Ruckman’s vulgar teaching that Satan committed adultery with Eve and fathered Cain

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 some of his writings, Ruckman was less forceful with his teachings on the matter, even denying it is his belief, but insisting all along that it is implied in the Bible:

Observe that Cain and Abel are twins with no conception between Cain and Abel. Verse 2 said, “she again bare his brother Abel.” Any medical doctor knows twins can come from two different fathers and sometimes can be conceived a week apart. This means that the Bible implies, without stating it directly, that some kind of sexual union could have taken place between Even and the “angel of light” (see 2 Cor. 11:14). For many years, the Roman Catholic Church taught the original sin was adultery. We do not teach that, but if you check the references given in the margins, you will see that it is strongly implied.
Ruckman, Peter. The Ruckman Reference Bible. 2009 (first edition) p. 9

He pointed out the following concerning Gen. 3:15 in his Genesis Commentary:

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 at times, he was somewhat contradictory in suggesting that Satan could have fathered Cain in the same Commentary, and concluded the matter of the relevant 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.

Observe another passage in which Ruckman also says it implies a “sexual transaction”:

The verses [2 Corinthians 11:2-3] IMPLY (see John 8:44 and 1 John 3:12) that some type of sexual transaction took place between Eve and Satan. Whatever it was, it affected her body fluids, and it caused a conception, if it happened.
Ruckman, Peter. Ruckman’s Bible References: Personal Notes on Salient Verses in the Bible, p. 278

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 [2 Cor. 11:3] implies 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

The whole trouble boils down to a failure to appreciate the reproductive power Satan, if a man is used as an instrument (John 8:44; 1 John 3:12). This deep and dark subject cannot be discussed fully here, but it will be sufficient to note that the “children of wrath” (Ephesians 1:1-4) are “children of disobedience” (Eph 2), “children of hell” (Matthew 23:13-19), and “generation of vipers” (Matt 23). Coming from a man who sold out to Satan and yielded to his authority, these “children” have a kinship to Satan much closer than can be imagined. 2 Cor 11:1-4 and John 6:70, 71 (speaking of Eve and Judas) have hidden doctrines in them of such an occult and frightening nature that it will do better to by-pass them and be content with saying that the serpent is able to produce “seed” and “life,” by the permissive will of God – for confirmation, note Gen 3:15 and Rev 13:15. Fundamentalist have been slandering the devil so long (on the basis of the passage in Exodus 8:18, 19), that it is high time they woke up to the fact that the passage deals with the devil’s inability to create life out of matter; not to imitate it, produce it, reproduce, or “give” it.
Ruckman, Peter. The Sure Word of Prophecy. Pensacola: Pensacola Bible Institute, 1978 printing, pp. 93-94

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 suggest it. 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.

23 Responses to “Ruckman’s vulgar teaching that Satan committed adultery with Eve and fathered Cain”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. charles says:

    there is a false prophet who has a t.v. program called shepard's chapel who teaches the same heresy that Ruckman does about Eve and Satan. my cousins listen to that garbage instead of reading their Bible.

  2. charles says:

    thanks poor man

    • Waldensian says:

      I'm just a servant. Ruckmanism has been one of the worst heresies to strike the Church in the last century. His bibliology is atrocious. It is an effective fusion of Romanism into Penntecostalism, and is a bridge thereinto. 

      • anonymous says:

        Waldensian, your description of Ruckmanism is spot on as I was recently deeply entrenched in the clutches of this false belief system. "It is an effective fusion of Romanism into Pentecostalism, and is a bridge there into." Exactly!!!

        • Cathar says:

          Anonymous, 

          I have done two videos on Particular Baptist Radio about Ruckman and his disciple Denlinger; for sound doctrine, do stay tuned. God help you to find a sound Particular, Strict, Primitive, Old Regular or Gospel Standard Baptist assembly. Consider also a place like  Minneapolischurch.net, as Chad Wagner and the others with which they share fellowship allow out-of-town members. Your exit of the cult is a mark toward an honest person and problablynan elect child of God. No Baptist (I am a Particular Baptist and descendant of the Cathars and Waldenses) or Protestant creed at any time agrees with Ruckmanism, Riplingerism, Denlingerism or whatever varieties of their multiple inspiration schism or any of their dangerous private interpretations. See as well the playlists for a remarkable refutation of the dual-seed error. As a former New Pentecostal of 21 years, I see scaresly any difference between the Ruckman doctrines and Rome; a review of their creeds reveals the hidden mysticism and quasi-Gnosticism that is the gangrene of Ruckmanism. 

          The Authorized Version is a marvelous translation; it is not perfect. See the Trinitarian Bible Society for more information. 

          I exort you strongly to stay rooted and grounded in the Bible; but five chapters daily from Matthew to the Apocalypse then Genesis to Malachi will make for a time and a half of reading. 

  3. John Machen says:

    Many years ago, I ran across Peter Ruckman on the radio.  While I am a lover of the King James Version of God's word, I believe Peter Ruckman is at the very least mentally unbalanced, and at worst a false teacher who must be exposed for what he really is, e.g., a cult leader.

     

    • CHARLES says:

      i agree John. i also love the KJV.  RUCKMAN WAS PROBABLY A LITTLE OF EACH, IN MY OPINION.

    • Paul says:

      I couldn't agree with you more John.  Would someone indwelled with the Holy Spirit act and talk like Ruckman?  It's more likely that Ruckman is demon possessed and quite lost.

  4. Nate Beck says:

    Eve and Satan did NOT have any sexual relations, I agree. But to say that the seed of the serpent in Genesis 3:14-15 is not literal is a heresy in itself Webmaster. That refers to the Antichrist. The seed of the Woman in the passage and the seed of the Serpent, i.e. Satan, are BOTH literal!

  5. Linda says:

    This is not true, I have his Bible and in the commentaries  he says nothing like what you are saying.

    • Webmaster says:

      With all due respect, your response is a childish reaction to what was properly documented with quotes and their respective sources. Your other comment was not approved because of vulgar language (it didn’t matter that it was in an abbreviated format).

  6. Waldensian says:

    It seems here again Ruckman stole an idea, this time from Unificationism, sans accreditation from the originator, SM Moon of the Moonies. Ruckman's house of credibility is weighed in the balance and found wanting; its foundation is buikt on sand, so when the stream of truth beats vehemently on the house, how great is tje fall thereof!

  7. I have held this belief for many years and see no harm in this teaching . Its not a salvation issue its a belief and as long as you accept JESUS as LORD what’s the problem ? Many teachers have taught far worse than this . Satan was a lair and indeed I belief he tricked Eve into having sex with him . What she spat out was a different breed from us today . However I believe many of them from this seed walk this earth and they are trouble and always will be .

  8. Sam says:

    “One of the most basic rules of Biblical interpretation is often stated something like this: “literal, unless absurd.””
    Isn’t that the same rule Pharisees used in determining if Jesus was the virgin born Son of God?

    Because absurdity is subjective and emotional. However, literal is objective. Genesis is absurd to the atheist, yet some parts of the gospel are literal to him.

    What Ruckman has taught us, even in all his errors and inconsistencies (which I would never say he is at all perfect), that there is no such thing as absurdity in scripture, it is all must be taken literally. The prophecies already fulfilled were absurd to the naysayers! Just because are blessed with hindsight, doesn’t mean the virgin birth was not absurd!

    Now, whether I agree with Ruckman in this instance, probably not. It is simply absurd, not literal because it is not stated explicitly. However, it is possible. But that’s where it just remains, a possibility.

    I do think you make too much of the possibilities and his implications. Ruckmanites still today just simply teach them as possibilities and not solid (for example, Bro. Gene Kim). It sounds often you speak as if everything he said, he was solid on.

    • Webmaster says:

      You admit that Ruckman’s vulgar teaching that Satan committed adultery with Eve and fathered Cain is not literally found in the Bible, is absurd, and not stated explicitly. Then you wrote: “Ruckmanites still today just simply teach them as possibilities and not solid (for example, Bro. Gene Kim).” So are you admitting that Ruckmanites follow Ruckman in teaching this as a possibility even when he doesn’t find it in the Bible? If you believe in following the Bible and not man, you should be thanking me for exposing this rather than being defensive of Ruckman and saying I “make too much” of this.

      Our opinions regarding what the Bible leaves unclear must be in subjection to what is clear in the Scriptures. Otherwise we can wander from one absurdity to another. I have more “biblical” authority to say that the Bible teaches that Joseph is coming back to earth someday riding on a unicorn, and he is going to use the horns of his unicorn to poke and prod and push people together to the ends of the earth (Deu. 33:16-17) than for Ruckman to say that Satan fathered Cain. What I just said about Joseph and unicorns is laughable, but if Ruckman would have taught it you would have loyal Ruckmanites backing him up with a straight face and accusing me of going too far in exposing him.

      • Sam says:

        Oh, but there is a literal passage:

        1 John 3:12
        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.

        Now whether that “of the wicked one” is literal is not of question .There’s NO figurative language around it. However, what is of question is whether it was spiritual, physical, or both. Something can be literal with it being physical or just spiritual.

        That’s WHERE the possibility lies. Ruckmanites do not teach onoe way or the other that the verse is explicit with physical or spiritual, just the possibility.

        Now, if the Bible says “Cain was NOT of the wicked one” is the only way you’re right.

        Now as for Joseph, you didn’t read the passage. It has figurative language:
        17 His glory is LIKE the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are LIKE the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

        LIKE is figurative and NOT literal. There is no such figurative wording with John.

        Maybe you need to learn first what actually constitutes literal and figurative language. Figurative is NOT seeing a passage and saying “this must be absurd so it isn’t literal”. That is not grammatically correct. Figurative is only if there is figurative language, and how Ruckmanites interpret scripture. If there are words such as “like”, “as”, or “parable”, then those parts are figurative.

        • Webmaster says:

          Nothing like a Ruckmanite who puts up with Ruckman’s nonsense to think he’s qualified to lecture everyone else on proper biblical interpretation!

          So if I could point out key verses Ruckman uses to support his teachings that he presents as literal that include “like,” “as,” or similar terms in the verses, you are prepared to dismiss any such Ruckmanite teaching as unbiblical, correct?

          • Sam says:

            I never said I believed everything Ruckman teaches. So. In fact, I disagree with him on key things because he is inconsistent with literal interpretation.

            But the literalness of the passage here is of no question.

            And yes, I can lecture you on this, because it’s literally 6th-8th grade English on how to determine what figurative and literal passages are. Which so-called Bible scholars often ignore basic language principles.

            Doesn’t matter to me if other of his teachings are incorrect or correct, as I said, the teaching is only put forth as a possibility because said passage is literal, but the Bible is not explicit whether or not the connection is physical or spiritual. We know Satan has a physical seed, with the coming Antichrist, and the prophecy of the seed of the woman is a physical One with Jesus. This is one possible way to solve that.

            So since the Bible, while not explicit, doesn’t directly contradict the possibility of it being physical except in cases of “absurdity”.

            But then, the virgin birth was absurd. And without the clarifications of later passages and the actual fulfillment, Messianic prophecies can be interpreted as one where a girl was a virgin but then she wasn’t. That’s how a lot of the Pharisees interpreted it back then, and today Orthodox Jews interpret it as Israel as the Messiah (and they have context to back their interpretation!)

            Hence why we *won’t* say it it surely was a physical connection, but we can’t say it wasn’t either, until we have a more explicit mention that puts one or the other or both, which probably revealed in heaven. Prophecy fulfillment of Jesus being born literally of a virgin puts the literal interpretation as solid. We won’t get that until something of the same caliber happens, but it is also unwise to say it can never be a possibility. Cause none of your arguments directly contradict it, as again, the only way the possibility isn’t possible is if the Bible explicitly says Cain isn’t of the wicked one.

            • Webmaster says:

              “Cause none of your arguments directly contradict it, as again, the only way the possibility isn’t possible is if the Bible explicitly says Cain isn’t of the wicked one.”

              The burden of proof is on Ruckman. You are twisting things around to place the burden on those who disagree with him or the Bible itself to disprove Ruckman, when he proved nothing to begin with!

              If we followed the logic you use to defend Ruckman, then anyone who isn’t labeled as “of the wicked one” in the Bible would therefore be “of God.” Also the Bible speaks of “the children of the wicked one” in Mat. 13:38. So for you and Ruckman to remain consistent, you would also have to theorize that Satan literally fathered other children besides Cain. The Bible uses a variety of terminology to refer to unbelievers, with “unrighteous” being among the most common. The term used for Cain is not unique in the Bible. Ruckman reads way too much into 1 Jn. 3:12, to the point that his theory collapses in the light of Mat. 13:38.

              Gen 4:1  And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. 

              If you and Ruckman won’t believe and accept this verse, quit calling yourself “Bible believers” or “Baptists.” “Ruckmanites” is a much more accurate term.

  9. Primitive Baptist says:

    Yours is a scarily modernistic argument… Ruckman denied the Trinity by saying Christ could have sinned as well as that in I Corinthians 15.28 Christians go into the Godhead in his irreverent Reference Bible; do you agree or disagree with this?

Leave a Reply to anonymous Cancel reply

*