The Serpent Seed Doctrine Examined

The Serpent Seed Doctrine Examined

by
Beaux Hargrove
B.Haretree@yahoo.com

In some circles, there is a teaching called the “serpent seed” doctrine, which asserts that Cain was the offspring of Eve and the serpent, Satan, who in turn produced a lineage of ungodly “serpentine” people that survived the Noahic flood, and remain among us to the present day. An examination of Scripture makes it clear that this is not a Biblical teaching. This paper is set forth as a defense of the traditional interpretation of the Genesis narrative, Adam’s paternity of Cain.

We begin this discussion with a question—why do we believe Cain was the son of Adam, rather than Satan? The traditional interpretation is that Adam fathered Cain; however, there is more reason in favor of this view than merely tradition. The Scriptural evidence supports Adam’s paternity of Cain, and no hard evidence exists supporting Satan’s paternity of Cain. Because the majority of people who hold to a form of Judaic monotheism agree with the teaching that Adam fathered Cain, the burden of proof rests upon the espouser of the serpent seed doctrine.

The passage directly affirming Adam’s fatherhood of Cain is, “Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain” (Genesis 4:1). In this passage, the phrase “Adam knew Eve his wife” refers to sexual intercourse between Adam and Eve, and “she conceived, and bare Cain” refers to the direct result of that intercourse. This conservative perspective is never denied by scripture; nor is another option extended. This alone should convince any doubters that Adam fathered Cain; unfortunately for many, this does not.

The opposing perspective perceives this passage as a sequence of separate, unrelated events. The text reads,

[a]And Adam knew Eve his wife; [b]and she conceived, and bare Cain, [c]and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

The serpent seed teaching places emphasis on the conjunction ו in part b of this verse, suggesting that this is a clear separation of the ideas given in this text. As we see, however, it can also function as a transitory word as we see in the same verse וְהָ֣אָדָ֔ם יָדַ֖ע אֶת־חַוָּ֣ה אִשְׁתֹּ֑ו (“And Adam knew Eve his wife”). Regarding this particular Hebrew conjunction, Barrick and Busenitz say,

Conjunctions connect words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. The Hebrew conjunction and is written with a ו and attached inseparably to the word it governs. In addition to and, it can also have the following meanings (determined by context): so, then, even, and the adversative but.1

Only if one approaches the text with certain presuppositions might one translate ו as “also.” Translating ו as “also” allegedly suggests that “Adam knew Eve his wife” is a separate event from “she conceived,” the interpretation demanded by the serpent seed doctrine. Instead of the translation offered by all other major translations, the passage would read, “And Adam had sex with Eve his wife; she also conceived, and bore Cain....” Even so, great difficulty remains in separating Eve’s conception from Adam’s intercourse with her.

We see the same construction in Genesis 4:17, “And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch….” The phrase וַתַּהַר (“and she conceived”) is the same phrase found in Genesis 4:1. If this is a construction demonstrating that the conception is brought about by some other party, then who is the father of Enoch? There is nothing in the context that gives any indication of another party involved in the conception of Enoch; therefore, we should not doubt that Cain is the father of Enoch. Likewise, the phrase וַתַּהַר (“and she conceived”) in Genesis 4:1 is not indicating a father other than Adam. Eve’s conception is most definitely the effect of “Adam knew Eve his wife.” The serpent seed adherent will find it difficult to prove that this conjunction can function in such a manner as to indicate a previous event other than the immediate to which the conjunctive clause refers.

Strengthening the traditional interpretation of Genesis 4:1, Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill draws a clear line connecting all men on the face of the earth to one common ancestor.

God that made the world and all things therein…and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.(Acts 17:24-29, KJV)

This passage from Paul’s sermon in Athens is a compelling article of evidence against the serpent seed doctrine. The Greek text behind verse 26a reads “ἐποίησέν τε ἐξ ἑνὸς πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ παντὸς προσώπου τῆς γῆς.”2 A literal translation is, “And so he made from one each nation of men to dwell on all of face of the earth” (my translation). As in the quotation from the Greek text, the best manuscripts, including 𝔓74, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus, omit ἅιματος from the text,3 indicating that this was a later addition, which made it into the Textus Receptus used in the King James Version. The question then arises in response to the text, “One what?” The most probable meaning of ἑνός (one) in this context is “one man,” and another probable meaning is “one nation,” but, whether we supply man, nation, or blood, the fact remains that each nation of men has a common origin.4 All humans are made from one, regardless of their ethnicity. This directly contradicts the serpent seed doctrine, which asserts that some ethnicities are derived from another ancestor, or have a different origin.
The account of the Noahic flood serves as additional biblical evidence that all humans have a common male ancestor. The given reason for the flood was “that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” If the wickedness in the earth was caused by the propagation of people descended from Satan, then those people would specifically have been the target of the flood. However, we read in Genesis 6:11 that this wickedness in the earth was, specifically, violence. The reason Noah was spared was that “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.”5 God regretted that he had made man because mankind had turned utterly to wickedness. He desired to begin again with someone who would be upright and hold to the ethical principles of His will. Noah, because of his dedication to God in the midst an evil world, found favor in the sight of God and was spared from the coming destruction.

In Genesis 9:19, we read “שְׁלֹשָׁ֥ה אֵ֖לֶּה בְּנֵי־נֹ֑חַ וּמֵאֵ֖לֶּה נָֽפְצָ֥ה כָל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ .”6 “These were the three sons of Noah, and from these were all the people of the earth scattered out” (my translation). In this context, “earth” only makes sense if it refers, not to the ground or land, but to people. The meaning best ascribed here is an idiomatic meaning referring to the peoples of the earth. This demonstrates their common origin.

Furthermore, in Peter’s first epistle, he wrote “few, that is, eight souls were saved by water” (1 Peter 3:20).7 These eight persons were Noah, Noah’s wife, Shem, Shem’s wife, Ham, Ham’s wife, Japheth, and Japheth’s wife. Only if one of the three brothers’ wives were descendants of Cain could his bloodline have survived the flood.8 While this is possible, it is unlikely; yet, if this were the circumstance, one of Noah’s sons had married a descendant of Cain, it would not support the idea that Cain was fathered by Satan.

Now, moving beyond the statement and defense of the traditional interpretation of Adam’s paternity of Cain, we examine several passages used in the serpent seed doctrine to further the case for a Satanic/serpentine race. Passages of scripture that explicitly call people “of the devil” or “of the/that wicked one” are used to attempt proof of the serpent seed doctrine. One such passage is 1 John 3:12,

Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

Specifically, the phrase “Cain, who was of that wicked one,” is appealed to in support of the idea that Cain is the physical offspring of the Devil. If John is affirming that the Devil fathered Cain, however, then all who practice/commit sin must also be children of the Devil given the fact that John says beforehand in verse 8 that the one who “committeth sin is of the devil,”9 which would include Adam because of his sin in the Garden of Eden (Hosea 6:7; Romans 5:14), and every other human being since “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Furthermore, before Christ, all humanity was enslaved to sin.

Clearly, when John called those that are doing sin “of the devil,” he was using metaphorical speech to emphasize his point. As an analogy, when Jesus called Peter Satan, did he really mean that Peter was actually Satan (Matthew 16:23)? Or, did he mean that Peter was thinking in a way that did not reflect God’s will? The latter meaning is the reasonable interpretation since Christ goes on to say, “…you are not considering the things of God, but the things of men” (my translation).10 It was Peter’s thoughts and emotions, his heart, that Jesus rebuked, not his identity.

If we understand that 1 John 3:8 is referring not to biological paternity but rather to conditions of the heart, we stand to gain a clear picture of what is said in 1 John 3:12, which is merely an example modifying what is said in 1 John 3:11 concerning loving one’s brethren. Due to the parallelism of terminology and structure, we can be certain Cain was “of that wicked one” in the same sense “he that committeth sin is of the devil.”
The parable of the wheat and the tares found in Matthew 13:36-42 uses similar terminology in the same sense. A natural reading of this text acknowledges that the “children of the wicked one” are identified as “all things that offend, and them which do iniquity.” Again, this is in a spiritual sense that people are “children of the wicked one.”

Similar passages, including those that use expressions such as “generation of vipers” and “of your father the devil” (Matthew 3:7; 12:34; 23:33; Luke 3:7; John 8:4411), can be interpreted more accurately in light of 1 John 3:8-12 and Matthew 13:36-42, rather than in light of the serpent seed doctrine. The Pharisees were described as a “generation of vipers” and as being “of your father the devil” because of their unrighteous fruits (Matthew 3:8; 12:35; 23:34; Luke 3:8), which is often a metaphor describing the acts that proceed forth from a person. Bearing in mind that unrighteous, sinful practices are what make one a child of the devil (1 John 3:8), one can see that this is clearly what is being brought to attention in these passages. Jesus, on another occasion, spoke to His disciples, telling them, “love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:44-45). This shows again that it is according to one’s actions that one is either a child of the Devil or a child of God.12

In light of these things, we move forward to the account set forth in the third chapter of Genesis, which is the focus of the subject at hand.

And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil…. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2:9, 16-17)

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons…. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:1-7, 15)

In Genesis 2, God caused every fruit-bearing tree that looked pleasant to the eye to come up out of the ground. It is always asserted by serpent seed adherents that the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are not literal trees and thus their fruit was not literal fruit. By association, however, these two trees are indeed literal trees; otherwise the other trees cannot reasonably be literal trees. Thus, by natural implication, partaking of these literal trees would be eating the literal fruits of the literal trees. Adam and Eve were only forbidden from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They were allowed to eat freely from all the other trees in the garden. If the term “tree” is used symbolically in this account, in what sense were they allowed to eat of these other trees?

Moving forward to Genesis 3, we are introduced to a serpent in the Garden, whom we know from Revelation 12:9 to be Satan. He may have temporarily taken on the form of a serpent, or perhaps a serpent was possessed by Satan since we know it is possible for spirit-beings (id est angels) to inhabit a carnal body, whether human or animal.13 If Satan merely inhabited a serpent’s body, then he would not have personally been capable of fathering any offspring. Therefore, the issue that must be addressed is the possibility for Satan to have produced offspring, which might only be possible if Satan actually took physical form rather than merely inhabited an existing serpent.14 While the possibility of reproduction between an angel and a human is uncertain (Genesis 6, Jude, and other, non-canonical Jewish texts suggest it may), the punishment for doing so was being bound in chains and cast into outer darkness (Jude 1:6-7).15 In order to successfully reproduce with Eve, Satan must have become entirely human, but there is no mention of such in this account.16 Instead, there is strong indication given that the serpent was a literal serpent; namely, at the beginning of Genesis 3, it describes the serpent as “more subtil than any beast17 of the field.” Obviously, this serpent has some connection to the other beasts of the field, else there is no point in drawing this comparison.

A point of special importance is that nothing in this passage expresses that the serpent engaged in sexual relations with Eve. The reason for this is not to shelter us from such things, for we have no want of instances where the Bible explicitly states that people engaged in sexual activity. Some, nonetheless, draw upon 2 Corinthians 11:3 as an example to help their case.

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:3, emphasis mine)

The proposed idea here is that Eve was deceived into engaging in sexual relations with the serpent. The word translated “beguiled” here is ἐξαπατάω, defined in Strong’s dictionary as “seduced wholly.” This isolated definition by James Strong, to the exclusion of other reputable sources, lays the entirety of the foundation for the assertion that this text passively teaches a sexual relationship between Eve and the serpent. However, if we look at how the word ἐξαπατάω is used in other places, it is clear that the it carries the meaning of “deceive” (Romans 7:11, 16:18; 1 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 2:14). Most major translations of the Bible use the word “deceived.” Clearly, a sexual seduction is not the underlying concept of this verse, but Eve was “deceived wholly” from obedience to God.

Returning to the text of Genesis 3, the suggestion that Genesis 3:15 supports the serpent seed doctrine requires an inconsistent interpretation of “seed” in this verse. If Cain was the offspring of the serpent and Eve, he would have been the shared offspring of the serpent and Eve. The distinction made would not be between the serpent’s seed and Eve’s seed, but between the serpent and Eve’s seed, and Adam and Eve’s seed. Instead, the seed of the serpent is distinguished from the seed of the woman. Therefore, the immediate meaning of the text is that the serpent’s offspring, other snakes, will be at enmity with the woman’s seed, other humans. Because of the distinction between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman, it is not possible for the seed of the woman to have been tainted by the serpent.

There are some practical difficulties that arise from adherence to the doctrine of serpent seed. One such difficulty is the Bible’s accounts of marriage. If there existed humans who were the physical descendents of Satan himself, then marriage with these people would undoubtedly be abominable. Those nations known for idolatry, witchcraft, and brutality would obviously have to be of that tainted bloodline because it is “them that offend” and “them which do iniquity” that are identified as the children of the Devil. Most people can easily identify several of these nations. Egypt, Moab, Assyria and Babylon immediately come to mind. We will include the Kenites as well since they have been targeted as being “of Cain” by some promoters of the serpent seed doctrine.18

If Egyptians were physical descendents of Satan, then it should have been a sin for Abraham to have sexual relations with the Egyptian woman Hagar, and yet God never condemned or punished Abraham’s action. In fact, rather than allow Ishmael to die in the wilderness, God blessed him and made him a nation.

Joseph married an Egyptian woman. His children—Ephraim and Manasseh—were both blessed by Jacob and distinguished in the nation of Israel. Surely, if their blood had been tainted by Satan, they would not have received such blessings.

Moses married the daughter of a Kenite. He was the prophet chosen by God—after his marriage—to lead Israel out of Egypt.19 Moses’ sin that kept him from the Promised Land was not his marriage, but his disobedience to God at Meribah (Numbers 20:8-12).

The genealogy of Christ includes Boaz, whose mother is identified as Rahab the harlot.20 As a harlot, she would necessarily be identified as a descendent of Satan, and yet her blood is mixed in the lineage of our holy savior, Jesus Christ.

Ruth, another ancestor of Jesus, was a Moabite. The Bible paints a colorful portrait of the idolatrous nation of Moab, which came from the incestuous loins of the drunkard Lot and his two daughters. Surely Ruth must have been a descendent of Satan, and yet just like Rahab, her blood is found in Christ’s lineage.

In two of these instances mentioned, an Israelite man married a foreign woman. What was wrong with marrying foreign women? Deuteronomy 7:4 says, “…they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.” This logical reasoning would have also applied before the Law, which explains why Abraham did not want Isaac to marry an idolatrous Canaanite woman, although there was no direction given by God against doing so. If there was no threat of this happening, the marriage would be permissible, as in the case of Ruth (and probably in the case of Rahab). The same reasoning is true of a believer’s marriage with an unbeliever in the New Testament (2 Corinthians 6:14). Biblically, there is no sin in marrying a person of either a different race21 or different nationality. There is sin, however, in marrying someone of different religious background because of the danger of apostasy associated with doing so.

Another difficulty inherent in the teaching of serpent seed is the application to daily life. If one adheres to this doctrine, one must ask oneself at some point: Does it matter whether or not someone is descended from Satan? How do we go about identifying these serpentine peoples? Should we treat them differently than other sinners? Can they receive salvation? Should they be annihilated?

The answers to these questions are difficult to muster for some because they have no hatred in their hearts. However, if one believes this doctrine, one must answer these questions for oneself, and the last three questions would undoubtedly require an affirmative answer.

We have examined the serpent seed doctrine: its teachings, its scriptures, its reasoning. We have found it wanting for its inconsistency, unclarity, and ignorance of scriptural evidence against itself. Given the lack of evidence in favor of the serpent seed doctrine, and the abundance of evidence against it, we ought to reject the doctrine. The traditional interpretation should be maintained, that Adam fathered Cain, and that the original sin was not sexual activity with the serpent but the eating of the forbidden fruit. While people can be children of the Devil in a spiritual sense, no human is a physical descendent of the Devil. Being a child of the Devil is not a matter of race, but of the heart.

As Christians, we must acknowledge that, spiritually, we were all in that condition of being a child of the Devil. It is our responsibility to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19) so that all might “come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). As Paul admonished the church in Corinth, “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11). Such is the difference between a child of God and a child of the devil.

Footnotes
1. A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew. Barrick, William D. and Irvin A. Busenitz. Sun Valley, CA: Grace Books International. Print, 2011. In a footnote, other possible translations are given (still determined by context): “with, in addition to, namely, also, or, whether, since, because, so that, if, that, and therefore.”
2. Novum Testamentum Graece. Ed. Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martin, and Bruce M. Metzger. 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Print.
3. ἅιματος is included in the Greek text underlying the King James Version, which follows a Byzantine text-type. For more information on the subject of textual criticism, see Wegner, Paul D. A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006. Print.
4. This point has also found vindication from the study of the human genome. An article published in the Washington Post reported on the recent work of geneticists which has proven that all humans alive today have one common male ancestor. This fact significantly undercuts the position of the serpent seed doctrine, which insists that some people have another male ancestor. Wade, Nicholas. “Y Chromosome Bears Witness to Story of the Jewish Diaspora.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 9 May 2000. Web. 23 Sep. 2013.
5. Some say this suggests Noah was genetically pure, having a good pedigree. “Perfect in his generations” is rendered “blameless in his generation” in the ESV, “perfected among his family” in the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, “blameless in his [evil] generation” in the Amplified Bible, “blameless in his time” in the NASB, and “blameless among the people of his time” in the NIV. This passage is obviously dealing with the moral character of Noah, not his descent.
6. The Westminster Leningrad Codex. Bible Gateway. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
7. The ESV renders this “few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.” The word translated as “souls” in the KJV can frequently be translated “persons.”
8. At this, many adherents of serpent seed claim that Cain’s descendants were not considered human and were of the beasts taken into the ark in Genesis 7:8. However, many other translations use the word animal for בְּהֵמָה֙ , and Strong’s definition of the word says, “From an unused root (probably meaning to be mute); properly a dumb beast; especially any large quadruped or animal (often collectively).” This would mean that if the serpent seed doctrine were true, we could spot them among us easily because they would be incapable of speech.
9. ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν…” The English Standard Version (ESV) offers a good rendering, “Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil” (1 John 3:8). “The one [continually] doing sin is from the devil” (my translation). The Greek verb used here for “committeth,” “makes a practice,” and “[continually] doing” is ποιέω, defined “I make” or “I do.” The verb in this instance is a present active participle, meaning that it is a current, active doing. In essence, anyone who is living in sin or continuing in sin is of the devil. This is the concept that understands verse 9 and parallels verse 12.
10. The Greek word ϕρονέω, translated “savourest” in the KJV, involves activity of the mind. Cf. Strong, James. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order; Together with Dictionaries of the Hebrew and Greek Words of the Original, with References to the English Words. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990. Print.
11. Some here quote John 8:41, “We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God,” claiming that the Jews refer here to fornication between Eve and the serpent, and that the Jews lie about being sons of God, when in fact they are the sons of the devil through Cain. However, beginning in verse thirty-seven, Jesus affirms that the unbelieving Jews are the seed of Abraham. In the same way that Jesus is the Son of God in a literal sense because He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, the unbelieving Jews were, in a literal sense, the sons of Abraham because they were descended from him.
However, in a spiritual sense Jesus was the Son of God because of His conformity to the will of God. The Jews were, in a spiritual sense, the sons of the devil because they made a practice of sinning, as the third chapter of 1 John demonstrates. The Jews supposed Jesus accused them of having a father other than God. They had come to understand that Christ was speaking spiritually since He had already affirmed that they were the seed of Abraham. Thus, when He called them the children of a father other than Abraham, they understood that He was speaking spiritually, which is why they attempted to insist that God was their Father—that they were children of God. The reason they claimed to not be born of fornication was because they were speaking metaphorically of rebellion against and disobedience to God, which is often described as whoredom. Verse 44, in regards to the “lusts of your father” and “murderer from the beginning,” depicts Satan alone. Satan desired—lusted—to murder Adam and Eve through deceiving them into disobeying God, an act beforehand dictated to be punished by death. If a person were to convince another to take an excessive amount of cocaine, claiming doing so would give him or her a great high, and lying about the mutually known consequence of death, that person doing the convincing would be guilty of murder. The unbelieving Jews desired to murder Christ as the Devil desired to murder Adam and Eve.
12. This is not saying, of course, that salvation is obtained through works. Rather, works demonstrate the change that has taken place.
13. Cf. the account in Luke 8:27-33.
14. One proposed explanation is that the serpent was not truly a serpent since the Hebrew word for serpent, נָחָשׁ , is derived from נָחַשׁ , a verb meaning “to hiss” or “to whisper (a magic spell)” or “to foretell.” The usual goal of noting this is to persuade others that this means that the serpent was not really a serpent but some kind of enchanter. However, נָחָשׁ is never used except when denoting a serpent. The way a word is used determines a great deal about its meaning.
An alternative explanation is that this “serpent” was one of the sixth-day creations, referring to a doctrine (closely related to the serpent seed doctrine) teaching that the account of Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 2-3 describe two different sets of events and two different sets of people. This doctrine proposes that God created other people that were not “chosen” and did not have souls like Adam did. If this was true, and it could be demonstrated that Eve had sex with the serpent, Cain would not be the son of Satan. However, though this is not the topic at hand, and this is not an exhaustive explanation, this doctrine can be refuted with the knowledge of 1 Corinthians 15:45, which calls the first man Adam; with the knowledge of Genesis 3:20, which says Eve was the mother of all living (by implication, living people); with the knowledge that the break in flow found in Genesis 2:4 is identical to the one in Genesis 5:1, which definitely does not indicate a third set of humans created; with the knowledge that “God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the earth” (Acts 17:24-29, KJV).
15. This punishment applies here only if one already accepts that the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6 were fallen angels. Otherwise, it refers to something else that is, at this juncture, unknown for certain.
16. On the broader subject of angels reproducing with human women, by the laws of nature, a being in a spiritual form of existence cannot mate with a being in a physical form of existence, let alone produce offspring. To what extent must those fallen angels have taken physical form for it to have been possible? They must have taken complete human form, with fully-functioning human reproductive organs, in order to produce the “mighty men.” But, can we say with certainty that this did happen? Is there enough scriptural evidence to conclude that angels became men? It is not my purpose to proclaim yea or nay in this matter, but it is certainly a bold conclusion to make based off such ambiguous information.
17. חַיַּת . Alternatively, this could be translated “living thing.”
18. I would thoroughly disagree with this accusation for two reasons: 1) all the peoples of the earth were descended from Noah’s three sons, eliminating the possibility that Cain would have posterity after the flood, and 2) there is no genealogy given for the Kenites and the name in itself does not etymologically connect them to Cain since it is possible that others could have had the same name and there was one city by that name.
19. Upon Moses’ return to his people, God’s wrath was upon him because Moses’ son was uncircumcised, not because of his son’s Kenite genealogy (Exodus 4:24-26).
20. Though it may be possible that this Rahab was not the same Rahab that helped the Israelite spies, there is no other Rahab mentioned in Biblical history, generating likelihood that this Rahab in Matthew’s account is the very same Rahab in Moses’ account.
21. I would argue that the term “race” is archaic and ought to be abandoned in light of modern research into the human genome.

Email IBS | Statement of Faith | Home | Browse by Author | Q & A
Links | Virtual Classroom | Copyright | Submitting Articles | Search