Serpent Seed Debunked

[StRaphael]

Serpent Seed and Its Supporters

1. The Serpent Seed Theory is the idea that the serpent in the Garden of Eden (Satan) had sexual intercourse with Eve and fathered Cain. One notable proponent was the anti-Trinitarian false prophet William H. Branham. This is contrary to Scripture, despite having rabbinical support, e.g. “And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by the Angel Sammael, and she conceived and bare Cain; and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like the earthly beings, and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord” [Targum of Jonathan to Genesis 4:1]; “Rabbi Johanon stated, When the serpent copulated with Eve, he infused her with lust” [Yebamoth 103b]; “Thus I have learnt, that when the serpent had intercourse with Eve he injected defilement into her” [Haye Sarah 126a]; and “You rightly said that when the serpent had carnal intercourse with Eve he injected into her defilement” [Haye Sarah 126b].{1}

Adam the Biological Father of Cain
2. The first thing that rules out the idea that Satan fathered Cain is Gen 4:1: “And Adam knew Eve his wife; who conceived and brought forth Cain, saying: I have gotten a man through God.” That this means that Adam is Cain’s father is evident from the parallel passages of Gen 4:17 (“And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and brought forth Enoch: and he built a city, and called the name thereof by the name of his son Enoch”) and Gen 4:25 (“Adam also knew his wife again: and she brought forth a son, and called his name Seth, saying: God hath given me another seed for Abel, whom Cain slew”).

Making Nonsense out of God’s Command
3. Secondly, God’s command to Adam in Gen 2:16-17 is nonsensical given the Serpent Seed Theory. St. Moses writes, “And He commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.” In the Serpent Seed paradigm this would have to mean “You may have a sexual relationship with every serpent except one.” The serpent was a beast [Gen 3:1a]: “Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made.” But Adam did not commit bestiality. The serpent was not some attractive guy as SSTs like to pretend; he was a reptile.

Why Eating of the Tree Is Devoid of Sexual Connotation
4. Thirdly, eating of the tree cannot have any sexual connotation because God gave this prohibition of eating from the tree to Adam before He created Eve; Eve does not come into play until Gen 2:22; Gen 2:21-23 reads, “Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, He took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib which He took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.” Adam sinned by eating from the tree but (1) it is not sinful to have sexual intercourse with one’s wife so there is no sexual connotation from that angle; Gen 1:28 reads, “And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth;” (2) Adam did not commit the sins of bestiality and homosexuality but he would have if eating from the tree meant having sexual intercourse with the serpent [Gen 3:6: “And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband, who did eat”], for the serpent is a beast [Gen 3:1a above] and the serpent was male [Gen 3:1b]: “And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?”

Continued in next post…

Notes and References
{1} Scott Stinson (7/1998), “The Serpent and Eve” in The Vision Vol. 2 #8 p. 28 (Schell City, MO: The Church of Israel).

 

[StRaphael]

Continued from previous post…

Serpent Seed is Pseudohistory
5. Fourthly, there is an insuperable historical difficulty for the Serpent Seed Theorists. Serpent Seed Theorists claim that serpentine Kenites survive to this day. But that would be impossible even if Eve did have sexual intercourse with the serpent, for 2 Pt 2:5 says, “… and if He did not spare the ancient world, even though He preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, together with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the godless world…” Pope St. Peter’s words rule out the idea essential to Serpent Seed Theory that serpentine Kenites survive because it would be absurd to say that St. Noah and his family were of the serpent seed. Serpent Seed Theory entails that all Kenites are of the serpentine. But if there is one Kenite who is not serpentine, then there are no serpentine Kenites. And one such person comes to mind immediately; Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses [Jdg 1:16]: “And the children of the Kenite, the kinsman of Moses, went up from the city of palms, with the children of Judah, into the wilderness of his lot, which is at the south side of Arad, and they dwelt with him.” St. Jethro was a godly man, according to Gen 18:12,19-23: “So Jethro, the kinsman of Moses, offered holocausts and sacrifices to God: and Aaron and all the ancients of Israel came, to eat bread with him before God. … But hear my words and counsels, and God shall be with thee. Be thou to the people in those things that pertain to God, to bring their words to Him: And to show the people the ceremonies, and the manner of worshipping; and the way wherein they ought to walk, and the work that they ought to do. And provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, in whom there is truth, and that hate avarice, and appoint of them rulers of thousands, and of hundreds, and of fifties, and of tens, who may judge the people at all times: and when any great matter soever shall fall out, let them refer it to thee, and let them judge the lesser matters only: that so it may be lighter for thee, the burden being shared out unto others. If thou dost this, thou shalt fulfill the commandment of God, and shalt be able to bear His precepts: and all this people shall return to their places with peace.”

Misinterpreting the Statement of Eve
Obj. 1: In Gen 3:13 Eve herself says that the serpent sexually seduced her.
Ans. 1: Eve said that the serpent “deceived” her. The Hebrew word nasha has this meaning and is devoid of any sexual connotation. The only support for the idea that Gen 3:13 is discussing sexual seduction is the KJV translation of the first as “beguiled;” however, the KJV translation is egregious (which fact makes KJV-Onlyism a farce). E.g. Ps 22:21 “unicorns” instead of “aurochs;” Mk 6:20 “observed” instead of “protected;” Acts 12:4 “Easter” instead of “Passover;” Acts 17:22 “Mars’ hill” instead of “the Aeropagus” and “too superstitious” instead of “pious;” etc. In the latter translation the KJV calls good evil, contrary to Is 5:20: “Woe to you who call evil good, and good evil!”

Misinterpreting the Statement of St. John
Obj. 2: 1 Jn 3:12 states that Satan is Cain’s biological father: “Not as Cain, who was of the wicked one and killed his brother.”
Ans. 1: It is never good to take words out of context yet the above objection appears to have resulted from such a fallacy. The Serpent Seed Theorist objector fails to do justice to the other part of God’s word which says [1 Jn 3:8], “He that committeth sin is of the Devil: for the Devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God appeared, that He might destroy the works of the Devil.” 1 Jn 3:8 provides the context which shows that 1 Jn 3:12 means that Cain was “of the devil” because he committed grievous sins.

Misinterpreting the Statement of Christ Himself
Obj. 3: But Christ Himself appears to have said that some Jews were the natural, biological descendants of Satan [Jn 8:44]: “You are of your father the Devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.”
Ans. 3: On the contrary, Jesus was saying that these Jews were of Abraham’s biological seed [Jn 8:37: “I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill Me, because My word hath no place in you”] but were spiritual descendants, in a manner of speaking, of Satan because they contravened Abraham’s righteous deeds and gave in to bloodlust, for they wanted to kill Jesus [Jn 8:39-41a]: “They answered and said to Him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill Me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not. You do the works of your father.”

 

[descout]

Continued from previous post…

Serpent Seed is Pseudohistory
5. Fourthly, there is an insuperable historical difficulty for the Serpent Seed Theorists. Serpent Seed Theorists claim that serpentine Kenites survive to this day. But that would be impossible even if Eve did have sexual intercourse with the serpent, for 2 Pt 2:5 says, “… and if He did not spare the ancient world, even though He preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, together with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the godless world…” Pope St. Peter’s words rule out the idea essential to Serpent Seed Theory that serpentine Kenites survive because it would be absurd to say that St. Noah and his family were of the serpent seed. Serpent Seed Theory entails that all Kenites are of the serpentine. But if there is one Kenite who is not serpentine, then there are no serpentine Kenites. And one such person comes to mind immediately; Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses [Jdg 1:16]: “And the children of the Kenite, the kinsman of Moses, went up from the city of palms, with the children of Judah, into the wilderness of his lot, which is at the south side of Arad, and they dwelt with him.” St. Jethro was a godly man, according to Gen 18:12,19-23: “So Jethro, the kinsman of Moses, offered holocausts and sacrifices to God: and Aaron and all the ancients of Israel came, to eat bread with him before God. … But hear my words and counsels, and God shall be with thee. Be thou to the people in those things that pertain to God, to bring their words to Him: And to show the people the ceremonies, and the manner of worshipping; and the way wherein they ought to walk, and the work that they ought to do. And provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, in whom there is truth, and that hate avarice, and appoint of them rulers of thousands, and of hundreds, and of fifties, and of tens, who may judge the people at all times: and when any great matter soever shall fall out, let them refer it to thee, and let them judge the lesser matters only: that so it may be lighter for thee, the burden being shared out unto others. If thou dost this, thou shalt fulfill the commandment of God, and shalt be able to bear His precepts: and all this people shall return to their places with peace.”

Now I guess I am not entirley sure here but if the serpent seed story were true would that mean that the flood did not wipe out everyone and everything? In Genesis it describes a flood that only Noah and his sons and wives and the animals on the ark survived. Now Noah himself was a descendent of Seth I believe and Seth was conceived of Adam and Eve, not the serpent as with Cain like the serpent seed story says. So how to this day would serpent seed descendents be around? Cause I think the only seed around is that from Seth who was not of the serpent.
Could anyone tell me if my logic is right here? I am in discussion with someone who believes in this theory and am trying to biblically show the errors of the theory.

 

[zdon011]

I am in discussion with someone who believes in this theory and am trying to biblically show the errors of the theory.

Whenever I encounter the ‘serpent seed’ theory, it’s used to justify some rather unsavoury notions, e.g. that Jewish people are a Satanic race, or that all non-white races are the spawn of Satan.

From a Christian viewpoint, the theory is very disturbing, because it implies that there are people alive today who may not have entirely human souls. If they were lineal descendants of Satan, in the same way the Nephilim were angel-human hybrids, they might not qualify for salvation in Christ. However, the Bible teaches that Christ’s Gospel is for all races, and that all are descended from Adam and Eve.

WFor example, when Christ accuses Jews of being ‘sons of the devil’ in the Gospel, he does not mean they are physical descendants of Satan. He is contrasting their boastful claims of descent from godly Abraham with their actual emulation of Satan (i.e., through their sinful nature and behaviour).

Genesis says ‘Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bare Cain’. The natural and logical sense of this verse is that the first half bears a direct, causal relationship to the second half. Nothing would justify our suspecting otherwise.