For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16)
William Branham taught many things that he said was direct revelation from God. He claimed that those things were taught by the Apostles and preserved in the Bible, but that man had so twisted the meaning of Scriptrure that we could no longer recognize truths that have long been forgotten by the Church. He also claimed to have extrabiblical knowledge of what certain passages of Scripture alluded to but didn't say outright. The problem with this is twofold. First, some of what he taught is unfalsifiable. In other words, there's no way to prove if what he said is either right or wrong. In those cases, we are instructed by the Bible itself not to accept those things as God's Word since they cannot be proven by Scriptrue itself. Second, much of what he taught directly contradicted the Bible. God wrote the Bible. God cannot lie. Therefore, anything WMB taught that contradicts the Bible could not have originated from God.
Pray for those who follow WMB's "Message," that they will acknowledge it's errors and repent of following that which God did not reveal in His Word. Pray that they will receive the Gospel of Christ and honor His Word above all else.
Pray for those who follow WMB's "Message," that they will acknowledge it's errors and repent of following that which God did not reveal in His Word. Pray that they will receive the Gospel of Christ and honor His Word above all else.
The Seven Church Ages
No More Than 1 Major Prophet on Earth at a Time
70 Weeks of Daniel
Omnipresence of God
Was Adam a Theophany?
Is Hell Eternal?
Is God’s Name JHVH or JVHU?
Was Judas Saved?
The Deity of Jesus Christ
VICARIVS FILII DEI=666=Pope
Polygamy Was Legal for David and Solomon
Christians to Take Nazarite Vow
Michael the Archangel was Christ
Do Angels Have Gender?
Who Were Ahab's 400 Prophets?
The Riddle of HAM
In order to illustrate that he was the only prophet with the true Word of God for his day, William Branham often reminded his followers that God never sent two major prophets at the same time:
"There never was in the age, any two major prophets on the earth at one time. There were many minor prophets, but there were one major prophet. And Elijah was the prophet until Elisha came. Then when Elijah was taking off, a portion, double portion, of Elijah's Spirit, Elijah's Spirit came upon Elisha."
Our Hope is in God, 1951 (tape #51-0929)
Now, God always uses a--a prophet, a man. If you use a bunch of men, you get different ideas (See?); each man, two men. Never did He have two major prophets on the earth at one time. He takes one, so the other one can take its place for another day, another message. He never has two; He has one at a time.”
The Evening Messenger, 1963 (tape #63-0116)
"God always deals with one individual. Two men's got two ideas. There never was two major prophets on the earth prophesying the same time. Look back and see if there was. No, sir. Too much scrupled up. He's got to get one man completely surrendered and use that person. He searches for that person, but there will be one sometime, somebody who'll listen to Him word by word."
"The Fourth Seal," Revelation of the Seven Seals, 1963 (tape #63-0321)
Mr. Branham was wrong in part because he misunderstood the biblical classification of prophets. Prophets are classified in the following ways:
Prophets are not classified according to the importance of their messages. Historical prophets’ messages were as much from God as the Major prophets’ were.
But Mr. Branham was wrong for another reason. Many historical prophets did indeed prophesy at the same time as others. Several minor prophets did as well (e.g., Hosea & Micah; Haggai & Zechariah. Ezra 5:1,2 actually says, "Now Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the prophet, a descendant of Iddo, prophesied to the Jews in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, who was over them. Then Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak set to work to rebuild the house of God in Jerusalem. And the prophets of God were with them, helping them." See also, Numbers 11:25-29). In fact, some Minor prophets prophesied at the same time as Major prophets (e.g., Hosea & Micah were contemporary with Isaiah; Habakkuk was contemporary with Jeremiah). But Mr. Branham's most obvious error was in saying that God never sent two Major prophets at the same time. Of the four Major prophets, Daniel, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were all contemporaries during the years 595-587 BC.
Mr. Branham reasoned that if God sent two prophets at the same time, their messages would get "scrupled up." He said that God would find only one truly surrendered man for an age and use him to bring forth the message. According to his reasoning, one would conclude that several biblical prophets were not truly surrendered to God and got His message wrong! Of course, since we know they were not wrong, it is evident that Mr. Branham was.
To comment or read a discussion on this topic at our forum (June 18, 2002), Click Here.
William Branham believed that the 7th Church Age Angel (Revelation 3:14) and the 7th Angel of Revelation 10:7 were one and the same individual. He implicated himself as this individual and said that his mission was to "finish all of the mysteries that have been lost" through the ages. His Message would include revealing such "mysteries" as Serpent's Seed and Marriage and Divorce. But he did not complete his self-appointed task. There are at least three major mysteries that Mr. Branham left unfinished. These are the source of many contentions within the ranks of his followers. They are:
To this day, followers of the Message cannot agree on what these mysteries mean.
To comment or read a discussion on this topic at our forum (June 20, 2002), Click Here.
If one is diligent to study Mr. Branham’s Message in any detail, it will be discovered that many of his teachings contradict previous viewpoints he had on a variety of given subjects. At times his beliefs seem to vacillate between one point of view and another. One such example is illustrated in his teachings on Daniel 9:24-27.
In 1961, Mr. Branham preached a series of sermons on the 70 Weeks of Daniel. During the series, he made clear that the 70th week starts after the Rapture of the Church. He said that the Tribulation starts in the midst of the 70th week. He reiterated this view at least 11 times during the course of the series, referring to specific verses from the Bible for support.
In 1963 and 1964 he taught a different version of Daniel's 70 Weeks, (see, "Evening Messenger," 63-0116; "Conduct, Order and Doctrine II," 64-0823m, page 953). In these instances, Mr. Branham said that the first half of the 70th week represents Jesus' 3 1/2 year ministry, after which he is cut off, or crucified. The second half of the last week starts at the beginning of the Tribulation. He uses no scriptural references.
In August, 1964, ("Conduct, Order and Doctrine," 64-0830m, page 1125-1126), a question from the audience addresses the discrepancy between this and his 1961 interpretation:
Q: [Mr. Branham reads the question] "Brother Branham, when you gave the message on the seventy church weeks--seventy weeks (Pardon me.) of Daniel, I believe that you mentioned that the full--the full last week or last seven years will begin when the Bride was taken in the rapture."
A: [Mr. Branham answers] No, no, no, no, no, nah, nah, nah. You got that wrong (See?), not the full seven weeks. The--the week started when Jesus came on earth. He said, "The Messiah, Prince, shall come and prophesy, and in the midst of the seven weeks, He'll be cut off." And Jesus preached exactly three and one half years, which is half of the seventy weeks, the seven days, week--weekdays. See? And there's three and one half years left...it's a very nice question, but (See?) you didn't get it, just what I said. Never did I believe that the whole seventy weeks would be over here. Messiah's cut off. How many remembers that in preaching up here? Certainly. See? Seven weeks.
"Questions and Answers #3," Conduct, Order and Doctrine #2, (tape #64-0830M)
The questioner was correct. Mr. Branham's answer just contradicted his entire 1961 series on the Seventy Weeks of Daniel. To make matters worse, his revised teaching is in conflict with the text of the Scriptures. According to Daniel 9, the Messiah is cut off at the end of 69 weeks. It is in the midst of the 70th week that the prince from Daniel 9:26 causes "the sacrifice and the oblation to cease . . ." Mr. Branham's interpretation was more correct when he used the Bible as his guide.
This issue was actually the very first contradiction I discovered in William Branham's teachings while I still followed the Message.
William Branham taught that God, as a being, is not omnipresent (everywhere at once):
"Now, you cannot be omnipresent without being omniscient. God's not even omnipresent; God's omniscient. Omniscient which means--makes Him omnipresent (He knows all things). But in order to be a being He has to be in one being."
The Masterpiece, 1964 (tape #64-0705)
"He's [God]--He's infinite, and He's--He's omnipresent, omniscient, therefore He knows all things. He can't be present everywhere. By being omniscient, knowing all things, then He can be present everywhere."
The Harvest Time, 1964 (tape #64-1212)
Mr. Branham's view is that God only seems omnipresent because he is omniscient (knows all things). But as a being, He cannot be everywhere at the same time. Now let's read what the Bible says:
Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord. (Jeremiah 23:23-24)
The Bible clearly says that God is omnipresent, literally present everywhere at once!
To comment or read a discussion on this topic at our forum (October 21, 2001), Click Here.
William Branham taught that when God created Adam in Genesis 1, Adam was formed as a spirit being without a body of flesh. Mr. Branham called this spirit body of Adam a theophany (the theological term theophany actually refers to the visible or auditory manifestation of God Himself. Mr. Branham obviously did not understand this). He said that later, in chapter 2, God created Adam's body of flesh. Naturally, Eve's body could not have been formed from Adam's rib until then. But Genesis 1:27-28 says that God created them male and female. This would indicate that Adam and Eve were created in physical form in chapter one. Further evidence that chapter one deals with the bodily creation of Adam and Eve is that God told them to be fruitful and increase in number. If God had created only Adam in spirit form at this point, God's command would be unfeasible. Furthermore, if Adam were created as a spirit being first, and then as a man of flesh, it would contradict what Paul said when he wrote, "Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man [Adam] is of the earth, earthy: the second man [Jesus] is the Lord from heaven." (1 Corinthians 15:46-47)
Genesis 1:29 says that God gave every seed-bearing plant and every tree with fruit to them for food. If Mr. Branham were to remain consistent with his claim that this chapter pertains to Adam's spirit form, then he would have to believe that God provided food for this theophany. But Mr. Branham said this about the nature of theophanies: "Theophany is a human body that's glorified, not exactly with flesh and blood like it will be in its glorified stage, but it is of a form of a human body that doesn't eat, neither does it drink, but it's--it's a body..." (Hebrews Chapter 2, part 3, page 80). In other words, God would have provided every seed-bearing plant and every tree with fruit as food to a creature that could not eat!
Genesis 1:30 says that God saw all that He had made and it was very good. By the seventh day, God finished the work He was doing and rested (chapter 2:1,2). Again, to remain consistent with Mr. Branham’s claim that Adam was only a spirit in chapter one, we would conclude that Adam’s and Eve’s physical bodies were not formed until after God's rest. This would contradict Mark 10:6, where it says that, "from the beginning of creation [not after it was finished] God created them male and female."
The only sound interpretation of the story of Creation is that Genesis 2 recounts the events of chapter 1, which includes a detailed description of the creation of Adam and Eve. Mr. Branham's teachings are in clear conflict with sound biblical teaching.
To comment or read a discussion on this topic at our forum (February 16, 2003), Click Here.
William Branham did not believe that Hell is eternal. He said,
"...and then the Bible doesn't teach an eternal hell; it teaches an everlasting hell. That might be for ten thousand million years; I don't know, but it has to cease."
"Pergamean Church Age," The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 1960 (tape #60-1207)
"And there's only one type of Eternal Life, we found. Is that right? God has that Eternal Life alone. Is that right? Only one type of Eternal Life... There is no such a word as 'eternal punishment,' 'cause if you're to be punished for eternity, you've got to have Eternal Life to be punished eternally; you'd have to have eternal. And if you got Eternal Life, you can't be punished. See? If you got eternal... 'He that heareth My Words, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath Everlasting Life.' Is that right? Eternal Life, because you believe. Well, if you got Eternal Life, you can't be punished, because you got Eternal Life. So then, if you're going to suffer in hell forever and forever, you got to have Eternal Life."
Hebrews Chapter 7 #2, 1957 (tape #57-0922)
"You cannot have eternal hell, and the Bible plainly says that, 'hell was created'! And if it's created, it isn't eternal."
"The Smyrnaean Church Age," The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 1960 (tape #60-1206)
Mr. Branham did not realize that the Greek word translated in the King James Version of the Bible for eternal (42 times) and everlasting (25 times) is "aionios," which indicates the unending state of something, not that it did not have a beginning. It is used to describe the eternal quality of God and to portray the endless state of hell. Vine's Dictionary of Biblical Words says that aionios should always be translated "eternal", wheras the only word to be correctly translated "everlasting" is aidios. Aidios is used only twice in the Bible.
This being the case, would an eternal existence in hell mean that one would have eternal life as Mr. Branham said? He once correctly said that death means eternal separation from God. The Greek word for death is "thanatos." One meaning of thanatos is "the separation of man from God." Vine's dictionary says, "'Death' is the opposite of life; it never denotes nonexistence. As spiritual life is 'conscious existence in communion with God,' so spiritual 'death' is 'conscious existence in separation from God.'" Therefore, an eternal existence in hell is biblical and by no means implies that one burning in hell for eternity has Eternal Life.
To comment or read a discussion on this topic at our forum (December 28, 2001) Click Here.
Did Mr. Branham know the same God we do? He frequently said that God told him things that He told nobody else. If Mr. Branham had such an intimate relationship with the Lord, why did he not know God’s true biblical name, JHVH (pronounced Jehovah, or Yahweh)? Mr. Branham knew the Lord as JVHU. He said:
"That great Name that He appeared there, and no scholar yet has ever been able to interpret it. J-v-h-u, no one... They call it Jehovah, but it wasn't."
God Keeps His Word, 1957 (tape #57-0407M)
"Even the--you who read the Lexicons and so forth, there has never been a man who could makeout... It's J-v-h-u. And even the Hebrew scholars could never pronounce it. That burning bush there, that day when He met with Moses, It was J-v-h-u. So they pronounced It 'J-o-h, Jehovah,' but It isn't 'Jehovah.' J-v-h-u (See?) no one knows."
"Questions and Answers on Hebrews #2," Hebrews, 1957 (tape #57-1002)
"The translators could never translate it. It's spelled J-u-h-v--J-v-h-u, I mean. It isn't Jehovah. They couldn't touch it. They don't know what it is. Called it Jehovah, but it wasn't His Name."
"The First Seal," Revelation of the Seven Seals, 1963 (tape #63-0318)
It stretches credibility to suppose that a prophet with the end-time Message of God didn't know the LORD's true biblical name.
To comment or read a discussion on this topic at our forum (February 23, 2002), Click Here.
William Branham said:
"Look at Judas Iscariot. Judas Iscariot was justified when he believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and accepted Him as his personal Saviour: Judas Iscariot. Judas Iscariot was sanctified in John 17:17 and was given power in Matthew 10 to go out and cast out devils. And Judas Iscariot come back, after he healed the sick and cast out devils, and he come back rejoicing and shouting just as much as any good holy-roller you ever seen. Is that right? The Bible said so."
"Questions and Answers #2," Conduct, Order and Doctrine #1, 1954 (tape #54-0103E)
Was Judas justified? Did he accept Jesus as his personal Savior? Jesus said:
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. . . Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. (John 6:63,64,70,71)
Are we to believe that Judas, being a devil, accepted Jesus as his savior? Romans 8:30 says, "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Judas? Glorified? No, Judas was not justified as Mr. Branham said.
Was Judas sanctified by Jesus’ prayer in John 17:17 as Mr. Branham alleged? Recall that Judas had already left the twelve to betray Jesus in John chapter 13. In fact, in John 17:12 (just 5 verses before John 17:17), Jesus says:
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
No, Judas was not included in Jesus' prayer as one to be sanctified as Mr. Branham indicated.
Was Judas one of those who came back rejoicing and shouting that they could vast out devils? Mr. Branham once said,
"And Jesus said, ‘Don't you rejoice because the devils is subject to you, but rejoice because your names are written in the Book of heaven.’ Is that right? And Judas Iscariot was with them, one of them, called-out, sanctified, and his name written in the Lamb's Book of Life. Read Matthew 10 and see if that's not right. He called each one of them, and Judas and every one of them, right down there. He sent them out, give them power against unclean spirits."
"Questions and Answers (Genesis)," Conduct, Order and Doctrine #1, 1953 (tape #53-0729)
A reading of the entire account will demonstrate that is not right. Matthew 10 records the commissioning of the twelve apostles. Chapter 9 in the book of Luke is the parallel account of this passage. Luke 10 is where Jesus appointed another 70 disciples besides the apostles. It was the other 70, not the apostles, that came back rejoicing and of whom Jesus said had their names written in heaven (see Luke 10:17, 20).
According to the Bible, Mr. Branham was wrong when he indicated that Judas was saved. One would not expect a true prophet of the Lord to make such an error where the Gospel of Salvation is concerned.
To comment or read a discussion on this topic at our forum (May 19, 2002), Click Here.
William Branham said the following regarding the Deity of Jesus Christ:
The man, the body was not Deity, but Deity was in the body.
God’s Gifts Always Find Their Places, December 22, 1963 (tape #63-1222)
Jesus was not God, but He was God. He was a Man, yet He was God. He could cry, and yet He could raise the dead. He could cry for a man being dead and raise him back up again. He was Jehovah-jireh, Jehovah-rapha, Jehovah Manasses; He was Jehovah, all completely. He was Jehovah, and yet He was a Man.
Questions and Answers #3, August 30, 1964 (tape #64-0830M)
Jesus was not God before His baptism--
He was--He was Jesus when He was born. But when the Holy Ghost came upon Him after His baptism, He was anointed with God. God was in Him, 'cause He come to fulfill the Word.
The Messiah, January 17, 1961 (tape #61-0117)
And this little Boy, twelve-year-old Child, no wisdom at all, why, but just a twelve-year-old Boy... The Father didn't dwell in Him at that time, because He come on the day when He baptized Him; he saw the Spirit of God coming down (See?), and went in Him.
Paradox, February 6, 1964 (tape #64-0206B
The Spirit left Jesus in Gethsemane and He became just a man-- When God looked down upon the body... (The Spirit left Him in the Garden of Gethsemane; He had to die a man.)
It Is the Rising of the Sun, April 18, 1965 (tape #65-0418M
These are a few examples which give us a clue as to what William Branham really believed concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ. Mr. Branham explained that Jesus was specially created in Mary's womb as a sinless body of flesh, untainted by Serpent's Seed, designed for the Spirit of God to inhabit. He believed that Jesus was not God Himself, but a body with its own will and consciousness. This body did not become God until the fullness of the Godhead entered Jesus at His baptism. When it came time for Jesus to be crucified, the Spirit of God left Jesus’ body at the Garden of Gethsemane. Only the body of flesh we know as Jesus was crucified since God could not die, according to Mr. Branham.
The Gospel of John says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth" (John 1:1, 14). Clearly, Jesus Christ was not merely a body of flesh in whom God dwelled for a period of time, but the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form. He was God before He was born in the flesh, and He remains God!
To comment or read a discussion on this topic at our forum (November 7, 2001), Click Here.
William Branham had the following to say regarding what he believed to be a most important title for the pope, which appears in Latin as VICARIVS FILII DEI (which he pronounced as "Vicarius a-Filii Dilii"):
I stood right there in the Vatican City and verified it with the Bible. The pope wearing a triple crown, Vicarius a-Filii Dilii, all those things which I've heard and so forth, it's absolutely the truth. A religious group that governs every nation under the heavens, and it does.
QA on Hebrews, part 3, October 6, 1957 (tape #57-1006)
In other words, up over the Vatican (Now, I've been right there.) it's wrote Vicarius a-Filii Dilii, and it's wrote in Roman numerals. Now, you just draw a line at the bottom of those Roman numerals, and it means "Instead of Son of God." In other words, he's a vicar. (You know what a vicar is. Just takes the place of something.) He is the vicar instead of the Son of God. And the Bible said, "Let him that has the gift of wisdom count the numbers of the beast, for it's the number of a man, and his number is six hundred and sixty-six." Now, if you take VICARIUS FILII DILII and draw a line (the Roman numbers of V for 5, I for 1) and add it up and see if you haven't got six hundred and sixty-six.
The Second Seal, March 19, 1963 (tape #63-0319)
Wm. Branham could not have verified that the Pope has the title VICARIVS FILII DEI engraved in his papal throne as he implied because no such inscription exists. In fact, it is a myth that the Pope has ever used VICARIVS FILII DEI as one of his titles, officially or otherwise. This is a myth which was propegated by the 7th Day Advantists (SDA) based on a forged document. For some reason, Wm. Branham claimed the title appeared on the Pope's throne while the official stance of the SDA is that the title appeared on the Pope's tiara.
One might wonder how Wm. Branham, if he were alive today, would interpret Revelation 13:18 now that this title for the pope has been debunked as a myth.
VICARIUS FILII DEI and 666
Vicarius Filii Dei
To comment or read a discussion on this topic at our forum (November 30, 2003), Click Here.
William Branham said:
Woman was made for man and not man for woman. That's the reason under the old laws that polygamy was legal. Look at David setting down there with five hundred wives. And the Bible said he was a man after God's Own heart with five hundred wives, and Solomon with a thousand, but not one of them women could have another husband. . . That whole five hundred women was just David's wife. It was a type--when Christ sets on the throne in the millennium, His Bride will be not one person, but it'll be tens of thousands, the Bride, all in one. And David had many wives as individuals but only--all of them together was his wife. Like the whole body of believers is the Bride of Christ.Was polygamy legal for David and Solomom? Let's compare what Mr. Branham just said with the Bible:
The Choosing of a Bride, April 29, 1965 (tape #65-0429E)
When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that [are] about me. . . Neither shall [the king] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away...(Deuteronomy 17:15, 16a)The Bible does not teach that all of David's and Solomon's wives were to be considered as only one wife. On the contrary, the Bible explicitly teaches that Israel’s kings were not to have many wives or their hearts would turn from God. Both David and Solomon exemplified God's warning after they took upon themselves more than one wife.
To comment or read a discussion on this topic at our forum (April 28, 2002), Click Here.
William Branham said:
I believe tonight, that every man and woman, every boy and girl that's borned of the Spirit of God, is a Nazarite unto the Lord; because they have separated them things--themselves from the cares of the world and whatever the world has got to say.
God’s Word Calls for Total Separation from Unbelief, January 21, 1964 (tape #64-0121)
A hair to a woman is a Nazarite vow. Hair to Samson was a Nazarite vow. And when a woman cuts off her hair she--she absolutely denies her Nazarite vow that she is a Bride to Christ, because there, that one thing, she spoils the whole picture. Correctly. A Nazarite is "one that is consecrated for a purpose."
The God of This Evil Age, August 1, 1965 (tape #65-0801M
The Bible mandates that several requirements be met for one who has decided to make a Nazarite vow in Numbers 6:2-21. Among the instructions to one (male or female) who has made such a Nazarite vow are the following:
Many other ceremonial laws are involved in taking a Nazarite vow. In light of the fact that those who follow the Message follow almost none of the requirements of a Nazarite, it is incorrect of Mr. Branham to say that he or any of his followers have taken a Nazarite vow.
The problem with Mr. Branham's view of a "Nazarite Vow" for a Christian is that he seemed to think it was a mandatory lifetime commitment for every Christian. The true Nazarite vow was most often a temporary vow and not required by anyone but the person who took the vow. The OT gave specific regulations to follow if one were to take such a vow. Mr. Branham clearly was not concerned with any of them except for the abstaining of alcohol and the non-cutting of the hair for women only. Since there is no basis for a Christian being required to take a "Nazarite Vow" (or even the Jews, for that matter), it is clearly an optional act of devotion to the Lord.
To comment or read a discussion on this topic at our forum (February 22, 2002), Click Here.
William Branham had the following to say about Michael the Archangel:
"'And at that time Michael shall stand, the great prince.' Michael was Christ, of course, Who fought the angelic wars in heaven with the devil. Satan and Michael fought together, or fought against each other, rather."
Beginning and Ending of the Gentile Dispensation, January 9, 1955 (tape #55-0109E)
"Notice, Lucifer in the last days is doing as he did at first. What did Lucifer do? The first thing that Lucifer done to separate the fellowship of God and man, he wanted to build him a united kingdom of greater splendor and seemingly more cultured, a greater kingdom than Michael, Christ had. You got it? Now, now, if you miss it, just hold up your hand and I'll say it again. You see? See? Lucifer at the beginning, his purpose in heart was to achieve a brighter and greater thing in heaven than Christ had (Is that right?) by seemingly a more cultured, more beautiful, more splendor than the Kingdom of Christ."
Christ is the Mystery of God Revealed, July 28, 1963 (tape #63-0728)
"I'll say something here, maybe I oughtn't to say, but yet I believe I ought to say it. If you noticed, Lucifer is exactly doing the same thing today that he did at the beginning. See? Lucifer, at the beginning, wanted to build himself a kingdom which was greater and more beautiful than Michael's Kingdom, Christ. He want... That was his ambitions to achieve something like that."
There is Only One Way Provided by God for Anything, July 31, 1963 (tape #63-0731)
Of what importance was William Branham's belief that Michael was Christ? There were two main opinions concerning the doctrine of Michael being Christ before Wm. Branham began his ministry:
Neither version is based on sound biblical exegesis, but on inferences made by the 7th Day Adventists and the JW's based on dubious interpretations of the Scriptures. The Bible does not ever connect Michael the archangel with Christ in any way.
On what basis did Wm. Branham believe Michael was Christ? We know that he taught that the preincarnate Christ was the "Word", or the manifestation of God's thoughts. Did he believe that Michael was God Himself before His incarnation, as the 7th Day Adventists do?
We also know that Mr. Branham taught that Jesus was born as a man and did not become God in flesh until His baptism. Did he believe that Michael was merely the creation of the preincarnate Jesus--not God, but not yet man--as the JW's believe?
We may never know what Mr. Branham meant by his remarks because he didn't explain them. He merely parroted a borrowed doctrine from the teachings of previous false prophets and left his followers with yet another ambiguous, unbiblical doctrine to contend with.
To comment or read a discussion on this topic at our forum (February 16, 2003), Click Here.
William Branham said,
And did you know, the Bible never denotes sex in angels? See? There's no denoting of sex in angels. And there's no place in the Bible where there's a woman angel.
(“The Conflict Between God And Satan,” sermon #62-0531)
Are angels genderless? Is there no such thing as a female angel? GotQuestions.org offers a biblical answer:
There is no doubt that every reference to angels in Scripture is in the masculine gender. The Greek word for “angel” in the New Testament, angelos, is in the masculine form. In fact, a feminine form of angelos does not exist. There are three genders in grammar—masculine (he, him, his), feminine (she, her, hers), and neuter (it, its). Angels are never referred to in any gender other than masculine. In the many appearances of angels in the Bible, never is an angel referred to as “she” or “it.” Furthermore, when angels appeared, they were always dressed as human males (Genesis 18:2, 16; Ezekiel 9:2). No angel ever appears in Scripture dressed as a female.Some have suggested that Zechariah 5:9 presents an example of female angels. They even argue that WMB was unbiblical in his teaching about there being no such thing as female angels based on this passage. However, there are significant problems with the view that Zechariah is depicting female angels, or literal beings at all. Again, from GotQuestions.org:
Some people point to Zechariah 5:9 as an example of female angels. That verse says, “Then I looked up—and there before me were two women, with the wind in their wings! They had wings like those of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between heaven and earth.” The problem is that the “women” in this prophetic vision are not called angels. They are called nashiym (“women”), as is the woman in the basket representing wickedness in verses 7 and 8. By contrast, the angel that Zechariah was speaking to is called a malak, a completely different word meaning “angel” or “messenger.” The fact that the women have wings in Zechariah’s vision might suggest angels to our minds, but we must be careful about going beyond what the text actually says. A vision does not necessarily depict actual beings or objects—consider the huge flying scroll Zechariah sees earlier in the same chapter (Zechariah 5:1–2).It has also been pointed out by some that the two women had wings like a stork and could therefore not have been heavenly beings because the stork was considered in the Bible to be an unclean bird (Leviticus 11:19; Deuteronomy 14:18). It would indeed seem odd that the Bible would describe a heavenly being as having characteristics of an unclean animal.
So why do some say that angels are sexless beings? GotQuestions.org addresses it:
The confusion about genderless angels comes from a misreading of Matthew 22:30, which states that there will be no marriage in heaven because we “will be like the angels in heaven.” The fact that there will be no marriage has led some to believe that angels are “sexless” or genderless because (the thinking goes) the purpose of gender is procreation and, if there is to be no marriage and no procreation, there is no need for gender. But this is a leap that cannot be proven from the text. The fact that there is no marriage does not necessarily mean there is no gender. The many references to angels as males contradict the idea of genderless angels. Angels do not marry, but we can’t make the leap from “no marriage” to “no gender.” The Bible clearly depicts heavenly angels as being masculine, not sexless, while it never depicts any examples of female angels.It seems clear that the Bible always presents angels as male in gender and that WMB was wrong in saying they are sexless.
To comment or read a discussion on this topic at our forum (July 8, 2017), Click Here.
William Branham often made the point in various ways that he alone was the only true prophet to the Church. He would set himself apart from all the other healing revivalists in his day by saying he alone had God’s Message for the hour. He would often compare his ministry against all others with similar accounts of lone prophets from the Bible. One such implied comparison is from 1 Kings 22 where Micaiah the prophet stood against the 400 prophets of Israel's king, Ahab. WMB describes the incident:
And now, Ahab said, "Doesn't Ramoth-gilead belong to me?" that lukewarm, borderline believer said, "Don't it belong to us?" And he said, "That's ours." And Jehoshaphat, in the wrong company, setting in the wrong crowd where there's no faith, no believing in the Word of God, he said, "Why, it looks like." But said, "Oughtn't we to consult the Lord?" "Oh," Ahab said, "sure. I got four hundred prophets down here." Brought them every one up, well dressed, and fine prophets. Hebrew prophets, I don't mean some idol prophets. They professed to be real religious of the God that they serve: prophets. Just looky here. I—I'm going to take my time right here a minute. Real prophets, Hebrew prophets, they come up there, and they all prophesied.
(“Perseverant,” sermon #62-0729)
In this passage, the Bible says that Ahab had decided to take back Ramoth-gilead from the Philistines. He asked Jehoshaphat the king of Judah for help, but Jehoshaphat wasn’t so eager to go into battle without first enquiring of the LORD. So Ahab mustered up 400 of his prophets to learn what they might have to say. They all told him to go into battle. Jehoshaphat wasn’t satisfied by their counsel, so he asked if there were any other prophets they might ask. Ahab said that there was one more prophet, Micaiah. The problem was, Ahab hated him because he always prophesied evil against him. The question is, who were Ahab’s prophets, and why was Jehoshaphat reluctant to follow their advice?
According to WMB, Ahab’s prophets were true Hebrew prophets, followers of YHWH. But how could that be since Jezebel had gotten rid of all the godly prophets from Israel (1 Kings 18:4)? Even Elijah bemoaned being alone as a prophet of YHWH, saying, “I have been very jealous for the LORD, the God of hosts. For the people of Israel have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword, and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life, to take it away” (1 Kings 19:10).
At a later time, King Jehoram of Israel, son of Ahab, enquires of Elisha the prophet about attacking Moab. Elisha said to Jehoram, "What have I to do with you? Go to the prophets of your father and to the prophets of your mother" (that is, the prophets of Ahab and Jezebel). Jehoram replied, "No; it is the LORD who has called these three kings to give them into the hand of Moab" (2 Kings 3:9-13). Jehoram knew Ahab's prophets did not represent the LORD.
So who were Ahab’s 400 prophets if both Elijah and Elisha did not recognize Ahab's prophets as prophets of the LORD?
I researched several commentaries via Biblehub.com and found that all of them conclude that Ahab’s 400 prophets were false prophets who were not followers of YHWH. Then who were they? It turns out they were remnants of Jeroboam’s prophets of his Calf Religion:
“Remember that the house of David, had just been divided by God, after king Solomon had passed. And it would be during Jeroboam's reign, he'd feared that some continued alliance between the two kingdoms might still exist. So in order to keep the two kingdoms from socializing, Jeroboam instituted the Golden Calf Religion. And all of this happened, while the Southern Kingdom (David's house) stay true to the One True God.”
(Christian Resources Today)
William Branham said Ahab’s 400 prophets were “well dressed, and fine prophets. Hebrew prophets, I don't mean some idol prophets.” The Bible says they were indeed idol worshipers. William Branham is supposed to be a “Word” prophet, one who alone could correctly interpret the Bible. Yet his explanation of Ahab’s prophets contradicts the Bible. Clearly, WMB did not know his Bible or Bible history. His erroneous view of who Ahab's prophets were prove that he could not be a so-called “Word prophet," and that his interpretations of Scripture is not to be trusted.
To comment or read a discussion on this topic at our forum (July 12, 2017), Click Here.
William Branham often made it an issue to point out that never in Christian history has there ever been a man sent to the Church with his name ending in H-A-M before Billy Graham. For example, in 1964, he said this:
You know, in all the history of the world, all the history of the church, there has never been one time, that any reformer, or any man, that ever had a--a great ministry to the Gentiles, that their name ever end in h-a-m, like A-b-r-a-h-a-m, until now. That's G-r-a-h-a-m, six letters. Abraham's seven letters. Six letters, G-r-a-h-a-m. Billy Graham, a great--a revivalist that's down there in Sodom amongst those denominational churches, calling out what he can. We've had Billy Sunday, Finney, Sankey, Moody, Knox, Calvin, so forth, but never a G-r-a-h-a-m or any ending with a h-a-m, never before. There's one down there to the church formal in Sodom, ending with a h-a-m, mean, "father to the nations."--William Branham
("Sirs, We Would See Jesus," sermon #64-0304)
Message believers readily recognize this riddle as Wm. Branham's attempt to equate his ministry with that of the Angel of the Lord who appeared to Abraham. Billy Graham's name contains six letters, which was indication to Mr. Branham that Rev. Graham represented one of the two angels to visit Lot before destruction came upon Sodom and Gomorrah. Mr. Branham is adamant in pointing out that the name Abraham contains 7 letters, the implication being that he (B-R-A-N-H-A-M: seven letters) represented the Angel of the Lord who stayed with Abraham while the other two men went to Sodom and Gomorrah. When stressing the importance of his and Billy Graham's ministries, Mr. Branham often pointed to the fact that the world had never before seen significant leaders in the church whose names ended in h-a-m until he an Billy Graham came on the scene. He apparently had not studied modern church history before making this observation:
· Charles Parham (1873-1912): He claimed to receive the revelation that speaking in tongues is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He is regarded as the founding father of the Pentecostal movement.
· William Durham (1873-1929): In 1908, Durham said he received a new revelation of Salvation and Sanctification which was called the Finished Work. The majority of Pentecostals adhered to his view, and as a result of his teachings, the Assemblies of God was established.
In July, 2017, "Believe the Sign" identified a third major Christian minister/author who not only preceded William Branham, but whose name actually contained 7 letters! (see, The Importance of a Seven-Lettered Name) His name was Frank Boreham (1871-1959). Rod Bergen mentioned on his August 6, 2017 edition of his podcast, Off the Shelf, that Boreham had such an impact on Billy Graham that Graham once arranged for a personal meeting with him. Yet WMB, the supposed Messenger of the Church Age, never heard of him!
It must be embarrassing to WMB's followers that he would have made such an issue of this riddle of HAM and not know about three such influential leaders from modern Church history who actually lived within his lifetime!
To comment or read a discussion on this topic at our forum (April 2, 2003), Click Here.