Curse and mark of Cain

The Curse of Cain (Also called the Curse of Ham) refers to the curse that the god YHWH placed upon Cain, according to the Book of Genesis 4:11. This curse has been interpreted in many ways. Most Biblical scholars interpret the "curse" as Cain's inability to cultivate crops, as described in Gen. 4:12.

However, much more controversially, the "curse of cain" has been equated with the "mark" which the god YHWH also placed upon Cain to signify that YHWH would avenge anyone who killed Cain "sevenfold", according to Gen. 4:15. This "mark" has been linked to black skin, and the combined idea of the curse/mark used to justify racism and the enslavement of people of African ancestry, who were thought to be descendants of Cain. This theory was common during the 18th-20th centuries, but has been largely abandoned even by the most conservative theologians since the mid-20th century.

19th Century Interpretations

Sources used

The biblical references to these curses come from the fourth and ninth chapters of Genesis. The first passage describes two brothers; one raises animals for food (Abel), and the other (Cain), a farmer, offers his harvest for sacrifice to God. God finds Cain's offerings inadequate and Cain, seeing Abel's offerings, becomes jealous and kills Abel. The following passage is taken from the Bible and the bold indicates the specifics of the curse (similar passages are found in the Torah).

Genesis 4:9-15

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. 11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; 12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. 13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. 15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

This second passage deals with the family of Noah, after the flood.

Genesis 9:20-27

20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Racial implications

During the period of European colonization, a new interpretation of the curse of Cain was developed by European and then by White Americans and some religious groups to justify the enslavement of Black Africans. This interpretation actually took the two passages of Genesis and synergized them into a doctrine called the "curse of Cain". It was concluded by these religious groups that Black people, being the descendants of Ham, were cursed to serve the descendants of Japeth and Shem (who many believed includes most Whites). The mark, being previously, understood as a small blotch or symbol on Cain's face, was then recast as the changing of Cain's assumed White skin, to Black skin. In effect, this misuse of the bible passages enabled White Christian organizations to support a Hindu like caste system, whereby the Black Africans were treated in the same manner as the Untouchable Dalit people of India.

Until the mid-20th century, 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 of African descent through Cain and/or Caanan.

Interpretions

Perhaps due to the zeal of racism, many White Christian groups associated the Mark of Cain with the Curse of Cain. Some promoted additional ideas such as the belief that intermarriage was a sin, that Blacks were unworthy of many spiritual blessings from God, and should not allowed to preach the gospel. Most 19th and early 20th century Southern Baptist congregations in the southern United States taught that there were two seperate heavens, one for Blacks, and one for Whites.

One effect of the curse was for Cain to struggle agriculturally, to be "driven" from the face of the Lord and that Cain would not settle in any specific locale. For Canaan's curse it was to serve the people of Shem's line. Making the curse a racially-based issue ignored the primary issues of the curse and was used to justify Black servitude to Whites. The doctrine became part of the institution of slavery and reasoning of many racist White Christian institutions in the West.

It is significant to note that the Coptic, Ethiopian, Orthodox, Thomasite and the Catholic church did not recognize these interpretations and did not participate in the religious movement to support them.

Passages in the Old Testament refuting the racial interpretation

Leviticus 19:28 - Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

Jeremiah 13:23 - Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?

These two passages support the belief that the Biblical writers did not view a mark to be synonymous with the changing of skin color.

Numbers 12:1 "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."

In Numbers, Miriam and Aaron, Moses' siblings, spoke against him because his wife was Black. In a twist of irony, God responded by cursing Miriam with a form of leprosy which left her skin white. This passage implies that firstly, God did not support any view that Blacks were cursed or separated as people from God. Secondly, Miriam's skin would have to be darker than white in order for the this curse of leprosy to be (as well as Moses and Aaron) noticable.

Problems with the 19th-Century interpretation

1. The passage in Genesis relating to Cain makes no mention of the effects on his descendants.
2. The effect of parts of the curse on the land could have only applied to Cain - and not Blacks - who historically, were unaffected (like all other surviving people) in their ability to cultivate land. If this interpretation held true - 19th Century Americans would not have enslaved them to do agricultural work in the United States.
3. With Canaan, the descendants of Shem annexed the land of Canaan and their descendants were eventually wiped out or assimilated, as there are no known people in the present day who self-identify them selves as Caananite, and there is no way to know if their descendants exist.
4. Throughout the Bible other peoples, that some believe were Black such as the Kushites, were described and blessed of God.
5. Zipporah, Moses' wife, who was Black, also was not mentioned as being a partaker of the curse.

Other Interpretations

Catholic Church

The Catholic Church teaches that the curse of Cain was given by the earth, not God, to Cain, as a punishment for having to "opened its mouth and drunk the blood of thy brother." The Church teaches that Cain's punishment was not having to wander, as he founded a City, but that he wouldn't have the "strengh" of the earth in his agricultural endeavors, but that the Earth would still produce for him. The Church also teaches that he was to be banished from the land of his parents as a result of his curse.

As for the mark of the curse, the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "No indication as regards the nature of this sign is given us."

Mormon Church

Main article: Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest sect of the Latter Day Saint movement, founded in the 19th century had canonized passages in their scriptures that were used to justify a policy of exclusion from the priesthood of those of African descent, similar to policies of other American Christian organizations of the time. Passages changed from the Bible were modified and canonized as the JST (Joseph Smith Translation). Along with the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, and statements from church leaders, the church policiies associated with the "Curse of Cain" or the "Curse of Ham" were implemented that encouraged anti-Black racism. The policy of racial exclusion was instituted in 1846 by the various Mormon institutions and official leaders (not by laymen or any folk doctrine), including Smith and his followers perpetuated the erroneous philosophy.

Leaders of the LDS Church historically taught that the curse of Cain consists of several parts:

1. That Cain would not be allowed to enter God's presence, nor would he enjoy the companionship of any member of the Godhead
2. That Cain would be called Perdition and not be resurrected to a degree of glory; He would lose any chance of exaltation
3. The denial of the priesthood and temple ordinances to Cain and his descendants (except in rare occasions), until after Abel's descendants had a chance to receive the gospel and hold the priesthood
4. That the earth would not "yield unto Cain her strength," (or in other words, he would be agriculturally cursed)
5. That Cain would not taste of death (become a translated being)
6. That a mark would be placed upon Cain so that others would not try to kill him
7. That Cain would have to live as "a vagabond" on the earth until the return of Christ as a translated being
8. That Cain would rule over Satan after the final judgement

In addition, the 1982 edition of the LDS Standard Works corrected some "errors that were perpetuated in past editions" of the Book of Mormon. These changes brought the currently published edition in conformance with recently-obtained pre-publication manuscripts and early editions edited by Joseph Smith, Jr.. The corrections used the word "pure" instead of "white", and "dark" or "filthy" instead of "black" in a number of cases (other insignificant portions of text that were omitted by the printer were also change to match the pre-publication manuscripts). Critics said that the changes were meant to soften the racial implications of the sacred text and remove evidence of racial doctrines.

Joseph Smith, Jr. and some other early church leaders claimed to have see Cain in open vision on a few occasions, and described his mark. The wording used to descibe the encounters (including the word hairy) has led to some jokes and light urban legends about Cain being Bigfoot within the Mormon culture.

Some church leaders also have taught that Ham, who preserved the "blood of the Canaanites",[1] was cursed for taking Noah's Temple garment (see Genesis 9:22 [2]) without authorization and using them to re-create some temple rites without authorization. Because of this, Ham was cursed and his posterity from holding the priesthood and from participating in temple rituals (much like some of Aaron's descendants and Saul who lost the kingship of Israel for his posterity for performing unauthorized sacrifices - see 1 Samuel 15-16 [3]). As the sacred text states that Ham's descendants settled in Egypt after the flood, Mormon apologists often use this as a proof point in showing why some Egyptian rituals are similar to Mormon temple rites, often overlooking the fact that the Egyptians were themselves partakers of the curse and should not have been performing these rituals, let alone being the examples of modern Mormon rituals.

Although context is given in the Book of Abraham of the color of the Cannanites skin or why it was significant to mention "the blood of the Canaanites," many Mormons historically have associated this with the Curse of Cain, and believe the Curse of Cain was a change of skin color from white to black.

Modern refutation

The biggest issue that Mormon apolgists face in abrogating, refuting, or attempting to nullify the significance of the Mormon scriptures and comments against Blacks is that they attempt to bridge the interpreation of Christian scripture with the overt explicit comments in the Mormon scriptures. Christianity and the Bible was founded 2000 years ago, and does not make any references to Blacks being cursed, and no manuscripts have been found in the middle east by Christian leaders of those periods that support the exclusion or prejudice against Blacks, Ethiopians (Greek word for Black) or Kushites (hebrew word for Black). The racist interpretations simply did not exist before the European period of colonization. These interpretations were introduced by non-religious purely ethnocentric ideologies that were codified into the Western White mindset. This ideology adversely influenced the protestant reformation and enlightment period.

Also, none of the early Church fathers make any references to Blacks in this regard. The Mormon scriptures make explicit references to Black people being cursed,(Moses 4 for example) and the Mormon leaders, totally in sync with this, perpetuate the position. As all Mormon specific references became available after 1830 and even then funnelled explicity through Joseph Smith, it is impossible to gain a historical context of the Mormon references. So the Book of Abraham for example, which is perported to be written over 3000 years ago has no context outside of the Bible (i.e. there are no intermediate manuscripts or copies over the past 3000 years, only except Smith's own writing). The position that comments made by Mormon church leaders were "not" official church comments did not become relevant until after the 1978 changes.

Smith, following this mindset would have been driven to impress it upon the religion he fouded, as the memebers would have needed to know where he stands on this issue. By laying responsibility to God, he made himself unaccountable for the effects of the interpretation he chose to canonize into his own litergual writings. As Smith was the funnel of all Mormon scripture (Whether translated or not), no one questions the integrity of his writings and fail to consider the possibility that he wrote, not from God, but from his own perceptions. Even to this day, Mormon members, not differentiating the Mormon source material's period (1830's) and Biblical period (1st C AD) tend to try to synergize the Mormoin interpretation of the 19th and 20th centuries, into the 1st Century and earlier writings of the Bible.

Modern Baptist interpretations

Some Baptist denominations now deny that Cain was cursed by God, but rather Cain brought the cursing on himself. "God does not say, 'Now I curse you.' He simply states the truth, 'Now you are cursed'".[4] 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 similarly to Cain.

In the same way, the teaching goes that Born Again believers are often cursed because of some of their stuggles or sins, and should work to overcome them, or they will be passed on to their children or descendants. If they do so, their curses will not be promulgated to their posterity.

Bible Code Interpretation

Some Bible code groups claim they have identified that the mark of the curse of Cain was the sign of the cross on his forhead. [5]

Anti-Jewish Interpretations

Some ultra conservative groups, such as Stormfront White Nationalist Community believe that the curse of Cain was for him and his descendants to have to wander without a permanent home. According to this interpretation, they believe that Esau and his descendants was also given this curse (See Genesis 27:38, 40), and had to wander without a homeland.

They believe that modern Jews also have this curse for the murder of Christ, resulting in the Diaspora. [6]

External links

• Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Cain
• Review of the book "Curse of Cain"
• Baptist sermon on the curse of Cain
• Sermon on seperate heavens and race relations in Mississippi
• Biblical racism