Did William Branham teach Nestorianism?

This article is one in a series of studies on William Branham and Nestorianism - you are currently on the topic that is in bold:

• What did William Branham believe about the Godhead?
• Did William Branham teach Nestorianism?
• Branham and the Virgin Birth
• Serpent's Seed and Nestorianism

William Branham’s Christology, particularly in his 1963–1965 sermons, is a systematic reconstruction of Nestorianism. By splitting Christ into a "dual-person", describing His body as a temporary non-biological "tent", and rejecting His eternal sonship, Branham departed from historic Christian teachings. The ultimate consequence of this framework was the stripping of Jesus Christ's sovereign deity, reducing Him to a highly anointed, yet fundamentally separate, created vessel. This teaching is foundation of Lee Vayle's teaching on the Godhead.

History

Nestorianism is a Christological heresy that arose in the early fifth century when Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople, taught that Jesus Christ existed as a duality—containing two distinct persons (one human and one divine) operating within one body, rather than a single, integrated identity. His teachings were officially condemned at the Council of Ephesus in AD 431.

In response to these early divisions, the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 established the orthodox standard of the hypostatic union: that Jesus has two distinct, complete natures (fully divine and fully human) permanently and inseparably united in one undivided Person (hypostasis).

An analysis of William Branham’s 1963–1965 sermons reveals that he systematically reconstructed the core tenets of the Nestorian heresy. While Branham vehemently rejected the traditional Trinity, his explanations of Jesus' identity split the Savior into two distinct, alternating personal agents operating within a temporary physical body.

1. The "Dual-Person" Doctrine and Alternating Personalities

The defining characteristic of Nestorian Christology is the division of Christ into two separate personal actors. Branham explicitly adopted this "dual-subject" framework, using "dual-person" and "dual personality" terminology throughout his teachings. He taught:

• "He was a man, but He was a dual-person. One, He was a man; the Spirit in Him was God!"
• "Sometime it was Christ speaking, or it was the Son speaking. Other times it was the Father speaking. He was a dual Person. He was one man, the Son. God was in Him, which was tabernacling in Him".

To account for Jesus' earthly limitations alongside His divine miracles, Branham divided Jesus' speech and actions between these two alternating personalities. He claimed:

• "Christ seemed to be a duel personality. He would speak sometimes and they'd scratch their heads, and they didn't understand Him... What it was, was Jesus speaking, and then Christ speaking. Jesus was a man. Christ was the God that was in Him".
• "The person Jesus Christ was talking, and God was talking in Him, also. Sometimes it was Christ Himself; sometimes it was the Father that dwelt in Him".

This strict division—ascribing His human traits (like weeping or hunger) to the human "Jesus/Son" and His miracles directly to the indwelling "Christ/Father"—is a classic Nestorian concept. In stark contrast, Wayne Grudem explains that orthodox theology insists Jesus always speaks and acts as a single, undivided "I". When Christ acts, both His divine and human natures are preserved in their distinct properties, yet they act in complete personal unity.

2. Metaphors: Tabernacles, Houses, and Tents

Orthodox Christology maintains that the human and divine natures of Christ are permanently and organically united. Branham, however, favored metaphors that treated Jesus' humanity merely as a physical container, vessel, or instrument inhabited by an entirely separate divine Spirit. In his sermons, he described Jesus as:

• "a man, a house that God dwelt in" and "just a tabernacle for Him to live in".
• "God dwelt in a tent called Jesus Christ. He just pitched His tent with us".
• "He was the Tabernacle which God lived in, born a virgin birth, and was in this Tabernacle of His Son, manifesting, showing, expressing Himself to the world".

By framing the Incarnation as God temporarily "stepping into" a pre-fabricated human shell, Branham conceptually separated Christ's humanity from His divinity. Rather than a true hypostatic union, Jesus' body becomes an outer instrument or "suit of clothes" worn by God.

3. Rejection of Mary as Theotokos (Mother of God)

The historical Nestorian controversy was ignited when Nestorius, who was appointed Bishop of Constantinople in A.D. 428, opposed using the term Theotokos ("Mother of God" or "God-bearer") for Mary, arguing that she only gave birth to Christ's human nature, not His divine nature. While he correclty opposed the term "Theotokos," his opposition resulted in his incorrect teaching that Mary gave birth to a man who was accompanied by the Logos. Nestorianism, therefore, seeking to do justice to the true humanity of Christ, failed to do justice to the unity of His person and to the union of the Logos with a human nature in Christ.

Branham echoed this exact Nestorian objection, stating:

• "'Mary, mother of God'? ... There's not one time in the Bible where Jesus ever called Mary His mother. She wasn't His mother. How could she be a mother of God? She was only a womb that He used to come to the earth".
• "Mary wasn't even the mother of Jesus, let alone being the mother of God... She was just a borrowed womb that God used. No more than any other woman".

But in order to thoroughly detach Jesus' divine identity from Mary, Branham reduced her role to that of a non-biological "incubator". He claimed that Jesus shared no biological or genetic connection with her, asserting that God created both the egg and the blood cell in Mary's womb to bypass human sex desire completely:

• "she was a woman that... God just chose that woman... and overshadowed her with the Holy Ghost, and created a body in her by His own creation. She had no sperm to it at all".
• "There was no sperm come from Mary. It was altogether created virgin by God. The Holy Ghost overshadowed her. That's the reason Jesus couldn't call her mother. He was no part of her—nothing".
• "She's not no mother of God; she was an incubator which God used".

While orthodox theology preserves Christ's full humanity by insisting He physically descended from Abraham and David through Mary, Branham's "incubator" doctrine severs Him from human biology. This views Jesus' body as a completely new, isolated creation, which mirrors not only Nestorianism but also Docetic tendencies (denying Christ's true human nature).

4. Rejection of "Eternal Sonship"

Main Article: Eternal Sonship

To protect the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father, orthodox theology emphasizes the eternal nature of the Son. Branham, however, vehemently rejected this doctrine:

• "Now, I do not believe in eternal sonship. That's even radical to even mention such a thing, eternal sonship. How... He had a eternal sonship...?... way, it's even eternal sonship, how could He be a Son? He had to have a beginning".
• "anything that's a son had a beginning, and eternal has no beginning. So it isn't eternal Sonship".
• "The word 'son' has to have a beginning. So how can He be eternal, and be a son? ... there is no such a thing as an eternal son. A son had a beginning, so he can't be eternal. You see, He is the eternal God, not the eternal son".

By claiming that Jesus as the "Son" had a temporal beginning and was a created entity, Branham's Christology blended Arian elements (the belief that the Son was a created, subordinate being) into His Nestorian duality

5. Theological Consequences: The Arian-Nestorian Conclusions of Vaylism

When Jesus' human body is treated as a non-biological "tent" and His divine identity is separated from His human identity, the sovereign deity of Christ inevitably collapses. This logical outworking became apparent in the teachings of Branham's primary theological editor, Lee Vayle, who took Branham's dual-person and Arian-leaning doctrines to their logical conclusion - the denial of the deity of Jesus Christ and the rejection of the incarnation. Here are a few quotes by Lee Vayle that clearly demonstrate the heretical nature of his teaching:

...the church has made the great mistake in making Jesus equal to God — which he is in a certain way — but he’s not God. He’s not Deity. I’m sorry, but he’s not, because God is not in him. No way. What God was in him is not Deity, same as what God is in you is not Deity, concerning Deity Himself, which is Sovereign God and Creator and Maintainer.

Now with the subject of sovereignty, what I wanted to do was to bring to you the understanding that Jesus is not Deity. When Bro. Branham said, “He’s God, but he’s not God,” in our minds we placed that with the incarnation, and that is true. But, when you realize that in the incarnation, which is to come, when that Spirit that’s in our midst, and that’s the Spirit of God, He will become incarnate to us again.

...

We’re going to talk about, as I said, in the fact of sovereignty, Jesus cannot be Deity. Now Jesus can’t be Deity when we consider true Deity.

...

Jesus definitely is not God. He is the Son of God. And his form, as I’ve mentioned already, Bro. Branham said, “The only difference between God and His Son is that sons have beginnings.”

What do you mean, “sons have beginnings?” Well, sons are procreated. The thought of having a son does not give anybody the ability to create one. The substance must be there in order to be passed on to that person, to bring that person in the likeness of the progenitor.

So, Jesus was the Son of God, which he was. That life had to be already there, and that life simply had to be passed on in a mold, and that mold would have to be what was ever within the intrinsicality and essentiality of Almighty God. That’s why Jesus was the image of God. And that’s why, when God said, “Let us make man in our image,” it was made in the image of Jesus, and it came out a man. That’s why Bro. Branham said, “God was the first man; Jesus, the second; and Adam, the third,” because God comes in threes. What for? Not as persons: one, two, three gods, but in God doing what He did to bring forth Himself through children. As it is said by people, “Men and women achieve a certain immortality by having children.” But, if the line suddenly dies, the immortality is gone.

So, Jesus can’t be Deity, when we consider true Deity. He is the Son of Deity, Son of God, and since elevated by God, he is worthy of worship, but not as God is worshipped. He can’t be. It is wise to regard Jesus, Son of God, in the light of Hebrews, as written by Paul, and glorifying God for His wisdom and power, for so setting us all in divine order.

...

And, how was he equal with God? Because he was the First-begotten Son of God. So therefore, positively, he was equal in the inheritance, because it split the kingdom right down the middle. But God didn’t split Himself down the middle. God didn’t split His sovereignty down the middle. He had an equality, the same as Bro. Branham says, “Satan was one time equal with God and led in the worship.”

Was he equal with God as per Godhead? Oh, don’t be ridiculous. Was he equal, then, in the majesty and the glory and the power? Don’t be ridiculous. He had to be a controller of some description, as the great CEOs are of all the money you’ve got invested in stock, and they act as though it were their own, with their golden parachutes, and their divvying up, and their perks, and God knows what.

...

Now again, in Jn 14:6 - I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (So, he’s not the Father, and he’s not God. “There’s one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” [1 Tim 2:5])

And It places it right there that Jesus is not God. See? I’ll tell you: I believe calling Jesus ‘Deity’, which we’ve had people here do that, is an entire misunderstanding or no understanding of Seed: that God is the Father, the Progenitor, the Author, the All in all of a race of His Own children, genetically, legitimately, spiritually, physically, every single way. God is not our Creator; He is our Father; He is our Source; He is our Progenitor. Call it what you want. Out of the Great Fountain, God, came every one of His sons, and nothing else came from that Lifeline, because the Bible says, “In him was life.”

Jesus is not deity, but He was the fullness of the Godhead as deity, which is godhead was within Him, which is a person, two persons in one body of flesh.

Nestorianism in Vayle's followers

Brian Kocourek, a follower of Lee Vayle, stated the following:

Now, Brother Branham is letting us know that God and Jesus were one in that God was indwelling the Body of His Son. But I also want to show you that this Oneness between God and His Son was more than just God indwelling His Son, the fact is that Jesus and God were one because God is the Word and Jesus manifested that Word in the same sense that God was One with His Own Word.

...And that is how God and Jesus are one. The Father is the Word, and when he is doing in His Word, He shows the son what he is doing, and the son sees God in vision doing (whatever it may be), and he then steps into the vision so to speak (the hat has to be on the chair for him to do it, if you recall how brother Branham told us that all the pieces have to be set up in order for him to step into the vision. You just can’t go do until all the pieces are ready) then he would step into the scene and act out in this dimension what he had seen in that other dimension.

...it really comes right down to not believing in incarnation. And I think it is strange that both the Jew and Moslem can believe that a man can be inhabited by evil spirits, or the devil himself, but they deny that God inhabited a man called Jesus His son. And to me they give more power to the devil than they give to God when they believe like that.

Quotes of William Branham

Here are a few quotes that clearly demonstrate the Nestorian leanings within William Branham's teachings:

When He was—last cry, "Eli, Eli. My God, My God," That was a man. "Why hast Thou forsaken Me?" In the garden of Gethsemane, the anointing left Him, you know, He had to die as a sinner. He died a sinner, you know that; not His sins, but mine and yours. That's where that love come in, how He took mine. Oh, hallelujah, how He took mine.

The Spirit left Him, in the garden of Gethsemane. He had to die, a man. Remember, friends, He didn't have to do that. That was God. God anointed that flesh, which was human flesh. And He didn't… If He'd have went up there, as God, He'd have never died that kind of death; can't kill God. But He didn't have to do it. But, remember, He went there with you in Him. See, God had never separated the Bride from the Groom, yet. So when God looked down upon the body of Christ, He saw both male and female. It was all redeemed in that one body. See? They are one, same, same Word. The same Word, spoke of the Groom, speaks of the Bride.

Now, how many knows that Christ is the Spirit of God? We all know that. He's the anointed One. Jesus was the anointed. There's where people who believe that there's three or four different Gods, get all mixed up. See? God is a Spirit. Jesus was the body that the Spirit of God dwelled in, made Him Emmanuel, God, tabernacled on earth. He was God. Jesus Christ was God, yet He was the Son of God. His flesh was the Son of God 'cause God created it, but inside He was God. "It's not Me," said Jesus, "does the works, it's My Father that dwelleth in Me. And that day you'll know that I'm in the Father, the Father in Me, I in you, and you in Me."

At the day of the baptism, when He received the Holy Ghost on the day when John baptized Him, John said, "I beheld and saw the Spirit of God like a Dove descending from heaven, and a Voice saying, 'This is My beloved Son in Whom I'm pleased to dwell in.'" Jesus said that God was with Him, "I and My Father are One. My Father dwells in Me." Not Jesus, and being one with God; but Je—God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. 143 And you Oneness brethren, many of you get off the wrong track when you try to think that God is one like your finger is one. He can't be His Own Father. He can't be. But He is God. God is Jehovah, the Spirit; Christ was the House that He dwelt in.

That's the reason people couldn't understand Him. Sometime it was Christ speaking… or was the Son speaking. Other times it was the Father speaking. He was a dual Person. He was one Man, the Son. God was in him, which was tabernacling in Him. But what did He do? Did He go around saying, "I'm the Healer." Very contrary, He said, "I'm not the Healer." He said, "It isn't Me that doth the works; it's My Father that dwelleth in Me." And in Saint John the 19th chapter when He was questioned for pasting a whole bunch of crippled, lame, withered, halt, blind people, healed one man laying on a pallet, the Father showed Him to go there and heal. Walked away and left the rest of them laying there, they questioned Him. A man packing his bed on the sabbath. Listen to what He said. Saint John 5:19: "Verily, verily, I say unto you: The Son can do nothing in Himself, but what he sees the Father doing, that doth the Son likewise." Is that what He said? "I do nothing till the Father shows Me a vision first what to do."

"He was more than… God was in Him. He was a man, but He was a—a dual Person. One, He was a man; the Spirit in Him was God." I said, "God was in Christ." She said, "Aw, no." I said, "Look, lady, I'll take your own Scripture. He was a man, but He was a God-man. When He went down to the grave of Lazarus, He did weep like a man. That's true. But when He stood there, straightened His little stooped shoulders up, and said, 'Lazarus, come forth,' and a dead man, that'd been dead four days come to life. That was more than a man. Man couldn't do that. That was God in His Son."

Navigation

Home Our Podcast The List of Problems Life Story Prophecies & Visions Seven Seals Was William Branham Honest? Doctrines

Church Ages Jesus Languages Videos Print Resources Help! Facebook Contact Us