One of Peter Ruckman’s most unusual teaching with no sound Biblical foundation whatsoever is that Satan had sex with Eve and fathered Cain. However, Ruckman’s imagination gone wild does not stop there. Although he is less dogmatic about it, he also suggests that Cain and Eve may have had an incestuous relationship.
In his earlier writings, Ruckman was less forceful with his teachings on the matter, and he pointed out the following concerning Gen. 3:15:
And one cannot say outright that the passages are to be taken literally, that is, Cain and the Pharisees were conceived by Satan having relationship with a woman…
Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Genesis. The Bible Believer’s Commentary Series. Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Bible Press, 1969 p. 101
Although he was less forceful about it in his earlier writings, he was somewhat contradictory in suggesting that Satan could have fathered Cain in the same Commentary, and concluded the matter of the relavant phrase in Gen. 3:15 as follows:
It is as impossible for Satan to give birth to a human being as it is for a Woman to do it without a man being involved; but Mary did have a child without a man being involved! The assumption, therefore, that Satan cannot produce life and give birth to “a seed” is a false assumption, an erroneous doctrine and a faulty conclusion.
Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Genesis. The Bible Believer’s Commentary Series. Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1969, p. 102
As you read the following quote, ask yourself if in your readings of Genesis chapter 4 it ever implied to you what Ruckman says it implies:
Verses 2–3 are an enigma on which no modern commentator would dare comment—that is, the “recognized” ones. It implies that Satan begat Cain when he seduced Eve. See 1 John 3:12, John 8:44, and Genesis 3:15.
Bible Believers' Bulletin. Nov. 2001, p. 6
Genesis chapter 4 does not imply any sexual union whatsoever between Satan and Eve. Genesis 4:2 which Ruckman references simply says that “she again bare his brother Abel.” It implies nothing along the lines of Ruckman’s twisted imagination. It is interesting to note that Ruckman departs from the KJV vocabulary when he states in the above quote that Satan “seduced Eve.” The KJV uses the term beguiled, which admittedly in Hebrew can mean to seduce in the moral sense. However, in the context in Gen. 3:13 the term beguiled is not used in any sexual sense whatsoever, as it is restricted to describing Satan convincing Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit.
Notice all that Ruckman reads into Genesis 4:1:
Although the text seems to state the events chronologically, something is wrong in relation to Cain, which does not appear at this exact place in the narrative. The statement is that Adam has relations with his wife, then she conceived for the first time, and then she gave birth for the first time. But there is a dark and mysterious aura surrounding the verse. In the first place, Eve mistakes her first son for the fulfillment of the promise in Genesis 3:15, and Cain is anything but "the seed of the woman."
Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Genesis. The Bible Believer’s Commentary Series. Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1969 (1980 reprint), p. 118
Gen 4:1 simply says “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.” Is there “a dark and mysterious aura surrounding the verse” as Ruckman claims? Certainly not. The verse is as clear as can be that Adam fathered Cain, in complete contradiction to Ruckman’s private interpretation! Eve’s subsequent statement simply consisted of crediting God with the blessing of giving birth to the first child on earth, along the lines of Psa. 127:3: Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
More of Ruckman's "reading between the lines" to form an absurd conclusion:
Firstly, Cain and Abel are twins, and there is a possible "time lapse" in their conception allowing them to have two different "fathers" (see John 8:44 where Satan is called a MURDERER with full knowledge that he himself never murdered anyone, let alone "at the beginning." At the beginning it is CAIN.) Secondly: notice that Eve is claiming the promise of Genesis 3:1 prematurely. Cain was NOT "a man from the LORD."
Bible Believers' Bulletin. Oct. 1989, p. 3
Ruckman’s teaching on this matter rests not on what the Biblical text actually says, but what Ruckman claims it somehow implies:
It implies [2 Cor. 11:3] that a sexual transaction took place between Eve and Satan that resulted in the conception of Cain
Ruckman, Peter. The Books of First and Second Corinthians: The Bible Believer’s Commentary Series. Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 2002, p. 551
Ruckman unnaturally sexualizes his interpretation of 2 Cor. 11:2-3 in order to derive his conclusion that “the corrupting of ‘a chaste virgin’ of verse 2 is compared to Satan beguiling Eve in verse 3.” 2 Cor. 11:2 is not about sex or the “corrupting of a chaste virgin.” It is an allusion to the purity of the church as the bride of Christ at his coming in preparation for the final marriage feast. In spite of the term “virgin” in verse 2, there is nothing ultimately sexual in the context of the verse to connect with Satan and Eve in the following verse.
In the following quote Ruckman implies that you are not a Bible believer if you fail to recognize that Satan literally fathered Cain:
No Bible believer fails to recognize the connection between Eve’s sin and her first offspring. Cain is said to be “of that wicked one” and a “murderer” (1 John 3:12).
Ruckman, Peter. Segregation or Integration. Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 2002 reprint, p. 34
Ruckman does not shy away from injecting some racism into the matter, as is evident in the following quote:
This makes Cain the greatest type of the Son of Perdition in the Bible. If you will get The Bible Believer's Commentary on Genesis, you will find he is also a type of two other things: the NEGRO and the JEW.
Bible Believers' Bulletin. Oct. 1993, p. 9
Using an obscure passage in Ezekiel, Ruckman portrays the Devil as a tree in the Garden of Eden (instead of a serpent) that Eve partook of orally in an attempt to link it to an act of adultery:
In regard to Satan being connected with a tree, look at Ezekiel 31:1-9, especially verse 9. The Devil is pictured as a tree in the Garden of Eden.
Next, the fruit that corrupts Eve comes from a tree in the Garden of Eden which is connected with the serpent (Gen. 3:1-6). She put the fruit of that tree in her mouth. When she did, it affected her circulatory system: "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev-17:11). That oral insemination is connected with adultery (Prov. 30:20).
Ruckman, Peter. The Books of First and Second Corinthians: The Bible Believer’s Commentary Series. Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 2002, p. 552
As if his teaching that Satan had sex with Eve resulting in the conception of Cain was not bizarre enough, for no apparent reason Ruckman imagines that there may have been an incestuous relationship between Eve and Cain:
It's a reference to a killer: Cain, who may have messed with his mother, but I won't go into that right now.
Bible Believers' Bulletin. July 1996, pp. 8, 11
Cain committed evil “works” (1 John 3:12) long before he murdered his brother; perhaps Cain had been fooling with his own mother. Nothing in Genesis 4 proves that, but it was being practised in the New Testament long after Christ’s resurrection (see 1 Cor. 5–6), exactly as it was practised by Reuben in Genesis 35:22 more than 500 years before Goliath “sired” four brothers via his own mother (1 Chron. 20:6 and 2 Sam. 21:19–20).
Bible Believers' Bulletin. April 2002, p. 3
Ruckman did say “maybe” and “perhaps,” but since there is nothing in the Bible that even hints of possible mother/son incest or rape on the part of Cain, it was irresponsible to even bring it up. Nothing negative is said about Eve in the Bible except for the original sin in the Garden of Eden.
Ruckman’s vulgar theories surrounding his teaching that Satan slept with Eve replete with tabloid-style sensational private interpretations have no place in Christianity. They are tasteless and revolting. One of the most basic rules of Biblical interpretation is often stated something like this: “literal, unless absurd.” Ruckman's interpretation in this matter (not to mention many others) is the height of absurdity and ridiculousness.