Blog or Article?
Blogs often focus on personal opinion, experiences, views, anecdotes or advice. Blogs tend to have a relaxed and conversational feel, such as in storytelling and are generally 300-500 words.
Articles aim to deliver well-researched, informative content with solid evidence to back up the points made. Articles are usually more formal, organized and frequently range 500-1000 words.
On a number of occasions, our current U.S. president, Barack Obama, in his push for “social justice” has declared, “It’s like the Bible says, ‘I am my brother’s keeper.’” Really?
I can read in the Bible that as believers we are to be kind and compassionate and forgiving one toward another, esteeming others better than ourselves. We are to weep with them that weep and rejoice with them that rejoice. The Apostle Paul commended certain churches for giving unto his necessity. Jesus spoke of feeding the poor and giving drink to the thirsty (though I hardly think he had a gargantuan government program in mind to do so). We are to pray for one another and take care to not offend the weak. There are many things we are told to do in our relations with one another, but where does this “brothers keeper” phraseology come from and what does it mean?
Galatians tells us to bear one another’s burdens.
Galatians 6: 2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
But the record goes on to say that every man shall bear his own burden.
Galatians 6:4 But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
[The answer to this apparent conflict lies partly in the fact that there are two different Greek words translated “burden" in these verses. The burden of verse 5 is one that can be borne. The Greek word is used of the lading of a ship. The Greek word for “burden" in verse 2 is related to a word that means depth, or the deep. The mind picture is of a burden that would cause a ship to sink into the deep.]
We are each to bear our own burden, but if something comes up that we can’t handle, then other believers should help. “Brother’s keeper,” however, would seem to indicate involvement beyond this.
What does “brother’s keeper” mean? A zookeeper cares for the inhabitants of the zoo. He provides for all their needs, bringing them food and water and providing a suitable habitat. He also regulates their activities. He keeps them from harming one another or the zoo visitors. He also determines when the males and females are to be brought together for breeding. He controls nearly every aspect of their lives. If this is along the lines of what our president has in mind by “brother’s keeper,” I would like to opt out. I don’t want anyone else to be my keeper, and I don’t want the responsibility of being anyone else’s keeper. Still, if that’s what the Bible says, I’ll do it; but does it?
The term, “brother’s keeper” appears only once in the Bible. It is in Cain’s sarcastic response to God when God confronted him regarding the whereabouts of his brother (whom Cain had just killed).
Genesis 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
If President Obama had known the context of the only occurrence in the Bible of “brother’s keeper”, he surely would not have used the term in his speeches. And the record is NOT an admonition to be “my brother’s keeper”. That any one given individual would not know the context of the only occurrence in the Bible of “brother’s keeper” is understandable, even if that person happens to be the president of The United States of America. Claiming, however that the Bible tells each of us to be his brother’s keeper is an unconscionable and ignorant attempt to use the Scriptures to promote one’s own agenda.
Perhaps even more deplorable was the response (or lack of it) from his listeners. He had plenty of speechwriters, advisers, and aids who would not have wanted the president to appear ignorant. They would surely have corrected him after the first time he made the statement had they known any better themselves. Apparently, none did. There were perhaps those in the news media who caught the error but did not want to mention it and present the president in a negative light. There were plenty of others in the media, however, (primarily in talk radio) who would have relished the opportunity had they known any better themselves. Apparently, none did. How many hundreds or thousands of people didn’t know any better or did and let it slide? Unfortunately, this says something about the times in which we live here in the USA.
You need to be a member of Way Corps Site to add comments!
Comments
I always love your insight Ken.
Thanks Ken. Awesome. I found this observation from a writer about this subject. It seemed to make sense:
"I am open on other views on this, but I think the rhetorical question Cain asked, "Am I my brother's keeper?" has, just as he meant it to have, the very answer that he meant to imply, "No." Moreover, I think he attempted to hide behind _because_ the answer was plainly, "No."
The problem wasn't that he was incorrect in the abstract, but that he clearly meant to deceive. He knew exactly what had become of Able, and pretending otherwise was a lie, no matter how it could be phrased. I think it is sufficient that he murdered and then he lied, without attempting to wring a complete social policy based on reversing the implied answer to his chosen lie.
The interpretation used by President Obama, which is very common, is guilty of fallacious logical "bootstraping." Cain murdered and therefore was evil. Cain attempted to avoid blame for his crime by dodging behind a rhetorical flourish. He--being evil--must necessarily have evily posed his question with an evil answer, ergo the "good" answer to his evil question must be exactly the opposite of his [implied] evil answer. QED. Or put another way, the answer he gave is evil because he is evil, so the good answer must needs be the opposite of his evil answer.
The problem with that reasoning (pervasive as it is) is that the evilness or goodness of Cain doesn't bear upon the true answer to his question at all.
Now, I admit, his answer _could_ be evil, it just is not _necessarily_ so. The concern is, of course, that the common interpretation would leave everyone to the tyranny of infernal, but well-meaning, "keepers" with no obvious bounds. Everyone well kept, as it were, just never one's own to keep."
http://blog.acton.org/archives/24551-who-is-my-brothers-keeper.html
I doth tip my cap sir
Well said, and well done.