” What you might very well give may be of more value than money. It might be good sound advice. Discernment might result in not giving money to a person or loaning them money. However, we have no right to insult the one asking. We are still to be kind to them.
When a Bible passage isn’t clear on a subject always go to a passage that is clear on the subject and interpret the unclear one in light of it. In regard to this saying an understanding is gained from reading Proverbs 11:15; 17:18; 22:26.
Basically these passages are an encouragement to respond to offensives like Jesus would respond. Don’t try to please the other person or yourself —- please Jesus.
The Bible says of Him “He came not to be served but to serve.” It also says, “It is proper for the servant to be like his master.” As our Master He is to be our model in all things.

Relativism

“There are no absolutes!” The concept that there are no absolute rights or wrongs, everything is relative, is broadly advocated. This opens the door to relativism. The thesis of relativism is that whether a thing or thought is right or wrong is relative to who, what, when, where, and why a thing is done.
Ask persons who believe  there are no absolutes if they are absolutely certain there aren’t and they might well respond, “Absolutely.”
Oops, there is one.
Those who insist there are absolutes of right and wrong are called judgmental, exclusive, and partisan by relativists. I am persuaded these terms are applicable to relativists.
Relativism says if you believe in absolute truth you are wrong. This makes relativism judgmental.
Relativism in saying there are no absolute truths excludes your belief in absolute truth and is exclusive.
Relativism excludes all persons who are non-relativists from their supposedly “right thinking” party. That makes them partisans.
If the statement “There are no absolute truths” is true that is an absolute and the statement is false.
In the 1950s and 60s relativism was marketed as “Situation Ethics.” The situation determined the ethic. Advocates believed in an evolving ethic. An illustration of the incorrectness of this concept has been suggested to be slavery. 200 years ago it was socially acceptable. Today it isn’t. Suppose 200 years from now it is once again socially acceptable. Isn’t slavery an absolute wrong?
Some relativists argue that you cannot know that anything is right. If you cannot know that anything is right you cannot know that statement is right and that statement is self-contradicting meaning you can know a thing is right.
The Ancient Greek Protagrores was an early writer who issued this summary statement: “Man is the measure of all things.” Not.
That philosophy was played out in ancient
Israel in a time described as when “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” That was relativism at its best. It was one of the most confusing and defeatist times in the history of the nation.
British scholar C.S. Lewis in his book, “The Abolition of Man” refers to maximums of truth as “Tau.” These “primeval moral platitudes” constitute our human moral inheritance. Some of them are justice, truthfulness, mercy, and magnanimity. If we try to operate outside the bounds of Tau under the pretension of neutrality we will learn it is impossible to develop any moral reasoning at all.
Absolutes are a bond for a society. There must be a set of standards for a culture to function harmoniously. Without absolutes there could be no moral code or judicial system.
William Penn made a statement that inflames relativists. He said, “Right is right though all men be against it and wrong is wrong though all men be for it.”
Acceptance of relativism is distorting our national vision.

Was Jesus Married?

Following is an oversimplified brief history of the emerging church in Rome. A Catholic historian could do a much better job and doubtless would prefer a fuller accounting. Having studied the early church it is not my primary purpose to recount it but to share enough evidence to prove another point entirely which is actually in defense of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church can give a name for every Bishop of Rome dating back to Peter. Some of these are questionable and little is known of them. Parenthetically there are other denominations that make the same claim. During those early years the Bishop of Rome had little or no authority over bishops from other areas.
The first council held at the behest of an Emperor was held by Bishop Melitiades in 313 AD. This established the first link between the papacy and temporal powers.
The first church buildings were erected in Rome between 312 and 337 AD.
The renowned first Council of Nicea was held in 325 AD.
Leo the Great, also known as Leo I, who served from 440-461 AD defined Catholic orthodoxy in his work “Tome.”
That means that between the time the Christian gospel arrived and became established in Rome that for nearly 300 years there was no authoritative all powerful Roman Catholic Church.  The church was a colony of believers meeting in homes until the early 300s.
Now the purpose of this background.
There are profiteers making a good living claiming Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had children. They further claim the church fathers knew this and have kept it a secret all these years. Only they, these courageous authors and film makers, now have been so clever as to uncover this devious secret and brave enough to reveal it.
The point is there was no all powerful body that could have suppressed such a dramatic event during those early years. There was no powerful Vatican to keep this from being broadly known. Such news would have had such a revolutionary influence in those first 300 years the church would have been stillborn. The movement would have gone absolutely nowhere.
The detractors of Jesus say his disciples kept the secret initially. Why? One of the laws regarding Jewish men had to do with them marrying. If Jesus had been married there would have been no cause to keep it a secret. Marriage was the norm. The fact he was married would have been celebrated. He participated in many social functions why would his marriage not have been noted as a celebration?
Married women were known by the name of their husband and single women by their home town. Mary Magdalene meant Mary the single woman from Magdela. This indicates she was never married.
Mary Magdalene was at the cross with Mary the mother of Jesus when Jesus commended the care of his mother to his disciple John. Would a person so caring for his mother not have provided at the same moment for his wife?
I have written a historical novel that will be out later this year in which characters of the time of Jesus deal in detail with this and many other modern myths. I hope it is found to be intriguing and informative.

Liberation Theology

Liberation Theology is a new term for many. Reverend Jeremiah Wright, an advocate of this school of thought, has reintroduced it and acquainted many with it for the first time.
To concisely write on a subject as broad as this is to leave room for criticism for not fully representing the subject. To introduce it concession must be made that this is only in part a characterization of the topic.
In 1969 James Cone wrote the primary work introducing the school of thought entitled “Black Theology and Black Power.” In a later book Cone defines this school of theology in this way:
“If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community… Black theology will accept only the love of a God who participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”1
Some current advocates say Christianity was forced on early Africans introduced to America and has failed them. Because of this failure many blacks in America are being attracted to Islam.
Islam is represented as the original faith of African-Americans. It is depicted as the faith willfully embraced by African ancestors. This completely ignores the historical reality that emerging Islam gained most converts at the point of a sword. Its evangelical style consisted of convert or die.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright is correct in saying we must love one another and consider each as an equal. He is right in saying there is an incongruence between faith and practice by many who profess faith in Christianity. Lamentably that is true of all races. Members of no other faith can plead innocent to that charge.
He made reference to 11:00 AM on Sunday as the most segregated hour of the week. Unfortunately there was a time not so distant past this was true, but not now. Churches of all ethnic and racial groups are open to “whosoever.”
The reason most churches have a core that is alike is style, not segregation. Within the white, black, brown, and yellow congregations there are preferred styles of worship and people go where there is a style they prefer. Music has a lot to do with a person’s preferred place of worship. In general in America any person can worship anywhere they want. That would not be true if people didn’t love those unlike them and consider them equals.
Christians aren’t perfect and many disgrace the name. Yet, Christians operate the largest disaster relief agencies in the world, they provide more hospitals than any independent group, rescue missions and homeless shelters proliferate, most homes for unwed mothers are supported by them, numerous sports ministries are Christian based, the largest non-government agencies designed to feed the hungry are operated by Christians, and churches provide free counseling. They would not do that if they didn’t love others and consider them equals.
1. “A Black Theology of Liberation,” by James H. Cone 1990, page 27.