Branhamism is a term for the distinctive doctrines held by followers of William M. Branham(1909-1965), an American faith-healer and preacher of the mid Twentieth Century. The term Branhamism is generally disliked by adherents who typically refer to themselves as 'Message Believers' or simply 'Christians' and to William Branham's teachings as the Message of the Hour. Groups of these message believers can be found around the world without any overall formal affiliation or governance. As such, these groups can range from the comparatively orthodox to groups that would fit the popular definition of cults. A central teaching of these 'Believers' is the idea that Branham was the final Prophet to the Christian Church as a fulfilment of Malachi 4:5, and had a divinely appointed ministry of restoring the 'true apostolic faith' to the church which had been lost by 'denominationalism'. William Marrion Branham (April 6, 1909, Kentucky - 1965) was an influential Bible minister sometimes credited with founding the Latter Rain Movement within American Pentecostal churches, elements of which are present in most modern Pentecostal and Charismatic churches (although William Branham denied any specific connection with the movement). ... 1909 (MCMIX) was a common year starting on Friday (see link for calendar). ... 1965 (MCMLXV) was a common year starting on Friday (link goes to calendar). ... The Message is a term used by the followers of William M. Branham(1909-1965), an American faith-healer and preacher of the mid Twentieth Century, for the more than 1100 recorded sermons of Rev. ...

Major controversial doctrines include Godhead, The Baptismal formula, the serpent's seed doctrine and attitude to women and divorce.

This page presents an independentent perspective Branham's teachings. An uncritical perspective of Branham's doctrines from his followers perspective can be found in the Message of the Hour. The Message is a term used by the followers of William M. Branham(1909-1965), an American faith-healer and preacher of the mid Twentieth Century, for the more than 1100 recorded sermons of Rev. ...

Sermons and Books

The primary source for the distinctive doctrine are the recorded sermons of William Branham (more than a thousand with the number occasionally rising as further recordings are discovered). Most of these sermons have been put into Book form. Many groups of Branham's followers regard these sermons as being of equal authority to the Bible, while others regard them as being of generally lesser authority with only those sections for which Branham explicitly claimed to be speaking "Thus Saith the Lord" as being divinely inspired. In Addition to the recorded sermoms, William Branham claimed authorship of the 1965 book 'An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages' (commonly referred to as the 'Church Age Book'). This authorship has proved controversial amongst Branham's followers with many attributing much of the books contents (particularly the doctrines they do not agree with) to the editing of Lee Vayle rather than from the input of Branham himself.

Size and Distribution

Branham's preaching against 'denominationalism' has detered the formation of widespead widespread formal associations of groups of Branham’s followers. This makes it difficult to establish quite how many followers exist today, an unofficial estimate by David Branham (grandson of William Branham) in 1986 based upon literature distribution gave the figure at 300,000 worldwide. (C. Douglas Weaver, The Healer Prophet, William Marrion Branham: A Study of the Prophetic in American Pentecostalism, 1987, p.149) Adherents sometime claim that the figure is much larger today.

Groups of Branham's followers are widely distributed around the world, notably in the United States, but also in Latin America, Africa, Europe and many parts of Asia .

Doctrines of Godhead and Incarnation

One of the most distinctive features of Branhamism is the rejection of the Trinitarian view of the Godhead in favour of 'Oneness' views virtually the same as those held by Oneness Pentecostal groups. Frequently Branham taught a form of modalism with regard to the Godhead, claiming that there are no personal distinctions between Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit and that the persons of the Godhead are just God playing different roles as an actor: A movement of the Pentecostal branch of Christianity, Oneness Pentecostalism is based on strict monotheism. ... In Christianity, Sabellianism (also known as modalism) is the second-century belief that the three persons of the Trinity are merely different modes or aspects of God, rather than three distinct persons. ...

The Bible said that He changed His countenance, or He changed Himself, en morphe. The word comes from the Greek word, "en morphe," which means "a Greek actor that plays many parts"; today he is one thing, in the next act he's something else. He was God the Father in one act; God the Son in another act; and He's God the Holy Ghost in this act. See? There He is; His Word is still Supreme. We're living in the last days(‘Ashamed of Him’, 11 July 1965)

Contrary to this, the Trinitarian position affirms that while there is one God, there are real personal distinctions between the persons of the Godhead: Jesus prayed to the Father, Jesus submitted his will to the Father (Luke 22:42, John 17:4, Philippians 2:5-1), Jesus is loved by the Father (Matthew 3:17, John 15:9,10, 17:24-26), Jesus has been seen while God the Father cannot be seen (John 6:46), only the Father knew the time of the second coming not the Son (Matthew 24:36), Jesus described himself and his father as two witnesses in a legal sense (John 8:17,18). Branham was quite outspoken in his denouncements of Trinitarianism: The adjective trinitarian is used in several senses: Ideas or things pertaining to the Holy Trinity A person or group adhering to the doctrine of Trinitarianism, which holds God to subsist in the form of the Holy Trinity The Trinitarian Order is a Catholic monastic order founded in 1198 by... Jesus, also known as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene, is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with Christ being a title meaning Anointed One or Messiah. He is also considered a very important prophet in Islam and a... Jesus, also known as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene, is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with Christ being a title meaning Anointed One or Messiah. He is also considered a very important prophet in Islam and a... Jesus, also known as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene, is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with Christ being a title meaning Anointed One or Messiah. He is also considered a very important prophet in Islam and a... Jesus, also known as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene, is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with Christ being a title meaning Anointed One or Messiah. He is also considered a very important prophet in Islam and a... Jesus, also known as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene, is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with Christ being a title meaning Anointed One or Messiah. He is also considered a very important prophet in Islam and a... Trinitarianism is the Christian doctrine that God, although one being, exists in three distinct persons (hypostases) known collectively as the Holy Trinity. ...

Now, my precious brother, I know this is a tape also. Now, don't get excited. Let me say this with godly love. The hour has approached where I can't hold still on these things no more: too close to the coming. See? "Trinitarianism is of the Devil." I say that THUS SAITH THE LORD. Look where it come from. It come from the Nicene Council when the Catholic church become in rulership. The word "trinity" is not even mentioned in the entire Book of the Bible. And as far as three Gods, that's from hell. There's one God. That's exactly right.(‘Revelations Chapter 4 Part 3, Mercy Throne’, 8 January 1961

With regard to the incarnation Branham claimed that Jesus was a human who became regarded as God as a result of the Holy Spirit indwelling him (in the same sense as the Holy Spirit indwells Christians, only to a greater degree) sometimes claiming that this occurred at his baptism(e.g.‘Questions and Answers’, 28 June 1959, ‘Palmerworm, Locust, Caterpillar’,23 August 1959,‘The Messiah’, 17 January 1961) Contrary to this the Bible affirms that Jesus really was God become man not just God indwelling a human (see John 1:14, Philippians 2:6-8, 1 John 1:1,2). Related to Branham’s unorthodox view of the incarnation were claims that people are ‘little gods’ (or 'messiahettes'):

Now, Isaiah 9:6, we just won't read it, but He was to be the everlasting Father, the mighty God. When God made man in Genesis 1:26, it shows (if you're putting that Scripture down, Genesis 1:26), it shows that God made man to be a god to begin with. Man was made to be a god, a lesser god. He was made in the image and likeness of God. He had hands like God; he had feet like God, eyes, ears, and intelligence like God, his whole fiber, because he was a son of God. And the--Jesus referred to him as god. Jesus said, ‘How can you condemn Me, saying, I'm the Son of God? Isn't it written in your law that ye are gods? And if they call those gods who the Word of God came to, how can you condemn Me when I say, I'm the Son of God?’ He was referring to the prophets, the anointed ones, lesser anointed. Jesus was so anointed that He was more than a prophet. Jesus was so anointed till He was the Fullness of the Godhead bodily. He was God. The prophets had the same kind of anointing, only in a lesser condition. And in Genesis 1:26, when God made man, He made him a god, because He gave him a dominion, and he had rulership. He had power over the birds of the air, the cattle, over the winds, the waves, the--the fishes of the sea, everything. He had dominion over everything. He was a ruler, anointed a ruler, because he was in the likeness and in the image of God with an earthly domain. That's why the Bible says the earth is groaning, crying, waiting, for the manifestation of the Sons of God. The world is waiting for the man to come back into his right estate.('The Messiah', 17 January 1961)

God don't come by the... It isn't culture a man into God. You don't civilize him into God. He's born, a seed of God, from God, always was God, and can never be nothing else but God. You're not cultured into it. (‘Power of Transformation’, 31 October 1965)

Branham’s use of John 10:34 to claim that people should be regarded as gods is a common feature of Mormonism and the claims of several tele-evangelists (perhaps following Branham's lead). Mormonism is a religion, movement, ideology and subculture that originated in the early 1800s as a product of the Latter Day Saint movement led principally by Joseph Smith, Jr. ...

Serpent's Seed Doctrine

Branham's 'serpent's seed doctrine' was that the fall of mankind resulted from Eve having sexual intercourse with Satan who was in the form of a 'serpent' which was at that stage not a snake but the 'missing link' between apes and man:

And the only way this serpent could plant the seed, he was the only animal next to the human being. For in the evolution of mankind, when man--God brood upon the earth... And He begin to bring up birds, and the--from birds He come to different things, then chimpanzee, and from the chimpanzee to the serpent. ('Questions and Answers', 30 August 1964)

From this Cain was conceived and born and his descendants have the serpent's seed.

Versions of the serpent's seed doctrine appear in a number of sects and cults notably the 'Unification church' ('Moonies') and the 'Christian Identity Movement' where it is used as a justification for racism. Branham could have either received the doctrine from either Christian Identity related groups (Branham was well aware of the racist connections of the doctrine) or from the Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists, a minor Baptist sect, present in Indiana around the time of Branham's early ministry. Initially Branham was reticent about discussing the doctrine: This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality. ... Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists are part of a larger sub-group of Baptists that is commonly referred to as anti-mission Baptist. ...

So, Adam taken Eve as his wife. And then when sin came in... And I have my idea of what that was. I don't express it out in the church, less I just having a little class of some sort, of what the sin was in the beginning. But anyhow, when it did, it separated them from fellowship with God.('The Cruelty of Sin', 3 April 1953)

However by 1958 it had effectively become a standard doctrine of his church, when he gave a series of sermons on what the Branham Tabernacle 'believed'. One of these sermon's entitled the 'The serpent's seed' became the standard explanation of the doctrine. Still later Branham claimed that he had received the doctrine as a divine revelation as part of the 'revelation of the seven seals' (e.g. The Easter Seal', 10 April 1965)

Branham identified the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as being Eve (e.g. 'Questions and Answers Hebrews Part 1', 25 September 1957), ignoring inconsistencies with the account in Genesis, notably that the tree was created/planted prior to the creation of Eve (Genesis 2:9), Adam was warned not to eat the fruit of the tree also prior to the creation of Eve (2:17), it is mentioned along with other literal trees (2:9, 2:16,17 and 3:1,2) and because it is described as being good for food.

Part of Branham’s basis for his assertion that Eve had sexual intercourse with the ‘serpent’ was that he claimed that in Eve’s claim that the serpent had ‘beguiled’ her (3:13 in the King James Version) ‘beguiled’ actually meant sexually ‘seduced’ or ‘defiled’ rather than ‘deceived’ (which most contemporary translations give). The original Hebrew word is ‘nasha’ ("naw-shaw") which literally means to lead astray or to mentally delude with a secondary meaning to morally deceive (i.e. broader than just sexually seduce). No where in the King James Version is the word translated ‘seduced’ or ‘defiled’ and Genesis 3:13 is the only place where it is translated ‘beguiled’. Elsewhere in the Old Testament the word is usually translated ‘deceive’ (2 Kings 18:29, 19:10, 2 Chronicles 32:15, Isaiah 36:14, 37:10, Jeremiah 29:8, 37:9) or ‘deceived’ (Isaiah 19:13, Jeremiah 4:10, 49:16, Obadiah 3,7).

Whilst the Bible focuses on Adam’s willful sin rather than Eve’s deception as being the cause of the fall (e.g. Romans. 5:12-19, 1 Corinthians 15:21,22), this has little place in the serpent’s seed doctrine and was usually absent from Branham’s explanations of the fall once he had adopted the serpent’s seed doctrine. The serpent’s seed doctrine would tend to imply that Adam’s sin was having sexual relations with Eve on the basis of Genesis 3:6 ("She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.") and this is indicated by Branham’s own statements (e.g. .[ http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=1111 ‘Power of Transformation’, 31 October 1965]) This is difficult to reconcile with the Biblical claim that God had decreed that they should "Be fruitful and increase in number" (Genesis 1:28). In Branham's book 'An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages' Adam’s sin was claimed to be failing to leave Eve:

Now I know in answering one question another one is apt to come up, and people ask me, "If Eve fell that way, what did Adam do, for God lays the blame on Adam?" That is simple. The Word of God is forever settled in heaven. Before one speck of stardust was made, that Word (God's law) was there EXACTLY AS IT IS WRITTEN IN OUR BIBLE. Now the Word teaches us that if a woman leaves her husband and goes with another man she is an adultress and is no longer married and the husband is not to take her back. That Word was true in Eden as it was true when Moses wrote it in the law. The Word can't change. Adam took her back. He knew exactly what he was doing, but he did it any way. She was a part of him, and he was willing to take her responsibility upon himself. He would not let her go. So Eve conceived by him. He knew she would. He knew exactly what would happen to the human race, and he sold the human race into sin that he might have Eve, for he loved her. ('An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages' Chapter 3 )

A further pseudo-Biblical evidence that Branham claimed for the serpent’s seed doctrine was his assertion that Cain and his descendants showed the characteristics of Satan, which were not shown by Abel, Seth and his descendants (this is another implicit denial of the fall). However for Branham these satanic characteristics do not just include lying and murdering but also wisdom, beauty, science and technology.(e.g. 'The serpent's seed' 28 September 1958) This characterisation seems far more dependent on Branham’s own prejudices rather than any Biblical evidence.

Branham considered that present day people can be classified as being descendants of Cain or Seth:

And if you notice, out of the line of Cain come the smart men. Out of line of Seth come the religious men, I mean, the--the vine of righteousness. Right there, those two brought forth the very line that we're living in today. If you'll notice today now (just in finishing this question), that lineage of Cain still exists, and the lineage of Seth still exists. They both come down just the same. Cain's children is here in Jeffersonville tonight, and Seth's children's here in Jeffersonville tonight. As the blood stream weakens and goes out, but that lineage still hangs on. ('Questions and Answers Hebrews Part 3', 6 October 1957)

Branham usually tried to avoid the racist connotations of the serpent’s seed doctrine by seeking to identify people who were part of the serpent’s seed on the basis of moral, social and intellectual attributes rather than racial attributes (as is the case with the Christian Identity Movement version of the doctrine). In particular he identifies many of the same characteristics he claims were shown by Cain’s descendants including intellectual and scientific ability, involvement in denominational churches and additionally, for women, cutting their hair ("A Seed of God cannot bring forth a bob-haired woman. It cannot do it, just can't do it, 'cause the Bible said so. It can't do it. No, sir." ‘Power of Transformation’, 31 October 1965) Inspite of this spiritualising of the serpent’s seed doctrine and statements that he regarded black people as being fully human, Branham did not totally divorce himself from the serpent’s seed doctrines racist origins. Branham had a pet hatred for hybrids and would frequently denounce cross-breeding, usually Branham would refer to just plants and animals, however his denunciation of cross-breeding also extended to racial purity amongst humans (e.g. ‘Questions and Answers Hebrews Part 3’, 6 October 1957 and ‘Questions and Answers’, 30 August 1964).

Branham claimed that a person's lineage could prevent them receiving salvation regardless of how sincere their faith was :

And now, if God being just, if all He required was worship, Cain worshipped God with just as much sincerity as Abel did. Both of them were sincere. Both of them was trying to find grace with God. They were neither one of them infidels. They were both absolutely believers in Jehovah. Now, there, that gives us something to think of. Some here tonight I've never seen, people, I've never seen you before. But you must realize this, and keep this in your mind. See? No matter how religious you are, that don't have one thing to do with it. You might live in church; you might be ever so sincere; and you're still lost. See? And you say, "Well," you say, 'our pastors are the smartest; they come through the seminaries and get the best education. They're theologians; they know all--all the theology and so forth. And they're smart, trained, the very, the elected best that we know of.' And they could still be lost. See? Now, Cain on his line, they were every one very religious, a very famous people; and they were scientists, and doctors, and builders, and workers, and smart men. But all that lineage was rejected from Cain all the way down. And on Abel's side they wasn't builders, nor educators, or smart men; they were a more or less humble, sort of sheep raisers, and peasants that just walked by the Spirit. Now, the Bible said, "There's no condemnation to them that's in Christ Jesus, that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." The spiritual man has a spiritual soul that can never die. And the carnal man has a religious atmosphere around him, and wants to worship and so forth, but is carnal, not an unbeliever, but a carnal believer; and it's the kind was rejected. ('Questions and Answers Hebrews Part 3', 6 October 1957)

What practical effect the serpent’s seed doctrine has had on Branham’s followers varies considerably. Many followers seem to regard the doctrine with a certain amount of embarrassment, whilst the doctrine is endorsed in name in publications, either little or no attempt is made to elaborate what they mean by "serpent’s seed doctrine". Alternatively the doctrine is expressed in purely ‘spiritual’ terms avoiding its sexual crudities and the physical heredity aspect. This reticence in explaining the doctrine as Branham understood it, is probably due the realisation that the doctrine does not stand up to scrutiny, but since Branham placed so much emphasis on it, they feel it necessary to accept the doctrine (perhaps only in name only) on the basis of blind faith. If the doctrine were treated seriously it could have a number significant results, in particular it could lead to a highly selective attitude towards evangelism. If a person exhibited the traits that Branham associated with the serpent’s seed (e.g. intellectual or scientific ability) then they could be regarded as ineligible for salvation and any attempt to evangelise them would be futile (their is some anecdotal evidence to suggest this attitude actually does occur). A second effect of the doctrine is that a believer could have no assurance of salvation since even though they may be sincere in their faith they may unknowingly be carrying the serpents seed which will ultimately result in them being ultimately rejected by God.

External links

• WMB1.com :: William Branham Legacy Complete Resource of Information covering 1909 to present day William Branham eLibrary

• thefreeword.com :: William Branham Sermons Complete Library of the Sermons of William Marrion Branham in both audio and text format

• William Branham and His Message An Examination of the Teachings of William Branham from a Former Follower's Perspective