All the Kindreds of the Earth

One of the most misunderstood passages of Scripture is found in Genesis chapter 12, where Yahweh had said to Abraham that “I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Today, denominational Christians naively believe that this statement which God made to Abraham somehow applies to Jews. The misunderstanding of this passage is the driving force behind the wicked phenomenon which we know today as Christian Zionism, and its abuse has perhaps been even more dangerous to true Christendom than the popular misunderstanding of John 3:16. Christian Zionism is wicked, because its attitude towards Jews is absolutely contrary to the attitude which Christ Himself had towards Jews. Jesus hated Jews, and now Christians worship Jews instead of Jesus. Many Christians await the rule of an anti-Christ, while in reality the anti-Christ already rules over them while they themselves remain ignorant of it, and their churches are in collusion with the devil.

But there is another problem with the common interpretations of this passage, and that is where Christians imagine negroes, yellow and brown orientals, American and Australian aboriginals, Pacific islanders and other aliens to be reckoned among “all the families of the earth”, which is a concept that Scripture itself never expresses, and in some places even refutes. So here we shall present a two-part series of essays produced by Clifton Emahiser and titled as a question, All The Kindreds Of The Earth Be Blessed?, parts 1 and 2. From his records, it is evident that Clifton first wrote part 1 of this series in May of 2007, but finalized both parts in January of 2009, when they were apparently published to his mailing list. That is the same month that I started Christogenea, and I created the first version of his website just a short time later, perhaps in March or April of that year.

So here is the first of Clifton’s two essays on the subject, which he often referred to as pamphlets, brochures, or here even fliers, after the medium upon which they were published. He begins by citing the words of Peter from an account described in Acts chapter 3:

All The Kindreds Of The Earth Be Blessed? (Part One), by Clifton Emahiser

“Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.”

[Now Clifton begins:] We are now going to endeavor to determine what this passage is saying, and what it is not! There are several related Scriptures throughout the Bible pertaining to this same subject, and it is imperative that we understand their context in every instance. There is probably no other group of related passages taken so entirely out-of-context than these. It might appear, at first sight, that these passages are all-inclusive in a universal sense to include all the peoples of the world. Actually, the opposite is true as these passages are exclusive rather than inclusive. And to use the term “exclusive” is an understatement. But before we get into the gist of this thing we must investigate the previous happenings which led up to Peter’s referring back to the Abrahamic Covenant.

Clifton will do that a little later, discussing Acts chapter 2, but here he begins with Acts chapter 10 to show that Peter himself did not yet understand the full objective of the Christian dispensation before he uttered these words:

While Peter did quite well, for that period of time, he was not fully aware of who all true Israel was. Therefore, he at times addressed the wrong people by that name. He didn’t really begin to understand until Acts chapter 10 when he had the vision of a vessel being lowered down to him as a great “four cornered ... knit sheet” with all kinds of unclean creatures. Now, most of the inept pastors of our day use Peter’s vision as a license to eat unclean food to the detriment of their [own] health. Actually, the unclean creatures which Peter saw were the lost tribes of Israel.

Here a lot of self-righteous Judeo-Christians may condemn Clifton for criticizing an apostle of Christ, but Clifton was indeed correct, as the Scriptures themselves prove. Peter came to several realizations after his vision which is described in Acts chapter 10, which he himself admitted, as it is recorded in Acts chapter 11 and as it is reflected much later when he wrote his epistles. Therefore we cannot imagine that Peter’s knowledge was perfected as he spoke in Acts chapter 3, because if it was, he would not have needed the vision which he had received in Acts 10, yet he received it three times, because it often happened that Peter needed to hear or do something over and over again in order to understand it, and the Scripture demonstrates that also, especially in the closing chapter of the gospel of John. The Acts of the apostles describe a learning process which Christians today should also learn from, as Paul had also admitted that when he received his vision on the road to Damascus, he had a lot to learn. So Clifton continues in reference to Acts chapter 10:

It is important to note that it was a “four cornered sheet” that he saw. That “four cornered sheet” represents the four sided encampment when Israel was in the wilderness described at Numbers chapter 2, and [correlates to] Revelation 21:16, as the “city ... four-square.” The Greek word τετράγωνος at this verse means “with four equal angles” i.e. four-cornered. And when we read at Acts 10:15:

“And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”

I do not want to take credit where it is not due, but Clifton himself will verify here what I am about to discuss. My original commentaries on the letters of Paul and the writings of Luke were not written from scratch when I presented them here in 2012 through 2017. They were first written in 2003 and 2005, which is when I had completed my first translations of those portions of the New Testament. They were then typeset by a friend, David Gray, and Clifton received copies of them as soon as I proofread David’s typing. From that, I began expanding them, and they were expanded significantly, for my presentations here.

My original translation of Paul’s epistles, with over 1,200 notes, was 247 8x11” pages with appendices and indexes. Now, my Romans commentary alone is about 330 6x9” pages, so that is an idea of the extent to which my notes have been expanded. My original translation of Luke and Acts, without the many appendices from my historical essays, was about 190 pages and included about 2,500 notes. I won’t release the files because they contain some errors which I have since corrected, and which I do not want to propagate, while my notes are now much more copious and detailed than they were then. Many of my notes for Matthew, Mark, John and the other epistles were written in 2006 through 2008, but Clifton never had seen a copy of my notes on John because they were never typeset until I presented them here, and that process is still ongoing. As I prepare my commentaries on John which are now being presented, I have two 80-page notebooks next to me full of my original translation notes and commentary, and I am also expanding greatly on those. Admittedly, I still have a lot of yet-to-be-published notes in hand-written articles and in the original appendices to my unpublished books, if and when I can decide whether they are worthy of publication.

So my point in relating this, is that here Clifton gives me credit for some of the material he borrowed from my original translations and notes, long before my translations and notes were actually published, and it was those old unpublished books from 2003 and 2005 to which he was referring. He also borrowed a lot of concepts and material from my Acts chapter 10 notes for this discussion, and didn’t really give me credit for it, but that is fine because on the other hand, in my original notes I may have incorporated things that I had first gotten from Clifton. We worked together that closely during those years of our relationship, that discussing many things we often developed our understandings of the scriptures together, even if we did not agree on every detail. So in relation to his citation of Acts 10:15, Clifton continues:

At this point it is necessary, then, to understand what it was that “God hath cleansed.” Israel was cleansed by sacrifice of crucifixion, i.e.: Isaiah 1:25-27; Jeremiah 13:27; 33:8; Ezekiel 36:25, 29, 33; Joel 3:21; John 13:10, 15:3; Hebrews 1:3; 10:19-23; Titus 2:14; 1 John 1:7, 3:1-5. William Finck’s translation at Romans 2:12 shows that Paul makes this clear:

“For as many as have done wrong without law, without law then are they cleansed; and as many as have done wrong in the law, by the law they will be judged.” Also note Ezekiel 22:26 & 44:23.

Ezekiel 22:26, addressing the House of Israel, says “Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.” Then, speaking of good priests that He would raise up at a future time, in Ezekiel 44:23 Yahweh says “And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.”

In my original commentary on these verses in Acts chapter 10, I provided a lengthy discussion on the differences between what is κοινός, which is common or profane, and what is ἀκάθαρτος , or unclean, a distinction which the King James Version and most other translations and commentaries fail to properly distinguish, if they are distinguished at all. That discussion was expanded further in my more recent July, 2013 commentary on Acts chapter 10. The word κοινός, common, describes something which may be clean, but which was improperly treated or soiled for some reason. But something which is ἀκάθαρτος is unclean according to the law, and can never be clean. An Israelite who is a sinner or a race-mixer is profane, but can repent and return to the law and be holy once again. A bastard or one from another race can never be clean. Then I wrote about the meaning of the vision and discussed what it was that Yahweh had promised to cleanse, and that was also expanded in my more recent commentary, but here are some of the notes from 2005:

Here the animals in the vision do not represent foods, but rather the difference between circumcised and uncircumcised Adamites, and specifically Israelites. Many of the Greek tribes, the Romans, Kelts, Parthians, and Germanic tribes all descended from the “lost” Israelites of the Assyrian deportations (c. 741-676 B.C.), and the migrations of Israelites from Palestine over the centuries leading up to those deportations (i.e. the Danaans, Dorians, Trojans, and Phoenicians from the 15th through the 8th centuries B.C.). These had long ceased following Hebrew custom, and were considered “unclean” by the Judaeans who adhered to (and also added to) certain interpretations of the Old Testament laws….

To understand what “Yahweh has cleansed” one must turn to Old Testament prophecy. In the Old Testament, the only promises of cleansing were those made to the children of Israel, which state explicitly that the children of Israel would be cleansed by Yahweh (i.e. Hebrews 13:12), and none other: Isaiah 1:2, 18, and 24-25; Jeremiah 13:27 and 33:7-8; Ezekiel 36:16-38; Joel 3:16-21; John 15:3 (Ephesians 5:26); Romans 2:12 (see my edition and the notes there); 2 Corinthians 6:17; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 1:3 and 10:19-24; 1 John 1:7 and 3:1-5 et al.

So while I cannot remember who first made the realization of what was important about Acts 10:15, that we must identify “what God had cleansed” in order to properly understand Peter’s vision, it is not important that I do remember, since we can only thank Yahweh that we now have this understanding. Here I am saying these things as an example, because a friend recently sent me a message asking who it was who first realized that Yahweh did not create the non-White races, Clifton or myself. Neither do I remember that, but I do remember that early in my studies I had much help from both Clifton and our common friend, David Gray, which caused me to understand what the early chapters of Genesis were actually describing in relation to the creation of Adam. When I first read the Gospels and the epistles of Peter and Jude in Greek, I knew for certain that Yahweh could not have created the other races. But if it were I, or Clifton, it matters not, we worked together in order to help one another gain a better understanding.

The fact that Peter’s understanding did indeed develop over time is evident in his first epistle, which was written years after his vision to the people of the Christian assemblies of Anatolia that Paul had founded. There, referring to the prophecy which is in Hosea concerning the future reconciliation of the children of Israel from their state of punishment and alienation, the apostle wrote in chapter 2: “9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.” Hosea meant those words only for the children of Israel, and the word translated as generation in the King James Version would better have been rendered as race.

Continuing with Clifton:

It is simply silly for all these modern-day preachers going around proclaiming “we must be born again” so we can be cleansed, for we (like in Peter’s vision) are already cleansed! What we need is conversion! Modern-day churchianity is making the same mistake as Nicodemus did! Yahshua meant “you must be born from above”, not “be born again”, and there’s a lot of difference!

By conversion, Clifton meant repentance and turning to follow Christ, which is the call of the gospel to the children of Israel.

At Acts 1:1-4 we are told that Messiah spent 40 days from the Resurrection until His Ascension, which would have left 10 days until Pentecost. Some slickster confusion peddlers nowadays are trying to make it 99 days instead of 50. In Acts chapter 2 we are given the account of the Advent of the Holy Spirit. At Acts 2:17, Peter quotes Joel 2:28, which says:

“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions.”

I do not remember what it was that Clifton was referring to in this reference to “slickster confusion peddlers” “99 days”. Acts 1:3 states that Christ was seen by His disciples over 40 days, and then came His ascension, and the first Pentecost was a few days subsequent. Continuing with Clifton:

It should be noted at Acts 2:17, Peter says that this will “come to pass in the last days”, but Peter’s day of Pentecost here in Acts is not the last days! Peter, in his day, witnessed only an “earnest” (#728 ἀῤῥαβών) [which is a deposit] of the Holy Spirit alluded to by Paul at 2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; and Ephesians 1:14, or a down payment or a pledge of what was to come in the “last days.”

I will give you my thoughts about “speaking in tongues”. I would be among the first to affirm that there are heavenly languages among the angels. But, at the day of Pentecost the miracle was in the hearing rather than the speaking, for each group attending spoke in his own language, but those whose language was different heard them speak in their own language. When Paul later mentions that he spoke in tongues more than you all, it simply meant that Paul spoke several languages. At 1 Corinthians 14:18, “I give thanks to Yahweh speaking in more languages than all of you”, followed by verse 14:19, by itself reveals the idiocy of the Charismatics and Pentecostals: “but in the assembly I wish to speak five words with my mind, in order that I may instruct others also, than a myriad of words in a language.” (Again, translation by William Finck.)

We should remember that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit at the day of Pentecost was only an “earnest” (down payment) of what we would eventually experience in the latter days. Personally, I’m looking forward to the time that I will be able to converse in every language, maybe with the exceptions of Creole and Yiddish. But to answer the question of speaking in tongues: I believe that today’s Pentecostal and Charismatic movements are a cheap counterfeit. I’ve studied extensively their history, and frankly, they’re evil to the core.

At Acts 2:25-31 we are told that the Old Testament David was a prophet, and we should keep that in mind when we read the Psalms. With this passage cited by Peter, David foretold of the life, death, burial and Resurrection of our Yahshua the Messiah. While there are many Psalms pointing toward our Redeemer, Peter was citing Psalm 16:10 in particular:

“For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.”

And although Peter was not entirely aware of who all were Israel, he said this at Acts 2:36:

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that Yahweh hath made him both King and Messiah, this Yahshua whom ye have crucified.”

“All the house of Israel” (before their division) would be all of the twelve tribes scattered abroad [mentioned] at James 1:1. If there are those who are laboring under the allusion that Peter was directing his discourse towards ‘all the peoples of the earth’, let them be hastily and mightily reproved! (Acts 2:25-28 is an exact quote of Psalm 16:8-11, the Greek of Acts differing from that of the LXX [Septuagint] by only one single vowel!)

That last note concerning the Greek, Clifton had surely gotten from the comments I always made when proofreading his essays. He continues:

Then, at Acts 3:12, Peter (not yet having his vision of the “four cornered sheet”) addresses indiscriminately some of the Judaeans (who may have been from various genetic backgrounds) as “men of Israel” at the Temple (v. 1). Later, Paul would very discriminatingly and appropriately address those of them who were truly Israelites as “kinsmen according to the flesh” at Romans 9:3. At Acts 3:15, Peter mistakenly and indiscriminately accuses the same people as he cited in verse 12, and charges them unwittingly “And killed the Prince of life ...”

As I have stated before, Peter had not yet been given his vision, and therefore we must take his words in their proper context! And today, many of us are making the same kind of mistake as Peter made (and we also haven’t had our vision of who true Israel is)! Go back and count the number of corners on that “sheet”!

The following are William Finck’s comments on Romans 9:3 and Acts 3:15: “Romans 9:3: Paul spends much of Romans chapters 9 through 11 comparing the children of Jacob and Esau, the true Israelites ‘according to the flesh’ (as opposed to religion or citizenship) compared to the Canaanite-Edomites who claimed to be Israel, practicing Judaism. I perceive that Peter is laying blame for the crucifixion of Christ upon the ‘men of Israel’ at Acts 2:22, 23 and 3:12, 13 in a very general, national sense, much as if all American citizens are responsible for the actions of our current government. Surely at least some of those whom Peter addressed here were a part of the crowd during the events which transpired at Passover only seven weeks prior, and noting Leviticus 5:1, not trying to stop the ‘Jews’, they also share a burden of guilt with them; although we know that His death is not accounted to TRUE ISRAELITES. Note that at Acts 2:23, Peter says ‘and by wicked hands’, which I would translate ‘and through lawless hands.’ [Ending his citation of my comment, Clifton responds:] It is obvious that Peter did not yet truly distinguish between Israelite and Canaanite-jew-‘Israeli’, except possibly for this one statement.”

This, then, generally brings us to our topic at Acts 3:25.

WHO ARE THE “KINDREDS” HERE?

“... And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.”

This demands an investigation into the word “kindreds” as [it is] used here. It is the Greek word πατριά #3965 in Strong’s. We will use the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon:

“3965 πατριά [patria/pat·ree·ah/] n f. A derivative of 3962 [πατήρ, father]; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 5:1015; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Abridged 805; Goodrick-Kohlenberger 4255; Three occurrences; AV translates as ‘lineage’ once, ‘kindred’ once, and ‘family’ once. 1 lineage running back to some progenitor, ancestry. 2 a race or tribe. 2a a group of families, all those who in a given people lay claim to a common origin. 2b the Israelites which distributed into twelve tribes, descended from the twelve sons of Jacob, these were divided into families which were divided into houses. 3 family, in a wider sense, nation, people.”

Actually, #3965 is derived from #3962 meaning “father” or “patriarch” and partially described by the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon: “1 generator or male ancestor. 1a either the nearest ancestor: father of the corporeal nature, natural fathers, both parents. 1b a more remote ancestor, the founder of a race or tribe, progenitor of a people, forefather: so Abraham is called, Jacob and David. 1b1 fathers i.e. ancestors, forefathers, founders of a race. 1c one advanced in years, a senior ... 2a1 the authors of a family or society of persons animated by the same spirit as himself ...”

We would strongly disagree that a πατήρ or father can be “one advanced in years, a senior” in the Scriptures, as this is a concept that Christ Himself had explicitly rejected, Matthew 23:9.

If one will check The Dictionary of Biblical Languages, Greek N.T., by James Swanson, it all boils down to: “4255 πατριά (patria), ᾶς (as), ἡ (hē): n.fem.; ... lineage, family line (Lk 2:4; Eph 3:15+) ....”

For the Hebrew word ʾab, which means “father”, we will now go to A Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament) #3: “3 אב (ʾab): n.masc.; = Str 1; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 4a—1. Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon 10.14 father, i.e., the male progenitor of an offspring, or male adoptive parent (Ge 2:24); 2. Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon 10.14-10.48 grandfather, i.e., the male progenitor of a child’s parent (2 Sa 9:7; 16:3; 19:29 [EB 28]); 3. Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon 10.14-10.48 ancestor, forefather, i.e., a person many generations removed from a current generation (Ge 10:21); 4. Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon 68.1-68.10 founder, originator, i.e., one who causes something to begin (Ge 4:20, 21; 1Ch 2:24, 42), note: including profession, or cities; 5. Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon 35.36-35.46 caregiver, formally, father, i.e., one who cares for persons in need, as a figurative extension of a father caring for a child’s needs (Job 29:16; Isa 9:5); 6. Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon 87.19-87.57 sir, formally, father, i.e., a title of respect of a lesser to a greater in authority, implying relationship and respect (2 Ki 5:13); 7. Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon 12.1-12.42 Father, i.e., a title of God or a false god, as the progenitor and creator of persons he has relationship with (Dt 32:6; Ps 89:27 [EB 26]; Jer 2:27); 8. Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon 10.1-10.13 unit: בית אב (bayit ʾab) clan, formally, house of the fathers, i.e., a subgroup of a main clan/tribe division (Ex 6:14); 9. Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon 10.14-10.48 unit: אב; (ʾab) ancestor, forefather, formally, fathers of fathers, i.e., a person many generations removed from a current generation (Ex 10:6).”

[Clifton responds:] All this should prove that even some of the liberal universalists who write these hard to understand lexicons, when it gets right down to the nitty-gritty of original language, cannot avoid the truth of “kindreds” being a family line.

Because we are running out of space needed for this presentation, it will be necessary to continue it in another brochure under the same title designated “Part Two.” I would warn you in advance, we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface on this passage. It should already be becoming quite evident that the context is very different than what many attempt to make it mean. Almost all the mainstream “churches” take a universalist position on this passage, and sadly, many in Israel Identity follow suit.

In order to fully understand what Acts 3:25 is all about, and what this brochure and the next addresses, it will be necessary for the reader to obtain both parts of this presentation. At this point, it appears that a second flier will be enough to wrap-up this discussion.

All The Kindreds Of The Earth Be Blessed? (Part Two), by Clifton Emahiser

As I finished up part one I was saying: All this should prove that even some of the liberal universalists who write these hard to understand lexicons, when it gets right down to the nitty-gritty of original language, cannot avoid the truth of “kindreds” being a family line.

All those things [presented in part one] may not fit our description of “kindreds” at Acts 3:25, but we should now have a better general idea of its meaning, and it doesn’t include non-Adamites.

Rather, it includes Adamites, particularly those listed in Genesis chapter 10! We will now consult the Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament, editors Gerhard Kittle & Gerhard Freidrick, page 1014:

πατριά in the New Testament.

“1. In the sense of ‘father’s house’ or ‘kindred’ (→ lines 8 ff.) πατριά occurs in Lk. 2:4. Joseph is ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δαυίδ, cf. Lk. 1:27. Does πατριά come from a source used by the author? Even if not, it is readily explicable. ‘House of David’ implies ‘house of the ruler.’ It is thus in place to add πατριά (with καί) in order to make it clear that the reference is simply to ancestral descent. The phrase also carries with it a reminiscence of οἶκος πατριᾶς and approximation to it. Ac. 3:25 is related to the other branch of LXX usage, [for which they refer the reader to other pages in their dictionary] … This πᾶσαι αἱ πατριαὶ τῆς γῆς = ‘nations’ in Peter’s address, though it refers to the promise to Abraham, agrees neither with Gn. 12:3 משפהת (mishpachah, φυλαί, clans or tribes) nor Gn. 18:18; 22:18 נוים (goyim, ἔθνη, nations). It is a further and perhaps independent extension of the customary LXX rendering of משפהת [mishpachah] by πατριαί. It again substantiates the influence of the liturgical parts of the Psalter which were of missionary significance and which found a home in the community’s vocabulary of prayer. This prepares the way for an understanding of Eph. 3:14 f. by showing how open primitive Christianity was to this meaning of πατριαί in the LXX.”

Of course, the conclusions made by the editors we would consider to be wrong. Peter is not redefining the family of the Old Testament, and neither was Paul, whose mission was explicitly stated to be to the twelve tribes, or families, of Israel, for example in Acts 26:6-7. Now Clifton continues from the same source for the word as it was used in the Septuagint:

Πατριά in the LXX

Again Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament, editors Gerhard Kittle & Gerhard Freidrick, page 1016:

“The word is common in the LXX, esp. in 1 and 2 Ch. It is used more often than the Heb. demands ... This proves that it was a favourite word. a. The organisation of the tribal life of the Hebrews is based on the primary cell of the family with the father as head. The union of several families (1 Ch. 23:11) forms the ‘father’s house’ as a sept (in Scotland, a division of a family or clan), the בית־אב [bayith ab] pl. בית־אבות [bayith abith], shortened אבות [abith] 1 Ch. 7:11. Cf. the stereotyped לבית אבתם [le bayith abithim]. Nu. 1:2 etc. This terminus technicus ‘father’s house’ is rendered οἶκος πατριᾶς or πατριῶν in the LXX. The formula לבית אבתם [le bayith abithim] is almost without exception translated κατ᾽ οἴκους πατριῶν αὐτῶν [according to the houses of their fathers], Nu. 2:2, 32; 4:2; 2 Ch. 35:12 etc. b. But the bigger union, the clan (משפחת [mishpachah]) into which the septs (clans) combine as a military organisation (אלפים ideal number), can also be rendered in the LXX by πατριά, οἶκοι πατριᾶς [houses of the clans] (Ex. 6:17, 19) as well as δῆμος [people] (Nu. 2:34; 4:22). Sometimes, then, when we find משפחים [mishpachim] with אבת [abith] in the Masora, obscurity can arise in the LXX through the twofold use of πατριαί, 1 Ch. 6:4. [Here Clifton added a note, perhaps from myself, that ‘πατριά (plural πατριαί) does not appear at 1 Ch. 6:4. The reference should probably read 1 Ch. 6:48.’ However πατριά does appear in 1 Chronicles 6:4 in Rahlfs’ Septuagint, although not in Brenton’s, the manuscripts being somewhat different.] The heads of fathers’ houses, Heb. נשיאים [nasiym], ראשים ,[roshim] שליט [shalliyt] are mostly οἱ ἄρχοντες (αὐτῶν) κατ᾿ οἴκους πατριῶν [(their) chiefs according to the houses of the clans], so Nu. 17:17 [Clifton’s note here is also clarified by the fact that brenton’s Septuagint manuscript has differences with that of Rahlf, and had to be based on notes I sent him in proofreading: ‘This reference to Num. 17:17 actually intends Num. 17:2 in the LXX. Hatch & Redpath Concordance recognizes this discrepancy and cites the verse as 17:2(17)’], though sometimes also ἀρχηγοὶ οἴκων πατριῶν [chiefs of the houses of the clans], e.g., Ex. 6:14, and about the same number of times ἡγούμενοι πατριῶν [leaders of the clans], e.g., 2 Ch. 5:2; Ex. 6:25: ἀρχαὶ πατριᾶς [chiefs of the clans],. Other terms are used on occasion. The ministering classes, the main divisions of the priesthood of Israel, can also be called בית־אבות [bayith abith] = οἶκοι πατριῶν [houses of the clans] in Ch.: 1 Ch. 24:4; 2 Ch. 31:17; 2 Εσδρ. 22:12 abbreviated אבות (πατριαί). [2 Εσδρ. 22:12 in the LXX is what we commonly call Ezra (and is the Ezra of the A.V.), which by many LXX editions has Nehemiah incorporated into it, so that 2 Esdras 22:12 is actually Nehemiah 12:12. Both Brenton and Hatch & Redpath recognize 2 Esdras (Ezra) and Nehemiah as separate books. The Apocryphal Esdras is titled 1 Εσδρας by LXX editors.] If these senses, which also apply to the Levites, stand within the framework of the tribal division of Israel, there is in the LXX a further usage which applies to the nations ... Esp. important, however, is αἱ πατριαὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν τῆς γῆς (always for משפחות [mishpachah]) in the sense of the ‘nations’ or ‘races.’ ... The enthronement Psalm 95, which is influenced by Deutero-Isaiah, made a deep impression on Israel through its liturgical use. This is shown by its employment in 1 Ch. 16:23-33, v. 28 πατριαὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν (עמים משפחות, or ‘families of the nations’) ....”

[Now Clifton has a] Note: “Deutero-Isaiah” is a designation, meaning “second Isaiah”, made by those who doubt the author of chapters 40-66 of Isaiah was the same as that of chapters 1-39. Note that these chapters address the restoration of an Israel that had already left Palestine and even in the isles of the west (Isaiah 41), or headed there (Isaiah 66:19).

Notice that towards the end, the dictionary definition becomes deceptive. It attempts to differentiate the use of the Greek term οἶκοι πατριῶν [houses of the clans], and its Hebrew equivalent בית־אבות [bayith abith], house of the fathers, as referring to “the ministering classes”, while in the passages that were provided for proof, those terms are speaking of the clans of the sons of Levi within the greater tribe of Levi, as families and not as a class. They seem to do this to set up the idea that the term for clan could somehow be spiritualized, as they applied it to the term in their explanation of its use in the New Testament. So there is more universalism in this definition than Clifton may have detected, where he now responds:

Because this reference led at times toward “universalism”, it was necessary to use ellipses deleting lexical error. Also above, I inserted in brackets explanatory notes by William Finck which were not part of Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament commentary.

Now because this definition also stated that “αἱ πατριαὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν τῆς γῆς (always for משפחות [mishpachah]) in the sense of the ‘nations’ or ‘races’” I wanted to provide Clifton with my opinion, and all the information that I could, so that he could make a thorough refutation of this deception. But what Clifton did instead, was to finish his paper with my notes incorporated into his conclusion:

I will now use William Finck’s showing every occurrence of πατριά in the LXX from the Hatch & Redpath LXX Concordance:

Every [instance of] πατριά occurring In The LXX

Used of a family as a unit within a tribe of Israel: Exod. 6:14, 15, 17, 19, 25; 12:3; Lev. 25:10; Num. 1:2, 4, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 47; 2:2, 32, 34; 3:15, 20, 24, 30, 35; 4:2, 22, 29, 34, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46; 26:2, 55; 31:26; 32:38; 33:14; 36:1, 4, 7; Deut. 18:8; 29:18; Josh. 14:1; 19:51; 21:1; 22:14(twice); 2 Kings 14:7; 3 Kings 14:6; 1 Chron. 4:27, 38; 5:7, 13, 15, 24(twice); 6:19, 48, 54, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 70, 71; 7:2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 40; 8:6, 10, 13, 28; 9:9, 13, 33, 34; 11:25; 12:30; 15:12; 23:9, 11, 24(twice); 24:3, 4(twice), 6, 30, 31(twice); 26:13, 21, 26, 31, 32; 27:1; 29:6; 2 Chron. 1:2; 5:2; 17:14; 32:2; 25:5; 31:17; 35:4, 5(twice), 12. Apoc. 1 Esdras 1:4; 2:8; 5:1, 4, 37 (or their race), 44, 63, 68, 70; 8:28, 59; 9:16; Ezra 1:5; 2:59 (and their seed), 68; 3:12; 4:2, 3; 8:1, 29; 10:16; Neh. 7:61 (or their sperm), 70, 71; 8:13; 10:34; 11:13; 12:12, 22, 23; Tobit 1:9; 5:10, 11, 13; Judith 8:2, 18; and (if I must) Esther 4:17; 9:27. The word appears in the prophets only at: Jer. 2:4; 3:14; Ezek. 45:15, and is used ambiguously at Psalm 106 (107):41. It is used synonymously as a term for one of the 12 tribes of Israel at: Num. 7:2; 13:3; 17:2(twice), 3, 6; 25:14.

This term is also used to distinguish a division of a foreign, non-Israel – and also non-Adamic – people, where we are told also who those people were specifically: Num. 25:15 (Midianites); 1 Chr. 2:55 (Kenites); and Jer. 25:9 (Chaldaeans). It is where the term “families of the nations” appears, at 1 Chron. 16:28, Psalm 21 (22):27; and Psalm 95 (96):7 only, that Kittle and Freidrick and so many others attribute “missionary significance” to the term. Everywhere else, except the few examples just given, the term is applied only to the clans of Israel! Yet how could Psalm 21 and 95 (22 and 96 in the A.V.) and 1 Chron. 16:28 be referring to any other but the Genesis 10 Adamic Nations?

Now Clifton breaks from my notes, without informing his readers, to cite another portion of the discussion of πατριά from his source dictionary:

Πατριά outside the New Testament, Theological Dictionary N.T.

“Already in Herodotus πατριά means the family as derived from the father. It is used specifically for the father’s family tree, III, 75: II, 143. But πατριαί can also mean tribes in I, 200 (= φυλαί). Elsewhere it is used for πάτρα, which can mean not only ‘country’ or ‘native city’ but also ‘house,’ ‘tribe,’ ‘family.’ So Pindar Pythia, 8, 38; Nemea, 6, 36: ‘tribe,’ ‘race.’ The central pt. is always derivation from the same father or ancestor no matter whether the reference be to nation, tribe, caste, or family. It should be noted that by linguistic formation πατριά is collective and thus concrete, not abstract.”

Now as Clifton responds, once again from my notes, as I was responding to that portion of the article which he had just cited:

Surely πατριά can mean “country” or “native city” but only in the sense of fatherhood (see Liddell & Scott, πατριά “... one’s fatherland, native land, country, home ...”) and in this sense Pindar used the word, which is necessarily diluted in English if one wishes to keep a translation in simple language, for not all Greek ideas fit neatly into single English words. The Greek cities were of a tribal nature, and inhabited by citizens who were generally of a single tribe, whether they be Dorian, Danaan, Ionian etc. So surely Pindar’s use of the word does not allow for any universal application of the word.

Kittle and Freidrick state here that πατριά means “the family as derived from the father. It is used specifically for the father’s family tree” and then “it should be noted that by linguistic formation πατριά is collective and concrete”, and so one should certainly not attempt to “spiritualize” this word! When Abraham was first given the promise that “And in thy seed shall all the kindreds (families) of the earth be blessed”, recorded at Acts 3:25 and Genesis 12:3, Abraham was standing in Haran, the ancient land of Arphaxad, the land of his own fathers. Around him dwelt a circuit of descendants of all the Genesis 10 families – the White race of Adam. These, and no other, are “all the families of the earth”; those of them who had a common father in Adam!

The other branches of the Adamic race were blessed in Abraham’s offspring, because Israel was preserved by Yahweh to perpetuate the Adamic race, to carry on the battle against Satan, the children of the enemy, and from them came forth Yahshua Christ, without whom resurrection would not be possible. The other White Adamites, while not Israel, also have the spirit which Adam had, and while this is barely within the scope of the Bible, they too will be resurrected: i.e. Luke 11:32-33, and Acts 17:22-23 (where Paul addresses Japhethite Ionians, the tribe of Athens).

Πατριά in the New Testament by William Finck

“In the New Testament πατριά is used only three times: (1) Luke 2:4 ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς (Genitive singular) Δαυείδ: From the house and family of David (literally). There is good reason why both terms are used: for “house”, refers to legal inheritance, while ‘family’ refers to bloodline. (2) Acts 3:25 καὶ ἐν τῶ σπέρματί σου ἐνευλογηθήσονται πᾶσαι αἱ πατριαὶ (Nominative plural) τῆς γῆς (quote of Gen. 12:3): ‘And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.’ (A.V.). Here πατριά is in the plural and refers to those Genesis 10 families all derived from a common father, Adam through Noah. (3) Ephesians 3:15 ἐξ οὖ πᾶσα πατριὰ, (Nominative singular) ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάζεται (3rd person singular verb = ‘it is named’): from whom the whole family in the heavens and upon earth is named, (literally). Here Kittle and Freidrick failed to distinguish between πατριά in the plural at Acts 3:25, and in the singular at Ephesians 3:15, where Paul means something entirely different. Ephesians 3:15 discusses not ‘every family’, but ONE FAMILY: Not only is support for this found at Amos 3:1-6 and Matthew 15:24, but elsewhere in Paul’s own writing; at Galatians 6:10, Romans 8:29-30; 9:4-8 and many other places not so obvious in the English translation of the A.V. Ephesians 3:15 clearly refers only to Israel!” [end of Finck’s remarks.]

This concept which Clifton’s source had provided, that αἱ πατριαὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν was used “in the sense of the ‘nations’ or ‘races’”, is deceptive because it removes the phrase from the Biblical context in which it was written. The promise to Abraham which included those words was made in Genesis chapter 12, and in Genesis chapter 10 we see the words defined:

First, in Genesis 10:5, speaking of Japhethites: “By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.” Then in Genesis 10:20: “These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.” Then in Genesis 10:31: “31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.” And finally, a conclusion in Genesis 10:32 which encompasses all of the foregoing: “32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.” Only these are “all the families of the earth” in Genesis chapter 12, and only one race came exclusively from these families, which is the White race. Since the time of Abraham, other races mixed with many of those families, but those other races are not a part of the original πατριά, and therefore they are not party to the promise found at Genesis 12:3.

Clifton now finishes with his conclusion:

We will again see that the nations to be blessed were the Genesis 10 Adamic nations. For this we need to go back to Genesis 2:7:

“And the LORD <3068> God <430> formed <3335> man <120> [of] the dust <6083> of <4480> the ground <127>, and breathed <5301> into his nostrils <639> the breath <5397> of life <2416>; and man <120> became a living <2416> soul <5315>.”

You will notice that the Strong’s number for “ground” is 127, which is the same number as used for “earth” at Gen. 12:3 & 28:14 when the Covenants to Abram and later Jacob were made:

Genesis 12:3: “And I will bless <1288> them that bless <1288> thee, and curse <779> him that curseth <7043> thee: and in thee shall all families <4940> of the earth <127> be blessed <1288>.”

Genesis 28:14: “And thy seed <2233> shall be as the dust <6083> of the earth <776>, and thou shalt spread abroad <6555> to the west <3220>, and to the east <6924>, and to the north <6828>, and to the south <5045>: and in thee and in thy seed <2233> shall all the families <4940> of the earth <127> be blessed <1288>.”

Now the Masoretic Text is inconsistent with the parallel passages at Gen. 22:18 & 26:4 where only the Strong’s #776 word for “earth” is used. In the above verse both #127 and #776 appear, but #127 applies to “families” as it does at Gen. 12:3.

Therefore it is as much as saying, “And in thee shall all the nations of the Adamic earth be blessed.” This is a far cry from how Jew-deo-unchristianity is trying to apply Acts 3:25 today!

Clifton is suggesting that the word ground in the promises to Abraham and Jacob being adamah (Strong’s # 127) and not erets (Strong’s # 776), reflects the concept that the ground, or “earth”, is an allegory for the Adamic race which are “all the families”. Not that the word meaning soil, and not referring to the planet, a better translation in each instance, Genesis 12:3 and Genesis 28:14, would be “all the families of the land”.

With this we would agree, that at the time when the words in Genesis 12:3 were uttered to Abraham, they could only have referred to the Adamic families of the land which were descended from the sons of Noah.

But even stricter is the revelation which Paul of Tarsus provides as he interprets this promise in Galatians chapter 3: “6 Just as ‘Abraham had trusted Yahweh, and it was accounted to him for righteousness’ 7 then you know that they from faith, they are sons of Abraham. 8 And the writing having foreseen that from faith Yahweh would deem the Nations righteous, announced to Abraham beforehand that ‘In you shall all the Nations be blessed.’”

The King James Version has “heathen” instead of “Nations”, and that is also a deception. The Scripture shows that Yahweh had promised to cleanse only the children of Israel, and that Yahweh had also promised to justify only the children of Israel. The nations of Abraham’s seed are further defined as the recipients of the promises where Paul wrote of them in Romans chapter 4, that “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…. 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed”, and the faith of Abraham was that his seed would be “heir of the world”, a promise which excludes all other seed, rather than including any other seed. So in that manner, Clifton’s opening remarks are fully vindicated.