In Christianity and Judaism, the curse of Cain and the mark of Cain refer to the passages in the Biblical Book of Genesis where God declared that Cain, the firstborn son of Adam and Eve, was cursed for murdering his brother, and placed a mark upon him to warn others that killing Cain would provoke the vengeance of God. An alternate interpretation of the text sees the "mark" rather as a sign, one which would not have actually been a physical marking of Cain, himself. Though the text of the King James Version reads, "...set a mark upon Cain...", the New American Standard reads, "... appointed a sign for Cain ..."
Contents |
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).[1] 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:
As an act of irony, the curse by God focused strictly on neutralizing the benefits of Cain's primary skill, cultivating crops. 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).
There is no scholarly consensus as to the original meaning and significance of the curse and mark of Cain. Because the name Cain (or qayin in Hebrew, meaning spear), is identical with the name Kenite (also qayin in Hebrew), some scholars speculate that the curse of Cain may have arisen as a condemnation of the Kenites. In the Bible, however, the Kenites are generally described favorably, and may have had an important influence on the early Hebrew religion.
There is also no clear consensus as to what Cain's mark would be. The word translated as "mark" in Gen. 4:15 is 'owth, which could mean a sign, an omen, a warning, or a remembrance. In the Torah, the same word is used to describe the stars as signs or omens,[4] the rainbow as the sign of the flood (Gen. 9:12), circumcision as a token of God's covenant with Abraham,[5] and the miracles performed by Moses before the Pharaoh. Thus, the text of the Bible only explicitly describes how the mark was to function as a sign or warning, not what form the mark took. Cain's curse and mark have been interpreted in several ways. Following the literal Biblical text, most scholars interpret the "curse" as Cain's inability to cultivate crops and his necessity to lead a nomadic lifestyle. They interpret the "mark" as a warning to others, but are unable to determine the form of the mark from the Biblical text.
Historically, some Christians have interpreted the Biblical passages so that the "mark" is thought to be part of the "curse". In the 19th century Latter Day Saints (known as 'Mormons') commonly assumed that Cain's "mark" was black skin, and that Cain's descendants were black and still under Cain's curse.
While the majority, if not all, of Cain's descendants would have been killed in the great flood, according to Mormons from the late 19th to mid 20th century, Cain's bloodline was preserved on the ark through Egyptus, wife of Ham (son of Noah). The Book of Abraham, accepted by Mormons as part of their canon, is the source of the story of this Egyptus who preserves "the curse.... as pertaining to the Priesthood" by surviving the flood as Ham's wife. One must note, however, that in this canonized source no connection is made between her and Cain (her lineage is not given), nor is anything mentioned concerning her skin color. Thus, though Mormons combined the widespread belief that Cain's curse was a blackness of skin with another idea common in Europe and America (that the curse of Ham for seeing his father's nakedness was black skin), the idea that Ham's wife preserved a curse of black skin inherited from Cain that was passed on is not canonized doctrine.[6] This interpretation is now generally rejected by mainstream Mormons.[7]
From Brigham Young: Let this Church which is called the Kingdom of God on the earth; we will summons the First Presidency, the Twelve, the High Council, the Bishopric, and all the Elders of Israel, suppose we summons them and appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day and hour we should do so, the Priesthood is taken from this Church and Kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain, the Church must go to destruction--we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the Priesthood until that curse be removed. (Speech by Gov. Brigham Young in Joint Session of the Legislature, giving his views on slavery, Feb. 5, 1852)
That curse was apparently removed in 1978 according to a Doctrine and Covenants revelation.
Accepting the theory that God had cursed black people, some have used the curse as a Biblical justification for racism, though it was more common to find the so-called "curse on Ham's descendants" (Genesis 9:25) used for that purpose. These racial and ethnic interpretations of the curse and the mark lost ground in the 19th century, and were abandoned by theologians by the mid-20th century, although the theory still has some following, especially among white supremacists.
The Zohar, a Kabbalistic text, states that the mark of Cain was one of the twenty-two Hebrew letters of the Torah, although the Zohar's native Aramaic doesn't actually tell us which of the letters it was.[8] Some commentators, such as Rabbi Michael Berg in his English commentary on the Zohar,[8] suggest that the mark of Cain was the letter vav.
According to scholars, early interpretations of the Bible in Syriac Christianity combined the "curse" with the "mark", and interpreted the curse of Cain as black skin.[9] Some argue that this may have originated from rabbinic texts, which interpreted a passage in the Book of Genesis ("And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell") as implying that Cain underwent a permanent change in skin color.[10]
Origen, however, states that all the descendants of Cain perished in the Flood, and that all humankind therefore descends from Seth.[11]
The Church Father Ephrem the Syrian (306-378): “Abel was bright as the light, / but the murderer (Cain) was dark as the darkness".[12]
In an Eastern Christian (Armenian) Adam-book (5th or 6th century) it is written: “And the Lord was wroth with Cain. . . He beat Cain’s face with hail, which blackened like coal, and thus he remained with a black face".[13]
The Irish Saltair na Rann (The Versified Psalter, AD 988), records Gabriel announcing to Adam: "Dark rough senseless Cain is going to kill Abel".[14]
The split between the Northern and Southern Baptist organizations arose over slavery and the education of slaves. At the time of the split, the Southern Baptist group used the curse of Cain as a justification for the practice. In fact, most 19th and early 20th century Southern Baptist congregations in the southern United States taught that there were two separate heavens; one for blacks, and one for whites.[15]
The doctrine was used to support a ban on ordaining blacks to most Protestant clergies until the 1960s in both the U.S. and Europe. The majority of Christian Churches in the world, the ancient churches, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglican churches, and Oriental Orthodox churches, did not recognize these interpretations and did not participate in the religious movement to support them. Certain Catholic Diocese in the Southern United States did adopt a policy of not ordaining blacks to oversee, administer the Sacraments to, or accept confessions from white parishioners. This policy was not based on a Curse of Cain teaching, but was justified by any possible perceptions of having slaves rule over their masters. However, this was not approved of by the Pope or any papal teaching.[16]
Baptists officially taught or practiced various forms of racial segregation well into the mid-to-late-20th century, though members of all races were accepted at worship services after the 1970s and 1980s when many official policies were changed. In fact, it was not until 1995 that the Southern Baptist Convention officially renounced its "racist roots."[17]
Pentecostals In the earliest years of the Pentecostal revivals, notably Azusa Street in Los Angeles, 1906-09 the mixing of the races was encouraged, and Jim Crow laws were defied. This was radical and broke new ground. It continued until 1924 when an official new Pentecostal denomination emerged, but many Pentecostal groups continued to allow mixing of the races in their services. (see articles on Azusa Street Revival). There had been an earlier tradition of encouraging the races to mix in revival meetings going back to the Cane Ridge revival of 1801, and Methodist preachers often continued this approach.(See Robert S. Ellwood Jr. One Way: The Jesus movement and its meaning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.) 1973, pg. 40-42).
Many Protestant groups in America had supported the notion that black slavery, oppression, and African colonization was the result of God's curse on people with black skin or people of African descent through Cain or through the curse of Ham, and some churches practiced racial segregation as late as the 1990s. Today, however, official acceptance and practice of the doctrine among "Protestant" organizations is limited almost exclusively to churches connected to white supremacy, such as the Aryan World Church and the New Christian Crusade Church.
The Mormon interpretation of "the curse of Cain", or the curse of black skin that befell Cain's descendants, is not the same as the "mark of Cain" set upon Cain himself by God. According to Moses 7:5-8
According to modern interpretations of LDS theology, the curse of blackness does not refer to skin color, but generally refers to those who lack the enlightenment of the gospel in their lives (Alma 32:35). The curse of blackness is removed when unbelieving people accept the light of the gospel (Alma 23:18). This particular teaching—that the curse of dark skin came upon the children of Cain because they practiced genocide on the people of Shum, rather than it being the result of the mark placed upon Cain by God—was radically different from the views widely held by most Evangelical Protestant groups in the U.S. during and before the life of Joseph Smith.
Statements concerning the curse of Cain clearly identify both the mark and curse with the "Negro" race, in Latter Day Saint writings and lectures. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both identify the Black people of African descent as descendants of Cain. The Latter Day Saint movement was founded during the height of white Protestant acceptance of the curse of Cain doctrine in America, as well as the even more popular curse of Ham doctrine, which was even held by many abolitionists of the time. While Joseph Smith, Jr. indicated his belief in the curse of Ham theory in a parenthetical reference as early as 1831 (Manuscript History 19 June 1831), the only early reference to the curse or mark of Cain was in his translation of the Bible, which included the following statement:
Despite Smith’s idea that the descendants of Cain did not “mix” with the descendants of Adam, one of Smith’s associates later argued that Cain’s descendants did indeed survive the flood via the wife of Ham, son of Noah. On February 6, 1835, Smith's associate William Wines Phelps wrote a letter theorizing that the curse of Cain might have survived the deluge by passing through the wife of Ham, who according to Phelps must have been a descendant of Cain. (Messenger and Advocate 1:82) In effect, Phelps was attempting to provide a rational link between the curse of Cain and the curse of Ham. There is no clear indication that Smith agreed with Phelps on this idea; in 1842, however, he did write parenthetically in his notes the following:
Although Phelps's interpretation found substantial general support within some Latter Day Saint denominations, none of the major denominations of Mormonism embrace the idea or consider it relevant. There is evidence that Joseph Smith did not consider the restriction between blacks and the priesthood to be relevant in modern times, since he himself (and other Church leaders close to him) did ordain black men to the priesthood.[20] However, the doctrine is an element of Mormon fundamentalism, which constitutes a small percentage of the overall Latter-day Saint movement.
Nevertheless, the lack of formal repudiation of LDS teachings regarding the Children of Cain, and the continual association with curses and marks with black skin, has continued to recall Mormonism's unique doctrines concerning race.
After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the largest of several organizations claiming succession from Smith’s church. Brigham Young, the second President of the Church believed that people of African ancestry were generally under the curse of Cain. In 1852, he reportedly stated:
These beliefs were used to justify a ban on ordaining Blacks to the LDS priesthood, although founder Joseph Smith, Jr. did himself ordain Blacks to the priesthood. However, this belief was never used as a reason for segregation of or within congregations. Segregation of congregations was common in churches in the southern United States during this time period.
Similar beliefs were taught by Young’s successors until the 1978 revelation from President of the Church Spencer W Kimball, however, it was never canonized doctrine, but was instead a widely held and widely taught belief.
In 1954, Church President David O. McKay taught: “There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. ‘We believe’ that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.”[22]
In 1978, the church announced a revelation from God officially ending its policy of excluding Hamites from the priesthood.[23]
There has neither been an official and explicit church repudiation of the doctrine nor an admission that it was a mistake. Many black church members think giving an apology would be a "detriment" to church work and a catalyst to further racial misunderstanding. African-American church member Bryan E. Powell says "There is no pleasure in old news, and this news is old." Gladys Newkirk agrees, stating "I've never experienced any problems in this church. I don't need an apology. . . . We're the result of an apology."[24] The large majority of black Mormons say they are willing to look beyond the racist teachings and cleave to the church in part because of its powerful, detailed teachings on life after death.[25] In 1998, there was a report in the Los Angeles Times that the church leadership was considering an official repudiation of the curse of Cain and curse of Ham doctrines, to mark the 20th anniversary of the 1978 revelation.[26] This, however, was quickly denied by the LDS spokesman Don LeFevre.[27] The Times later suggested that the publicity generated by its article may have caused the Church to put an official disavowal on hold.[28]
Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stated:
In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, a Christian backlash arose against use of the curse of Cain doctrine in racial politics, with the primary Christian denominations flatly rejecting it. Most Christians also point to Biblical references which refute the doctrine, including a reference in the Book of Numbers:
And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. 9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed. 10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.—Numbers 12:1, 9, 10
Other Christian arguments include the following:
Some Baptist denominations deny that Cain was cursed by God, but rather they believe that Cain brought the curse upon himself. "God does not say, 'Now I curse you.' He simply states the truth, 'Now you are cursed'".[30] In this way, Cain's aggression was the curse, and the outcome was the death of Abel. Because of continued problems with anger and aggression, the curse was handed down to Cain's posterity and even to Lamech who killed in a manner similar to Cain.
In the same way, the teaching goes that Born Again believers are often cursed because of some of their struggles or sins, and they should work to overcome them, or the curses will be passed on to either their children or their descendants. If they do so, their curses will not be propagated to their posterity.