Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 3

Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 3

There are a lot of people who are rather new to Christian Identity, who have just learned of Christogenea or other related or associated websites and ministries within the past couple of years. Often these people wonder why we have divisions with other supposed Christian Identity teachers or pastors. Some of them call these divisions “teacher wars”, and that is patently unfair. Christogenea itself is not merely a website, it is also a publishing and information technology project in its own right. I host the writings of Clifton Emahiser, Bertrand Comparet, Wesley Swift and other writers on the Christogenea domain, and I myself do not necessarily agree with everything that each of these teachers of Scripture have written. I also host and I have even developed websites for dozens of other Christian Identity pastors and writers on other domains, as well as for several European and American Nationalists who publish information on exclusively historical topics. Although some of the people we host sites for often reimburse us in one way or another, we always host and develop these sites at entirely our own expense, free and without charge to many other Christian Identity ministries. I do not say these things to brag about what we do for others. But I have to say this, if I were interested in “teacher wars”, I would do no such thing, I would not spend time helping to enable other teachers, and this alone should prove that I am not interested in any so-called “teacher wars”. I have much more productive things to do.

But sometimes I am compelled to elucidate problems in the words of others, and especially when I fell they are damaging to our Christian Identity cause. Christ comes first, and we must always be cognizant of the fact that we should be contending for the Faith. So when I do speak poorly of other Christian Identity pastors or teachers, it is not for my own ego, and it is not because I desire to uplift myself. Pity us if we choose to exalt ourselves at the expense of others. Rather, it is only on account of truth. These are not “teacher wars”, but rather, they are truth wars. As Paul of Tarsus wrote to the Ephesians: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12). Some of those high places are infiltrated into Christian Identity.

I am going to read part of a paragraph from a book. This book is promoted by its author within Christian Identity circles to this very day. I will read from the paragraph before revealing its source, and it is in reference to the encounter of Christ with the Canaanite woman as it was described in the Gospel of Matthew. The writer says:

Jesus was not preaching truth, justice, love, and mercy for one group of people only, namely, the tribal in-crowd. He was preaching these things for all people. Yet, there is a special role to be played by the Israelites: that of leadership by example. This is what the crumbs represent in the story. Non-Israelites are to learn from us by our example of justice, obedience and charity - and all of the blessings that proceed therefrom. And it can be truly said that the descendants of Israel have civilized the world and have done their best – despite all their faults – to spread this gospel around the world. It is not the Jews who have provided the world with the Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution, freedom of religion, cross-cultural charity and other acts of nobility on a mass scale….

If you would agree that the ideals expressed in the Magna Carta or in the United States Constitution were “provided the world”, please do not listen or read any further. You have a serious lack of historical understanding. If you want to think that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights really cared about religious freedom in China or in the Congo, you have a serious lack of historical understanding, and again, I would rather you did not read or listen any further. The Magna Carta was an agreement which the English nobility forced upon their king for their own interests and protection. It did not bring peace, but rather, it brought several years of war. The U.S. Constitution was made, as the writers declared in the preamble, “for us and our posterity”, meaning that it was only intended for them and their descendants. But this is a Jewish tactic, to pervert the significance and purposes of important historical documents or events in order to employ them in their own nefarious agenda, which in this case is the promotion of egalitarianism.

Here this writer, sounding more like a Social Justice Warrior than a Christian Identity pastor, has also promoted “cross-cultural charity” as an “act of nobility”. Is that really the case, or has “cross-cultural charity” been an act of foolishness on the part of White Christians which has resulted in a drain of resources from every White nation, resources which have then been used against us by our enemies? For example, the food aid which was sent to Africa thirty or forty years ago has caused a population explosion which is now resulting in a flood of immigrant refugees into Europe. The cultural transfers made to Asia have resulted in the transfer of all American and European technology and manufacturing to the sweatshops of China, and the loss of millions of Christian jobs. The populations in Asia have exploded, and the Chinese are now buying up our industry, our homes and our land. Yahweh our God had commanded us to be a separate people, and to not make agreements with strangers. Cross-cultural charity is not a blessing, but a punishment, a punishment on Christian nations for their sin. Deuteronomy chapter 28 makes it quite clear that for sin “… thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein: thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes thereof. Thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof: thine ass shall be violently taken away from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee: thy sheep shall be given unto thine enemies, and thou shalt have none to rescue them.” The punishment today is disguised as taxes, which are used to support such “cross-cultural charity”.

But worst of all, this writer would also give away our Savior Himself, where he wrote that “Jesus was not preaching truth, justice, love, and mercy for one group of people only, namely, the tribal in-crowd. He was preaching these things for all people.” The reference which he makes to the “tribal in-crowd” is similar to references used by Jewish psychologists in order to demean what they also like to call “White privilege”. One example of such Jewish writing which uses such language is from a French-born Jew named David Berreby, who wrote a book titled Us and Them: Understanding Your Tribal Mind, which has been republished as Us and Them: The Science of Identity, and this is the sort of identity that the author of our passage is really pushing. He writes like a Jewish psychologist and pushes egalitarianism into Christian Identity through surreptitious means. True White Identity Christians should not even think of themselves with terms such as “tribal in-crowd”, which are basically Jewish slanders.

The love of God, truth, justice and mercy were all exclusively promised to the children of Israel. As we have stated often in the past, the law was only given to the children of Israel, and it was never intended for anyone else, as it says in the 147th Psalm: “19 He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. 20 He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.” Writing that Psalm, David himself had praised Yahweh God that He did not give the law to any other people. There is nowhere in Scripture which contradicts that statement in the Psalms.

The writer of this passage is Eli James, whose real name is Joseph November. It appears on page 111 of his book, The Great Impersonation, and he sells copies of it to this very day. He has inserted many other such statements into his work, not only in that particular book, but also in his many podcasts. I never had a copy of this book until Eli himself gave one to me in November of 2010. At that same time, similar comments became more frequent in his other writings, and in January of 2011 we had to split on that account. I explained a lot of the reasons for our split in several podcasts, but summed them up in the March, 2013 presentation titled The Universalism of Eli James. There is a huge difference between crumbs which fall from a table accidentally, and the purposeful giving away of one’s blessings to the dogs. Eli James would rip the bread from the hands of the children, cast it to the dogs, and call it “crumbs”. The man is a devil. This is not a “teacher war”, it is a Truth War, for the hearts and minds of Identity Christians everywhere, whether we are going to choose the world, or choose Christ. We are not going to shirk from the battle.

With that we shall commence with a presentation and discussion of Clifton Emahiser’s:

Special Notice to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 3

Two papers have now been completed on Special Notice To All Who Deny Two Seedline, #1 & #2. This will be #3. If you don’t have numbers #1 & #2, you may want to get copies in order to bring yourself up-to-date on this present one. How many more there will be in this series has not yet been determined. Again, it cannot be overstated; we are in a 7,000 plus year-old WAR. In this paper we will continue to point out what this WAR is all about and who the opposing forces are. In the last paper, we left off with Colossians 2:15 showing how Yahshua put the Satanic-Jew-seedline to an open shame and stripped them of their authority. With this endeavor, we will start with Luke 11:49-51. We will use this passage rather than Matthew 23:34-36, for there are problems with Matthew’s version.

Often when one quotes a passage of Scripture, it forces a digression in order to speak of something unrelated to the original discussion. Clifton will address this passage of Matthew a little further on in this essay. It was about this time that Clifton had realized that the Zacharias of these words of Christ could not have been the son of Barachias, and that passage in Matthew has most likely suffered an early interpolation of the text. The words “son of Barachias” are not found in all of the oldest manuscripts, and the Zacharias to whom Christ refers here is almost certainly the father of John the Baptist, which Clifton had first seen in the apocryphal writings attributed to the apostle James. I would agree, even if I do not agree with the entire substance of the apocryphal manuscript as it now exists. Continuing with Clifton, who is:

Now reading from Luke:

“49 Therefore also said the wisdom of Yahweh, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: 50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required (ἐκζητέω, to demand an account of) of this generation [#1074, γενεά, or race]; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation [#1074, γενεά, or race].”

Here, Messiah is charging the “Jews” with the murder of Abel. It would have been criminally illegal on the part of Yahshua to make such a charge if it were not true. The only way He could legally have produced such a serious charge was if the “Jews” of His day were descended from Cain, for no other person in all of history was responsible for the murder of Abel, but Cain. Most anti-seedliners are strangely quiet on this passage, although Ted R. Weiland in his booklet Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She? erroneously tries to prove the scribes and Pharisees were true Israelites [on page 68] where he makes the following statement:

“Seedliners claim that because the Pharisees and their progenitors were charged with the murders of all the righteous from Abel to Zacharias, they cannot be Israelites but instead must be Cainites of the seed of Satan. The truth is that because the Pharisees and their forefathers were indicted for the murder of the righteous martyrs, they cannot be Cainites but instead must be Israelites.”

Here Clifton is once again taking apart the words of Ted Weiland. This is not a “teacher war”, but a battle for truth. Weiland really makes himself look ignorant with that statement, as the descendants of Seth, who was a replacement for Abel, as a race cannot possibly be held accountable for the blood of Abel. But we will let Clifton address this first:

Weiland further states on page 94: “The seedliners teach that the Pharisees were Cainites of the seedline of Satan, whereas Matthew 3:7-8, 27:6-10, John 7:19, 8:28-37, Acts 4:5-10, 24-35 and 7:2-52 declare that the Pharisees were Judahites of seed line of Jacob/Israel.”

And we cannot help ourselves but to interject that Christ had told His adversaries “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” What Israelite would that include, who was “not My sheep”? Christ did not say that “Ye are not My sheep, because ye do not believe”, as the Judaized denominational churches seem to claim, and apparently Ted Weiland agrees with them. Rather, it proves that His adversaries were not Israelites in the first place. Continuing with Clifton, who offers an excellent response from another perspective:

If what Weiland is implying were true, the Messiah would be condemning the entire race of Israelites (including Himself, His family, the Apostles, Disciples, etc.) in speaking of them as a “generation”, for the word “generation”, used in this passage, is #1074, γενεά, and in the Greek it means “race” according to The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament by Spiros Zodhiates, page 362: “... a race; then generally in the sense of affinity of communion based upon the sameness of stock. Race or posterity ... A descent or genealogical line of ancestors or descendants ...” The Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament by Joseph Henry Thayer agrees, page 112: “... a begetting, birth, nativity ... passively, that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family ... the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy ... metaphor, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race ...” It would appear that maybe Weiland should have checked his Greek before he made such a spurious statement. Therefore, the only conceivable meaning this passage could convey is: the “Pharisees” were the γενεά of Cain. Yahshua plainly told the “Jewish” Pharisees, John 10:26, “... ye are not my sheep ...” There is nothing more blasphemous than to imply that Yahshua the Messiah was a racial brother to the “Jews”!

The word in this passage which is translated as generation must instead refer to a race. I had written the following several years ago in my commentary on Luke 11:50-51:

The word γενεά (1074) is “race, stock, family...also a tribe, nation...2. a race, generation...” (Liddell & Scott) and so in the King James Version it is more often than not rendered as generation, as the King James does here, in defiance of the context and the basic meaning of the word. In this context, where we have sons and fathers both near and remote (seeing verses 47-48), and with both the remote past and the recent past in focus (Abel and Zacharias, seeing verse 51), the word must be rendered race, for it can not be referring to merely a single generation, which is properly a portion of a race living at a given time. (The Gospel of Luke, Chapter 11)

There are many other ways by which Christ had disassociated Himself racially from His adversaries, and especially in John chapter 8 and Luke chapters 10 and 11. Weiland must not have read any of Josephus, and it is amazing that a supposed pastor could ignore all of the history which helps to put the New Testament into its proper perspective. The denominational Christian sects have this idea that all one needs is the Bible to understand the Bible. It started as a Roman Catholic doctrine, but I have heard many Southern Baptists repeat it, only in regards to a different Bible. While that may seem to be possible, that that all one needs is the Bible to understand the Bible, the Bible as we know it is absolutely silent on over 400 years between Malachi and Matthew which for that reason cannot possibly be understood. The doctrine of sola scriptura would be legitimate only if we could have assurances that the Scriptures which we have are complete, when the Scriptures themselves attest that they are not complete. For example, Jude quotes the writings of Enoch, but where are they in our Scriptures? Where is the original book of Jasher, or the Book of the Wars of Yahweh, or the books of Gad the Seer or Nathan the Prophet or Iddo the Prophet or the Sayings of the Seers? All of these books were mentioned in the Old Testament and today none of them are actually known to exist.

But if one still continues to insist on adhering to the doctrine of sola scriptura, then Ezekiel chapter 35 and Romans chapter 9 help to explain what is actually going on in John chapter 8, Matthew chapter 23 and Luke chapters 10 and 11, along with the words of Christ in the Revelation concerning those who falsely claim to be Judaeans. Further evidence in places such as Jeremiah chapter 2 and Ezekiel chapter 16 prove that the iniquity in the old kingdom of Judah was attributed to race-mixing with the Canaanites. However the histories of Judaea found outside of the Bible also help to further clarify these things, they help to fill in what was happening in Judaea during those missing centuries between the testaments, and it is intellectually reckless to disregard their testimonies. Men have protested by saying such things as ‘well, if God wanted us to have them they would have been in there’, but the lists of canon were compiled by men, and not by God. Perhaps it may just as easily be said that God did want us to have the necessary information, and therefore we have the histories of Flavius Josephus. The doctrine of sola scriptura will not absolve a man of the consequences of willful ignorance. So Clifton continues in that same light:

Evidently, Ted R. Weiland never read Josephus’ Wars, Book 2 . Josephus makes it quite clear [that] the Pharisees and Sadducees were not Israelites by birth. Let’s now read this passage:

“For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of whom are the Pharisees; of the second the Sadducees; and the third sect, who pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essenes. These last are Jews [Judah] by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have.”

It would appear from this that of these three mentioned, only the Essenes could claim to be pure blooded Israelites; that many, perhaps a majority of the Pharisees and Sadducees were neither true Israelites nor of the true Tribe of Judah. Why didn’t Josephus mention the Pharisees and Sadducees as being Jews by birth?

What I may have said, is that the Pharisees and Sadducees were allowing people of other races among them, while the Essenes certainly were not. But even that is not quite correct, and we tend to oversimplify history in our endeavor to summarize the accounts. First, even in the Gospels Yahshua Christ had warned the Pharisees of their proselytizing, whereby they took in non-Israelites of any sort and, after baptizing and circumcising them, they proclaimed them to be Israelites. But as Christ had told them, they really became twice-fold the children of Hell. The concept of such conversions is not at all Scriptural, and the entire race of the Edomites in Judaea had also been converted in that same manner, under military compulsion as Josephus explains elsewhere. But while Christ did have communion with and teach certain of the Pharisees, He never had any communion with the Sadducees, and He never even addressed the Sadducees except where they had accosted and confronted Him. Furthermore, there are indications in Acts chapter 5 that the Sadducees were not Israelites at all, but were a sect of the Edomites. This seems to be the case, as Christ Himself never sought any “lost sheep” from among them. Continuing with Clifton:

I know that in John 8:33 & 37, it appears from the rendering, that the scribes and Pharisees might be true Israelites. Sure, the Arabs can claim Abraham as their father. [This is true only of certain tribes of Arabs.] We know, also, that the “Jews” of Messiah’s day had absorbed Edomite blood, and therefore could claim both Abraham and Isaac as their fathers. The Shelanite-Judahites could even claim an affinity with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah, but that doesn’t make them of the true Tribe of Judah. Recent archaeological finds are showing evidence [that] two of Esau’s wives were, more than likely, of the Cain-Satanic-seedline. Even Howard B. Rand in his book Primogenesis, plate 11, at the end of his book, shows Pharaohs Ramesses I & II of Egypt to be descended from the House of Esau through Eliphaz.

I do not know which archaeological evidence Clifton had in mind here, and I do not have a copy of Primogenesis, so I cannot comment on Rand’s evidence. However it is quite clear in history that the Egyptian pharaohs of the late 18th and 19th dynasties were inter-marrying with Hittite princesses, and sending their own daughters to intermarry with the Hittites. Furthermore, there are families of unknown origins who had usurped the throne of Egypt at diverse times. Clifton himself had explained many of these things around the same time that he wrote this paper, in his early Watchman’s Teaching Letters. The remains of the Rameside pharaohs are said to belong to European DNA haplogroups, at least on the maternal side, and that may be expected, but the visible physical features in their skeletal remains reveal their Hittite admixture. Additionally, it is clear in Genesis itself that Esau had married women of the Canaanites, and that the Canaanites in turn had been mingled with the Kenites, the descendants of Cain, and the Rephaim, the giants who resulted from the illicit unions of Genesis chapter 6.

Weiland can choose to remain ignorant of the histories of Flavius Josephus, which are corroborated by statements made by Paul of Tarsus and Strabo of Cappadocia as well as by the Gospels themselves. But in spite of Ted Weiland and his ilk, the Herodian dynasty and many of its officers and temple appointments were indeed of Edomite stock, and Christ denied any connection of kinship with them. To see the Biblical truth of this, we only need to understand that in Scripture where Christ or the apostles speak of children and seed, they are speaking of literal children and literal seed, as there is no such thing as spiritual sperm.

Clifton continues by discussing that questionable passage in Matthew which he had mentioned earlier, and this shall be a lengthy digression:

As was indicated at the start of this third paper, there are problems with Matthew 23:34-35, a parallel of Luke 11:49-51, quoted above. In these passages, we are being told that (1) The Almighty would send apostles and prophets (future tense), (2) That there had been scribes and prophets sent in the past, (3) These past scribes and prophets were all the way from, and including, Abel, to Zacharias, and, (4) That this race of Cain was in times past, and throughout the future, responsible for their deaths. [In 1 Chronicles chapter 2 it is seen that the Kenites were scribes in Judah, so they were certainly present in Palestine.] If you will read these passages very carefully, you will notice Abel was the first righteous prophet. The next thing which should be noticed is the fact that Luke does not mention Zacharias’ father. From research, it seems to appear that someone added the words “son of Barachias” in Matthew 23:35. If this is the case, it has caused a lot of confusion. Quoting now from A Commentary on The Holy Bible, edited by Rev. J. R. Dummelow M.A., page 701:

“Zacharias son of Barachias] Jesus probably said ‘Zachariah’, as in St. Luke, without mentioning the father’s name, but the evangelist or one of the earliest copyists, who thought it necessary to distinguish among the twenty-nine Zachariahs of the Old Testament, and understood the canonical prophet to be meant, added the words ‘son of Barachias’ There can be no real doubt that the person meant is Zechariah, son of Jehoiada (see 2 Chr. 24:20), concerning whom there was a Jewish tradition, that his blood could not be removed by washing, but remained bubbling on the ground where it had been shed. In the Jewish* arrangement of the books of the sacred Canon, Chronicles stands last, so that Jesus chose His examples from the first and last books of the Jewish* Bible.” [*It should be Hebrew, not “Jewish” Bible.]

The words “son of Barachias” in Matthew 23:35 are wanting in the Codex Sinaiticus, one of the oldest surviving manuscripts of Matthew, and as Clifton had pointed out, they are also wanting in Luke's account of this episode, at Luke 11:51. For that and for historical reasons, I esteem them to be an interpolation, and I have omitted them from my own translation. Like Clifton Emahiser, after the writers of the apocryphal Protevangelion of James, I was also persuaded that the Zechariah meant here is most likely the father of John the Baptist, who was also a temple priest, whom Luke portrays as having prophesied, and whom therefore fits into the context of the dialogue of Christ. This other Zechariah who was described as having been slain in 2 Chronicles 24:20 was called the son of Jehoiada, and since he does not fit this description then Clifton’s source is making a speculation about which there certainly can be real doubt. Other modern Bibles also cross-reference Matthew 23:35 and 2 Chronicles 24:20, following the Jews, but we do not esteem those references to be correct.

But there is even more to this story. Here Clifton has cited A Commentary on The Holy Bible, edited by the so-called Rev. J. R. Dummelow who had an M.A. degree, and who said “there can be no real doubt that the person meant is Zechariah, son of Jehoiada”. But in the book of the prophet known as Zechariah – as the Reverend Dummelow himself admits – we read words that appear in every known version which say “1 In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the LORD unto Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet, saying, 2 The LORD hath been sore displeased with your fathers.” If the words “son of Barachias” in Matthew 23:35 are to be accepted, they must refer to Zechariah the prophet of the book of that name, and not to Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, simply because some Jew made such a claim. The churchmen are completely discredited by the fallacy of their logical arguments, and should not have been following the books of the Jews. However even Zechariah the son of Berechiah, the prophet of the book bearing his name, was not the last prophet of old Testament Scripture, an honor which clearly belongs to Malachi.

Clifton continues and makes a good argument against the idea that the Zechariah of Matthew 23:35 could have been Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, completely discrediting the commentators who follow the Jews:

The story told here can be found in many reference books. The account might even have a thread of truth. The problem here is: it doesn’t square with the rest of Scripture. While the story about the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20 is undoubtedly true, it is probably the wrong Zechariah. [Meaning that he is not the Zechariah intended by Christ in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51.] No doubt, some copyist did insert “son of Barachias”, for it is not found in Luke. The problem is: most of the recorded prophets were after 878 B.C. when this particular Zechariah [the son of Jehoiada] lived. In other words, if Yahshua was talking about the prophets between Abel and the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20, it would exclude most of the major and minor prophets. [This argument is exactly true and entirely discredits the notion that the Zachariah of Matthew 23:35 could be the son of Jehoiada in 2 Chronicles 24. If that were so, then the words of Christ would exclude all of the Biblical prophets except for Jonah, who did live before this time, which we see where he is mentioned in retrospect in 2 Kings 14:25. All of the other prophets of the Bible wrote much later, from the time of Jeroboam II who ruled Israel long after Zechariah the son of Jehoiada was slain – WRF. See Ordering and chronology of the Minor Prophets.] If you will check the dates in which most of the major and minor prophets lived, you will see what I mean. I am sure the Cain-Satanic-seedline killed most of Yahweh’s prophets after 878 B.C. It’s like saying that the WAR started with the killing of Abel and continued to the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20; then subsided until the time of Yahshua, and then resumed. This WAR has been continuous ever since it started in Genesis 3:15!

For whatever reason Clifton did not consider Zechariah the prophet of the book by that name, who actually was the son of Barachias. But Zechariah the prophet was mentioned by both Ezra and Nehemiah, both of whom wrote their books at least a few decades after Zechariah, and neither of them mention his death. Clifton only goes on to state that:

Another Zechariah to be cited is the Zechariah mentioned by several commentaries and reference books, who lived about 40 years after the Messiah. This one can be found in Josephus’ Wars 4:5:4. The only one left that really makes any sense is the death of Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, found in The “Protevangelion” [ascribed to the apostle James, a copy of which is found in] The Lost Books Of The Bible And The Forgotten Books Of Eden, 16:9-21, page 36:

“9 But Herod made search after John, and sent servants to Zacharias, when he was (ministering) at the altar, and said unto him, Where hast thou hid thy son? 10 He replied to them, I am a minister of God [Yahweh], and a servant at the altar; how should I know where my son is? 11 So the servants went back, and told Herod the whole; at which he was incensed, and said, Is not this son of his like to be king in Israel? 12 He sent therefore again his servants to Zacharias, saying, Tell us the truth, where is thy son, for you know that your life is in my hand. 13 So the servants went and told him all this: 14 But Zacharias replied to them, I am a martyr for God [Yahweh], and if he shed my blood, the Lord [Yahweh] will receive my soul. 15 Besides know that ye shed innocent blood. 16 However Zacharias was murdered in the entrance of the temple and altar, and about the partition; 17 But the children of Israel knew not when he was killed. 18 Then at the hour of salutation the priests went into the temple, but Zacharias did not according to custom meet them and bless them; 19 Yet they still continued waiting for him to salute them; 20 And when they found he did not in a long time come, one of them ventured into the holy place where the altar was, and he saw blood lying upon the ground congealed; 21 When, behold, a voice from heaven said, Zacharias is murdered and his blood shall not be wiped away until the revenger of his blood come ...”

You can plainly see here the description of Zacharias’ death at the hand of Herod fits Luke 11:47-51 and Matthew 23:34-36 quite well. More importantly, it doesn’t leave any huge gaps in history from Abel to this Zacharias. Also, with the future tense, it covers the entire time period from Yahshua up until our present time. [This is how Clifton interpreted the words of Christ in Luke 11:49 where it says “I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute.”] There have been no time-outs in this WAR. For evidence that it is a genetic race war between the children of darkness and the children of light, I will quote the Believer’s Bible Commentary by William MacDonald on Matthew 23:36, page 1291; also, from page 1416 concerning Luke 11:50-51. While MacDonald doesn’t grasp the “Jew” question, he understands it is a matter of “race”:

“The guilt of all the past would come on the generation or race to which Christ [Yahshua] was speaking, as if all previous shedding of innocent blood somehow combined and climaxed in the death of the sinless Savior. A torrent of punishment would be poured out on the nation that hated its Messiah without a cause and nailed Him to a criminal’s cross. He would require of that generation the blood of all God’s [Yahweh’s] spokesmen, beginning with the first recorded case in the Old Testament, that of Abel, down to the last instance, that of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the temple ... Therefore the Lord Jesus [Yahshua] ran the entire gamut of martyrs when He mentioned Abel and Zechariah. As He uttered these words, He well knew that the generation then living would put Him to death on the cross, and thus bring to an awful climax all their previous persecution of men of God [Yahweh].”

It was not at the cross that Messiah imposed revenge for all the prophets from Abel up until His time, but at the siege of Titus at Jerusalem in 70 A.D. For insight on this, I will quote from the Adam Clarke’s Commentary On The Bible, abridged by Ralph Earle, pages 816 and 874. Again, these are comments on the passages [at] Luke 11:47-51 and Matthew 23:34-36:

“The Lord [Yahshua] would, after the crucifixion of Christ [Yahshua], visit upon them the murder of all those righteous men, that their state should grow worse and worse, till at last the Temple should be destroyed, and they [were] finally ruined by the Romans. [Then, commenting on the word:] Required. [Clarke says it:] May be translated either by the word ‘visited’ or ‘revenged’, and the latter word evidently conveys the meaning of our Lord [Yahshua]. They are here represented as having the blood among them; and it is intimated that God [Yahweh] will come by and by to require it, and to inquire how it was shed, and to punish those who shed it.”

It must be evident that the reason why Clifton chose this particular citation is that Clarke realized that the blood was on certain hands among the Judaeans. In order to see the truth of when it was that the Messiah had imposed the revenge of which Clifton speaks, we can refer to the Messianic prophecy of Daniel chapter 9 where it says that “26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince [referring to Messiah the Prince] that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.” Clifton says in conclusion that:

If you don’t understand Two Seedline, you can’t grasp the meaning of all that was going on at that particular time. Now a comment from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary concerning Matthew 23:34 on page 971: “These persecutions here foretold would fill up the measure of the Jew’s guilt, so that divine destruction would come upon that generation [race of Cain] of the nation.”

The Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Luke 11:49-51 found in volume 5, page 704:

“That they must expect no other than to be reckoned with, as the fillers up of the measure of persecution, v. 50, 51. They keep up the trade as it were in succession, and therefore are responsible for the debts of the company, even those it has been contracting all along from the blood of Abel, when the world began, to that of Zacharias, and so forward to the end of the Jewish state; it shall all be required of this generation [race], this last generation of the Jews, whose sin in persecuting Christ’s apostles would exceed any of the sins of that kind that their fathers were guilty of, and so would bring wrath upon them to the uttermost, I Thess. 2:15, 16. Their destruction by the Romans was so terrible that it might well be reckoned the completing of God’s [Yahweh’s] vengeance upon that persecuting nation ... They are reproved for opposing the gospel of Christ [Yahshua], and doing all they could to obstruct the progress and success of it, v. 52 ... They had not, according to the duty of their place, faithfully expounded to the people those scriptures of the Old Testament which pointed at the Messiah, which if they had been led into the right understanding of by the lawyers, they would readily have embraced him and his doctrine: but instead of that, they had perverted those texts, and had cast a mist before the eyes of the people, by their corrupt glosses upon them, and this is called taking away the key of knowledge; instead of using that key for the people, and helping them to use it aright, they hid it from them; this is called, in Matthew, shutting up the kingdom of heaven against men, Matt. 23:13.”

We think the passage just cited is more valuable for what it said of the Romans rather than what it said of the Jews, who have ever since continued to be the enemies of Yahweh God, and who always will be His enemies, until they are all destroyed. The enmity and hatred which the Jews have towards Yahweh God certainly did not end with the destruction of Jerusalem, but rather continues to this very day. Clifton continues with another citation:

From Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Holy Bible we get this on Luke 11:51, volume 3, page 232:

“The Pharisees, like a company of wretched hypocrites, under a pretence of their honouring the memories of the prophets under the Old Testament, took great care to repair and to adorn their sepulchers, while in the mean time their hearts were as full of malice against the truth, and against Christ [Yahshua], and those who came to reveal God’s [Yahweh’s] will to them, as ever were their fathers against the prophets; and, saith our Savior, I who am the Wisdom of God, tell you, that I shall send you apostles and prophets, and some of them you shall kill, others you shall persecute; that all the righteous blood that hath been shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias, may come on you ...”

You will notice there is some question as to who the correct Zacharias of Luke 11:51 and Matthew 23:35 is, but there is absolutely no question from these references just quoted as to who was Abel’s killer. As you can plainly see, the anti-seedliners have a problem with Luke 11:47-51 & Matthew 23:34-36, and they refuse to address it!

To blame the children of Seth for the murder of Abel, as Ted Weiland has done, is tantamount to a false accusation of murder, for which Ted Weiland must bear the punishment of the Law. That is the law of Yahweh God. But to avoid the making of a false accusation, one must admit that there is another race in Judaea who were indeed guilty of the blood of Abel. That is the point that Clifton is making, that Ted Weiland would rather make the false accusation than to admit the truth of Scripture.

Now Clifton changes the subject to address another aspect of Genesis chapter 3:

“AS THE SERPENT BEGUILED EVE”

The next passage we are going to consider is 2 Corinthians 11:2-3: “... for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Yahshua. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Yahshua.”

The anti-seedliners really like to jump on this one and proclaim it’s all a matter of mental seduction. It would appear that before Eve was seduced by Satan, she was a “chaste virgin” according to this passage. Was Eve then a chaste virgin physically?, or a chaste virgin mentally? It should be obvious that Paul is telling the Corinthians that he desired their minds not to be violated as Eve was physically violated. Why even use the term “chaste virgin” if Eve was not violated physically? Notice that Paul tells these Corinthians he had espoused them to one husband. He is saying that he would rather not have them to become espoused to an additional husband as Eve was. In other words, “I have espoused you to one husband” ... not as “Eve.” Paul was simply implying that Eve, after her encounter with Satan, was no longer a chaste virgin.

Like the words for race and seed, the anti-seedliners are no better than the Judeo-Christians who pervert the meanings of words to suit their own particular doctrine. In order for an allegory to work, one side must be literally true. To be compared to a fast animal, the animal of the comparison must be literally fast, or to a red flame, the flame must be literally red. The word παρθένος literally describes a woman who is an unmarried virgin, and the word ἁγνός, according to Liddell & Scott, is undefiled, chaste, [or] pure when it is used of persons. Therefore the phrase παρθένος ἁγνός is literally a pure or chaste virgin, sexually speaking. If Paul had intended to describe Eve as a morally pure woman, he would have properly called her a γυνή, a word which signifies a woman who is a wife of a man, and Eve was already considered the wife of Adam in Genesis chapter 2. But calling her a παρθένος, or virgin, he is certainly referring to the sanctity of the marriage bed, and not merely to any spiritual or mental state. Clifton continues to make this argument in a somewhat different manner and writes that:

THE GREEK PROVES EVE WAS BEGUILED MENTALLY & PHYSICALLY

The anti-seedliners simply haven’t done their homework on the Greek in this passage. If it were speaking of being mentally “beguiled” by words, it would have used the word #538, ἀπατάω, apatao, meaning to deceive, bring, seduce or mislead into error. Or, if Paul would have meant mental seduction, he probably would have used #5422 or #5423 as in Galatians 6:3 & Titus 1:10. [The words φρεναπατάω and φρεναπάτης which Paul had used in those two passages specifically refers to deception of the mind, from ἀπατάω and φρήν which means heart or mind – WRF.] Instead the word #1818, ἐξαπατάω, exapatao, is used. W. E. Vine in his An Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words, page 112, explains it like this: “exapatao is a strengthened form of apatao ... is rendered ‘beguile’, 2 Cor. 11:3; the more adequate rendering would be ‘as the serpent thoroughly beguiled Eve.’ So in 1 Tim. 2:14, in the best mss., this stronger form is used of Satan’s deception of Eve, literally thoroughly beguiled; the simpler verb apatao, is used of Adam.” [Where Paul said that Adam was not deceived.] If a mental seduction were meant, the word #538, apatao, would have been used. W. E. Vine repeats his explanation of the use of the Greek words apatao and exapatao on pages 278 & 279 under the word “deceive.” Under the heading “verbs”, on the word apatao he says this: “... of those who deceive ‘with empty words’, belittling the true character of the sins mentioned, Eph. 5:6; ... of the fact that Adam was ‘not beguiled’, 1 Tim. 2:14, R.V. (cp. what is said of Eve; see exapatao below ...” Then Vine continues: “EXAPATAO ... intensive ... signifies to beguile thoroughly, to deceive wholly ...” Thayer in his Greek Lexicon and Dr. Spiros Zodhiates in his Word Study Dictionary N.T. agree with W. E. Vine.

In hindsight I must say that the use of the phrase παρθένος ἁγνός is a greater proof of Paul’s intention that the use of the strengthened word ἐξαπατάω, however Clifton continues to address the verb under the subtitle:

ANTI-SEEDLINER ADDRESSES 2 CORINTHIANS 11:3

Most anti-seedliners avoid this passage with a twenty-foot pole, but, in his booklet Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She?, Ted R. Weiland takes a blind stab in the dark at 2 Corinthians 11:3. First, I would mention that Weiland does not point out the difference between apatao and exapatao as has been explained by W. E. Vine above. Without such an explanation, one can see how Weiland might drift into a dangerous state of error. As I quote Weiland now on pages 28-29, you can perceive his careless, or maybe blatant, omission:

“Just as they misconstrue the Hebrew word, the seedliners distort the meaning of the Greek word, ‘exapatao’, translated ‘beguiled’, to mean ‘sexual seduction’ in 2 Corinthians 11:3. ‘Exapatao’ is found six times in the New Testament; it is translated ‘beguiled’ once and ‘deceived’ five times. As was the case with its Hebrew counterpart ‘nasha’, the Greek word ‘exapataho’ [sic] is not once used with sexual connotations.

“If ‘exapatao’ means to sexually seduce, as seedline teachers claim, then in Romans 7:11 the Apostle Paul declared that sin sexually seduced him. In Romans 16:17-18 Paul warned the Roman church lest divisive false teachers sexually seduced them, and in 1 Corinthians 3:18 Paul warned the Corinthian Christians not to sexually seduce themselves. Consequently, there is nothing in the biblical use of either ‘nasha’ or ἐξαπατάω, ‘exapatao’ to corroborate, justify or validate the seedliners’ interpretation of these two words.

Weiland’s wrong interpretation is predicated on the idea that sin does not require an act. There are wicked thoughts, but it is only sin when the thoughts are acted upon and fulfilled. There are no thought crimes in Scripture, because men are punished only when the thoughts become actions. For Paul to imagine that the assembly may be corrupted as Eve, the chaste virgin, Eve’s chaste virginity must have been corrupted in a sinful act, not by a mere thought. Clifton continues citing Weiland’s contentions:

“If the serpent corresponds to Satan, and the beguiling in Genesis 3 and 2 Corinthians 11 was sexual in nature, then the Apostle Paul was warning the Corinthian Christians against Satan’s intention to fornicate with them. If such were the case, then why did not the other New Testament writers or Yahshua warn of the possibility? Why? Because fornication was not the sin in Genesis 3, and it was not the sin Paul warned the Corinthian Church about.”

Clifton had too much patience. I cannot help but to interject here and respond to Weiland’s nonsense, that if fornication were not the sin here, Paul would not have described Eve as a chaste virgin. Neither would the Jews have responded to Christ that “We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God”, where Christ Himself denied them that claim. Likewise, the prophet Malachi had prophesied of the exchange between Christ and His enemies, prophesying of that very claim of the Canaanite-Edomite Jews where he wrote “10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? 11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.” The proof that this prophesy was fulfilled is found in the exchange of Christ where His enemies made those very claims in John chapter 8. Not being born of Yahweh, and being of their father the devil and Cain the first murderer, the Jews who opposed Christ were indeed born of fornication with the daughter of a strange god, in spite of their denials. Judah married himself to a Canaanite woman, and likewise 2nd century Judaea as a kingdom had married itself to the descendants of the Canaanites and Edomites whom they converted to Judaism, and these were the opponents of Christ. The Jews in John chapter 8 had both realized and admitted that Christ was accusing them of being children of fornication, even if they were in denial, and Ted Weiland still doesn’t know it – he ignores the passage so that he can remain in purposeful denial. Clifton continues by responding to Weiland and saying:

Again, if Paul would have meant mental seduction, he probably would have used #5422 or #5423 as in Galatians 6:3 & Titus 1:10 [φρεναπατάω and φρεναπάτης]. Weiland doesn’t seem to understand [that] the Bible, [in] both OT & NT, uses vulgarities. The prophets called both Israel and Judah “harlots” and “whores.” The prophets really used some very graphic language at times, and Paul was no different. I would rather not have to explain to a fully grown man about the birds and the bees! Yes, Paul did compare being “deceived” to non-marital sexual intercourse! We do the same thing today. In order to explain, I will illustrate with some modern-day vulgarities similar to the prophets of old. When a man today gets cheated in a business deal, he might say something like this: “That bastard screwed me out of 100 dollars” or “I really got shafted on that one.” I think you get the point, and I would rather not elaborate any further. Yes, Paul was telling the Romans in 7:11 that his own sin (comparable to non-marital sexual intercourse) could destroy him. Yes, Paul was telling the Romans in 16:17-18 that false teachers (comparable to non-marital sexual intercourse) could corrupt them. Yes, Paul was telling the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 3:18 that their own self-conceited wisdom (comparable to non-marital sexual intercourse) could mislead them. And, Yes, Paul was telling the Corinthian Christians in 2 Corinthians 11:3 that they could be mentally “beguiled” as Eve was literally mentally and physically sexually “beguiled.” My own advice is: be careful of people who use word trickery! The object is to set you up on one word, and then clout you with five or six reverse meaning examples. The “Jews” are masters at this sort of thing! Carefully go back over the quotation by Weiland and see if he might have been setting us up. You might start with “If ἐξαπατάω means ...” If you have his book, you might check to see if he may have used that same system in other places. Watch for the setup followed by several seemingly absurd examples! The con-artist might approach you something like this: “If this means this, look how absurd this, and this, and this, and this, and this is.” Once you become aware of this devious system, you can no longer be deceived into believing darkness is light and bitter is sweet!

The Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, abridged by Ralph Earle, has this to say about this passage, 2 Corinthians 11:2-3, on page 1147:

“That I may present you as a chaste virgin. There seems to be a reference to Lev. 21:14, that the high priest must not marry anyone that was not a pure virgin. Here then Christ [Yahshua] is the High Priest, the Spouse or Husband; the Corinthian church, the pure virgin to be espoused; the apostle and his helpers had educated and prepared this virgin for her husband and espoused her to him.... As the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty. This is a strong reflection on the false apostle and his teaching. He was subtle, and by his subtlety he was enabled to corrupt the minds of the people from the simplicity of the gospel of Christ [Yahshua]; or, to follow the metaphor, he had seduced the pure, chaste, well-educated virgin from her duty, affection, and allegiance to her one and only true Husband, the High Priest, Jesus [Yahshua] Christ.”

As we previously asserted, for the allegory to work, one side of the comparison must be literally true. Likewise, in her punishment Eve was told that “thy desire shall be to thy husband,” because, as it says in chapter 2 of the Wisdom of Solomon, “through envy of the devil came death into the world.” Envy of the devil, not envy of some mental image or some spiritual idea. In 4 Maccabees chapter 18, a chaste woman compared herself to Eve and she said: “I was a pure virgin, and went not beyond my father's house; but I took care of the built-up rib. 8 No destroyer of the desert, or ravisher of the plain, injured me; nor did the destructive, deceitful snake, make spoil of my chaste virginity; and I remained with my husband during the period of my prime.” Clifton will cite that same passage later in this series. Paul’s use of the same phrase, chaste virgin, here in 2 Corinthians chapter 11 should by itself slam the door shut on Ted Weiland’s Eve, Did She or Didn’t She?