- Christogenea Internet Radio
Here I am going to present and comment on a paper which was first published by Clifton Emahiser in September, 2006.
In my opinion, one important aspect of our New Testament commentaries here at Christogenea is a constant endeavor to illustrate the differences of Biblical Christianity, as it is evident in both the writings of the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles, with the interpretations of Scripture which were accepted and institutionalized after Christianity had emerged from persecution in the 4th century, as a Roman-government approved Church began to take form. To a great degree, these interpretations are still found throughout the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox as well as all of the Protestant churches.
While I am only offering a hypothesis, it is very likely that these differences resulted because Christianity was persecuted by Jews for several centuries, and by the Romans often at the instigation of the Jews, at the same time that it was being infiltrated by Judaizers, which is evident throughout the New Testament epistles and Acts of the Apostles. During this period of persecution, the Judaizers sought to corrupt Christianity, and as Judaic thought gained more and more traction on a persecuted Christianity, there is an evident transition which occurred within the first century of the dissemination of the gospel. The spread of the gospel began as a message to the scattered twelve tribes of Israel and ended by adopting what we may call replacement theology, which is the misguided concept that somehow mere “gentiles”, people of other races and nations, had replaced the actual children of Israel as the object of the promises of God. This happened during a murky period of Christian history from about 100 AD up to the time of Justin Martyr, a period about which little is known. But the apostles, as well as the prophets, had taught that the twelve tribes of Israel which were scattered abroad, and had already become many nations, were being called to Christ. But the Judaic form of Christianity which took root in Palestine and in Alexandria and which ultimately became dominant had taught that anyone who was baptized and believed in Jesus somehow became one of the children of a “new” Israel, which was the ecclesia, and later, the Church.
This situation greatly benefited the Jews, who were then able to claim a special privilege of being the “chosen race”, pretending children of Israel while denying Christ. At the same time, the Christians who had actually descended from the “twelve tribes scattered abroad” and who were the original objects of apostolic evangelizing were ultimately reduced to perceiving themselves as second-class citizens within their own Faith. Ever since the second century, the Jews have been able to position themselves into being perceived as a special class even though they continued to deny Christ, and in spite of the fact that they are not even true Israelites, but rather, they are Edomite bastards. Jewry has always been a criminal enterprise, and thus it was able to continue to this very day.
To understand Justin Martyr, one must also understand that the Judaean Christians had rejected Paul of Tarsus, which is evident in the Book of Acts and in the evidence that Justin seemed to not even know of Paul, never having quoted his epistles or even mentioning him. But Justin did understand the dispute which is reflected in Acts chapter 21, and mentions it in his Dialogue with Trypho, as it was ongoing in his time. Here we shall cite that chapter in part, as Paul goes up to Jerusalem to see James: “18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Nations by his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Judaeans there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Judaeans which are among the Nations to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.”
The later sect of Ebionite Christians in Judaea had continued to completely reject Paul. While the apostles James and Peter reflected an understanding of the scattering of ancient Israelites as it related to the intended audiences of their epistles, in the epistles of Paul there are far more explicit references elucidating the historical connections of their recipients to the ancient Israelites. But Justin evidently never learned these things, having learned his Christianity from Judaeans who rejected Paul, and as we see in Acts chapters 22 (22:21-23) and 26 (26:6-7) the Judaeans also despised the notion that Christianity be spread abroad even to the scattered twelve tribes. Later, the Alexandrians, Clement, Origen and those who learned from them, such as Eusebius and Pamphilius, were also oblivious to the historical implications of Paul’s epistles.
Paul, speaking to Judaeans at the time of his arrest in the temple, describes to them in part his experience after his conversion, and a vision which he had from Christ where Luke wrote in Acts chapter 22: “21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Nations. 22 And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.” To prove that Paul was speaking of nations descended from the Israelites, we must read his confession of the faith in Acts chapter 26, where he was speaking before Herod Agrippa II and Luke recorded that Paul had said: “6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.” The Jews, those Judaeans who themselves had rejected Christ, were infuriated at the thought that Paul would take the Christian gospel abroad to the twelve tribes that were scattered in ancient times.
All of this is important to understand, because the replacement theology scheme is first evident in the writings of Justin Martyr, a pagan who was converted to Christianity in his native Samaria, and it was also evident in the schools of the Alexandrians who had also formerly been pagans and Gnostics, such Clement of Alexandria and his students, such as Origen and Alexander of Jerusalem. Clement was a former Gnostic, and both Justin and Origen were former Platonists. In their writings, they also exhibit the influence of an earlier Alexandrian, a Jew named Philo, who wrote at length seeking to syncretize Greek mythology and philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures. Simply because these men considered themselves to be Christians does not mean that they shed all of their Gnostic and Platonic ideas. The writings of these men, and others like them who are now called “Church Fathers”, had contributed significantly to the formation of the later doctrines of the Roman Church. But these church fathers themselves did not agree on many things, and none of them are actually followed to any great degree by any of the historical churches.
Generally, and by their own admission, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have based their doctrines upon the writings of “Church Fathers” who lived in the 4th century and later, and they have either ignored, or have even officially condemned many of those earlier Christian writings. These men chose out what to accept and what to reject from the earlier “Church Fathers”, and the churches now refer to their formulations as the “traditions” which they revere. Along the way, many of Justin’s writings were lost while much of what is left is ignored, Clement’s writings were the subject of early disputations, some of Origen’s writings were condemned, and Tertullian suffered an even worse fate, being branded by the Church as a heretic. Irenaeus is one early Christian writer who is not openly condemned by the churches, but neither do they follow everything which he had professed.
But one principle which they all have in common, and which was adopted from the Platonists and the Gnostics among them, is that words in Scripture have alternative meanings other than their plain literal meanings. They must maintain this principal in order to maintain their belief in replacement theology. So in the earliest teachings of these so-called “Church Fathers”, the concepts that a son is something other than a descendant, a father something other than an ancestor, and that seed is something ethereal rather than substantial all had to prevail, and this was the basis for the universalist Church. They also retained many other Platonic, Aristotelian and Gnostic concepts and interpretations of Scripture, which the Catholic and Orthodox Churches uphold to this very day. The Roman Catholic website Catholic.com, in an article titled How Aristotle Won the West, makes the confession that “The Fathers of the Church, especially Augustine, had been affected by Platonic ideas.”
As a digression, Augustine of Hippo was born in the middle of the 4th century, and was arguably the most influential of the “Church Fathers” on the Roman Church. Augustine was also a follower of Manichaeism and Platonism, and his strange interpretations of the epistles of Paul have been a dominant factor in Roman Catholic theology. We may assert that perhaps Augustine was much closer to Mani and Plato than he ever was to Jesus, and Plato would indeed have been one of those worldly philosophies which were despised and denounced by Paul of Tarsus. Augustine was a notable proponent of sacramental theology upon which the priesthood depends for its pretense of legitimacy, and he also promoted the Jews to the status of “special people”.
So in turn, the developments of these false doctrines were also of great expedience to another universalist institution, which was the empire itself, and the use of the Jews by kings for the purposes of taxation, tax collecting, usury and mercantilism. So once the empire accepted Christianity, two other pagan elements were incorporated: the temple, which became the church building, and the priest. For well over three hundred years, Christendom had no priests. Neither Irenaeus, nor Justin, nor Origen, nor Clement, nor Tertullian ever describe a Christian priest or priesthood. The apostles never described one either, except that both the Revelation of Jesus Christ and the apostle Peter in his first epistle considered the entire race of Israel to be a holy priesthood. In Christianity, every man is a king and priest over his own household. But the empire needed to control its newly-accepted form of Christianity, and when it accepted the new creed the concept of the Christian priest was introduced, and by that Christianity was changed into something which could be controlled by the empire. The priests, becoming the government-approved interpreters and expounders of Scripture, naturally justified themselves while teaching a form of Christianity which also justified their rulers.
Many Nationalists today, whether they be Christian or pagan or something else, can understand the concept that governments seek to control religion and interpret it for themselves in order to control the people, but they fail to realize that this was also an ancient phenomenon, dating all the way back to Sumer, Babylon and Egypt, and that this phenomenon also seriously affected the doctrines and teachings of institutionalized Christianity as the Church had developed under the auspices of the empire. Once this is understood, then it may be perceived how the institutions of government, which the Church had also become, could manipulate interpretations and translations of Scripture, and then eventually the manuscripts themselves in order to maintain and perpetuate their power. That is what the scribes and Pharisees had done in first century Judaea, and it is also what was done by medieval priests and monks.
The King James Version has language in some of its translations which was purposely crafted so as to uphold the authority of the Anglican Church as an institution ordained and approved by God, even in spite of the actual Greek texts of the Bible. So χειροτονέω became ordain rather than elect, διάκονος became both minister and deacon rather than servant, πρεσβύτερος was sometimes left as presbyter rather than properly translated as elder, ἔθνος became gentile rather than nation, and ἐκκλησία a church rather than an assembly. An ἐπίσκοπος became a bishop, when in Greek the word means overseer or supervisor, and in the New Testament it was used synonymously with an elder who was chosen by the people to be their leader, elected and not ordained. The perceived meanings of these words and many others were purposely corrupted or misrepresented so as to uphold the authority of a government-approved and organized institution over the consciences of men. The government can control men compelled by force, but they cannot control the consciences of men unless they control their religion, which is something that governments have always sought to do. So the modern churches are all agents of governments, when in fact the original Christian assemblies were only home Bible study groups organized around household or community elders and servants who were chosen by the members of the community, and who then administered to those groups.
Many of our critics claim that Christian Identity is just another offshoot of Protestantism against the Roman Church, but that is not true. Identity Christians should not have Protestant theologians for their fount of intellectual and spiritual nourishment, because the Protestant Theologians are also infected by the false doctrines of the Gnostics and Platonists, in addition to the effects of two thousand years of Jewish infiltration and subversion of European Christianity. One example I commonly use is that of Martin Luther, who in his treatise On the Jews and Their Lies, had admitted being influenced by and having borrowed arguments from converso-Jews such as Nicholas of Lyra and Paul of Burgos. Rather, true Identity Christians seek to pick up where the apostles of Christ had left off in the first century, with their epistles, and with the gospels, and the law, and the prophets, while dispensing of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Mani, Philo and Gnosticism, and all of the worldly philosophies and doctrines of men – and especially of Judaism.
So here we have an attempt by Clifton Emahiser to exhibit the folly of this concept that the proponents of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and all the sects of Protestantism maintain to this very day, which is the idea that sperm can somehow be “spiritual” rather than being genetic and physical. As the term is used in our Scriptures, sperm, or seed, comes only from the loins of a man, and never from some vague notion or professed belief. So now we shall present and discuss:
Spiritual Sperm, by Clifton Emahiser
In all likelihood you’re wondering, why such a title? And, no doubt, your first impression is that you’ve never heard of such a harebrained expression, to which I must agree. But, believe it or not, a majority of people insist that such a thing exists. In fact, they will go to extraordinary lengths and through all kinds of verbal contortions to validate their hypothesis. Yet in spite of their strenuous oral gymnastics, they will usually unwittingly disprove their very own argument.
Clifton is right, the entire basis of replacement theology is that the promises to Abraham and the patriarchs concerning their seed, or σπέρμα in Greek, were “spiritual”, so basically, anyone who professes a belief in Jesus is one of these “spiritual sperm”. On the other hand, they contradict themselves by imagining that the Jews are the so-called “chosen people”, so by that they deny even what they claim to believe.
But the promises that Abraham would have seed, and that his seed would inherit the earth, includes the insistence by Yahweh God Himself that the seed come from his loins. For that reason, Yahweh went to the length of having a 90-year-old woman give birth to a child, to express the importance of that aspect of the promise. That is the promise of the seed, and that is how Paul of Tarsus explained that the promises to Abraham were fulfilled, in Romans chapter 4. Either Christians should not be Christians, or Jews are not the people of God. If we view these things honestly, there is no having it both ways.
But Clifton addresses this problem from another aspect:
The subject of this composition is about 1 John 3:9 and the scriptural setting in which it is written, especially verses 4 through 15. 1 John 3:9 in the King James Version reads:
“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”
We will let Clifton address this without elaborating, except to state that in John’s mind it is clear that a man has his seed in him as soon as he is born, and not later because he made some profession with his mouth. Clifton responds to this verse in John’s epistle:
To come to an understanding of this verse, one must first comprehend what “born of God” means, and it’s not speaking of being “born again” as Nicodemus wrongly understood it. It is not some kind of mysterious “spiritual birth” as many maintain. Yahshua Himself indicated that one must be born both of water and the Spirit, and Yahshua didn’t mean water baptism. Neither did He mean some kind of mysterious “spiritual birth.” Christ was alluding to being “born from above”, or being born of the heavenly race. We do the same thing today when, upon the birth of a White child we send announcement cards by mail to all of our relatives and friends showing a stork in flight carrying a baby. The stork is symbolic of a bird that flies in the heavens, and thus, the happy parents consider the child to be a gift from heaven, which it truly is, and this is exactly what Christ was alluding to. Never should a stork symbol be depicted as delivering a non-white child, for such a one is void of the Spirit. Therefore, 1 John 3:9 is not speaking of the false doctrine of being “born again”.
In actuality, the Roman Catholic Church, and now all of the churches, follow the error of Nicodemus to this very day, so they have refused the correction of Christ. Around this same time, mid-2006, Clifton wrote another paper titled Born Under Contract, and there he said the following in reference to John 3:3: “You can check almost any Bible commentary and it will confirm ‘born from above’ is a correct rendering. It may also be rendered ‘from the beginning.’ It was Nicodemus only who didn’t understand this, and churches, as a whole, have taken the same position he did. While the churches do not go to the extent of saying one must reenter one’s mother’s womb, they take another erroneous position. Nominal churchianity takes the position: if a person, (and he can be from any race) chooses Jesus Christ as his personal Savior and believes on Him, he can enter the Kingdom, and somehow this new candidate is regenerated or ‘born again’ of the Spirit.” Now continuing with Clifton in reference to this passage and another group of heretics:
This is the erroneous position held by all who deny two-seedline [which is] based upon Genesis 3:15. Some deny the “seed of the serpent” entirely, while others consider the “the seed of the woman” to be “literal”, and the “seed of the serpent” to be only “spiritual”. The two seeds of Genesis 3:15 are respectively #2233 (zera) in the Hebrew and #4690 (sperma) in the Greek Septuagint, and thus there can be no differentiation made between the two, either in the Hebrew or the Greek. If the “seed of the serpent” is “spiritual”, so also must the “seed of the woman” be “spiritual”. If the “seed of the woman” is literal, so also must the “seed of the serpent” be literal. Thus, the reader should begin to grasp why I chose the title “Spiritual Sperm”, however ridiculous though it may seem. To differentiate between the two seeds in Genesis 3:15 is to add to Scripture what is not there, and no amount of hocus-pocus can change their mutual meaning whatsoever. Therefore, 1 John 3:9 is speaking exclusively of the people racially “born from above”.
The Bible records the creation by Yahweh of only one race, the Adamic race, and in Genesis chapters 4, 6, 15 and elsewhere there is sufficient evidence of other people here on earth who were not a part of that race. The only Scriptural explanation is that they were born out of the rebellion of the fallen angels, of the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” for which Christ had told His adversaries “Ye are from beneath… ye are of this world”, and the fate of the goat nations in His parable of the sheep and the goats is the same as the fate of the “devil and his angels”. The apostle John, and Christ in His gospel, are describing two types of people, each having a distinct origin and destiny. Continuing with Clifton:
To substantiate beyond all reasonable doubt that both of the seeds of Genesis 3:15 are literal, I will cite Paul at Romans 16:20:
“And the God [Yahweh] of peace shall crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace [favor] of our Prince Yahshua Christ be with you.”
Paul was predicting that the Romans would shortly besiege and destroy Jerusalem along with Herod’s temple, although he would not live long enough to see it accomplished. The Romans had given opportunity for any Christian to leave before the siege, and history shows they did so. The reader will better understand this by going to the account in Josephus at Wars 2.19, as the Roman general Cestius besieged Jerusalem (Luke 21:20) and then lifted the siege for no apparent reason, although he was very close to taking the city. After Cestius lifted the siege, the good, noble people of the city fled (Wars 2.19.6, 2.20.1). Some time later – at least about two years – Titus then came and destroyed the city, just as Yahshua Christ had predicted at Matthew ch. 24 (Mark 13, Luke 21).
By-and-large, all that was left at Jerusalem were the bad-fig variety of “Jews”, or the “seed of the serpent” [Edomites who had descended in large part from Canaan, and the Canaanites had already been mingled with both the Rephaim and the Kenites, the descendants of Cain and others (Genesis 15)]. Jeremiah had described the bad-fig “Jews” at 24:2 as being so rotten they could not be eaten. The term “eaten” has sexual connotations as it did in the episode with Eve. Therefore, Jeremiah was resolutely declaring that the bad-fig “Jews” were so race-mixed, one could not marry any of them and have children by them. And the Romans (who were the seed of the woman) really trounced the hell out of those residing at Jerusalem (who were the seed of the serpent), and it was a literal physical “crushing” of a literal physical “people”. Anyone today can read the account by Josephus of that “crushing”, though there still remains a remnant of the “seed of the serpent” to be crushed. Can there still be anyone so mentally lethargic, with the witness of Josephus [and the prophecy of Paul] to continue to designate the “seed of the serpent” at Genesis 3:15 as “spiritual sperm”? I would strongly suggest that all the “one-seedliners” obtain a copy of Josephus, and start a serious study of it! All of you one-seedliners, sit up and take note: both the Bible and history call you the liars you really are! Hence, you should hide your face in shame and let your contradictory words be silenced!
Here Clifton was not addressing Judeo-Christians, although they hold the same view of Genesis 3:15. Instead, he was addressing men such as Ted Weiland, James Bruggeman, Pete Peters and others who profess to be Identity Christians, yet they refuse to correctly identify the enemies of Christ and of our White Adamic race. The argument is valid in regard to Judeo-Christians, because these men share the same Judaized beliefs. Now Clifton continues, where he is referring to the fact that the seed of the serpent was indeed physical, as he has demonstrated by explaining Romans 16:20:
Now that both our biblical and historical evidence stands on solid ground, maybe we can read 1 John 3:4-15 in its proper perspective. Let’s read 1 John 3, especially verses 11 & 12:
“11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 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.”
Take special note here where verse 12 says: “Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one ...”. It is important to consider the Greek, which the McReynolds English Interlinear Bible with the NA27 text of the Greek translates “from the evil was”, ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν. It should be mentioned that the Greek Article is translated “that” rather than “the” and is τοῦ in the Greek. It is not just simply “evil” but “the evil”; or in other words “Satan”. [The construction is a Substantive and therefore interpreted as a noun.] Where Christ said to Peter, “Get thee behind me Satan”, the Greek article is not there, whereas at Rev. 12:7 it is “the Satan”. πονηρός by itself is an adjective [generally wicked or evil]. With the Article, as it is here in the Genitive Case τοῦ πονηροῦ, it is a Substantive, a word or group of words used as a noun. Now if Adam was the natural father of Cain, as all the one-seedliners insist, then the only conclusion that could be made, under such a premise, is that Adam was Satan. Then, inasmuch as Christ was in the image of Adam, it would, in turn, make Christ in the image and genetics of Satan. Can you now see how dangerous this line of man-manipulated reasoning can be?
This is actually the position of the so-called “No Satan” element of Christian Identity, which Sheldon Emry and Mark Downey had embraced. They actually believe that the flesh is “Satan”, which is a convoluted view of Scripture, to say the least. But not all anti-seedliners claiming to be Identity Christians think that the flesh is Satan. Most think that all men have their origin in Yahweh, and that they have a choice whether to be Christians or of Satan. That view is also quite convoluted. Now Clifton addresses them:
Most of the anti-seedliners use Genesis 4:1 to support their claim that Adam was Cain’s father. They overlook the fact that Genesis 4:1 in our present Bibles is but a corrupt translation from a corrupt text found in both the Masoretic and Septuagint manuscripts. Only the Aramaic targums furnish us with the true sense of the passage. The Revised Standard Version [RSV] further confuses the issue by adding the words “the help of”. For anyone interested, concerning the corruption of this passage, get a copy of my brochure [or essay] The Problem With Genesis 4:1.
It can certainly be demonstrated that Genesis 4:1 is a corrupt verse, as Clifton’s paper elucidates. Without Genesis 4:1, there is no other witness that Cain is a son of Adam, and there are many witnesses in Scripture which prove that he is not. In that regard Clifton continues:
It is quite apparent that not all of the story of Eve’s seduction is portrayed in the early chapters of Genesis, as at 1 Timothy 2:14 we read:
“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”
Of course I would prefer the rendering from the Christogenea New Testament: “14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman had been thoroughly beguiled when the transgression occurred.” Continuing with Clifton:
The anti-seedliners are evidently ignorant of Yahweh’s Law of adultery. Adam was well aware that Eve had an extramarital affair with Satan, and when Eve offered Adam to have sexual intercourse with her after that affair, and Adam consented, then Adam became as guilty as Eve.
While other interpretations may be conjectured, this is the least that we should perceive from the passage in Genesis chapter 3 where it says that Eve “gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” So Clifton continues in that regard:
Satan’s and Eve’s penalty according to the Law is spelled out in Deuteronomy 22:22 as follows:
“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shall thou put away evil from Israel.”
Adam’s sin then, if you can call it that, was not demanding justice in the face of all the facts, and then after her seduction, accepting Eve, as a whore, rather than putting her away or causing Eve to be stoned to death. Eve’s situation is similar to that of Joseph’s Mary who mothered Yahshua the Christ, as Joseph also had to contemplate putting Mary away, and Joseph was well aware that by Law it required that Mary also be stoned to death. But Joseph, after learning the circumstances, kept Mary as his wife, and thus accepted the responsibility as being the legal father to her issue, although the Christ-child was not his. Like Joseph becoming the legal father of Christ, Adam became the legal father of Cain, Eve’s issue by Satan, and therefore Cain became Abel’s legal brother. We should take note that there is no such term as “half”-brother or sister anywhere in Greek or Hebrew, in the Bible. If in Greek a distinction was made by secular writers, it would usually be “brothers by the same father” (implying different mothers), or likewise with the mother. Yet the singular term “brother” was commonly used of half-siblings also.
Many are unaware that Mary’s Joseph had the curse of Jeconiah on him. In Jeremiah 22:30, Yahweh pronounced a curse on this man: Thus says Yahweh: “Write this man down as childless, A man who shall not prosper in his days; For none of his [male] descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah.” (Check Believer’s Bible Commentary by William MacDonald, page 1011.)
Had Yahshua been the real son of Joseph, He would have come under this curse. Yet He had to be the legal son of Joseph in order to inherit the rights of the throne of David. The problem was solved by the miracle of the virgin birth: Yahshua was the legal heir to the throne through Joseph. He was the real Son of David through Mary. The curse on Jeconiah did not fall on Mary or her child since she did not descend from Jeconiah.
By teaching against two-seedline, the anti-seedliners are proclaiming to the sheep that they have no enemy! And wittingly or unwittingly, it’s an inexcusable, damnable lie. And as I stated before, the Bible and history literally screams “IT IS A LIE.” Luke clearly tells us, recording the prophecy of Zacharias, that indeed we do have enemies (plural – not just one [as in] ‘satan’), thus Satan and his children! Luke 1:71.
In Luke chapter 1 we read “ 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; 73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, 74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, 75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.” In Micah chapter 4, in relation to a promise of salvation, the children of the captivity were told that “the LORD shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies.” It is a common theme in the prophets found in several Messianic prophecies. Speaking of the children of Israel as they were addressed in the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy chapter 32 we read “43 Rejoice, O ye nations,
with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.” So this message of salvation from their enemies, which is found in both testaments is a message to a particular people, and precludes the idea that those enemies can somehow become His people, otherwise His people would be swallowed by their enemies rather than being saved from them.
But we have an assurance in the Revelation of Jesus Christ in chapter 12: “16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” The enemies will not swallow the children of Israel, represented by the woman with the twelve stars. Rather, the earth will help the woman by swallowing up her enemies.
Now, under a subtitle, Clifton asks the question:
ARE THE JEWS A RACE?
Of course, the Jews are a race, even if they are a bastard race. They are not a race which Yahweh created, because Yahweh did not create any bastards. But they are a race in the sense that, like all bastards, they pass on the same corrupt genetic traits from generation to generation. So they can even denounce Judaism, but they are still Jews, as we often hear the phrase “atheist Jew” even from their own mouths. But Clifton now turns to the lexicons:
James Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of The Bible with its Hebrew-Chaldee & Greek dictionaries is a great tool to aid Bible students to a better understanding, but with its often abbreviated and vague definitions of the various Biblical words, it can lead the unwary scholar to some erroneous conclusions. Many regard Strong’s as an ultimate authority, and that is a mistake, for earlier H. W. F. Gesenius, with his 1847 first edition of Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament allows us to detect many of Strong’s errors. Yet neither is Gesenius an ultimate authority. Where Strong’s will give one or two short paragraphs for a definition of a Hebrew word, Gesenius will devote several pages covering the same word. The same caution must be used for all concordances and lexicons, as none of them are perfect, and they are riddled with premises of nominal churchianity.
In other words, the lexicons themselves are laced with Gnostic and Platonist concepts in many of their definitions.
Nevertheless, these references are needed, but one must necessarily be prudent with their use. In addition to these [aforementioned] reference books, I recommend W. E. Vine’s An Expository Dictionary of New & Old Testament Words, Spiros Zodhiates’ The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament, Joseph Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies, and as an option, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon. If one makes the excuse that he cannot afford to invest in these reference books, then let him cancel his subscription to his TV Guide and disconnect his cable-TV service, along with stopping all the “Jew” inspired newspapers and magazines, and then one should, in most cases, be able to afford them, probably even with some money left over!
Sadly, even many Identity Christians that we know continue to spend their money on worldly entertainments rather than invest in building their libraries and applying themselves to study. Clifton continues:
I recently got a letter from a man on my prisoner mailing ministry whom I will not name. In fact, this is the reason for this presentation. Upon being introduced to “two-seedline” he was favorably impressed, that is, until a flaming, censorious one-seedline “pastor” (whom I will not name, unless he gets obnoxious) influenced him against two-seedline!
I am fairly certain Clifton was referring to Mark Downey, whom I count as a good friend, but who never really came to understand what we call “two-seedline”. So he continues:
This prisoner sent me a one page letter, along with a 4 page write-up of how this “pastor” convinced him to revert back to one-seed teaching. Upon being wrongly influenced by this pastor, this prisoner then came to many erroneous conclusions brought on by his own inability to grasp the meanings in Strong’s and causing several misjudgments. On his own, this prisoner goes to Strong’s Greek #1074 [γενεά, race], and reduces [its meaning] to “... a generation ... an age ...” His faulty conclusion was that many of the “Jews” that Christ dealt with were true genetic Israelites, but were influenced by a “spiritual satan”, and that #1074 didn’t have anything to do with race.
This prisoner completely overlooked [the fact] that in his Strong’s at #1074, the definition directs him to Strong’s #1084 [γεννητός, begotten], which is a synonym of #1074, and that is important. [We do not quite agree that γεννητός and γενεά are actually synonyms, but the words are closely related. Clifton was probably mistaking the word for γένος, which is a synonym of γενεά.] Had this prisoner had Zodhiates’ New Testament Dictionary, which he truly can’t afford and has no access to, he would have discovered that Zodhiates states, in part, at #1074, “... Race or posterity ...”, and under “synonyms”, “(1085 [γένος, race]), kind, family, generation ...”. Had he had Vine’s New Testament Expository, he would have discovered that under “Generation”, Vine states, in part “... origin, a lineage, or birth ... see Kind.” Then under “Kind”, which is #1085, genos, he would have discovered that Vine makes reference to about twenty scriptural passages dealing with race. Had this prisoner had access to Thayer’s Lexicon, he would have discovered similar definitions for both of these [words listed at these] Strong’s Greek #’s. At #1074 [γενεά, race] Thayer states, in part, “... used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period ...” This remark by Thayer would not have been necessary had the so-called “Jews” of that period been true racial Israelites. [I do not know precisely what Clifton meant by that statement.] Josephus, at Wars 2:8:2, testifies that by-and-large of the Pharisee, Sadducee, and Essene sects, only the Essenes were “Judah by birth”. [Josephus was an Essene as a young man, and he had first-hand experience in the matter.]
While it is obvious that Clifton was mostly addressing the so-called anti-seedliners in this essay, they and most Judaized Christians frequently deny that the concept of race is found in New Testament Scripture, except in relation to the Jews. The word γεννητός explicitly describes something born of a woman, and both γενεά and γένος are defined by Liddell & Scott as meaning primarily race, stock, or family. I have also often said that on the few occasions where γενεά is used of a particular generation, it cannot be separated from its primary meaning of race, so it more fully means all of the members of a particular race alive at the same time. In Clifton’s citation of Thayer, we see support for that assertion where Thayer wrote that the word was “used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period”, and that is correct in some places in the New Testament, so long as we do not confuse the terms Jew and Israelite, as they are not the same and Jews are not Israelites. Once it is realized that γενεά and γένος refer to race, and cannot be separated from that meaning in any context, the literal meaning of the word seed, or σπέρμα, is the only meaning which applies throughout Scripture. Clifton now continues in that regard:
Matthew 12:39 declares in part (Christ speaking), “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign ...” The word “generation” here, as it appears in the Greek, is #1074, and is speaking of a “genetic race” rather than “spiritual sperm”, as both W. E. Vine and Thayer attest, and to which Strong, Zodhiates and Vine link to #1085, and #1085 means race in the strictest sense. Not only were these Pharisees and Sadducees a genetic “race”, but an “adulterous genetic race”, or a mixed genetic group who had been unfaithful in their racial calling. That’s why Christ said to them “... and [you] shall die in your sins ...”, John 8:22. What then were the sins of these “Jews”? Their sins were the fact that they were a product of miscegenation which could never be rectified. Now there were a few pure genetic Israelite Judaeans who had joined the Pharisee party who don’t fall into the category of “adulterous generation”, although they were very badly misled.
The only way that a proper understanding of the New Testament can be achieved is to understand that the high priests, Sadducees, and many of the other people in Jerusalem were predominantly Edomites, that the party of the Pharisees was comprised of both Israelite Judaeans and Edomite Judaeans, and that the Essenes, who are not mentioned in Scripture, were actual Israelites and racial separatists who for that reason had no political power, which is why they are not a factor in the New Testament. Once that is understood, we can see why Christ never engaged positively with the Sadducees, but He did often teach among the Pharisees and dine at their houses. But in reference to those who had openly opposed Him, He told them they were not His sheep, that they did not believe Him because they were children of the devil, they were born from beneath, they were children of Cain, and in the several other ways He indicated to them that they were not of the same race or origination that He was from. Christ never told His enemies that they were evil because they did not believe Him. Rather, He told them that they did not believe Him because they were evil, and that they did not believe Him because they were not His people. In this the organized churches also teach the exact contrary to the Scriptures. Then they willfully ignore the fact that they are teaching the opposite of what Christ had taught by inverting the manner of His arguments, all because they have more love for the devil than they have for God.
Clifton now concludes:
It is a watchman’s job to not only be vigilant in carrying out his duty (not slumbering or sleeping on the night watch), but also to sound the alarm when an enemy is approaching. But for a watchman to cry “all is safe”, when it isn’t, is treason, and that is exactly what the “spiritual sperm” people are doing!
So we read in Romans chapter 4: “13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, [the Edomites claimed to keep the law, but they could certainly not be justified by it] and the promise made of none effect [as Paul described in Galatians, the law which came 430 years after the promises does not negate the promises]: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.”
Notice that Paul did not say “so shall be thy seed”, as if many nations were to become Abraham’s seed if only they would believe Jesus. Rather, Paul wrote “so shall thy seed be” because the promise was to Abraham’s physical descendants, to those who would come from his loins, as it was spoken in Genesis chapter 15: “3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. 4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.” Abraham could not choose his own heir, Yahweh insisted that Abraham’s heir come from his own loins. Neither can the Church choose Abraham’s heir, as Yahweh had spoken in Genesis chapter 35: “10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. 11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins”, for which reason Paul had written in Romans chapter 4: “according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.” The salvation of Christ and the promises to Israel are “according to that which was spoken” in the Old Testament, and that excludes both the Jews and all those of any other race, because there is no such thing as spiritual sperm.
Denominational Christians often claim that Christ alone is the “seed of the woman”, and that Christ alone is the heir of the covenant, but that is not correct. Revelation chapter 12 describes the seed of the woman, who has the twelve stars representing the tribes of Israel, as the collective children of Israel whom the dragon makes war with, a manifestation of the enmity of Genesis 3:15. Paul informs us in Romans chapter 9 that “in Isaac shall thy seed be called”, not in Christ, citing promises made to Abraham, and then Sarah and Rebecca. In Galatians 3:29 Paul mentions “heirs according to the promise” in relation to the promises to Abraham, so the heirs are a plural entity, not Christ alone. In Hebrews chapter 1 he mentions ministering spirits “sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” and in Hebrews chapter 6 states that “Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath”, so the promises made to Abraham are immutable and then he speaks of Abraham again in chapter 11 and also “Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise”. So the promises are immutable according to what Yahweh had said to the patriarchs concerning their seed, or offspring, and they are the heirs.