The Seed of the Serpent
The ruin of mankind, and of our present universe, began when our first parents, Adam and Eve disobeyed God.
Before Eve was taken from the side of Adam the following took place:
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die [lit: dying you will die]." (Genesis 2:16-17)
In order to have viable relationships, when two or more parties exist, free choices must be available to the parties. This means that men must be given the right to reject God as well as to embrace Him:
Now the serpent [nachash] was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; "but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'" Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
After both Adam and Eve had fallen, God came to seek them out and to restore their broken relationship with Him. (Genesis 3:1-6) (To this day, we sons and daughters of Adam and Eve do not seek God—He must seek us first, Romans 3:11).
Though they were immediately restored to fellowship with God. But the consequences of their disobedience were long lasting:
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?" So he said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself." And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?" Then the man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate."
And the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent [Hebrew, nachash, "the shining one", i.e. a fallen angel] deceived me, and I ate." So the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life.
15. "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."
To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you."
Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return." And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them." (Genesis 3:7-21)
Verse 15 is remarkable in many ways. Ordinary the seed, or offspring, comes from the man. Here there is a reference to the "seed of the woman," not to the seed of Adam. Likewise, the term "the seed of the serpent is obscure.
Some years ago, a Canadian scholar, Arthur Custance, suggested the possibility that "original sin" (which causes the death of the body, and our innate and total predisposition to sin)—is transmitted to the next generation through the male sperm, not through the female ovum. (Custance's book, The Seed of the Woman is online, http://custance.org/old/seed/).
Custance suggests that a child born to an ordinary woman, a descendent of Eve, could be a sinless child if her ovum were fertilized supernaturally. Thus he is suggesting a mechanism for the virgin birth of our Lord Jesus.
Most scholars consider that the phrase the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 does refer to the virgin birth of Jesus as the Redeemer and Savior of our race. In fact verse 15 is often called "the protevangelium," or first announcement of the gospel.
Likewise the seed of the serpent refers to the antichrist—a fully human opponent of the true Messiah who would appear at the end of the age. (The Greek prefix anti can mean "against" or "opposed to" but it more often means "instead of.") The antichrist is a counterfeit, fake messiah. (See for example Chuck Missler, The Man on Horseback, http://khouse.org/articles/1999/174/, The Worthless Shepherd, http://ldolphin.org/worthless.html, The Antichrist, http://ldolphin.org/Anti.html).
Down through history there have been many antichrists (1 John 2:18), but the final antichrist, Paul's man of sin, will eventually appear on the stage of human histry. He is described in passages such as 2 Thessalonians 2:3-11, Matthew 24:15-24, Revelation 19:19-20.
In every generation some have tried to identify the final antichrist by name, but he can not appear on the stage history until after the rapture (removal) of the true church. So this pursuit is futile.
Until now, no successful genetic experiments (that we know of), have resulted in the birth of a human child without fertilization of a female ovum by a male sperm.
The following news story was posted in late April of this year, suggesting that a virgin-born child might be artificially brought into being in the near future. Indeed it is possible this has already happened, but kept secret till now:
a World Without Men
Scientist Says Female-Only Reproduction Is Only a Few Years Away
LONDON, April 28, 2008
Imagine a world without men: Lauren Bacall but no Bogie, Hillary Clinton but
no Bill, no Starsky or Hutch.
Could the entire male sex vanish from earth?
This isn't just an unlikely sci-fi scenario. This could be reality, according
to Bryan Sykes, an eminent professor of genetics at Oxford University and
author of "Adam's Curse: A Future Without Men."
"The Y chromosome is deteriorating and will, in my belief, disappear," Sykes
told me. A world-renowned authority on genetic material, Sykes is called upon
to investigate DNA evidence from crime scenes. His team of researchers is
currently compiling a DNA family tree for our species.
Y Chromosome 'Fatally Flawed'
The Y chromosome is passed from father to son, it's what makes babies into
boys. Basically the human template is a female: the Y chromosome kicks in a
few weeks after conception and makes a boy. "Men are genetically modified
women," explained Sykes. But unlike other chromosomes, the Y chromosome can't
repair itself and will, says Sykes, disappear altogether in about 125,000
"Every generation one percent of men will have a mutation which reduces their
fertility by 10 percent," explained Sykes. Unlike most chromosomes, the Y does
not travel through the generation in pairs, so can never repair itself from a
mirror. Flaws are never repaired. "So if that goes on for generation after
generation," Sykes argued, "eventually there are no functioning Y chromosomes
So no more men ... sparsely populated sports bars, Ferrari would lose the lion's
share of its business, and Hooters would probably go out of business.
It's a long time, 125,000 years. But we men have a far more immediate problem:
sperm counts have fallen by an incredible 20 percent in the past 50 years.
Stress? Alcohol? Environmental pollution? Who knows, but it's deeply
concerning for those of us with a vested interest in the survival of the male.
Sykes has received hate mail. "To seem to be saying that men will become
extinct, which is what I am saying," he mused. "I've had all kinds of messages
from male groups saying, 'how can you betray your gender?'"
But would the absence of men make the world a better place? There would be far
fewer wars without men on the planet, and the U.S. prison population would
drop a colossal 97 percent. Road deaths in the U.S. would fall 70 percent. The
Olympics would be half as long, which some people might view as a good thing.
But surely, flawed Y chromosome or not, bad behavior or not, we are needed for
procreation. Women can't have babies without us ... right? I'm afraid, pretty
soon they won't need our sperm, our chromosomes, our anything.
Until now, female-only reproduction has been limited to the plant and animal
kingdom. So-called parthenogenesis, observed in the Cape Honey Bee, the Kimono
Dragon and the hammerhead shark. In humans: confined to 1950s B movies. But
Sykes says the technology for women to procreate without us is just around the
"Within the next few years you will get two women having a child who is the
biological child of both of them," Sykes said. "And entirely normal in every
respect, but always female."
They've already done it with mice. Two mothers: the genetic material from one
used to fertilize the egg of the other.
The picture that Professor Sykes is painting is of a nuclear family without a
man in sight. We went in search of what could be the template for the survival
of our species. Laura and Natalie are a lovely couple who live in South London
with their 13-month-old daughter Sanne. They agreed to let our all-male crew
take a peek into their lives. Natalie actually gave birth to Sanne. The sperm
came from an anonymous donor. She's raised by two moms.
"That the child will be well balanced with just two moms: Well, that's been
proven back in the 40s," explained Natalie, who is also a child psychologist.
"It's the care giving and the relationship between the care-giver and the
infant that is the important part."
Laura, who right now is the bread winner, thinks any family will work as long
as the child is, "getting the attention, the affection, the discipline."
Looking at her very contented daughter, Laura told me, "She's obviously
confident. She's very stable and secure. So I think so far we're doing okay."
Laura attended both the dads' and the moms' prenatal classes. I asked Natalie
if having Laura as the partner was better than having a man? "I had actually a
couple of mothers saying, 'Well, at least Laura's a woman she will understand
better.'" Natalie told me. "And I said, 'no.' ... She was exactly the same as
Could Laura mount a defense? "I would like to think that I separate from the
dads in that I'm not hooked on the ball games and things like that," she
explained. And I must say, she was knee-deep in diaper changing and feeding
time while we were hanging out.
So judging by this family, two moms aren't necessarily better, but can be just
as good. But surely they must need a burly man for some things? I offered to
put up some shelves, or change some light bulbs. "Actually, Laura is very,
very handy," Natalie told me, trying not to hurt my feelings.
"My father's a mechanic, so there's nothing about a car that disturbs me,"
explained Laura. "I've also ... I renovated a house. So, I'm really not
concerned about that either."
Maybe our only hope as men is that women decide to keep us alive for their own
amusement. For the pop music, perhaps, or maybe the dancing. We can be good at
If a male child were born of a virgin by artificial means, and if Arthur Custance is correct in his hypothesis, then we might see a very human antichrist, a real superman, appearing on the stage of history in a future day. In principal, biologically speaking, this man could live forever.
This virgin-born son of a virgin would not, however be an incarnation of the Son of God. He could be "the seed of the serpent." Rather than being possessed by the Holy Spirit and committed to doing the will of God the Father, this son of Satan might well be possessed by Satan.
This conjecture would suggest that the "seed of the serpent," as Satan's final attempt to be the master of our race, would involve a very supernatural man—but a man wholly committed to serving Satan, the Adversary of man and God.
Enough said! Historically speaking, controversy over the "seed of the serpent" has been heated, wild, even bizarre--often going well beyond anything Scripture clearly teaches.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_seed, http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/seedwom2.html, http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9910chap.asp).
I recommend that none of you get caught up in endless discussions on this subject. Let's all wait and see. The above recent news item is very interesting for us in our day. It seems quite clear to a good many Bible scholars that we are rapidly approaching the time of the end when a final conflict will ensue between the returning Lord Jesus Christ and the present "god of this world" who opposes the Son of God. Our enemy will make one, final last-ditch stand—and utterly fail.
What is clear in the New Testament is the fact that Satan has already been fully defeated. This happened at the Cross of Christ when... "it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Christ to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross." (Colossians 1:19-20)
Then the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and testing Jesus asked that He would show them a sign from heaven. He answered and said to them, "When it is evening you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red'; "and in the morning, 'It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.' Hypocrites! You know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times." (Matthew 16:1-3)
Science Friction: Hybrid Embryos Stir Controversy
from the May 13, 2008
Rapid advances in the field of biology have prompted lawmakers to consider creating guidelines to regulate experiments involving animal-human hybrids. As politicians debate the ethical and moral issues, scientists continue to explore uncharted territory, with each step forward prompting the question: how far is too far?
Animal-human hybrids were once purely the stuff of science fiction, however fiction has become reality. Scientists have created sheep that possess human hearts and livers, pigs that have been born with human blood, and a variety of other creatures whose genetic makeup has been tampered with. Biologists call these hybrid animals chimeras. They are named after a mythical Greek creature that was said to possess a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail.
In recent years cross-species experimentation has become more widespread. Scientists at Newcastle University recently created Britain's first ever human-animal hybrid embryos. Researchers inserted human DNA from a skin cell into cow eggs from which the genetic information had been removed. The human-cow hybrid embryos will be used for stem cell research.
The Yuck Factor
The frightening reality is that there are not currently any federal guidelines to regulate chimeric experiments. Researchers have been left alone to regulate themselves, but there seems to be no consensus within the scientific community over what is and is not considered ethical.
Moral objections to chimeric research are often dismissed by proponents as simply knee-jerk reactions based on instinctual, rather than logical, thinking. These misgivings are sometime referred to by scientists as the "yuck factor." Unfortunately, many researchers describe the "yuck factor" as though it were an obstacle to scientific discovery, instead of evidence of a troubled conscience.
Exploring these new frontiers of science and medicine without the guidance of a strong moral compass will lead us into an ethical quagmire with dangerous repercussions. Without some kind of clear guidelines, we risk adopting a form of logic that would leave us tempted, not only to ponder, but also to do the unthinkable.
We are embarking upon an enterprise unlike anything undertaken before. The avalanche of advances in the current biotech revolution is both exciting and frightening. The promise of new remedies and cures in many diverse fields of medicine has given new hope to those who suffer from diseases like diabetes and Parkinson's. Meanwhile science continues to outrun lawmakers. The biotech revolution has produced a host of ethical questions that have yet to be answered. These questions strike at the very heart of what it means to be human. To learn more about this topic, click on the links below.
April 30, 2008. May 14, 2008.