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 is less forceful with his teachings on the matter, but nonetheless he insists 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. first edition, p. 9)
He points out the following concerning Gen. 3:15 in his Genesis Commentary:
“The serpent’s seed” causes more confusion in the ranks of the commentators than “the woman’s seed.” The primary objection to the literalness of the passage is that, "the Devil cannot produce life or procreate." This dogmatic erratum comes from believing that Exodus 8:9 would prevent the Devil from producing any kind of life; although the passage is dealing with his servant’s inability to create life out of dust: the original creation! …
Now, a “divine conception” is possible, at least in the case of Satan, for we read of Judas Iscariot that though he was “the son of Simon” (John 6:71), he was also “a devil.” …
Now the above passages have been spiritualized for 18 centuries according to the rules of interpretation laid down at Alexandria by the grand-daddy of all Critical exegetes —Origen (A.D. 185). And one cannot say outright that the passages are to be taken literally, that is, Cain and the Pharisees were conceived by Satan having relationships with a woman —“Rosemary’s Baby,” you know! However, when the “Man of Sin” finally makes his appearance (see Commentary on Revelation 13), he is said to be as much the seed of the serpent as Jesus Christ was the seed of the woman. That is quite a thought, but it is the thought of our text — Genesis 3:15 “thy seed … her seed.” 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. Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1969, p. 101-102)
Although he was less dogmatic about this view compared to some of his others, he nevertheless blasted others for not coinciding with what he believes possibly took place, calling differing views “dogmatic erratum” and accusing others of spiritualizing the passage following the example of Origen.
In the next quote provided, Ruckman suggests another unthinkable act. As you read it, 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 states 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” in Gen. 3:13, 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 the conception of Cain in his Genesis commentary:
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. Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1969, 1980 reprint, p. 118)
Gen 4:1 simply states: “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 unambiguously establishes 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 being able to give 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:
Now we come to verse 3 [2 Cor. 11:3], which presents such an enigma which no recognized commentator dares to exegete. It implies that a sexual transaction took place between Eve and Satan that resulted in the conception of Cain.
The “chaste virgin” of verse 2 is compared to Eve. And the corrupting of “a chaste virgin” is compared to Satan beguiling Eve in verse 3. One of the meanings of beguile is “to seduce.” So you will find that some Catholic books teach that the “original sin” was adultery –Eve stepping out on Adam.
Moreover, God prophecies in Genesis 3:15 that there would be a “seed” from the serpent. Cain was said to be “of that wicked one” (1 John 3:12). (Ruckman, Peter. The Books of First and Second Corinthians. Pensacola: Bible Baptist 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.
Nonetheless, Ruckman continues to sexualize the passage. Warning: –it gets more graphic! 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 a sordid attempt to somehow link it to an act of adultery:
About the only thing on which you can comment in regards to Eve’s sin is the fact that Satan is connected with a tree in the Bible and the fact that whatever corrupted Eve was taken in through the mouth.
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. Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2002, p. 552)
From another source, Ruckman likewise implies a "sexual transaction" in the same passage:
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. Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1997, p. 278)
In the following quote Ruckman is quite dogmatic, and does not suggest his view is merely implied in the Scriptures:
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)
In the quote to follow, 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)
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 in multiple writings 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 interpretations in this matter (not to mention his many others) are the height of absurdity and ridiculousness.