by Trey Searcy
"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." (Genesis
Did the mark of Cain have anything to do with skin color?
No, the mark of Cain had nothing to do with skin color as some suppose. That
theory is man-centered and devoid of truth.
The mark of Cain has troubled many for hundreds of years. Ministers have used
the pulpit, radio, television, the world wide web, etc... as a vehicle for
delivering a great mass of confusion concerning various Bible subjects. Instead of
being a 2 Timothy 2:15 "workman" who carefully examines the scriptures, some
choose to be lazy and simply speculate. But as history has so often shown,
man+speculation=disaster. There is no need for speculation when we just believe the
Bible. When we compare scripture with scripture and rightly divide the word of
truth, there is no need for personal conjecture. -Just let God say what He says to
whom He says it.
In Leviticus 19:28, speaking to Israel, the LORD said: "Ye shall not make any
cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the
Did you catch that? Does "marks upon you" look familiar? Compare that with "And
the LORD set a mark upon Cain," and connect the dots.
Leviticus identifies the mark as being a "print". Therefore, if we compare
scripture with scripture, the "mark upon Cain" reveals itself as a "print" of some
sort. It would have been a visible "print" upon the flesh of Cain, "a mark upon
Cain" and not a complete change in skin color.
Some have speculated that God cursed Cain by changing his skin from white to
black (as if it were white to begin with), even though there is not a single
strand of evidence to support this. It is merely assumption, and one
that cannot be confirmed or sustained by facts.
While a sincere Bible student can find several references where God
turned someone's skin white, what they cannot find is even ONE reference of
where He turned someone's skin black.
Same goes for hair. God also turned "black hair" to blonde, and thick hair to
Leviticus 13:30 Then the priest shall see the plague: and, behold, if it be in
sight deeper than the skin; and there be in it a yellow thin hair; then the priest
shall pronounce him unclean: it is a dry scall, even a leprosy upon the head or
31 And if the priest look on the plague of the scall, and, behold, it be not in
sight deeper than the skin, and that there is no black hair in it; then the priest
shall shut up him that hath the plague of the scall seven days:
32 And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the plague: and, behold, if
the scall spread not, and there be in it no yellow hair, and the scall be not in
sight deeper than the skin;
36 Then the priest shall look on him: and, behold, if the scall be spread in the
skin, the priest shall not seek for yellow hair; he is unclean.
37 But if the scall be in his sight at a stay, and that there is black hair
grown up therein; the scall is healed, he is clean: and the priest shall pronounce
When we allow the Bible (not man) to be our final authority, it becomes
obvious that if God would have changed Cain's skin color, He would have changed it
to white. However, the truth still remains, there is simply no evidence to support
that Cain's mark had anything to do with skin color. The evidence dictates that it
was clearly a "mark upon" the skin, and not a color change. Some act as though God
had a communication problem and was not capable of being a clear articulator.
God did not turn Cain's skin black, nor did he turn it white, like He did to
Moses, Naaman, Elisha's servant Gehazi, Jeroboam king of Israel, and king Uzziah
(Exodus 4:6, 2 Kings 5:1, 2 Kings 5:27, 2 Kings 15:5, 2 Chorinicles 26:21).
Conclusion: If God would have changed the color of Cain's skin, He would have
simply said so, just as He did all the other times.
Remember, you only get two educations,
the one you're given, and the one you give yourself.