We read in the Bible that not long after God rested, Adam and Eve disobeyed the Lord and ate
from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Most people believe that it was
an apple that Adam and Eve ate, though the Bible is silent on what type of fruit
it actually was. However, Wm. Branham was quite clear in what he felt the
forbidden fruit was. He taught that the fruit of that tree was sexual
intercourse with the serpent. He said that the Fall in the Garden of Eden was a
result of an act of adultery between Eve and the serpent, which Satan had
incarnated (actually it wouldn't have been adultery, but bestiality--that is, having sex with animals [see Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:23; 20:16]). Wm. Branham believed that the serpent, in its original state, closely
resembled a human being. Satan, while in the serpent’s body, seduced Eve and as
a result of this act, Cain was born. But if eating from the Tree of the
Knowledge of Good and Evil really meant having sex with the serpent, then the following passages
do not make much sense:
For example, when the serpent asked Eve, "hath God said, Ye shall not
eat of every tree of the garden," it does not make sense for Eve to answer, "We
may eat from the trees in the garden, but we are not to have sex with you."
While in the process of instructing Adam and Eve of the plants and trees they
may eat from, why does God suddenly begin to tell them not to have sexual
relations with the serpent? Why was Adam included in the command to abstain from
intercourse with the serpent? In the Bible, the description of the Tree of Knowledge is identical to the
descriptions of all of the other trees, (Genesis 2:9 and 3:6). Why, then, should
we interpret the Tree of Knowledge as being metaphorical? Furthermore, when the Pharisees once asked Jesus if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife, Jesus asked them, "What did Moses say?" They answered that Moses allowed divorce. Jesus then said, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so" (see Matthew 19:4-8). Besides all this, according to the Bible, Adam didn't even know Eve until after the Fall (Genesis 4:1), so how could he have brought sin and death on all mankind by an act that he did after God already punished him (Genesis 3:17-19)? Finally,
the Bible places the entire
blame for the Fall on Adam because he ate from the forbidden tree (see Genesis 3:11; Romans 5:12), not because he took Eve back after she sinned. No, Adam did not sin by laying with Eve as if he was forbidden to do so. He sinned by disobeying God in eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Note how Adam’s punishment fits the transgression of eating a literal
fruit in Genesis 3:17-19:
Wm. Branham also gives some New Testament proof that Cain’s father was
the serpent. For example, he teaches that I John 3:12 says that Cain was the son
of the serpent, which was possessed by Satan. He also said that that when Jesus
told the Pharisees that they were of their father the devil (John 8:44) He was
saying that they were literally of the lineage of the serpent. Of course, these
verses do not mean that Cain or the wicked are literally the offspring of the
serpent. Matthew 23:15 sheds some light on the true meaning of these verses when
it says that the scribes and Pharisees were able to make a proselyte "twofold
the more the child of hell" then themselves.
Another NT example that Wm. Branham gives to prove that Cain’s father was the
serpent and not Adam was that Adam’s lineage and birthright did not pass through
Cain, who was the firstborn. It went through Seth instead. Wm. Branham said that
this could only mean that Cain was not really Adam’s son. But this is not so.
Similar examples of the firstborn losing the birthright to the younger brother
are found in the stories of Isaac/Ishmael and Jacob/Esau. And as Genesis shows,
God cursed Cain from the earth. It only follows that Adam’s lineage should go
through Seth instead of Cain.
Followers of the Message often suggest that Cain's sinful and evil nature proves
that his father was not human, but animal. However, since animals are neither moral
nor evil, this suggestion is absurd. The Bible says that sin came into
the world through Adam (Romans 5:12-14). Cain did not sin because of any inherented animal instincts.
Cain chose to obey the sinful nature that all of mankind inherited as a result of Adam's sin rather than to obey God (Genesis 4:6,7; Romans 1:20-32; 5:12).
Finally, we look at the curse of the serpent. We know that Cain and Abel and Seth
were born of the same woman. Why then does the Bible make a distinction between
the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman when all of mankind came from the woman? Why, if God was cursing the literal lineage of the serpent, does
Genesis 3:15 not read, "I will put enmity between thee and Adam, and between
thy seed and his seed?"
Genesis 3:15 is the first prophecy in Scripture that points to
the salvation of mankind through Jesus Christ. If Cain were the spawn of the serpent, then Cain's race was wiped out in the Flood. The enmity between the seed of
the serpent and the seed of the woman is personified by the enmity we see between those who are slaves to sin (which is all of mankind) and Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, born of a woman. (See Galatians 3:16; 4:4)
Genesis 2:8,9
Genesis 2:15-17
Genesis
3:1-13
What does, "in the midst of the garden,"
(Genesis 2:9), refer to? Wm. Branham once implied that it referred to the serpent’s
genitals.1 The problem with that is that the Tree of Life was also in the
midst of the garden and Wm. Branham said that that tree was Christ.
The Bible says that
Eve gave the forbidden fruit to Adam, her husband, to eat from, (Genesis 3:6).
If the fruit that Eve gave Adam was not literally fruit, what was it? There are
at least two Message interpretations:
In this one simple statement, Jesus just contradicted Wm. Branham's assertion that some sort of biblical law on divorce was in effect in the Garden of Eden and that Adam's part in the Fall was in violating such a law.
...because thou... hast eaten;
The Message says that as a result of
Eve’s transgression with the serpent, she became pregnant with Cain. In order to
reconcile the teaching that Cain was born of the serpent with Genesis 4:1, the
Message says that Eve was already pregnant with Cain before Adam knew her.
Wm. Branham taught that she conceived Abel while still pregnant with Cain. In order
to believe this, we would have to conclude that the Bible is deliberately
deceptive in saying that, "Adam knew Eve, his wife; and she conceived and bore
Cain, and said, ‘I have gotten a man from the Lord..’" When Genesis 4:1 says
that Adam knew Eve and she conceived and bore Cain, the wording is such that a
reasonable person reading this passage would conclude that Eve’s conception was
a result of her relationship with Adam. She conceived after lying with Adam and
bore Cain. We see the same wording in Genesis 4:17 when Cain’s wife conceived
and bore his son. When Eve said, "I have gotten a man from the Lord," one would
naturally conclude that Eve gave birth to Adam’s son, not Satan’s. There is
nothing in the text to suggest that Adam was not Cain’s father.
in sorrow shalt thou
eat;
thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
In the sweat of thy face
shalt thou eat bread...
We are seeing a time when it seems a flood of people are leaving the Message. However, sometimes WMB's teachings can linger on long after a person has left. The Serpent's Seed doctrine is often one of them. Some have suggested that even though the Message is false, Serpent's Seed could be still be true. This raises the question, could someone who has descended from Cain be saved? Some ex-Message believers suggest that, yes, a person with serpent blood flowing in their veins could still have their sins washed away by the blood of Christ. But could that be possible? I have an idea on how we should approach this issue.
For one thing, according to Serpent's Seed, the serpent was a beast, not a human being. Animals do not sin. The serpent didn't act on its own accord, but was presumably manipulated by the spirit of Satan.
Next, if Eve were impregnated by an animal (namely the serpent) would the alleged offspring (namely Cain) be human? I contend that Cain would by no means be human, but a new kind of animal. Here's why.
First, a human being is human and has only human DNA. An animal does not have human DNA. How could it? It's an animal. Now, what kind of DNA would Cain have if his father were the serpent? It would not be human DNA. Nor would it be serpent DNA. It would be a new kind of DNA. Just as when a donkey is bred with a horse, the offspring is neither a donkey nor a horse. It is a new kind of creature which we call a mule. If Cain's father were the serpent, Cain would not be a human being, nor would he be a serpent. He would have to be a new kind of animal.
Second, only human beings are morally accountable to God. We are made in God's image and are responsible for when we behave contrary to God's nature, that is, when we sin. Animals are not morally accountable to God. They are not made in God's image. They only do what their instincts tell them to do. Cain was not made in God's image if he didn't have human DNA. He was an animal and therefore not accountable to God for his behavior. He could not sin.
Now, this proposition of mine would prove 2 things. First, it proves that Jesus could not have died for the sins of Serpent's Seed. Why? Because serpent/human hybrids as animals are not capable of sinning. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that animals sin or that Jesus died for the sins of animals. Second, it proves that Serpent's Seed could not be true because Cain, being an animal, could not be morally accountable for his behavior, yet the Bible says he was. Since the Bible holds Cain morally accountable for his sins, then Cain could not have been Serpent's Seed! He was a pure human being, the first recorded son of Adam. The doctrine of Serpent's Seed is thereby disproved, and there is no reason to suggest that Jesus died for any descendants of the serpent!
1Now, the devil come down and got into the serpent, and he found Eve in the garden of Eden naked. And he talked about the fruit in the midst, the "midst" means "middle" and so forth. You understand in a mixed congregation. And he said, "Now, it's pleasant. It's good to the eye."
Serpent’s Seed, September 28, 1958 (tape #58-0928
2Now the Word teaches us that if a woman leaves her husband and goes with another man she is an adultress and is no longer married and the husband is not to take her back. That Word was true in Eden as it was true when Moses wrote it in the law. The Word can't change. Adam took her back. He knew exactly what he was doing, but he did it any way. She was a part of him, and he was willing to take her responsibility upon himself. He would not let her go. So Eve conceived by him. He knew she would. He knew exactly what would happen to the human race, and he sold the human race into sin that he might have Eve, for he loved her.
Church Ages Book, page 104
3The tree in the life--the middle of the garden, in the midst of the tree... The tree was the woman.
Q&A On Hebrews #1, September 25, 1957 (tape #57-0925)