��Ӱֱ��

Introduction

Moses 5:1–15 established the purpose of the law of sacrifice as symbolic of the sacrifice of the “Only Begotten of the Father.” This law constituted a sacred form of worship. Its institution was intended to remind Adam and Eve of the redemptive work to be performed on their behalf and on behalf of all their posterity in mortality. Their realization of what the Redeemer and his redemptive work meant for themselves and their family caused Adam and Eve to rejoice (see Moses 5:10–11). Moreover, divinely appointed sacrifice provides a ritual context in which we can view and interpret the events associated with Cain and his rejection of God and the divinely appointed mode of sacrifice he had prescribed. Genesis is remarkably thin on details, and as a result it can look like God mistreated Cain and had no reasonable basis for rejecting his offering.[1] John Sailhamer has noted, “In our attempts to discover what is wrong or missing with Cain’s offering, we should not overlook the important fact that even the author does not provide an explanation but rather leaves to the reader the task of judging the two offerings.”[2] John Walton expresses similar observations: “In the end, the only thing the text makes clear is that Cain, in some way, does not ‘do what [was] right’ (v. 7). Whatever the cause of Cain’s rejection, the text is more interested in his response to it than it is in delineating the details.”[3] However, as Terryl Givens and Brian Hauglid point out, the Book of Moses text offers additional clarifying contextual details precisely on this point:

Questions about God’s justice and fair dealing emerge next in the story of Cain. For no reason anywhere indicated, the Creator accepts Abel’s sacrifice of animal life but rejects Cain’s bloodless offering. Generations of readers have been stymied by the acceptance of the one and the rejection of the other. . . . [Joseph Smith’s translation] of Genesis adds context to the bewildering judgment: Newly exiled from Eden, Adam learns the meaning and form of proper sacrifice, that the firstlings of his flock are offered up as “a similitude of the Sacrifice of the only begotten of the Father” [Moses 5:7]. . . . Cain’s offering is presented as deliberate sacrilege rather than innocent misstep. For Cain “loved Satan more than God” [v. 18], and he makes his blasphemous gesture at Satan’s express instigation.[4]

Moses 5 restores the details that enable us to interpret why Cain’s sacrifice was rejected, and Genesis 4 may offer clues that references to the devil may have been removed from the text.

When we compare Moses 5 and Genesis 4, we find that Moses 5:16 is where the account begins to align with Genesis 4:1.[5] The important question is what is contained in the first fifteen verses of Moses 5 that is absent from the Genesis account and how this information contributes to our understanding of the Cain and Abel story. This was discussed in the previous chapter and revolved around the law of sacrifice and its meaning. Some major questions that arise in studies of Genesis 4 concern the nature of Cain’s sacrifice: What was so terribly wrong with it? Why was it not accepted? Were his actions really that bad? Conversely, was God really that capriciously judgmental? And why was Cain treated so harshly and seemingly unfairly judged?[6] The brevity of the Genesis account still displays important similarities to and connections with the events portrayed in the Garden of Eden narrative:

The actual description of the deed that is the focus of the narrative is reported in so brief a manner that it almost appears incidental. There is no report of temptation, of weighing the ramifications, or of struggles with conscience—simply a wanton act of violence flamed by bitter jealousy. . . . Perhaps we should see irony in how far one chapter has brought us from wanting to know everything about good and evil to knowing nothing.[7]

The Book of Moses provides significant details that supply the reports of temptation and contemplation. This vital information takes us into the depths of the account beyond jealousy and greed, disclosing that Cain’s sacrifice really was amiss, for he had come to love Satan more than God and had changed the sacrifice and its meaning in the process.[8] In other words, the Book of Moses text shows that Cain had rejected the Lord—his words and his ways—before the Lord rejected Cain’s sacrifice.

The Moses account provides clear indications of the insidious nature behind Cain’s behavior and what was driving it: his love for Satan. What is interesting is that, owing to the episode’s similarities with the language and themes running throughout the Bible, some Bible scholarship points to the devil being somehow involved in the episode, despite the fact that the text of Genesis does not specifically reference Satan in the story of Cain and Abel.

Cain falls more deeply in the thrall of the evil one, whose lie has gained dominion over the human future, and “his own deeds were evil” (1 John 3:12). By contrast, the younger brother moves in the opposite direction: “Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts” (Heb. 11:4). The altar of sacrifice marks a place of division. As the human reaches toward God, the difference between sin and righteousness becomes clearer. Worship is the great precipitant. How and why Abel can escape bondage to the devil and offer an acceptable sacrifice finds no answer in Genesis.[9]

The revelations in the Book of Moses resolve this narrative enigma. It seems highly unlikely that Joseph Smith was academically brilliant enough to interpolate on his own the missing details that medieval, modern, and future scholars would demand of the text. Indeed, many of the questions about this account had not even been fully formulated or explored until more modern times. Joseph did not fill in these gaps—God did. Moreover, these details were crucial pieces of information Moses would need to know, and God would help him set up a sacrificial system whose purpose was to point toward atonement.[10] The meaning of the Mosaic sacrifices would be prefigured and highlighted within this story in the symbol of the Redeemer as a substitute for sin, and it would be accentuated when Cain sinfully removed the symbolism of the Redeemer out of his sacrifice at Satan’s behest.

Cain and Abel: The Birth of the Boys

Even as he is introduced in the narrative at the outset of the episode, Cain is depicted as already questioning the Lord’s divinity—why he should know, recognize, or follow the Lord (see Moses 5:16).[13] Time here is, of course, compressed. Whatever previous faithfulness had characterized Cain’s youth was now thoroughly overwritten by his lack of faith in Christ. The narrative transitions from the previous verses that describe how Adam and Eve desperately attempted to teach their children the things of God. Notwithstanding these parental efforts, some of their children loved the adversary more than they loved God. The emerging unbelief of Adam and Eve’s children is fully manifested in Cain, who immediately becomes the object of the reader’s suspicions.

Moses 5:16 thus sets the stage for what follows in Cain’s life amid the affirmation of Adam and Eve’s faith as they “ceased not to call upon God.” We should further note here that when Eve conceived and bore Cain, she declared, “I have gotten him from the Lord; wherefore he may not reject his words.” However, there is an emphatic contrast: “But behold, Cain hearkened not.” Whereas Adam and Eve ceased not to call upon God, Cain asked, “Who is the Lord that I should know him?” The sacred union expressed with “knowing” each other in intimacy to create God-given life is now contrasted with Cain, who does not know God[14]—that is, he will not maintain a covenant relationship with him.[15]

We are told that when Abel was born he “hearkened unto the voice of the Lord,” in stark contrast to his brother, who “hearkened not” (Moses 5:16–17). The occupation of the boys may be symbolically informing us of the nature of the story. We are told that Cain was “a tiller of the ground” (ʿōbēd ʾă���峾â, or “servant of the ground”), perhaps referencing the garden scene when the Lord cursed the adversary and the ground (Moses 5:17; see Moses 4:20, 23). This is perhaps used to foreshadow the wicked path Cain was about to pursue as a “servant” of who and what was cursed, a path traversed by the cursed, dust-eating serpent that commanded Cain to make an offering that came from “the fruit of the ground” (see Moses 5:18–19).[16] This observation is not intended to demean the occupation of farming, which is as essential now as it has always been. Indeed, Moses 5:1 points out that “Adam began to till the earth” after leaving the Garden of Eden. But perhaps this tension between a farmer and a shepherd that we witness throughout the book of Genesis, as well as in ancient Near Eastern texts, is here being used to illustrate a volatile relationship between the brothers and the opposing forces whom they worship.[17] Abel was a keeper of sheep, and this reference may take us back to the prior fifteen verses in Moses 5, where the sacred worship and the offerings of the flocks have been described as “a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father” (see Moses 5:5–7). The occupation of Abel may have been emphasized to reflect that he truly was a keeper of divine commandments, a protector of sacrificial, Christological types, and a sincere adherent of the Lamb of God.

The Offerings

Moses 5:18 tells us specifically that Cain loved Satan more than God, a detail of the story that is missing from the Genesis account.[19] We also learn that it was Satan who commanded Cain to make an offering unto the Lord, an ironic twist in the story (perhaps the adversary knew the best way to “acquire” Cain—a play on his name—was to turn him against the Lord).[20] The Lord pointedly warned Cain that “Satan desireth to have thee” (Moses 5:23). Having “gotten” Cain from the Lord, Satan would lead Cain to become “Mahan, the master of this great secret, that I may murder and get gain” (Moses 5:31), another play on his name.[21]

The Prophet Joseph Smith stated, “In relation to the kingdom of God, the Devil always sets up his kingdom at the very same time in opposition to God.”[22] This again shows the dangerous nature of the adversary, who commanded Cain to worship God but would then ask him to change the type of sacrifice associated with that worship.[23] Verse 19 also gives the impression that, in the process of time, rather than being drawn closer to the Lord through proper worship, Cain would instead follow the ways of the adversary. In other words, Satan would eventually convince him that it was acceptable to bring forth an unapproved offering (one not prescribed in the prior fifteen verses of the chapter) and to ultimately remove the symbol of Christ from the sacrifice.[24] Through all this Cain “loved Satan more than God” (Moses 5:18).

When we come to the passages that describe Cain bringing an offering from the fruit of the ground, a common interpretation is that he simply did not offer the best of his fruits or that he performed the proper ritual but did not do it with a proper heart. The texts do seem to distinguish the fact that Abel “also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof” (Moses 8:20).[25] The Hebrew of Genesis 4 generally places emphasis on Abel in relation to the principle of “just like Cain, he also brought an offering,” with little concern for what the offering was (possibly because, as we have noted, Genesis 4 lacks so many details). The Hebrew term used for the offerings is ������ḥâ, meaning “gift.” However, Moses 5 and other textual clues seem to indicate that the type of offering mattered. Perhaps the Hebrew word for “also” should be interpreted in its meaning of “additionally,” meaning that, in addition to the fruits (of Cain’s offering), Abel brought forth of the firstlings of the flock and the fat of the animal.[26] Such an emphasis is consistent with how later biblical law would develop.[27] We do not have to assume that the sacrifices of Cain and Abel were identical in every aspect to how later Mosaic sacrifices were performed, but their symbolism could be consistent. It is often argued that Cain’s offering was suitable because it was, under certain conditions, appropriate in the time of Moses. However, even though biblical law permitted fruits of the ground as a gift, such were not actually in the same category as a sacrificial animal and were labeled an offering or a gift rather than a sacrifice.[28] Additionally, these fruits that Cain offered fell into a different category in later biblical tradition and would generally be offered after the animal sacrifice, not in place of it.[29]

“Sacrifice” generally refers to those gifts that are totally or partially burned in the ritual of offering. The use of the expression “sacrifice and offering” (�������ḥ and ������ḥâ) as a way of talking about the whole conglomeration is found in several places (e.g., 1 Sam. 2:29; 3:14). While, therefore, sacrifice is the focus of attention in this discussion, other types of gifts or offerings, such as first fruits and tithes, which are not technically sacrifice, come into view also. . . .

What we are saying . . . is that the ồlâ [burnt offering] was normally utilized for the purpose of invoking the deity preparatory to joining with him in a fellowship of sacrifice, which was the context for petition and thanksgiving, and for the expression of other religious attitudes of this character.

On this basis, it is eminently clear why the š����峾î�� sacrifice, understood as a gift of greeting, a present to the deity, would follow the ồlâ and not precede it. Until the deity indicated his readiness to “come” to his worshipper, it would have been less appropriate to offer such a gift to him. . . .

We have already noted that the term ������ḥâ functioned to speak about offerings or gifts generally but that it also had a specialized use with reference to the grain or cereal offering. That specialized use is particularly noticeable in the Priestly sacrificial legislation where the ordering of the sacrifices sets the procedure for the grain offering immediately after that of the ồlâ (Leviticus 2).[30]

Cain was thus removing Christ from the equation. Fruits could be offered in later biblical law, but it was only after the expiatory sacrifice used in similitude of the Son of God.[31] Cain was removing everything that the sacrifice symbolized and the very nature of its expression of our redemption through the shedding of the blood of the Lamb. It is for this reason that his offering was not accepted.[32] The Prophet Joseph Smith, linking his comments with references to the Garden of Eden and the redemptive work of Christ, explained with clarity the meaning and intent of the sacrifices that symbolized Christ’s work of salvation:

God . . . prepared a sacrifice in the gift of his own Son which should be sent in due time, in his own wisdom, to prepare a way, or open a door through which man might enter into his presence, from whence he had been cast for disobedience.—From time to time these glad tidings were sounded in the ears of men in different ages of the world down to the time of his coming. By faith in this atonement or plan of redemption, Abel offered to God a sacrifice that was accepted, which was the firstlings of the flock. Cain offered of the fruit of the ground, and was not accepted, because he could not do it in faith: he could have no faith, or could not exercise faith contrary to the plan of heaven. It must be shedding the blood of the Only Begotten to atone for man; for this was the plan of redemption; and without the shedding of blood was no remission; and as the sacrifice was instituted for a type, by which man was to discern the great Sacrifice which God had prepared; to offer a sacrifice contrary to that, no faith could be exercised, because redemption was not purchased in that way, nor the power of atonement instituted after that order; consequently, Cain could have no faith: and whatsoever is not of faith is sin. But Abel offered an acceptable sacrifice, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God Himself testifying of his gifts [see Hebrews 11:4]. . . . We cannot believe, that the ancients in all ages were so ignorant of the system of heaven as many suppose, since all that were ever saved, were saved through the power of this great plan of redemption, as much so before the coming of Christ as since; if not, God has had different plans in operation, (if we may so express it,) to bring men back to dwell with himself; and this we cannot believe, since there has been no change in the constitution of man since he fell; and the ordinance or institution of offering blood in sacrifice, was only designed to be performed till Christ was offered up and shed his blood, as said before, that man might look forward in faith to that time. . . . We conclude, that whenever the Lord revealed himself to men in ancient days, and commanded them to offer sacrifice to him, that it was done that they might look forward in faith to the time of his coming, and rely upon the power of that atonement for a remission of their sins. . . .

We may conclude, that though there were different dispensations, yet all things which God communicated to his people, were calculated to draw their minds to the great object, and to teach them to rely upon him alone as the Author of their salvation, as contained in his law.[33]

Moses gained some powerful insights into the worship system that would be revealed to him and its symbolic representation of redemption through the Redeemer. Joseph Smith also learned of these important principles and similitudes, something that would help him understand the ritual and temple worship the Lord would reveal to him. These were details and explanations God had revealed to Moses and was now restoring through the Prophet Joseph Smith. The Prophet explained the following about this episode:

Abel, before he received the assurance from heaven that his offerings were acceptable unto God, had received the important information of his father, that such a being did exist, who had created, and who did uphold all things. Neither can there be a doubt existing on the mind of any person, that Adam was the first who did communicate the knowledge of the existence of a God, to his posterity; and that the whole faith of the world, from that time down to the present, is in a certain degree, dependent on the knowledge first communicated to them by their common progenitor; and it has been handed down to the day and generation in which we live.[34]

Satan as Tempter

We have seen how Satan commanded Cain to “make an offering unto the Lord” (Moses 5:18) and how Cain then, under that baleful influence, changed the manner of sacrifice from that which had been divinely prescribed to Adam. By successfully pressing Cain to replace God’s ordinance with an unsanctioned substitute, the adversary was leading Cain down the path of perdition—utter ruin. Regarding this early act of apostasy, President John Taylor declared:

We find that from that time Satan began to operate and to use his influence against God. . . . And when Cain and Abel offered up their sacrifice, Cain would not have done it if the devil had not urged him; but we are told that Cain loved Satan better than he loved God, and that he departed from the laws of God. Satan requested Cain to offer up a sacrifice, which he did, and the Lord rejected it, but he accepted his brother Abel’s. Why did the Lord refuse one and accept the other? Because the Lord knew that Cain had departed from him, and that he was not sincere in his offering. . . . Then Satan came again and whispered to Cain, I could have told you all about it before; God is an unrighteous God. . . . He was unjust to me in heaven, and therefore I rebelled against him; and I advise you to do so also. And Cain listened to the advice of Satan, and as the devil was a murderer and a liar from the beginning, so he induced Cain to become the same, and he instigated him to kill his brother Abel. Here were the two powers represented in the two men, that of God in Abel, and that of Satan in Cain.[35]

Moses 5:18 clarifies that Satan instigated this tragic episode. The result of Satan’s manipulation of Cain was that Cain became furious at God’s rejection of his offering. The Hebrew text of Genesis 4:5 indicates that he “burned with anger” (�ɲ���⾱ḥa�� lĕqayin mĕʾôd, literally “it burned to Cain exceedingly”) and “his face fell.”[36] This scene in its current form in Genesis 4 is confusing and invites the question, “Why was Cain angry in the first place? Again, the text is reticent, leaving ample room for speculation.”[37] However, the added detail in Moses 5 adds clarity on this point by once again introducing Satan into the equation:

Moses 5:21 describes Cain’s displeasure with the Lord’s rejection of his offering. The same verse indicates that the adversary was pleased that Cain’s offering was rejected. Certainly the adversary was pleased with the anticipated result as well: Cain’s anger at God. The adversary seeks our misery, takes great joy in it,[39] and works relentlessly to achieve it. Cain’s decision to love Satan more than God would bring him misery, yet even then God did not give up on Cain but lovingly called him to repentance. “Yahweh alerted Cain that his reaction was too negative. Yahweh did not condemn Cain for his offering. . . . He had not done irreparable damage to that relationship.”[40] The Lord asked Cain why he was angry,[41] a question that seems almost a matter-of-fact and may presuppose that Cain would have recognized that his worship was amiss but perhaps did not care. It appears that Cain was authorized to offer sacrifices, that he had offered them properly before the events described in Moses 5:8–16, and that at some point in his life he would have been valiant since he is depicted as talking to God.[42] Indeed, the description of Seth’s obedience in Moses 6:3 states that God had “revealed himself unto”—or appeared to—Seth as he had implicitly done to Cain and Abel. Seth, like Abel and unlike Cain, “rebelled not” after this personal manifestation. In other words, God had revealed himself unto Cain, Abel, and Seth—hence the greatness of Cain’s condemnation and rejection of God. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith declared:

Cain’s great sin was not committed in ignorance. We have every reason to believe that he had the privilege of standing in the presence of messengers from heaven. In fact, the scriptures infer that he was blessed by communication with the Father and was instructed by messengers from his presence. No doubt he held the Priesthood; otherwise his sin could not make of him Perdition. He sinned against the light. And this he did, so we are told, because he loved Satan more than he loved God.[43]

All the foregoing information about Cain is consistent with the criteria identifying those designated as “sons of perdition” in Doctrine and Covenants 76:31–38, 43. The characterization of “sons of perdition” as those “who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:43) is particularly striking.

Sin Lieth at the Door—Perdition

God offered Cain the possibility of repentance and the joy of divine acceptance. The Lord warned Cain of the consequences of following the adversary and the misery it would bring:

The text of Genesis 4:7 reads, “If thou not well, lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be , and thou shalt rule over him.” Scholars of the Bible do not know to whom the personal pronoun his is referring. Some have attempted to explain the wording as a reference to the previous phrase, “sin lieth at the door.” However, the word sin in Hebrew is feminine and thus does not match the gender of the personal pronoun here, which is masculine.[49] It is curious that the Hebrew expression for “sin lieth at the door” describes “crouching” in a ready-to-pounce posture, not a passive lying down.[50] Scholars have struggled to answer the question of who the subject is and have mostly concluded that verse 7 personifies sin as a demon waiting to attack Cain if he fails to repent.[51] However, Moses 5:23 clarifies that the pronoun his refers to the adversary, who is expressly mentioned in the text and who is directly involved in attacking Cain and attempting to lead him astray so he can fall victim to sin. The Hebrew wording thus reflects the malevolent, predatory nature of the adversary, who is depicted as stalking and preying on his victims with malicious intent to harm (compare 1 Peter 5:8: “Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour”).[52] In our opinion, Genesis 4:7b is one of the most blatant attempts to remove the devil from the Bible since the text lacks a clear subject that grammatically correlates with the surrounding passages, resulting in a grammatical and interpretive mess. The revelations of Moses 5 thus clarify this issue and others and identify and warn us of our enemy.

What Is Cain Doing? The Rejection

Some readers may wonder if the statement “thou shalt be called ; for thou wast also the world” (Moses 5:24) implies that Cain was foreordained to fall. The following points counter than inference. First, we can interpret the clause “for thou wast also before the world” as highlighting Cain’s valiant nature in the premortal life in relation to his eventual fall to perdition (similar to Lucifer’s tragic arc).[53] Second, President Joseph Fielding Smith clarified a relevant doctrinal truth:

Every soul coming into this world came here with the promise that through obedience he would receive the blessings of salvation. No person was foreordained or appointed to sin or to perform a mission of evil. No person is ever predestined to salvation or damnation. Every person has free agency. Cain was promised by the Lord that if he would do well he would be accepted. . . . If men were appointed to sin and betray their brethren, then justice could not demand that they be punished for sin and betrayal when they are guilty.[54]

Cain subsequently gained more power than the adversary as an emissary of evil, but with a physical body. President Joseph Fielding Smith further averred:

As far as Cain is concerned, the information given is definite that he became Perdition, and that Lucifer who is Satan, became subject to him. It appears that the reason Satan desired to have him was due to the fact that Cain had obtained a body of flesh and bones and therefore had superior power, and Satan was willing to accept and be obedient to him because of that condition. The natural conclusion is, therefore, that a devil with a body of flesh and bones has some power greater than one who was denied the physical body.[55]

With Cain becoming Perdition, we are left to conclude that he was at some point righteous before his descent into a lost and fallen state.[56] Moses 5:25 tells us that Cain rejected God, “for he rejected the greater counsel which was had from God.”[57] Cain was not passive in his rebellion but sought to remove God from his life, having once enjoyed a testimony of God’s divinity.[58] Cain’s rebellion paralleled Lucifer’s rebellion in the premortal existence. It represented the sad fall of a once-valiant son of God who allowed the adversary to take hold of his life and eventually turn him from the path of God to his state of being lost.[59] The Prophet Joseph Smith declared that “if Cain had fulfilled the law of righteousness as did E[n]och, he could have walked with God all the days of his life and never failed of a blessing.”[60] But Cain was about to make his choice, and the consequences of the rejection would follow, along with heartache to his family:

25 And it shall be said in time to come—That these abominations were had from Cain; for he rejected the greater counsel which was had from God; and this is a cursing which I will put upon thee, except thou repent.

26 And Cain was wroth, and listened not any more to the voice of the Lord, neither to Abel, his brother, who walked in holiness before the Lord.

27 And Adam and his wife mourned before the Lord, because of Cain and his brethren. (emphasis added)

We begin to see an important aspect of the story unfolding here: that which was to become a curse to Cain. This curse revolves around what was to “be said” of Cain in the future: his would be a reputation and legacy of wickedness and evil, all of it owing to his rejection of the greater counsel offered by God himself. This warning once again angered Cain, and he refused to listen to the personal and intimate voice of God, to his brother Abel, who walked in holiness, and presumably to his parents, all of whom appear to be trying to reclaim Cain.

Cain Murders Abel

Cain would also now seek the blood of one of the Lord’s servants, his brother Abel:[61]

28 And it came to pass that Cain took one of his brothers’ daughters to wife, and they loved Satan more than God.

29 And Satan said unto Cain: Swear unto me by thy throat,[62] and if thou tell it thou shalt die; and swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not; for if they tell it, they shall surely die; and this that thy father may not know it; and this day I will deliver thy brother Abel into thine hands.

30 And Satan sware unto Cain that he would do according to his commands. And all these things were done in secret.

31 And Cain said: Truly I am Mahan, the master of this great secret, that I may murder and get gain. Wherefore Cain was called Master Mahan, and he gloried in his wickedness.

32 And Cain went into the field, and Cain talked with Abel, his brother. And it came to pass that while they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and slew him.

33 And Cain gloried in that which he had done, saying: I am free; surely the flocks of my brother falleth into my hands.[63]

34 And the Lord said unto Cain: Where is Abel, thy brother? And he said: I know not. Am I my brother’s keeper?[64]

35 And the Lord said: What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood cries unto me from the ground.[65]

Regarding the biblical version of this passage, Jon D. Levenson observes the following: “The Lord’s question to Cain [“Where is your brother Abel?”] recalls that to Adam in [Genesis] 3.9. In both cases, He asks about more than location. Cain’s flippant answer offends against the Torah’s ethic of responsibility for one’s kinsman and neighbor (e.g., Lev. 19.16; Deut. 21.1–9).”[66] Cain had done the unthinkable: murdered his own brother at the instigation of the devil.

The Punishment and Curse

As a result of his unconscionable and murderous actions, Cain was cursed:

36 And now thou shalt be from the earth which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand.

37 When thou tillest the ground it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her . A and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. . . .

39 Behold thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the Lord,[67] and from thy face shall I be hid.

The entire story has hinged on the prescribed shedding of typological blood for worship that led to communion with God and also around the blood of murder that led to separation and exile from him. Cain’s murderous act disqualified him from ever enjoying God’s presence and may parallel later Levitical codes involving priests and Levites who bore iniquity (see Numbers 18:1, 23), “paying the price of their own failings.”[68] Cain was driven away from the sacred space of worship and family. The account appears to amplify Cain’s breach of priestly duties as well as highlight his disqualification from them and his expulsion from the presence of God. “The story that began with the attempt by Cain and Abel to draw near to God through sacrifice ends in Cain’s ‘leaving the Lord’s presence’ and living ‘east of Eden.’ . . . Like the account of the fall . . . , this story concludes by underlining the truth that sin separates man from God and that God’s judgements are carried out.”[69]

The curse pronounced on Cain can be defined in straightforward terms:

1. When Cain tilled the ground, [70] it would not yield crops. For a farmer, this would be devastating. Bill Arnold elaborates on the significance of this curse:

Cain’s occupation, his crime, and his punishment are all related to the “ground” (ʾă���峾â, vv. 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, and 14, where NRSV has “soil”). That by which Cain sustained his life also bore witness against him. The ground that yielded its produce for Cain cried out because it also opened its mouth to receive innocent blood from Cain’s hand. Yahweh does not curse the ground itself, which was the punishment of Cain’s father (3:17) but rather Cain is cursed “from the ground” (v. 11). Because of his sin, the ground was no longer to yield at all, and therefore he must leave to find other sustenance. His banishment is a necessity of the barren soil, which witnessed his unspeakable crime, and now he will be even further removed from beautiful Eden, humankind’s first home.[71]

2. Cain would be a fugitive and a vagabond. Again, as a farmer, he would need a plot of land and time to plant, cultivate, and harvest it. As a vagabond, he would see his professional occupation rendered impotent. What God had graciously given him was now taken away. Regarding the biblical narrative, John Walton observes:

As (Gen) 3:13 introduced the pronouncement with a statement that assigned guilt (“What is this you have done?”), so 4:10 introduces Yahweh’s pronouncement with essentially the same statement. As in 3:17 the ground was put under a curse (i.e., removed from God’s favor and protection), so now Cain himself is put under the same sort of curse. As we noted in chapter 3, this is not a hex or a spell. Actually the wording of 4:11 is more reminiscent of the curse on the serpent because it is modified by a min [the Hebrew preposition from] clause. The serpent is cursed min [from] the other animals, while Cain is cursed min [from] the ground. Based on what appears to be a clarifying statement in 4:12, I am inclined to translate, “cursed are you relative to the ground.” Becoming a restless wanderer is a consequence of the land not providing for his food; rather, he will be forced to wander to get food.

Adam and Eve were expelled from the sacred space of the garden and thus removed a distance from God’s presence, but in the present pronouncement Cain is expelled from God’s presence and protection, which he himself recognizes in verse 14. . . . In the garden there was lush provision of food; outside the garden there was arable land with cultivation being possible; Cain is driven to a place that has no hope of agriculture, so that one must survive by hunting and gathering. Thus, food provision again takes a central place as the blessing becomes more and more difficult to attain. Likewise, since Cain denies responsibility for family, he is deprived of family (the other component of the blessing).[72]

3. Cain would experience spiritual death and be driven from the face of the Lord (contrasting with the sweet communion that he had once enjoyed with God).

These elements constitute the curse, and there really are no other components to it. The “mark” that follows is separate from the curse, and that mark is not what many have traditionally assumed, as we will discuss in the next section.

Verse 38 is Cain’s declaration that his “punishment is too great to bear” or that his “iniquity is too great to be forgiven” (the Hebrew phrase gādôl ʿăwōnî minnĕśśōʾ can mean both). Cain’s response is narcissistic: he does not seem repentant or seem to care at all that he has taken the life of his brother but is upset about what might be taken from him (his crops and his life—quite the irony). Cain openly admits his interactions with Satan:

38 And Cain said unto the Lord: Satan tempted me because of my brother’s flocks. And I was wroth also; for his offering thou didst accept and not mine; my punishment is greater than I can bear.

39 Behold thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the Lord, 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 he that findeth me will slay me, because of mine iniquities,[73] for these things are not hid from the Lord.[74]

Cain has not been cheated in any way, and his declarations reflect selfishness and indifference toward the life of his brother whom he has slain. There is no sign of remorse, and he admits his covetousness toward his brother, whose sacred offering had been accepted of the Lord. He further admits his desire for Abel’s flocks, as well as his anger about the rejection of his own offering, which did not come forth in the prescribed way or by heeding the voice of the Lord, but rather by heeding that of the adversary. When he declares that his punishment is greater than he can bear or that his iniquity is too great to be forgiven, he is not concerned with the tragic moral implications of his malevolent behavior, and he is not repentant.[75] He simply says in essence, “That’s harsh,” reflecting what will be lost when he had hoped to gain. At his hand, his brother has suffered unprovoked, violent physical death, and now Cain, in his willful wickedness, is worried only about himself. What he had previously and openly glorified as strength in his wickedness (see v. 31) he now quietly, privately, and weakly declares in his fears, which only revolve around his own well-being.

The Mark

It is at this point in the story that readers typically want to throw up their hands and ask, “But what about the ‘mark’”? Technically, this mark was not part of the curse:

40 And I the Lord said unto him: Whosoever slayeth thee, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And I the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

41 And Cain was shut out from the presence of the Lord, and with his wife and many of his brethren dwelt in the land of Nod,[76] on the east of Eden. (Moses 5:40–41)

The mark, whatever it was, was set “upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.”[77] The mark was to remind people to leave judgment to the Lord, who would deal with Cain on his own terms, and anyone ignoring this injunction would receive vengeance sevenfold.[78] Theories going back hundreds of years have attempted to identify the mark of Cain.[79] They have ranged from horns growing out of Cain’s head to excessive hair growth, markings or red dots on the forehead, dark skin, and many other ideas, all of which are late inventions and are dated to early Christianity and the rabbinic period; none originate in the language of the Genesis account. Other theories have included Cain as Bigfoot.[80] The fact of the matter is that the Hebrew text does not argue in favor of any of these conjectures. More recent studies examine the use of the word mark (ʾô��, אוֹת) and conclude that the word is not normally attached to physical appearances or characteristics, thus eliminating interpretations associated with physical properties such as dark skin, marks on the forehead, and so forth.[81] R. W. L. Moberly concludes that the mark is something God speaks about Cain, “the non-corporeal sign, the warning, which serves to prevent Cain from being killed.”[82] This would be consistent with the meaning of the awatu(m) (“word”), the Akkadian cognate of Hebrew ʾô��. The mark would thus become a warning or description of Cain’s actions, causing people to avoid Cain. This is interesting since the Book of Moses provides some important insights that may signal that very meaning of the Semitic and Hebrew nuance:

25 And it shall be said in time to come—That these abominations were had from Cain; for he rejected the greater counsel which was had from God; and this is a cursing which I will put upon thee, except thou repent. (emphasis added)

When Cain rejected the greater counsel of God to repent to his face, it was going “to be said” that the abominations had come from Cain, and what was spoken would be a “cursing” to or concerning him. Spiritual darkness and wickedness would become a part of Cain’s life, and Adam and Eve “mourned before the Lord, because of Cain and his brethren” who “loved Satan more than God” (Moses 5:27–28). We appear to be dealing with a concept that Cain became a “marked man,” meaning that the people knew who he was and that they were to keep their hands off him and let God deal with his punishment. We should avoid perpetuating misconceptions and unfounded rumors about what the mark put on Cain was.

The Gospel Preached

Moses 5 ends with Cain and his descendants establishing wicked practices and entering into oaths to accomplish their purposes. This included the establishment of secret combinations for the sake of gain and murder. Despite (or especially because of) this, God continued to try to protect the innocent and righteous through sacred covenants and to lead his children from iniquity to safety with him:

56 And God cursed the earth with a sore curse, and was angry with the wicked, with all the sons of men whom he had made;

57 For they would not hearken unto his voice, nor believe on his Only Begotten Son, even him whom he declared should come in the meridian of time, who was prepared from before the foundation of the world.

58 And thus the Gospel began to be preached, from the beginning, being declared by holy angels sent forth from the presence of God, and by his own voice, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost.

59 And thus all things were confirmed unto Adam, by an holy ordinance, and the Gospel preached, and a decree sent forth, that it should be in the world, until the end thereof; and thus it was. Amen.

The Lord continued to build faith in his Only Begotten Son, and holy angels, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and ordinances would be a significant part of those efforts to lead his children back to him.

Concluding Thoughts

For centuries, numerous extrabiblical Christian and Jewish traditions about Cain and the so-called mark of Cain have circulated widely and have been accepted uncritically by many. The world and countless people of numerous faith traditions, including early members of the restored Church coming from some of those environments, inherited those traditions.[83] Although Joseph Smith did not seem to teach or embrace these interpretations of Cain, in the 1840s and into the 1850s Latter-day Saints, along with many people from numerous denominations throughout the country and the world, held on to these long-standing, centuries-old traditions that helped perpetuate racial inequality.[84] These interpretations should not and must not continue to be perpetuated. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has issued the following definitive declaration:

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. . . .

The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. It affirms that God is “no respecter of persons” and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous—regardless of race—is favored of Him. The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; . . . all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.[85]

We hope that readers of this volume wholeheartedly accept this declaration and that inaccurate and harmful interpretations about Cain are eradicated from our paradigms and beliefs.

There are other important takeaways contained in Moses 5. In accordance with the above declaration, the following statement by the Prophet Joseph Smith applies to all:

The power glory and blessings of the Priesthood could not continue with those who received ordination only as their righteousness continued, for Cain also being authorized to offer Sacrifice, but not offering it in righteousness, — — was cursed. It signifies then, that the ordinances must be kept in the very way God has appointed, otherwise their Priesthood will prove a cursing instead of a blessing.[86]

The Lord knows what he is doing, and we do not need to second-guess him or wonder if we have a better way. Of utmost importance here is the ability to trust in God and what he is trying to do with and for us:

To go on, then, with our subjuct [sic] in its true course, will be to speak of that knowledge that cometh from above—which surpasses understanding; even revelation, which unfolds the mysteries of eternity. In this course, however, we are aware that the world will not acquiesce; for, notwithstanding, literally speaking, that all knowledge comes from God, yet when it has been revealed, all men have not believed it as revelation at the time. Hence, when Abel’s offering was accepted of the Lord, that knowledge must have been communicated by revelation, and that revelation though it gave Abel power with God: still Cain was offended, disbelieved and committed murder. Cain knew the Lord, and believed in his father Adam’s scripture, or revelation, but one revelation was enough: he could not bear new ones, and fell.[87]

Among the takeaways of Moses 5 is the caution to be on guard at all times and to hold sacred the ordinances of the priesthood and understand what they were designed to accomplish for people and their relationship with God. We see in the story of Cain and Abel a continuation of the fight of Satan against God, the efforts to mislead God’s children away from him as they began to let go of him. We see this battle that originated before the world was continuing with those who love Satan more than God in mortality. President Gordon B. Hinckley taught:

[The war in heaven], so bitter, so intense, has gone on, and it has never ceased. It is the war between truth and error, between agency and compulsion, between the followers of Christ and those who have denied Him. His enemies have used every stratagem in that conflict. They’ve indulged in lying and deceit. They’ve employed money and wealth. They’ve tricked the minds of men. They’ve murdered and destroyed and engaged in every other unholy and impure practice to thwart the work of Christ.

It began in the earth when Cain slew Abel. The Old Testament is replete with accounts of the same eternal struggle.[88]

This struggle continues today, and the story of Cain and Abel warns us to be aware of the dangers that lurk behind the adversary’s temptations. This story teaches us to avoid relinquishing hold of the Lord and covenants made with him and allowing the adversary to take control of who we are or which paths we pursue. John A. Widtsoe stated: “In reality, . . . a man who has command of himself does not need to fear the evil one. He is not a force that can work harm, unless man places himself under the subjection of evil; but, if the devil be allowed a hearing, he may become the master of the man.[89] Along similar lines, the Prophet Joseph Smith remarked, “All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not. The devil has no power over us, only as we permit him.”[90]

When we discover the challenges faced by Adam and Eve’s family in their pursuit of God and happiness, the story of Cain and Abel may remind us of what Richard D. Draper, S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes have noted:

For its part, the biblical record [of Moses 5] preserves only a portion of this important story, namely, the rise of sin and the growing complexity of society. . . . We look in vain for a record of the rise of secret, diabolical organizations. These observations underscore a fundamental difference between Genesis and the book of Moses in this and the following chapters: the book of Moses not only preserves a fuller rehearsal of main events but reports especially the all-important spiritual influences on people’s lives, both the good and the evil. In this connection, most of the information in the “expanded” text of Moses has to do with a correct understanding of the mission of the Only Begotten. This important point is true even in passages that do not directly concern the Son of God. For instance, chronicles of the rise of sin—the most notable involving Satan and Cain—form the backdrop for some of the acts that the atonement will rectify.[91]

So it is that Moses 5 teaches powerful lessons about the love and forgiving nature of God, as well as the dangers that come when we give in to temptation and allow the devil a hearing. We also see how fervent and persistent God is in pursuing the happiness and safety of his children, a goal not always shared by his children. Moses 6 will describe more details of this struggle and the calling of prophets in order to raise and maintain God’s standard of truth.

Notes

[1] See, e.g., Brueggemann, Genesis, 56–57; and Moberly, Theology of the Book of Genesis, 99. Some fault God in this episode for provoking Cain’s murder of Abel because “inequity is an iniquity.” Levenson, Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, 75.

[2] Sailhamer, Genesis, loc. 3661–63.

[3] Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary, 263.

[4] Givens and Hauglid, Pearl of Greatest Price, 70.

[5] All references in this chapter to analysis of the story’s composition, shape, or style or to the meanings of Hebrew terminology refer to Genesis 4 (unless otherwise stated).

[6] See Brueggemann, Genesis, 57.

[7] Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary, 264–65.

[8] “On the basis of Jude 11 (‘Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain’) and Hebrews 11:4 (‘By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did’),” there does seem to be something wrong with Cain’s offering, at least in the eyes of New Testament authors. See Sailhamer, Genesis, loc. 3612–13. The problem is usually interpreted as intent. “The author’s purpose is to use the narrative of Cain and Abel to teach an important lesson on worship. What kind of worship is pleasing to God? Worship pleasing to God is a worship that springs from a pure heart.” Sailhamer, loc. 3652–53.

[9] Reno, Genesis, 98.

[10] See Welch and Abhau, “Priestly Interests of Moses the Levite,” [25–26, 30].

[11] The etymology of Cain’s name is uncertain but may mean “acquire.” “The verb qnh (NIV ‘brought forth’; NASB ‘gotten’; NRSV ‘produced’) usually means ‘to acquire’ in the Old Testament, though a few passages suggest ‘to create.’” Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary, 261. “The name ‘Cain’ (qayin) . . . is a sound play on the Hebrew word ‘gotten’ (qaniti). It seems to affirm that Cain was a special gift with the help of YHWH (possibly even a fulfillment of Gen. 3:15).” Utley, How It All Began, 72. “The name is given as praise to God. Cain is celebrated and well thought of.” Brueggemann, Genesis, 56.

[12] “Here is another sound play (paronomasia) on a name. The sound of the verb קָנִיתִי (qaniti, ‘I have created’) reflects the sound of the name Cain in Hebrew (קַיִן, qayin) and gives meaning to it. The saying uses the Qal perfective of קָנָה (qanah). There are two homonymic verbs with this spelling, one meaning ‘obtain, acquire’ and the other meaning ‘create’ (see Gen 14:19, 22; Deut 32:6; Ps 139:13; Prov 8:22). The latter fits this context very well. Eve has created a man.” Biblical Studies Press, NET Bible, at Genesis 4:1. This sound play may suggest Eve’s complete recognition of God for the blessing of the child and an acknowledgment of the divine role and the procreative power God has given her to participate in creating life. It also highlights her expressed desire for Cain to never reject him who is the giver of life. “Since either ‘acquire’ or ‘create’ works in this passage, the main interpretive question is whether Eve sees herself as taking part in the creation process (‘I have created along with Yahweh’) or as having relied on Yahweh to get through the process (‘I have obtained with the help/consent of Yahweh’).” Walton, Genesis (NIV Application Commentary), 261. See Alter, Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, 29. Eve seems to be recognizing that procreation is a gift from God, and she recognizes the sacred place she holds in the process; “nevertheless there is an ambiguity about her expression which may suggest that she covertly compared her achievement with Yahweh’s greater works and hoped that he would be with her son.” Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 102.

[13] It seems possible that Abel as the keeper of sheep is attempting to inform us of the symbolism behind the sacrifice and his devotion to God. The image of shepherd will become common throughout the Bible—e.g., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 30:36); Joseph (Genesis 37:2); Moses (Exodus 3:1); David (1 Samuel 16:11; 17:34); and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 34:7–15)—and continue into the New Testament with Jesus as the Good Shepherd (see John 10:11, 14). The theme also occurs in the Book of Mormon (see 1 Nephi 22:25; Alma 5:38, 60; 3 Nephi 15:21). This is not to imply that one occupation is superior to the other, but in the story the image may evoke some symbolic meaning. Many studies have presented the potential conflict of land disputes that could arise between a shepherd and a farmer, who are both in need of land. See, e.g., Walton, Genesis, loc. 1978. Although unstated in the text, this may have been a peripheral issue at hand.

[14] Sarna, in Genesis, 32, highlights that “knowing” is not just cognitive but implies a close, experiential relationship with God. By New Testament times, “Abel is a man of faith (Heb. 11:4) whereas Cain is reckoned as a form of evil (I John 3:12; Jude 11).” Brueggemann, Genesis, 56. “In Cain’s query, the verb ‘know’ carries implications of a covenant relationship that Cain refuses to enter.” Draper, Brown, and Rhodes, Pearl of Great Price, 65. As will be seen later in this chapter, the covenantal context is not so much refusing “to enter” into covenants but a refusal to continue keeping them. Cain is apostatizing and rebelling against God.

[15] The Hebrew verb ����岹ʿ is often used in this extended covenantal sense. See Benson and Ricks, “Treaties and Covenants,” 48–61, 128–29.

[16] Some see a connection with the cursed ground in Eden (see Genesis 3:17) and the rejection of Cain’s sacrifice, which comes from the ground. See Spina, “‘Ground’ for Cain’s Rejection,” 319–32.

[17] Negative portrayals of shepherds are found in Genesis 43:32; 46:31–34. Such portrayals often depict nomadic people who are viewed as encroaching on the boundaries of the elite, or they represent a transfer of power from the elite group that laments what is now lost. The point of the story is that the two brothers, both involved in offering sacrifices, are about to experience an adversarial turn of events that takes them from friend to foe.

[18] “The worship of Yahweh is presumed.” Brueggemann, Genesis, 56.

[19] Speaking of this type of process that leads Cain from one bad decision to another, one writer notes the following: “Our ‘birth’ in Satan is the same as the counterbirth in Christ. Both are spiritual rather than natural. They give us our identities—we are shaped and formed by our loyalties—but neither birth gives us our natures. Our natural capacities are created, and human nature endures, no matter what form it takes as we exercise our innate powers.” Reno, Genesis, 100.

[20] Cain is being obedient but not to God. See Bradshaw, In God’s Image, 1:371.

[21] For an extended exploration of the pejorative wordplay on the name Cain evident in Moses 5, Helaman 6, and Ether 8, see Bowen, “Getting Cain and Gain,” 115–41.

[22] History, 1838–1856, volume F-1 [1 May 1844–8 August 1844], p. 18, The Joseph Smith Papers.

[23] Herion, in “Why God Rejected Cain’s Offering,” 52–65, discusses the rejection of Cain’s offering because it came from the ground, which had been cursed in Genesis 3:17.

[24] Genesis 4:6 uses perfective verb forms “describing past events with continuing effects.” Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 94. The verse reflects a process of time wherein mentalities and actions have percolated until Cain begins to leave the path of God for the path of the adversary. This did not happen overnight but took time to develop. As will be seen, Cain appears to have been a righteous individual before becoming Perdition. Wenham, in Genesis 1–15, 103, and Westermann, in Genesis 1–11, 294, also assume that events transpired that can no longer be reconstructed from the Genesis text.

[25] The word brought in Hebrew often carries cultic overtones and can include grain and animal offerings. See Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 103. As in 1 Samuel 2:17, 29, whose emphasis is on an animal sacrifice, it seems that with the juxtaposition of and emphasis on Abel’s sacrifice of an animal and its fat, the text is trying to tell us this was part of the expectation for Cain’s sacrificial offering. It is often emphasized that Cain and Abel are just bringing forth sacrifices appropriate to their occupations, but such criteria for offerings may be unusual. “In all animal sacrifices the fat was burnt, because it too belonged to the Lord, being regarded as the choicest part of the animal (Lev 3:16; Deut 32:38; Ps 147:14).” Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 103.

[26] “גַּם (gǎm): adv.; also, and also, as well as, besides, including, i.e., a marker of an additive relation (Ge 3:6).” Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages, s.v. “גַּם (gǎm).” The use of the waw conjunction and may also be viewed as contrastive but, perhaps creating a greater differentiation between Cain’s sacrifice and the additional component of Abel’s sacrifice: “But he also brought of . . .” The fat is a crucial element of the sacrifice and implies an animal sacrifice. Some studies have objected to the concept of an animal sacrifice because there is no specific mention of blood: “Moreover, note that even Abel’s offering is described in terms of ‘fat portions’ with no reference to blood. . . . Blood is usually used in the sacrificial system to accomplish kpr (NIV ‘atonement’). Genesis 4 neither mentions a need for kpr nor the procurement of it for Abel. Also, the blood from a sacrifice was typically applied to one of the sancta in the temple, and there are no sancta to cleanse here.” Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary, 263. Moses 5 clarifies some of these perplexing issues that Genesis 4:3–4 lacks in its brevity. The story is not focusing on a specific blood ritual so much as what the shedding of the animal’s life represented, and we see the general origin of sacrifice developed within the story. We also need not suppose that a lack of a formalized temple somehow negates the offering, as we see throughout the patriarchal narratives that sacrifices were performed at a constructed altar. We also cannot assume that the sacrificial legislation found later in Leviticus was the modus operandi from the beginning (the patriarchal narratives clearly demonstrate this). Moses 5 explains that it was to be a sacrifice offered up in similitude of the shedding of the blood of the Lamb of God who would come in the meridian of time (see v. 7). It is possible that a chiasm is executed here in verses 19–20 to contrast the different sacrifices offered by Cain and Abel. See Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 103. Some see an alliterative play in the Hebrew emphasizing Abel’s proper sacrifice of an animal: “‘And Abel [hebel], he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof’ [û��ŧḥe��ĕ��ŧ����—in other words, from the fatlings, the richest or best part of the herd]. Not only does the Hebrew word ḥēl��� denote ‘fat,’ but also the word û��ŧḥe��ĕ��ŧ���� ‘contains within itself the name of hbl [Abel] . . . ���𱹱�������’�Ĕi.��., û��ŧḥe��ĕ��ŧ����, thus strengthening the pun [Genesis 4:4; Moses 5:20].” Bradshaw and Bowen, “‘By the Blood Ye Are Sanctified’” (Interpreter), 149. For Abel’s sacrifice as a type of Christ, see Hebrews 12:24.

[27] It has been noticed that sacrifice here precedes known biblical legislation on the performance of sacrifice. As previously mentioned, Genesis 4 offers no explanation for the origin of the sacrifices in the account. “This text does not institute sacrifice as a religious observance but assumes it as a logical corollary between work and thanksgiving. And it is too early to have specific prescriptions about the nature of sacrifice, so we are unable to discern whether Cain’s was less appropriately offered.” Arnold, Genesis, 78. Moses 5 helps us understand that sacrifice was prescribed from the beginning and did not magically appear with Noah, Abraham, or the patriarchs, whose stories also do not touch on the origins of their sacrifices. Moses is the first to record specifics in the Bible, but the Moses text explains there was already precedent.

[28] Many studies emphasize that because the word sacrifice (����ḥ) is not used in the story, the offerings do not reference animals. But we cannot escape the fact that Abel offered the firstlings and the fat thereof. Firstborn specifically refers to animals and humans. “בְּכֹר (����ḵōr): firstborn, usually, the first male offspring, the oldest son, with the associative meaning of prominence in the clan and privileges pertaining to clan and inheritance (Ge 43:33; Ne 10:37); firstborn animal.” Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages, s.v. “בְּכֹר (����ḵōr).” How this can reference anything but the fat of an animal seems inescapable, and Moses 5 clearly defines it. Some scholarship senses this but proceeds with caution because of the paucity of information in Genesis 4 (and lacking the additional details provided in Moses 5). The key seems to be in the term firstlings. See Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, 114. “Cain brought some of his agricultural produce, but Abel brought the best of his flock, which showed an attitude of faith and respect. But it must be remembered that the text itself is very ambiguous and brief. We must be careful of reading too much into these early accounts.” Utley, How It All Began, 72–73. It makes little sense to highlight the fat without focusing on where it came from or how it came to be part of the offering.

[29] Some recognize anomalies with the interpretation that the fruits Cain brought forth were acceptable but, given the state of Genesis 4, find it plausible. “The offerings that Cain and Abel bring are both described in the text by the term ������ḥa. Leviticus 2 discusses the ������ḥa, where the NIV translates it as ‘grain offering.’ Its purpose is simply to give a gift to honor deity and is usually given in a context of celebration. It often accompanies an animal sacrifice but is usually comprised of grain.” Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary, 262. There are thus problems with the “grain offering” in the form of fruit.

[30] Miller, Religion of Ancient Israel, 107, 109–110. In later biblical law, grain offerings would become acceptable, but they would usually be offered following the burnt offering of the animal sacrifice, not in place of it. The grain offering was a part of a greater ritual significance that was to be offered in the form of a sacrificial animal. The first part of Moses 5 seems to explain the nature and symbolic act of the sacrifice as a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, and also that this component of worship was what Cain was removing: he was taking the Lamb out of the offering.

[31] See Leviticus 6:14–18. The ������ḥâ consisted chiefly of wine and grain (or flour and cakes made from grain), seasoned with salt and offered with incense. It could not be offered with a sin offering, but no burnt or peace offering was complete without it. Part was placed on the altar of burnt offering; the remainder was usually eaten by the priests in a holy place. See Bible Dictionary, “Meat offering or meal offering.” “The LXX distinguishes between the ������ḥâ (= thysia) of Cain and the ������ḥâ (= δῶρον, dôron, ‘gift’) of Abel, but thysia does not represent a ‘blood sacrifice.’” Sailhamer, Genesis, loc. 3718–20. It is interesting that the Greek word used for Cain’s offering, θῠσία, Ion. -ίη, ἡ, (θύω), can mean “mode of offering” but also specifically can be used as “burnt-offering, sacrifice.” Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 812. In taking Cain’s offering as a “gift,” we are even removing the meaning of “burnt offering” from the Greek word itself. It is also interesting that the Septuagint recognizes different types of sacrifices offered by Cain and Abel, but Abel’s is less specific and more generalized, although the text has already established that he has brought of the “firstborn of the sheep.” Tan and deSilva, Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint, at Genesis 4:3. The use of the preposition from seems to further differentiate between the two offerings (from the fruit of the land / but from the firstborn of the flocks) and seems to result in the type of sacrifice constituting whether God would “look upon it” or not.

[32] Wenham, in Genesis 1–15, 103, notes the following in relation to the language of the Genesis text and its implications: “Abel’s offering corresponds to his vocation as a shepherd. It may not be coincidence that Adam’s second son offers firstlings (first-born animals) whereas Cain, the older son, offers neither firstlings nor firstfruits. Note the association of the first-born with firstlings in Exod 22:28–29 [29–30]; 34:19–20. The law is insistent that all firstlings must be offered in sacrifice or redeemed. The first-born by right belong to God. So human first-born must be redeemed. Israel as a nation is described as God’s first born (Exod 13:2, 12–15; 4:22; M. Tsevat, TDOT 2:121–27). In all animal sacrifices the fat was burnt, because it too belonged to the Lord, being regarded as the choicest part of the animal (Lev 3:16; Deut 32:38; Ps 147:14; G. Münderlein, TDOT 4:391–97). The very positive connotations of ‘firstlings’ and ‘fat’ in the OT support the view of Keil, Delitzsch, Cassuto, Speiser, Kidner, and rabbinic commentators that Abel offered the pick of his flock to the Lord.”

[33] Letter to the Church, circa March 1834, p. 143, The Joseph Smith Papers.

[34] Doctrine and Covenants, 1835, pp. 19–20, The Joseph Smith Papers.

[35] John Taylor, in Journal of Discourses, 22:301.

[36] Wenham, in Genesis 1–15, 104, explains the language implies a “prelude to homicidal acts.” “‘And his face fell.’ The idiom means that the inner anger is reflected in Cain’s facial expression. The fallen or downcast face expresses anger, dejection, or depression. Conversely, in Num 6 the high priestly blessing speaks of the Lord lifting up his face and giving peace.” Biblical Studies Press, NET Bible, at Genesis 4:5. The Genesis text employs priestly language, contrasting the happiness and joy of sacrifice with a fallen and sad countenance. Cain experienced the exact opposite of what a priest of God was supposed to experience and feel while performing offerings to God, the twisted result instigated by the adversary.

[37] Reno, Genesis, 100.

[38] “God’s questions, echoing v 5 [of Genesis 4], are somewhat like the snake’s in [Genesis] 3:1 in character. In both cases the questioners know the answer to their own question, but whereas the snake’s was designed to lead man into sin, God’s were intended to provoke a change of heart.” Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 104. “Here again is God asking several questions, not for information, but to help the person to understand his own feelings and motives (cf. v. 9 and 3:9, 11, 13).” Utley, How It All Began, 72.

[39] The Book of Mormon describes the adversary’s delight in bringing about people’s ruination: “Wo, wo, wo unto this people; wo unto the inhabitants of the whole earth except they shall ; for the devil , and his angels rejoice, because of the slain of the fair sons and daughters of my people; and it is because of their iniquity and abominations that they are fallen!” (3 Nephi 9:2).

[40] Hartley, Genesis, 81–82.

[41] Some scholars sense that God must be present in this story, although Genesis 4 is fragmentary and it is difficult to piece the elements together: “It is not impossible that God continued to meet with Adam and Eve and their children at the edge of the garden and may have personally conveyed his pleasure or displeasure, though the text admittedly falls short of suggesting this. Nevertheless, verses 6–16 imply face-to-face meetings.” Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary, 263.

[42] For Cain as a priest, see Waltke, Genesis, 97.

[43] Smith, Way to Perfection, 98. Some scholars highlight Cain’s priestly duties in terms of the rights of the firstborn, the special responsibilities that carries, and the privileges associated with those duties. See Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 104–5.

[44] Bill T. Arnold stated the following about Genesis 4:7: “Verse 7 is one of the most important verses in Gen 4, and also one of the most difficult in the whole book. Many proposals for emendations and alternative interpretations are possible. Regardless of the linguistic specifics, the idea is clearly a warning: Cain is free to resist or to give in to sin. For the first time in the Bible, the word ‘sin’ occurs (ḥaṭṭ��ʾ��), which sheds light on the role of Gen 3 in Israelite conceptions of sin, in light of the many parallels between Gen 3 and 4. Like Eve before him, Cain is clearly in danger of another serious breach. But unlike Eve’s conversation with the serpent, Cain’s problems are arising from within himself. God warns Cain that sin, the besetting impulse among humans for rebellion against God, is like a wild beast ‘lurking at the door’ and Cain must master it.” Arnold, Genesis, 79. Moses 5 clarifies that Satan was also behind the temptation and underlies the personal struggle emanating from within Cain. The Jewish Study Bible at Genesis 4:7 sees similarities between the exchange here and that which took place between God and Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:16–19. Some have noted that the Hebrew text here is almost impossible to resolve. See Hamilton, Book of Genesis, 225.

[45] “The Hebrew text is difficult, because only one word occurs, שְׂאֵת (��é’et), which appears to be the infinitive construct from the verb ‘to lift up.’ The sentence reads: ‘If you do well, uplifting.’ On the surface, it seems to be the opposite of the fallen face. Everything will be changed if he does well. God will show him favor, he will not be angry, and his face will reflect that. But more may be intended since the second half of the verse forms the contrast: ‘If you do not do well, sin is crouching. . . .’ Not doing well leads to sinful attack; doing well leads to victory and God’s blessing.” Biblical Studies Press, NET Bible, at Genesis 4:7–8. שְׂאֵת (ś��ʾŧṯ) can mean “splendor, forgiveness (formally, lifting up, i.e., the removal of guilt with a focus on the acceptance and relationship which accompanies the forgiveness (Ge 4:7+), rising up, or loft position (i.e., to have a high status as a figurative extension of an elevated place.” Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages, s.v. “ג שְׂאֵת (ś��ʾŧṯ).” Alter, in Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, 30, opines, “The narrative context of sacrifices may suggest that the cryptic ��’e���� (elsewhere, ‘preeminence’) might be related to ma��’e����, a gift or cultic offering,” perhaps highlighting the importance of correcting the type of sacrifice. It is possible that the use of the causative verb form (Hiphil) of ��ṭb (יטב, “cause to make right”) in the text is reflecting God trying hard to give Cain the opportunity to set things right with his attitude, mentality, and anger and the purpose and mode of the sacrifice. Some see a chiastic pattern in Genesis 4 in which this is a turning point for Cain, going from approaching God and sacrificing to him to departing and separating from him. See Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 99.

[46] OT1 reflects the KJV: “Shalt thou not be accepted?” Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible, 94. OT2 removes the question. God is telling Cain that he (not just his offering) will be accepted if he does what is right (including having the attitude to love God, offering properly to God, and carrying out the proper relationship with God). God is trying to help Cain through his struggles, not reject him. Cain is the one doing the rejecting. The text describes the passionate pleas and efforts of a loving God who is attempting to lead Cain back onto the path of righteousness. Although Genesis 4 lacks some of these personal details, the conversations between God and Cain “imply face-to-face meetings,” and in Genesis 4 “Yahweh encourages Cain to do the right thing. Again, the text does not make clear exactly what this entails, but it does indicate that God’s favor is achievable.” Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary, 263–64.

[47] Cain is teetering on the brink of becoming Perdition. God is lovingly trying to reclaim Cain before he is completely gone. God realizes, and is warning Cain, that if he rejects God in the final sense of the word and refuses to repent, he will be thoroughly subjected to the devil. He will withdraw from God and be delivered to Satan, driven from the God who could give him everlasting life to the would-be god who could lead him to everlasting death. He cannot have both, and the story shows that Cain does not want both. This does not keep God from wanting Cain, and he attempts to bring him back. Cain is about to reject God and become a god unto himself, implementing his reign based on murder and wickedness.

[48] “The title ‘Perdition’—from a Latin root meaning ‘to destroy, to ruin’—is an ironic reversal of one of the derivations of the name Cain: ‘to produce, to create.’” Bradshaw, In God’s Image, 1:375. In Greek, ἀπώλεια (apōleia) means “destruction, loss.” Thomas, Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries. In Hebrew, מַשְׁחִית (��ǎš·ḥîṯ) can mean “destruction, i.e., a state or condition which causes deadly ruin.” Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages, s.v. “מַשְׁחִית (��ǎš·ḥîṯ).” Compare also Hebrew ʾă��������ô��, “destruction,” from ʾ�������, “perish,” “become lost,” “be ruined,” “be destroyed.”

[49] “The main exegetical problem with 4:7 comes in trying to interpret the phrase that the NIV translates ‘sin is crouching at your door.’ The word translated ‘sin’ is a feminine form, yet the participle ���Dz���ṣ (‘is crouching’) is clearly masculine singular as are the pronominal suffixes connected to ‘desire’ and ‘rule.’” Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary, 264.

[50] “Recent commentators have preferred repointing the participle ‘crouching’ (Heb. ��ō��ŧṣ) to �����īṣ and seeing it as a reference to a well-known Mesopotamian demon (��������ṣu) who lingers around doorways. ‘Sin’ is then portrayed as a doorway demon waiting for its victim to cross the threshold. From the Old Babylonian period on in Mesopotamia, such demons were considered evil and were thought to ambush their victims.” Walton, Genesis, loc. 2001.”

[51] “The Hebrew term translated ‘crouching’ (רֹבֵץ, rovets) is an active participle. Sin is portrayed with animalistic imagery here as a beast crouching and ready to pounce (a figure of speech known as zoomorphism). An Akkadian cognate refers to a type of demon; in this case perhaps one could translate, ‘Sin is the demon at the door.’” Biblical Studies Press, NET Bible, at Genesis 4:7; see Speiser, Genesis, 29, 32–33. “Here then sin is personified as a demon crouching like a wild beast on Cain’s doorstep.” Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 106. In a similar vein, “‘and toward you [is] its desire, but you must rule over it.’ As in Gen 3:16, the Hebrew noun ‘desire’ refers to an urge to control or dominate. Here the desire is that which sin has for Cain, a desire to control for the sake of evil, but Cain must have mastery over it. The imperfect is understood as having an obligatory sense. Another option is to understand it as expressing potential (‘you can have [or ‘are capable of having’] mastery over it.’). It will be a struggle, but sin can be defeated by righteousness.” Biblical Studies Press, NET Bible, at Genesis 4:7.

[52] For recent discussion on this topic, see Bednar, “Watchful unto Prayer Continually,” 33–34, in which he states: “All day, every day, [the adversary’s] only intent and sole purpose are to make the sons and daughters of God miserable like unto himself. . . . The devil labors to make the sons and daughters of God confused and unhappy and to hinder their eternal progression. The adversary works relentlessly to attack the elements of the Father’s plan he hates the most.”

[53] See discussion in Moses 4:1–4.

[54] Smith, Doctrines of Salvation , 1:61.

[55] Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 2:170–72; and Smith, “Will the Sons of Perdition Have Ascendancy over Satan?,” 301.

[56] The chiastic structure of Genesis 4:2–5 puts Cain and Abel on equal footing, and the language of those passages emphasizes “the similarity between Cain’s and Abel’s acts.” Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 94. Both Cain and Abel were authorized to offer sacrifice. The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that for Cain to commit the unpardonable sin, he would first have had to receive the Holy Ghost, shed innocent blood, and come out in open rebellion against the kingdom of God. See History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843], p. 1551, The Joseph Smith Papers; and Letter to Saints Scattered Abroad, 8 December 1839, p. 29, The Joseph Smith Papers.

[57] “Eve had been talked into her sin. Cain could not be talked out of his, even by God himself.” Arnold, Genesis, 40.

[58] “Cain has a God-consciousness of right from wrong but rebels against it.” Waltke, Genesis, 98.

[59] Spencer W. Kimball taught, “It is doubtful if Cain had murder in his heart when his first jealous thought crossed his mind, when the first hate began to develop; but ounce by ounce, moment by moment, the little parasite developed to rob him of his strength, his balance, and his peace. The evil took over, and Cain, like the tree, changed his appearance, his attitudes, his life, and became a world wanderer, vicious and desolate.” Kimball, “Mistletoe,” 66.

[60] History, 1838–1856, volume C-1 [2 November 1838–31 July 1842], p. 17 [addenda], The Joseph Smith Papers; see Instruction on Priesthood, circa 5 October 1840, p. 5, The Joseph Smith Papers.

[61] Genesis 4:8–10 offers no details about Cain’s murder of Abel, leaving commentators to conclude that material in the story has been truncated, or skipped. See Bradshaw, In God’s Image, 1:380; Friedman, Commentary on the Torah, 26; and Sarna, Genesis, 33. It is ironic that Cain is unwilling to shed blood in the worship of God but willing to shed blood in the murder of his brother Abel. The story seems to be highlighting that Cain’s falling away from God is precipitated by his rising desire for the devil and his ways. The shedding of blood in this narrative can either atone or condemn, and in the case of Cain’s murderous act, Abel’s blood will call from the ground for justice.

[62] Notably, swearing by the throat underlies a ritual involving the shedding of the blood of a sacrificial animal— something Cain would not do for God but would do for Satan. Cain’s oath with Satan resulted in the shedding of Abel’s blood. Swearing by the throat may mimic sacred covenants. See Bradshaw, In God’s Image, 1:377–78; and Draper, Brown, and Rhodes, Pearl of Great Price, 67–68.

[63] “Cain was never more in bondage than when he said he was free.” Hafen and Hafen, Belonging Heart, 276. See the discussion in Bradshaw, In God’s Image, 1:381.

[64] “The Hebrew word for ‘keeper,’ shomer, refers to a watchman, a guard, or anyone who has charge, care or oversight of something. . . . (‘Am I the shepherd’s shepherd?’ cf. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 106.) . . . Chauncey Riddle suggests an answer to Cain’s question: ‘No, Cain, you are not expected to be your brother’s keeper. But you are expected to be your brother’s brother.’” Bradshaw, In God’s Image, 1:383.

[65] The image is that of the necessary redress for the victim whose blood was shed. See Sarna, Genesis, 34. The Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 17:3–7 preserves an interesting tradition from the time of Abraham that states that some people in Abraham’s day viewed atonement through the lens of the blood shed with Abel. The passages highlight an interesting concept of sacrifices and atonement in Old Testament times. It is subsequently during this time that the Lord implements circumcision to overcome some of those wayward traditions that had developed. See JST Genesis 17:11–12 [in Genesis 17:7, footnote a]). “The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible connects the death of the righteous Abel to an anomalous ordinance for little children consisting of the sprinkling of blood coupled with ‘washing’ that is denounced in JST Genesis 17:3–7. . . . To counteract this practice, . . . the Lord established the covenant of circumcision at the age of eight days, ‘that thou mayest know for ever that children are not accountable before me till [they are] eight years old.’ D&C 68:25–28, received later in the same year that JST Genesis 17 was translated, also emphasizes that children are not accountable until eight years old.” Bradshaw and Bowen, “‘By the Blood Ye Are Sanctified’” (Interpreter), 150–51. See OT1 text in Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible, 131–32. JST Genesis 17:11–12 was probably received between February 1 and March 7, 1831. See Bradshaw, In God’s Image, fig. O–2 (p. 3). Note that Doctrine and Covenants 74, now known to have been received in late 1830 rather than in January 1832, “probably stemmed from discussions about infant baptism.” Woodford, “Discoveries from the Joseph Smith Papers Project,” 31. Abel would be seen as a martyr, and in the New Testament we read of the effect this would have on martyrdom and judgment: “Render judgment, the blood petitions, so that upon the wicked ‘may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah’ (Matt. 23:35).” Reno, Genesis, 107. Apocryphal traditions also speak of Abel as a righteous martyr. See Bradshaw, In God’s Image, 1:376, 617–21. “Abel is coupled with Zechariah (Matt. 23:35) as the first (Gen. 4) and the last (2 Chr. 24:20–22) victims of murder mentioned in the OT. . . . Understandably Abel is characterized as ‘innocent.’” Hamilton, Book of Genesis, 244.

[66] Levenson, “Genesis: Introduction and Annotations,” 19. See Alter, Hebrew Bible, 1:30; and Sarna, Genesis, 31–34. Regarding Genesis 4:8, Bruce K. Waltke writes, “The key word brother occurs seven times in Gen. 4:2–11. This is the emergence of sibling rivalry, a problem that will plague each of the godly families of Genesis. In hatred, Cain begins the first religious war. Because he renounces God, he renounces his image. . . . Cain’s bad feelings against God spill over into irrational behavior and an unjustifiable jealous rage against his brother. The sundering of the familial bond, begun in chapter 3, here escalates to fratricide in one mere generation.” Waltke, Genesis, 98.

[67] The gesture of driving Cain out from the land of Eden (see Genesis 4:16; Moses 5:41) and God’s presence may highlight how much God really cares about him, but it also emphasizes his justice. Although the precise relevance of how later ancient Israelite law and custom may bear on Cain’s much earlier case remains unclear, in cases of murder it was the responsibility of the closest family member later in ancient Israel to enact retribution and justice for the deceased. Whatever the relationship between Cain and later biblical legislation, Cain seems concerned that others will come after him. God protects the integrity of the family, his family, by sending Cain away, an appropriate, alternative solution to taking away his life. See Arnold, Genesis, 80; and Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 108. Wenham, in Genesis 1–15, 109, notes, “Indeed, a premature death would cut short his sentence, so it is hardly right to see these verses as a lightening of it.” Cain is suffering the worst of all deaths: spiritual death.

[68] Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 108.

[69] Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 110. If we take this a step further, some have recognized parallels in temple language within Genesis 3–4: “Adam and Eve were expelled from the sacred space of the garden and thus removed a distance from God’s presence, but in the present pronouncement Cain is expelled from God’s presence and protection, which he himself recognizes in verse 14. If we use the tabernacle model as an analogy, Adam and Eve were banned from the antechamber while Cain is driven outside the camp.” Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary, 265. Perhaps this offers a parallel to later developments in Israelite Day of Atonement rituals, wherein a representative sinful sheep is driven outside the confines of the camp to preserve the sanctity of God’s encampments.

[70] “In [Genesis] 4:11 the use of a curse statement puts Cain in the same category as the serpent,” a ground that was cursed. Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary, 265.

[71] Arnold, Genesis, 80.

[72] Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary, 265.

[73] OT1 reads, “Every one that findeth me will slay me because of mine oath.” Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible, 95. Perhaps the current reading, which follows OT2 (see Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible, 606), emphasizes the sin against God and brother, rather than the pact, as the cause for Cain’s curse. Cain had a choice, and the pact with Satan precipitated the sins that led to Cain’s becoming Perdition.

[74] In later Israelite law in cases when murder was not avenged by the family (see Numbers 35:9–28), “expulsion was an alternative punishment (cf. 2 Sam 13:34–14:24). . . . ‘To be driven away from the land’ (cf. v 14) is to have all relationships, particularly with the family, broken. Moreover, it is to have one’s relationship with the Lord broken.” Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 108.

[75] “In Cain’s words in v. 14 . . . he complains of his punishment, not of his guilt.” Sailhamer, Genesis, loc. 3786–87.

[76] Nod is a Hebrew word meaning “wandering.”

[77] “Though it is sometimes assumed that a ‘mark’ was ‘put on’ Cain (cf. the early versions), the passage states only that a sign was given ‘to’ or ‘for’ Cain (�ɲ������ś�� . . . leqayin ʾô��, lit., ‘and he [the Lord] appointed to Cain a sign’; cf. 21:13, 18; 27:37; 45:7, 9; 46:3 with 21:14; 44:21)” (Sailhamer, Genesis, loc. 3822–24), or that “the Lord placed a sign for Cain” (Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 109). This is an important detail to keep in mind, because many erroneous interpretations have centered on a physical characteristic “put on” Cain, something the Hebrew seems to negate.

[78] In biblical numerology, the number seven suggests completeness. God guarantees Cain’s life sevenfold, or completely. Some scholars have suggested that this is symbolic of Cain’s punishment being complete and that humans have no further part in Cain’s punishment for his sin. See Peels, “In the Sign of Cain,” 180–81. Cain was in God’s hands.

[79] “The concept of blackness (as the mark of Cain) can also be traced in ancient Jewish sources, though not directly associated with Genesis 4:15 (Genesis Rabbah) . . . with reference to the sacrifices offered by Cain and Abel to the Lord. The commentary states that Cain’s face was blackened when his offering was rejected by the Lord: ‘And Cain was very wroth (�ɲ���⾱ḥa��) and his countenance fell: [his face] became like a firebrand.’” Mellinkoff, Mark of Cain, 76. Additionally, Mellinkoff, in Mark of Cain, 23–24, notes that “body marking, however, has also been omnipresent in human history for quite another, more positive purpose—namely, to represent a cult, and thereby achieve the protection of the tribe and its god or gods,” and further that “Cain is described as marked on his forehead with a letter of the Lord’s name in the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum that was mentioned earlier where Cain’s repentance was viewed as sincere” (27–28). For the earliest Christian account of the mark on Cain’s forehead, see Mellinkoff, Mark of Cain, 31. Other theories state that the “mark of Cain” was a blemish associated with Cain’s body (leprosy, beardlessness), a movement of Cain’s body (trembling and shaking), or a mark associated with Cain’s body (brand, the mark of the cross, a horn). See the discussion in Moberly, “Mark of Cain?,” 11–28; and Bradshaw, Image and Likeness, 1:387–88.

[80] See Mellinkoff, Mark of Cain, 59. A description of Cain that recalls modern images of Bigfoot was circulated in the early Church in an account written by Abraham O. Smoot to President Joseph F. Smith (see Wilson, Life of David W. Patten, 50) and repeated in Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness, 127. Caution should be exercised in interpreting these stories and the conclusions that are drawn, as it can result in interpretations that are taken out of context or are outside the point the stories were attempting to make, adding our own conclusions where they cannot be drawn.

[81] See Moberly, in “Mark of Cain,” 14–15, for an argument that the use of the ל preposition (“to, for”) instead of על (“upon”) indicates that the mark would not be “any kind of sign upon Cain’s body.”

[82] Moberly, “Mark of Cain,” 15.

[83] Some of these theories about Cain can be traced as circulating within what would become the United States in at least as early as the 1730s. See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Race and the Priesthood.”

[84] See Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Race and the Priesthood”; Reeve, “Race, the Priesthood, and Temples”; Reeve, Religion of a Different Color; and Reeve and Wayment, “Race and the Priesthood,” 127–43.

[85] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Race and the Priesthood.”

[86] History, 1838–1856, volume C-1 [2 November 1838–31 July 1842], p. 17 [addenda], The Joseph Smith Papers.

[87] Times and Seasons, 15 August 1842, p. 889, The Joseph Smith Papers.

[88] Hinckley, “War We Are Winning,” 42.

[89] Widtsoe, Rational Theology as Taught by the Church, 85.

[90] Discourse, 5 January 1841, as Reported by William Clayton, p. 8, The Joseph Smith Papers.

[91] Draper, Brown, and Rhodes, Pearl of Great Price, 55.