Jump to content

The Serpent's Seed: Difference between revisions

The Serpent's Seed (view source)

Revision as of 04:01, 18 September 2019

28,782 bytes added ,  4 years ago
→‎The problem with sinful genes
(43 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{| style="width:800px"
|
[[File:SSicon.jpg|thumb|right]]
[[File:SSicon.jpg|thumb|right]]


Line 9: Line 6:


#The original sin in the Garden of Eden was not eating a fruit, it was a sexual sin;
#The original sin in the Garden of Eden was not eating a fruit, it was a sexual sin;
#Eve's sin was not mere disobedience but rather that she had sexual intercourse with the serpent;
#Eve's sin was not disobedience, but sexual intercourse;
#The serpent was an upright beast, effectively the "missing link";
#The serpent was an upright beast, effectively the "missing link";
#Cain and Abel were maternal non-identical twins:
#Cain and Abel were maternal non-identical twins:
Line 15: Line 12:
##Abel was the son of Eve and Adam.
##Abel was the son of Eve and Adam.


The serpent's seed doctrine is based on a few scriptures that can be used in isolation to support a position that is not supportable when viewed in the context of ALL scripture.<br>
<br>
=Which scriptures do you reject?=
=Which scriptures do you reject?=


Line 28: Line 27:


:''And '''He made from one [common origin, one source, one blood] all nations of men''' to settle on the face of the earth, having definitely determined [their] allotted periods of time and the fixed boundaries of their habitation (their settlements, lands, and abodes)... <ref> Acts 17:26 (Amplified Bible, Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation</ref>
:''And '''He made from one [common origin, one source, one blood] all nations of men''' to settle on the face of the earth, having definitely determined [their] allotted periods of time and the fixed boundaries of their habitation (their settlements, lands, and abodes)... <ref> Acts 17:26 (Amplified Bible, Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation</ref>
:'''''From one man''' he made '''every nation living on the entire surface of the eart'''h, and he fixed the limits of their territories and the periods when they would flourish.<ref>David H. Stern, Complete Jewish Bible: An English Version of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and B’rit Hadashah (New Testament), 1st ed. (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1998), Ac 17:26.</ref>


The Serpent seed doctrine requires that a person reject Acts 17:26 because it requires the belief that the serpent injected his blood into the human race.  That's 2 bloods, not one.  That's two origins not one, and two sources, not one.
The Serpent seed doctrine requires that a person reject Acts 17:26 because it requires the belief that the serpent injected his blood into the human race.  That's 2 bloods, not one.  That's two origins not one, and two sources, not one.
Line 58: Line 59:


:''“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...”<ref>2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)</ref>
:''“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...”<ref>2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)</ref>
Here are a few of the traps:


==Whose was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?==
==Whose was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?==
Line 90: Line 93:


If Eve committed adultery, don't you think that the Bible would have just come out and said it?
If Eve committed adultery, don't you think that the Bible would have just come out and said it?
==What about the other trees?==
The Bible states:
:'' The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
:''He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ge 2:15–17, 3:1–7</ref>
What are we supposed to think about the conversation with the serpent in which he asked Eve whether all the trees were off limits and she replied that they were all allowed to be eaten from except That one?
That they could have sex with every animal except the serpent? Or touch every part of the body except the sex organs?  Really?


==And Adam watched his wife and the serpent have sex?==
==And Adam watched his wife and the serpent have sex?==
Line 122: Line 137:


Again, Genesis 4:1 is clear that Adam is Cain’s father. If you read all of Genesis 4, the rest of Cain’s genealogy is there. This is another belief that makes you deny a portion of scripture.
Again, Genesis 4:1 is clear that Adam is Cain’s father. If you read all of Genesis 4, the rest of Cain’s genealogy is there. This is another belief that makes you deny a portion of scripture.
==William Branham's KKK connection==
[http://en.believethesign.com/index.php/Roy_Davis#Roy_Davis_and_the_KKK Roy E. Davis] was William Branham's first pastor.  He was also a member of the KKK.  One of the doctrines of the KKK is Serpent Seed.  It justified racial hatred and abuse, as well as the oppression of women.  William Branham learned this doctrine from Roy Davis, and it was enforced in his family by his mother-in-law.
==How did the seed of the serpent get through the flood?==
William Branham taught that Ham was of the seed of the serpent:
:''For instance, many of them, like how that formal religion began in Cain. How it come on out and '''come down through the sons of Noah, Ham.''' Out of Ham, he had Nimrod. Nimrod built the tower of Babel. Babel comes on down through King Nebuchadnezzar’s time, and on out into Revelation, Babylon. '''How that little seed started way back there at the east side of the gates of Eden''', coming on down, winding out. All kinds of cults and everything started back there, winding themselves out to the end.<ref>William Branham, 53-0328 - Israel And The Church #4, para. 24</ref>
:''Now, the church, the—the nominal believers like Lot, he’s going through the tribulation period (see?) and be saved as if it was by fire. Noah went through the tribulation period, carried above it, come out with '''Ham who polluted the earth again.''' See? Lot came out, his own daughters slept with him, and had children by his own daughters. See? But Abraham brought forth the Royal Seed, brought forth the Seed of the promise. Enoch went to glory in the rapture, just took a walk and went home. He never went through the tribulation period. You see?<ref>William Branham, 64-0823E - Questions And Answers #2, para. 230</ref>
 
But this makes no sense!  If Shem, Ham and Jspheth were brothers of the same mother and father, how could Ham be of the wicked one?


=Logic Problems=
=Logic Problems=


There are quite a few logical problems when it comes to accepting the the Serpent’s Seed doctrine teachings. There are no rules when it comes to interpreting scripture, so they interpret whatever they want, however they want.
There are quite a few logical problems when it comes to accepting the the Serpent’s Seed doctrine teachings. There are no rules when it comes to interpreting scripture, so they interpret whatever they want, however they want.
==Nothing's real?==
If the tree of good and evil was an act and not an actual tree, why did God place the angel to guard the garden of Eden so that Adam and Eve wouldn't touch the tree of life?
Would that not have been a spiritual act or revelation also?


==The problem with sinful genes==
==The problem with sinful genes==


The Serpent’s Seed doctrine teaches that the serpent passed his sinful genes down to Cain, which is why he murdered Abel. But the Bible states:  
The Serpent’s Seed doctrine teaches that the serpent passed his sinful genes down to Cain, which is why he murdered Abel. But the Bible states in Romans 5:19:  


:''For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.<ref>Romans 5:19 (ESV)</ref>
:''For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.<ref>Romans 5:19 (ESV)</ref>
Line 142: Line 176:


These are some of the strange places that this doctrine leads!
These are some of the strange places that this doctrine leads!
==Proverbs 30:20==
The Bible states that:
:''Such is the way of an adulterous woman;
:''She eateth, and wipeth her mouth,
:''And saith, I have done no wickedness.<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Pr 30:20.</ref>
Message preachers use this scripture to justify the serpent's seed doctrine by saying that the sexual act is likened to the eating of a fruit.
Unfortunately, there are a couple of problems with this rationale:
#There is NO direct reference to the eating of a fruit and, in particular, the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  What the author of Proverbs has done in the passage is to associate behavior that is out of bounds with eating; depicting a sexual appetite that knows no restraint.  In Proverbs 30:14, the act of eating is associated with the persecution of the poor and needy.  The fact is that the author of the book of Proverbs uses the metaphor of eating in other situations and not solely to depict the sexual act.<ref>Paul E. Koptak, Proverbs, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 661.</ref>
#Wiping her mouth after eating means that the adulteress treats sexual liaisons the same way she does eating: she just finishes up and goes home without a care and certainly without a sense of guilt.<ref>Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 14, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 241.</ref>  Again, the author uses the metaphor of eating to illustrate the woman's attitude and not to make a statement about sex being like eating.
#The whole point of the metaphor is to illustrate the way that this woman thinks of her sin.  People look at adultery and state, "That is a terrible thing" and ask, "How can she live with herself?"  Yet for her it is no big deal. Yes, the first time she did it, it was probably quite something but no longer. Her conscience has been seared.<ref>Gary Brady, Heavenly Wisdom: Proverbs Simply Explained, Welwyn Commentary Series (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2003), 783.</ref>
#There are other metaphors of eating in the Book of Proverbs that have nothing to do with sex:
:::''...therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way, and have their fill of their own devices.<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Pr 1:31.</ref>
:::''A man shall eat good by the fruit of his mouth: But the soul of the transgressors shall eat violence.<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Pr 13:2.</ref>
:::''She looks well to the ways of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Pr 31:27.</ref>
Based on the above, using Proverbs 30:20 to justify Serpent's Seed is [[Eisegesis|eisegesis]] (which is a common method of interpreting scripture in message circles) and not exegesis<ref>[[Eisigisis]] is the act of reading an understanding, or an opinion into a biblical text, which may or may not be supported or evident by the text itself - in accordance with the person’s own presuppositions, agendas, and/or biases. This is the opposite of exegesis, which means to derive the meaning ‘out of’ the text.</ref>.
==How could the fruit of the tree be sex with Eve when the tree preceded her?==
If the fruit of the tree represented a sexual act with Eve, then how could it have existed before Eve did?  It just doesn't make sense.
:''Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [n]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”<ref>Genesis 2:15-16 (KJV)</ref>
==Why wasn't Jesus born of sex?==
A message follower asked the following question: '''Why wasn't Jesus born of sex?'''
The reason for asking this question is that message followers think it gives validity to the arguments for the doctrine of the serpent's seed.  But this simply isn't true.
The best response to this question, when posed by a message follower, is simply the following question: '''Who was the father of Jesus?'''
Since God the Father does not have a body, how could he have possibly had sex with a woman?  It seems logical that if an infinite spiritual being wanted to come to earth as a baby he would simply create a body in the womb of a woman.  It is significant that qualities such as those attributed to the Greek gods (like sexuality) are not ascribed to God in the Bible.<ref>Willem VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 1010.</ref>


=Eve was an after-thought?=
=Eve was an after-thought?=
Line 148: Line 223:


=Was the tree of knowledge a fruit tree or something else?=
=Was the tree of knowledge a fruit tree or something else?=
Genesis 3:6 states


:''So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food...<ref>Genesis 3:6 (ESV)</ref>
:''So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food...<ref>Genesis 3:6 (ESV)</ref>
Line 158: Line 235:


:''The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her.<ref>Tyndale House Publishers, Holy Bible: New Living Translation, 3rd ed., Gen 3:6 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2007).</ref>
:''The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her.<ref>Tyndale House Publishers, Holy Bible: New Living Translation, 3rd ed., Gen 3:6 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2007).</ref>
==Why was the ground cursed?==
We are asked by message followers the following question: '''If adultery wasn't the original sin, why do you believe God cursed Eve in childbearing specifically?'''
But a similar question could be asked with respect to Adam which is equally as relevant: '''If eating a literal fruit was not the original sin, why was the ground cursed for Adam's sake and why did the ground bear thorns and thistles for him, making it difficult to till the soil?'''
:''To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
::“Cursed is the ground because of you;
::through painful toil you will eat food from it
::all the days of your life.
::It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
::and you will eat the plants of the field.
::By the sweat of your brow
::you will eat your food
::until you return to the ground,
::since from it you were taken;
::for dust you are
::and to dust you will return.”''<ref>The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Ge 3:17–19.</ref>


=Cain was of the wicked one?=
=Cain was of the wicked one?=
Line 186: Line 283:


:''“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.” – 2 Timothy 3:1-8
:''“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.” – 2 Timothy 3:1-8
=Watch out for the lie!=
A number of Serpent Seed believers end up mocking any idea that man fell "simply" for taking and eating of the fruit of the tree, resorting to the apologetics of embarrassment - '''"Are you serious? You believe that??"'''
What they are in essence asking - what William Branham in essence taught - was, '''"Did God ''really'' say that?"''' Following the question with the declaration, "God really didn't say that."
It has an all too familiar ring to it... doesn't it?
The challenge followed by the lie.
This is a spiritual war, and the one behind the serpent seed lie is the devil, who became the father of all lies in that garden moment, with the planting of the "unseed", the lie that produced death for the first time in the history of the universe.  He is the one with the audacity to snuggle up next to the truth and tell you the truth is the lie and the lie is the truth.
'''He's been doing it from the beginning.'''


=The Jews taught the Serpent's Seed doctrine=
=The Jews taught the Serpent's Seed doctrine=
Line 204: Line 315:
Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: a Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2005), 740–741.</ref>
Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: a Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2005), 740–741.</ref>


=References=
=Are you a woman who believes the Serpent' Seed doctrine?=
 
If you are a woman who believes the serpent seed doctrine, there are a few extra statements by William Branham that should concern you. 
 
==Did Adam and Eve wear clothes before the fall?==
 
First, William Branham taught that Eve had clothes in the Garden of Eden before the fall.
:''Now notice, it was Eve that led Adam to the wrong, and it was the woman that took off her clothes before her Adam took off his. See?'' <ref> William Branham, August 29, 1965, Satan’s Eden </ref>
 
==Was Eve actually the tree and not Satan or the serpent?==
 
Second, William Branham mentioned a number of times that Eve was the Tree of Death.  This means that the serpent was simply the "can opener" that Satan used to loose his perverted creation, Eve the tree, on innocent Adam. 
 
:''If Life come by Man, death come by the woman. All right, she was the tree of death.’’ <ref> William Branham, December 5, 1960, The Ephesian Church Age </ref>
 
:''Now you can probably well understand what I've been hitting at. By her beauty and her  sex  control, her shape that was given to her by Satan, the by-product that Satan did, she is sent to deceive sons of God. And she can sway more of them to hell than any other instrument Satan has got. That's exactly right.'' <ref> William Branham, February, 21, 1965, Marriage and Divorce </ref>
 
:''"Oh," you say, "she was a tree?" Sure. "Well, they said, 'Thou shall not take of this tree.' God said, in Genesis back there, 'Thou shall not take of this tree.'" Well the woman is the tree. She is the  fruit  tree. You're the  fruit  of your mother. The  fruit  of the womb is you. That's right. And then the  fruit  of the Tree of Life, that was in the garden of Eden, is Christ. Through the woman come death;'' <ref> William Branham, February, 21, 1965, Marriage and Divorce </ref>
 
:''Eve, is Satan's queen. See, Satan, the serpent, got to Eve before Adam got to her. See? That's right. So he beguiled her, see; so Satan, the serpent, was the husband of Eve before Adam ever knew.  <ref> William Branham, August 29, 1965, Satan’s Eden </ref>
 
:''The other  tree  is definitely Satan because of what came forth of the  fruit  of that  tree  . Now then, we know that both of those trees had a relationship to man or they would never have been placed there.’’ <ref> The Ephesian Church Age Book, William Branham </ref>
 
So if you are a woman, and you believe William Branham, you are a tree of death.
 
Thankfully, the power of this false doctrine is obliterated by the words of the Apostle Paul, who wrote:
 
:''There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.'' (Galatians 3: 28)
 
=What about Eve being the mother of all living?=
 
Message followers often point to Genesis 3:20 in support of the Serpent's Seed doctrine:
 
:''And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ge 3:20.</ref>
 
The argument  is that Eve is called the mother of all living but Adam is not called the father of all living, thereby allowing for the existence of the seed of the serpent in humanity.  '''Is this what the passage is really saying?'''
 
The place to begin in attempting to understand this verse is with the fact that “Eve” was Adam’s name for his wife and not God’s name for Adam’s wife. We are so used to speaking of Adam and Eve that we generally fail to notice that not once in the story of the creation and the fall, up to this point, has Adam’s wife been called Eve. She has been called a “female” (Gen. 1:27), a “helper suitable” for Adam (Gen. 2:18), a “woman” (Gen. 2:22, 23), a “wife” (Gen. 2:24, 25; 3:8). But those are all descriptive or generic terms, not names. We do not find the name “Eve.”
 
This does not mean that God did not name the woman, however. He did.
 
But the name God gave her is not found in these chapters. It is found in Genesis chapter 5. There, in verses 1 and 2, we read, “When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them ‘man’ [or ‘Adam,’ because ‘Adam’ means man].” In other words, the name that God gave the woman was “man” or “Adam,” which was the name of her husband.
 
God called the woman “Adam.” But that immediately raises the question, “Why, if God called Eve ‘Adam,’ did Adam call Eve ‘Eve’?” The answer is not that Adam was contradicting God or changing the name of his wife on his own authority. Her name remained “Adam.” What Adam was actually doing was giving Eve a title. For “Eve” is a title; it means “life” in the sense of being a “life-giver.” We would say “mother.” The text says, “Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.”
 
It is sometimes the case in studying the Bible that the solution to one problem introduces another—that is what makes the study of the Bible so fascinating—and that is precisely what happens here. Yet it is at this point that we really come to the heart of the text. The problem is that, although Adam called his wife’s name Eve, meaning “life-giver” or “mother,” Eve was not a mother. In fact, if we read this and the next chapter closely, we have reason to believe that she had not even conceived. Her first child was Cain, and we are told not only of the birth but also the conception of Cain in Genesis chapter 4: “Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain” (Gen. 4:1). '''So we ask: Why did Adam name his wife “mother” when she was not yet a mother and, in fact, had not even become pregnant?'''
 
There is only one answer to that question, and it comes from the context. Five verses before this Adam and Eve had heard the judgment of God against Satan in which God said, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (Gen. 3:15). This verse mentioned the woman’s offspring and said flatly that her seed would crush the head of Satan.
 
God had said that the punishment for eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was death. Adam and Eve had seen the judgment of God against Satan. Satan had appeared to them in the guise of the serpent, which was most assuredly not the slithering, lowly creature we know as a snake today. The Hebrew word translated “serpent” in Genesis 3:1 is nachash, which in its early and primary use probably meant “a shining one” (Gesenius). The serpent stood upright and was perhaps the most glorious of all God’s creatures. Suddenly, however, Adam and Eve heard God’s judgment on Satan and saw this beautiful animal turn into a snake and slide away into the bushes. They must have been paralyzed with fear. They had seen the serpent’s judgment, and they were next. What would God do to them? Would they become snakes also? Would they die?
 
As they thought about this and heard the greatly reduced words of the judgment of God on themselves, the deliberately hopeful words contained in God’s reference to the woman’s offspring must have gotten through. The fact that Eve would have offspring was itself significant. Since she had not yet given birth it meant that she would not die physically, at least not then. Since she had not yet conceived it meant that Adam would not die either (the conception of Cain comes in Genesis 4:1). Moreover, there was the nature of the one to come. He would be a deliverer. He would crush the head of Satan. This was their hope. God had said that Eve would give birth to one who in some manner would be the deliverer. So when Adam named his wife Eve, mother, she not even being pregnant, it was an act of faith, by which he testified to his belief that God would keep his promise and that the deliverer would come.
 
Genesis 3:20 is not the only place in Genesis that would lead us to think this way. When Eve finally conceived (Gen. 4:1) and brought forth Cain, both she and Adam thought that he was the deliverer. They thought Cain was Jesus, which is why they named him “Cain,” meaning “brought forth” or “acquired.” In colloquial language we would say, “I’ve got him” or “Here he is.” Indeed, when we get to chapter 4, I am going to show that Eve’s words were even stronger than this. For she did not merely say, “I have brought forth [there is the meaning of ‘Cain’] a man,” that is, the man who was promised. She said (so I believe), “I have brought forth a man, even Jehovah [the ‘Redeemer’].”
 
We know, of course, that Eve and Adam were mistaken. They thought they had brought forth the deliverer when actually they had brought forth a murderer, for Cain killed his brother Abel. But up to this point their perceptions were right. God had promised a deliverer, and they believed him, showing their belief by the naming of Eve by Adam and Cain by Eve. By this they showed that they were staking their hope on the word of God.<ref>James Montgomery Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 228–233.</ref>
 
'''So the argument of message followers is false.'''  Genesis 3:20 does not support the argument that there is special significant in Eve being called the mother of all living but Adam not being called the father of all living,  They miss the true meaning of the passage because they read it with a presupposed meaning in view and not the actual words of the passage.
 
=Who was the seed of the woman?=
 
''The LORD God said to the serpent,
 
:''“Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ge 3:14–15.</ref>
 
Imagine a group of people, a family, and into the midst of them comes slithering as fast as it can (and you know how fast they can come) a snake, a venomous snake, a poisonous snake, coming right at them. One man goes after the snake, and he begins to stomp on it. Finally he crushes the head and saves the family, but only after, in the process, the snake bites him, the poison goes into him, and he dies. That’s the picture.
 
What God is saying is - the serpent is not just a snake but is Satan. It represents evil. God is saying that an offspring of Eve, the seed of the woman, a human being, is going to destroy sin and death itself but get a fatal wound in the process. A human being is going to come, and he’s going to destroy sin and death, and in the process lose his life. I wonder who that could be...
 
The first Adam should have done something like that, not just stood there and let the Serpent destroy his family. The first Adam should have jumped on the snake or stomped on the snake or whatever. But the second Adam will. It’s Jesus Christ. Keep this in mind. In Romans 4 Paul says, “In Christ your sins are covered.” In Romans 4 Paul says, “Blessed is the one whose sin is covered. Blessed is the one to whom God does not impute sin.”
 
In the whole history of the world, there was only one human being that was only an offspring of a woman.
 
:''Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Is 7:14.</ref>
 
This is the prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ, and what Jesus Christ is going to do is he is going to destroy all the works of the Serpent.
 
If you go to Revelation 12, where it talks about the Serpent, the Dragon, Satan, and his seed, and the woman and her seed, God is not saying, “From now on, snakes and people will hate each other.” That’s not what he’s saying. “This is how the serpent lost his legs and why snakes and people hate each other.” No.
 
What it’s talking about is the human race will have only two kinds of people in it. There will be people who follow Satan’s advice in the garden and there will be people who follow the Lord. When it says here, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and hers,” that can’t mean it’s putting hatred in the snake. The snake already hates the woman. It can’t mean it’s putting hatred and enmity in the children of the snake, the followers of the snake, because they already hate God.
 
What is it saying? The first step of salvation is when God puts in you a hatred for Satan and all his ways. You only begin to move out of moralism and legalism, where you just hate the consequences of bad behavior but you’re afraid and proud, and you move into the position where you actually begin to hate sin.<ref>Timothy J. Keller, The Timothy Keller Sermon Archive (New York City: Redeemer Presbyterian Church, 2013).</ref>
 
==Interpretive issues==
 
The divinely ordained hostility that takes place between the serpent’s seed and the seed of the woman. In the vast majority of cases where the Hebrew word "zeraʿ" (lit., “seed”) is used, it refers to an immediate offspring rather than a distant descendant. For example, Seth is Eve’s “other seed” (Genesis 4:25); Abram laments that he is still without seed (Genesis 15:3); Lot’s daughters want to bear their father’s seed (Genesis 19:32, 34); Ishmael is Abraham’s seed (Genesis 21:13); Samuel is Hannah’s seed (1 Sam. 1:11; 2:20); Solomon is David’s seed (2 Sam. 7:12). This observation alone should caution us about seeing too quickly a clear-cut reference here to some remote individual.
 
Similarly, one should not force an interpretation on her offspring that the expression cannot bear. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew word "zarʿāh" (lit., “her seed”) as spérmatos autḗs (lit., “her seed”).  Bbt to read the Septuagint as “her sperm” in order to see a hint here of the virgin birth of this seed (the absence of a sperm-supplying father) is farfetched indeed. If for no other reason, Gen. 4:25 would invalidate that proposal, for here Eve says that God has given her “another seed,” and certainly Seth was not born of a virgin!
 
However, Genesis 3:15 is good news as the words of God to the woman and the man include expressions both of divine grace and of divine judgment. Yes, there will be pain for Eve, but she is promised children. Sterility will not be one of her problems.  Yes, there will be frustration for Adam because of intractable soil, but he will eat and not starve to death.
 
One may surmise, therefore, that God’s speech to the serpent contains both judgment and promise. Indeed, the serpent is banned and he becomes a crawler. He is under judgment. The promise is that some unspecified member(s) of the human race will one day lash out against this serpent’s seed. More than a change in the serpent’s position is involved here — it is now a question of his existence.
 
Would this individual, or these individuals, be among the kings of Israel and Judah who are the “offspring” of their father (2 Sam. 7:12; Ps. 89:4), who “crush” their enemies (Ps. 89:23) “under their feet” (2 Sam. 22:39), so that these enemies “lick the dust” (Ps. 72:9)?  Later revelations will state that it is Jesus who reigns until he puts all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor. 15:25).<ref>Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 198–200.</ref>
 
=Where did William Branham get this doctrine?=
 
In 1910, Benjamin Purnell from the House of David in Benton, Michigan published a book entitled, "The Star of Bethlehem" which contained details of the Serpent's Seed doctrines: 
 
:''Adam was placed in a garden eastward in Eden, as keeper and lord of the garden; and Eve, the mother of all living (soul) with him as a helpmeet, and not a helpmate — nor did she help him, except to the grave. The serpent beast was a preacher, called Gadrel. And the proof is, he preached to Eve, and transformed the word of the Lord God, and said to her, Yea hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden, etc.
 
:''Eve did partake of that which was forbidden, and gave unto her husband, and he did eat; (which was Adam — he representing her spiritual husband, being immortal;) but by this act fell, and received the blood with the tares, which she had received from Gadrel in this act of adultery and fornication... <ref>Purnell, Benjamin F. and Mary S., "The Star of Bethlehem", Benton Harbor, MI, 1910, pp.191 & 308)</ref>


<References/>
We know by William Branham's own admission that he preached at The House of David.  is this where he got his doctrine of the Serpent's Seed?


{{Portal Navigation}}
{{Bottom of Page}}
|-
[[Category:Doctrines]]
|}
[[Category:William Branham and Women]]
Retrieved from "http:///index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/16821...23895"