What Scripture Teaches About The “Unclean”, a Review of a paper by Clifton Emahiser

What Scripture Teaches About The “Unclean”, a Review of a paper by Clifton Emahiser

I want to apologize for not having a podcast last week, but we had a hurricane to prepare for, and it really did not let us down. It actually hit us about two hours before the podcast would have been scheduled, and lasted until almost the time the podcast might have ended. On Thursday the 8th it was projected to hit the Alabama state line near Pensacola, about 75 miles west of us, and throughout that day and the next the projected path kept moving closer to our location in Florida. So preparing for a hurricane became the priority over writing a podcast. But rather than landing in the next State, when it did come ashore the hurricane hit the next county. So we endured tropical storm force winds for probably more than a few hours, and hurricane force winds for at least an hour or two Friday evening. Quite a few structures in our village were destroyed, almost all of them by fallen oaks. This assured me that I made the right decision a few years ago, to start removing trees from our own property, which is difficult to do because giant oaks are indeed beautiful trees to live under. None of the remaining trees on our own property fell, although the storm convinced me that I should remove one more before the next hurricane season, if I can. I had tried to compromise and removed nearly half of it two years ago.

While I am not superstitious, in 2018 Melissa and I took a road trip in September where we spent most of our time in Tennessee, and returned in the early days of October only to be confronted with Hurricane Michael on October 10th, an event by which we lost the home where we had lived. So now, eight years later, on the way home from Pennsylvania we spent nearly a week in Tennessee and returned in the early days of October, and having a hurricane coming on October 9th evoked some memories which we really don’t want to relive. While we were directly in the path of Michael this hurricane struck not quite 40 miles west of us, several people lost homes in our village and many others lost other structures, such as pole barns or boat docks. Similar damage was suffered even many miles east of us. Praise Christ, that the only damage we suffered was a storm door which came off of its hinges, as the latch had failed, and we were able to catch it and bar it during the storm, so that I could repair, which I did yesterday.

Even yesterday my work day was interrupted, as I needed to apply security updates to the thirty or so Drupal websites which I have to manage, and in the middle of that we suffered a two-hour power outage, apparently for residual repairs which had not been completed earlier in the week. So I am not storing our generators until at least Sunday, or maybe even Tuesday.

Hopefully soon I will be able to get back to the Exodus series, which I had hoped to continue this week except that I keep getting pulled away by events over which I have no control. I have been anticipating writing about the first Passover and the night of the death of all the first-born of Egypt for too long now, and it feels like it has been a lot longer than five weeks since I discussed The Plagues of Egypt. So for now, because my working schedule was reduced once again this week, we are going to present and discuss a paper by Clifton Emahiser, which he apparently published in March of 2008, titled What Scripture Teaches About the “Unclean”. Recently, in April of this year, we had discussed a similar paper by Clifton here, titled Spots in Your Feasts of Charity, so hopefully this will not be too repetitious. Now we shall begin with Clifton:

What Scripture Teaches About The “Unclean”, by Clifton Emahiser

The subject of what is “clean” or “unclean” is of the utmost importance in Scripture, and cannot be overemphasized! Many times when the subject of the “clean” and “unclean” is brought to the fore, the full meaning is not fully comprehended by the reader.

Most well-intending but misinformed, Christians point to Acts 10:10-16 to support their insistence upon the consumption of unclean foods such as swine, where Peter had a vision, which says: “10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Master; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.”

Three times makes this very important! You will notice here it says, “... great sheet knit at the four corners ….” Any truly alert Bible student will recognize that the “four corners” spoken of here represent Israel as they camped in the wilderness in the formation of a square. It’s not unclean animals in the sheet but unclean Israelites who were divorced from the Covenant. Once divorced, they became “not a people”, and came under the classification with unclean heathen.

Here I am going to interrupt Clifton mid-paragraph. It seems that the King James Version and at least many other translations of Scripture fail to properly distinguish between two Greek words which are both typically translated as unclean. The first of these is ἀκάθαρτος (Strong’s # 169), which plainly and literally means unclean. But the second is κοινός (Strong’s # 2839), a word which Liddell & Scott primarily define as common, shared in common and then common to all the people, common, public, general. Later definitions contain examples of uses pertaining to public treasuries or public affairs or things ordinary or profane because they are designated for public or common use, as opposed to things which are held privately. Among these are the corresponding New Testament usage in relation to foods, of things which are common or profane.

These two different words were employed by the apostles, and by Christ Himself, in regard to certain things commonly eaten for good reason: something which is unclean under the Law, meaning the laws of God recorded by Moses, cannot be cleansed for consumption. But foods which are permitted to be eaten under the law, when they are handled in accordance with the Law, are sanctified and may be eaten. But the same goes for people. The children of Israel, who are sanctified under the Law, for which reasons they were called saints throughout Scripture, from a term meaning sanctified ones, had also been commanded under the law to remain a separate people. However it was also possible under the law, for other related peoples, those of the Genesis 10 nations, to join themselves to Israel under certain provisions which the Law itself had provided. But of course, this did not include peoples who had already been excluded by the Law, especially those who descended from the Nephilim, or ‘people’ of non-Adamic races. The law has no provisions for goats, pigs, dogs or wolves to join in community with the sheep.

While it is evident in may places in the Old Testament that the children of Israel had indeed been sanctified by Yahweh God Himself, here we shall read from Exodus chapter 31:

12 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

Then in Deuteronomy chapter 7, where the word translated as holy is qadosh (Strong’s # 6918), which, as it is defined by Brown, Driver, Briggs in their Hebrew lexicon, primarily means “of God, as separate, apart, and so sacred, holy”, we read:

6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

This commandment remains valid in the New Testament, where as many as thirty years after seeing his vision of the sheet in Acts chapter 10, Peter had written in chapter 2 of his first epistle, addressed to scattered Israelites whom he called “the elect sojourners of the dispersion”, so they must have been Israelites in captivity:

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:

In the passage above, where Clifton had cited Acts chapter 10, notice that Peter had professed that he had “never eaten any thing that is common or unclean” in verse 14. But where we read the response to that profession which had come from God, it says “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” He did not respond concerning what was unclean.

In that passage, because the words ἀκάθαρτος and κοινός appear together, the translators were forced to make a proper distinction, and rendered ἀκάθαρτος properly as unclean, and κοινός properly as common. But elsewhere, where κοινός appears by itself, the translators often sow confusion by rendering κοινός as unclean rather than as common. One such place is Romans chapter 14 where in the King James Version we read:

14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

There, all three occurrences of the word unclean are from κοινός, and should have been rendered as common. Paul was not referring to swine or to anything else which was unclean according to the Law. Rather, he was referring to the treatment of food, of things which could be sanctified according to the Law, but were instead considered common, or profane, because thisd instance, they had been sacrificed to idols. It is expressly forbidden in the Law for the children of Israel to sacrifice to devils, or demons, or idols or other gods, as they are also called.

So in Acts chapter 10, in order to understand the context of Peter’s vision, it is important to understand the answer where God had told him “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” Looking through all the promises and prophecies of the Old Testament concerning Israel, this passage from Jeremiah chapter 33 stands out in this context:

6 Behold, I will bring it health and cure, and I will cure them, and will reveal unto them the abundance of peace and truth. 7 And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at the first. 8 And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me. 9 And it shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and an honour before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear all the good that I do unto them: and they shall fear and tremble for all the goodness and for all the prosperity that I procure unto it.

Only the children of Israel had such a promise, to be cleansed by Yahweh God of all of their sins, so that they may once again have communion with Him, and that is the cleansing which had occurred on the cross of Christ. Where Yahweh told Peter in Acts chapter 10 that “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common”, Clifton shall discuss that further, so now we shall return to him, and he is writing in response to Peter’s vision, and the context of the relationship of God with Israel, whom it is that He had cleansed:

Then Christ, whom most people call “Jesus” but who was Yahweh in the flesh as Yahshua, came to redeem Israel back to Himself. Israel, once divorced by Old Testament law, could not be remarried to Yahweh again, except by one provision, and that being that either Israel or Yahweh must die. This was the whole purpose of the crucifixion, for upon Yahshua dying, the way was clear for Him to once again marry Israel as he had done before. Therefore, it says further, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” This is where Colossians 2:14 comes into play: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

Paul described this same thing somewhat more elaborately in Romans chapter 7, where it is assured that Clifton is correct in referring to the law of divorce, as Paul had written:

1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

While Yahweh had put Israel off in divorce, the children of Israel could not produce a bill of divorcement, which is evident in Isaiah chapter 50 where we read:

1 Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

So Israel in captivity did indeed remain an adulteress, so long as the people worshipped their strange gods. Returning to Clifton:

What one must understand is that Yahweh found Israel as a virgin and married her (all 12 tribes), and later he found uncleanness in her through her unfaithfulness and turning to idolatry – and the gross immorality to which idolatry ultimately leads, such as race-mixing or homosexuality as was practiced in Sodom. So Yahweh handed Israel a bill of divorce, Jeremiah 3:8: “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.”

Handing Israel a bill of divorcement does not mean that Israel could produce such a document while in captivity, especially since Israel was prophesied to be blind, deaf, and forget who they were in the course of that captivity. This is evident, for example, in Isaiah chapter 42 where we read:

19 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD'S servant? 20 Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not. 21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable. 22 But this is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison houses: they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore. 23 Who among you will give ear to this? who will hearken and hear for the time to come? 24 Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? did not the LORD, he against whom we have sinned? for they would not walk in his ways, neither were they obedient unto his law. 25 Therefore he hath poured upon him the fury of his anger, and the strength of battle: and it hath set him on fire round about, yet he knew not; and it burned him, yet he laid it not to heart.

Now returning to Clifton once again, where he continues to speak of divorce, he is referring to where the law describes a woman who was divorced, and who then had other husbands, that she could not once again return to her first husband:

The “handwriting of ordinances that was against us” is found at Deuteronomy 24:4: “Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Yahweh ...” At Luke 16:18, Yahshua Christ Himself declared: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” It should be glaringly apparent that once Yahweh had divorced Israel, he could not take her back as His wife again without breaking His own law on the matter! Nor could He marry another, such as the clergy call “Gentiles”! Nor could He have a son (whom many call “Jesus”) and allow Him to marry his Father’s wife without breaking His own law, as so many insist!

In this last statement, Clifton refers to the law found in Deuteronomy chapter 22 where we read:

30 A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.

Thus he continues:

The only other provision is if one of the two parties of the marriage were to die. If Israel were to die, she had no power of resurrection, and she would be dead forever! So Yahweh took it on Himself to come in the flesh as a man and die in order to satisfy His own law, and having the power of resurrection can and will remarry Israel! (“... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ...”) The important thing for the reader to understand is, upon Yahweh’s divorce of Israel for her unfaithfulness, she fell into an “unclean” category.

Of course, Yahweh could resurrect Israel, but that would not free Israel from the law of the Husband, since it would be apparent that the wife was under His authority in both life and death, so that she could not have been freed of His Law. Rather, the Husband had to die, so that Israel would be free, however the Husband had the power to take his own life once again. That Yahshua Christ is also Yahweh God who would do this is evident in John chapter 10:

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Once again returning to Clifton:

Getting back to Peter’s sheet-vision, Yahshua said, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” And the word common means “unclean”. Therefore the message of the Gospel is that by Christ’s shed blood upon the cross, Israel was cleansed. You will notice that it is written in the past tense, so it happened 2000 years ago, and people since that event have no choice in the matter! And we as Israel have been clean ever since! The only choice we have is to accept that cleansing and be thankful for it.

To once again interrupt Clifton mid-paragraph, here he said that “the word common means ‘unclean’”, but that is only true from one perspective, which is the perspective of Israel under the Law. If some food or vessel were treated contrary to the Law, having become defiled in some manner, then it was unclean. While clay vessels were commanded to be broken on this account (i.e. Leviticus 11:33), other vessels, such as those of metal, or implements of wood, could be cleansed under prescriptions found in the Law (i.e. Leviticus 6:28, 15:12). Likewise, there was no provision to clean crustaceans, catfish or swine under the Law, so that they may be eaten, but the fish or beasts which the Law had deemed clean could always be eaten, unless they died under certain circumstances. Things strangled and roadkill, or things found dead either from natural causes or killed by other animals, could not be eaten (i.e. Leviticus 22:8, Deuteronomy 14:21), but there is a distinction made in regard to this in Deuteronomy chapter 14:

21 Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

So common ‘people” can eat common, or even unclean things, but in the first place, only Israel was ever under the law, so the law is only for the benefit of Israel. It does not matter what other nations and races eat, who never had the law.

Once again, returning to Clifton:

Furthermore, Yahweh married Israel only, and by His law [He] can take only Israel back! If He were to marry members of any other race, it would be adultery, and Yahweh Himself would become “unclean”! If He were to do that, as so many claim He will, He might as well have kept Israel in her adulterous condition! Do they mean to tell us that Yahweh is going to marry unclean sewer-people? Universalism is Satan’s agenda, not Yahweh’s! The sewer-races will not inherit the Kingdom!

Here Clifton refers to the passage he had cited from Luke chapter 16:

18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

By the words of Christ Himself in that passage, Yahweh could not marry another, since He had married and divorced Israel. So we can be assured that where Yahshua Christ had been described, and had also described Himself as the bridegroom, only the same children of Israel are the bride. Now Clifton continues in reference to Israel’s state of uncleanness in the period of divorce and captivity:

It should be pointed out, though, as long as Israel had divorce status from Yahweh, she also was considered unclean, not that she was genetically impure in any sense of the matter. Many confuse the language at Isaiah chapter 56 because of this, and assume that Isaiah was opening the door of Israel’s Covenant to everyone, but that simply isn’t true. They will quote Isaiah 56:3-8: “3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to Yahweh, speak, saying, Yahweh hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to Yahweh, to serve him, and to love the name of Yahweh, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. 8 Yahweh singular-elohim which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.”

Here I took the liberty of changing Clifton’s text here to include all of Isaiah 56:3-8, because he had originally said that he was citing verses 3 and 5 through 8, but he skipped verse 5 along with verse 4. Not being constrained for space here, as Clifton was when he wrote this for distribution as a pamphlet, I thought it better to include the entire passage. Now Clifton comments:

Typical universalists’ view on this passage can be found in the Believer’s Bible Commentary by William MacDonald, page 982: “... Neither the foreigner nor the eunuch should fear that they will be barred from any of the benefits of Christ’s kingdom. In fact, those who obey the Word of the Lord will have preferred positions. The temple will then be a house of prayer for all nations, not just Israel. God will gather Gentiles to His fold in addition to the house of Israel.”

Clifton responds in bold text and all capital letters and says:

BUT I SAY, THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!

With that we should wholeheartedly agree, but we shall here from Clifton first:

Once we grasp that the northern Ten Tribes had been divorced by the Almighty, along with most of Judah, we can understand that they were cut-off from the Covenant and became estranged to Him. The tribes, being cut-off from the Covenant, became like a “eunuch” or a “dry tree”. Another simile about a eunuch is that he cannot procreate children to carry on his name, so too, Israel being divorced, lost her name. For that period, Israel’s seed had been cut-off, so figuratively, the simile of a “eunuch” is appropriate. Upon understanding that Israel was the “eunuch”, there is no longer a conflict with Deuteronomy 23:1. This passage is not talking about bringing non-Israelites under the Covenant, but quite the opposite. Once Yahshua died for our Redemption, we were then brought back under the New Covenant, which includes only the House of Israel and the House of Judah, (Jeremiah 31: 31; Hebrews 8:8). And to try to force “whosoever” into the equation is a matter of fraud! Unclean sewer-people under the Covenant? You have to be kidding!

Then we must also understand the use of the word “stranger.” Some may argue that the word “stranger” at Isaiah 56:3 & 6 is #5236 instead of #1616.

The entry at # 1616 in Strong’s Concordance is the Hebrew word geyr, which is a guest or sojourner, someone who had an expectation of hospitality by custom or by treaty. A Canaanite would not be considered a geyr, but an enemy and an invader, But a Syrian or an Egyptian was granted such an expectation of hospitality under the law itself, and others of the Genesis 10 Adamic nations may have also had such an expectation. 

The word for stranger in Isaiah 56:3 is nekar (Strong’s # 5236) and in spite of the fact that many editions of Strong’s define it as alien or foreigner, that is not precisely it means. As a verb (Strong’s # 5234) it means to recognize, acknowledge, discern, or as we say, to know someone or something. So in Genesis 42:7 the verb is translated “made himself strange” and in verse 8 simply as “knew” where we read:

7 And Joseph saw his brethren, and he knew them, but made himself strange unto them, and spake roughly unto them; and he said unto them, Whence come ye? And they said, From the land of Canaan to buy food. 8 And Joseph knew his brethren, but they knew not him.

Joseph did not have to make himself look like a nigger, and his manner of dress and his office had already made him look like an Egyptian, which to the Hebrews would have already been a foreigner or alien, so it must have simply meant that he made himself look unrecognizable to them. A related Hebrew word, nokriy (Strong’s # 5237) is another adjective with that same meaning, strange, in the sense of something not recognized. The word nokriy was used of David, who was like a stranger to his family, and by Rachael and Leah, who lamented having been treated as strangers by their father. None of them used the term to imagine themselves as being foreigners, or of other races.

In part 59 of our recent Isaiah commentary, The Outcasts of Israel, we commented at length, citing other prophecies, that the eunuchs, dry trees and strangers in Isaiah chapter 56 were simply divorced Israelites of the captivity, whose children had also been cut off from Yahweh and who had been estranged from Him on account of their sins. Returning to Clifton:

When Israel was divorced, they became equivalent to non-Israelites until Yahshua purchased them back, so #5236 is not out-of-order in this passage. At Isaiah 56:2 “man” is used twice, #582 & #120 and Jamieson, Fausset & Brown’s Commentary, p. 582, on this passage describes #582 thus: “the man — Hebrew, enosh, ‘a man in humble life’, in contradistinction to Hebrew, ish, ‘one of high rank’.” In this sense the meaning of enosh is very fitting, for Israel was humbled when she was punished, but they didn’t become genetic sewer-people like bad-fig-jews, arabs, mexicans or any other nonwhite race!

The word enosh simply refers to a mortal man, and may describe Adamic men as well as men of other races, such as Nephilim. But the word adam used of men can only describe descendants of Adam. Some early occasions where the word enosh appears in Scripture it describes the offspring of the Nephilim and the daughters of Adam in Genesis 6:4, and after that in Genesis 12:20 of the men of Pharaoh’s court, in Genesis 13:13 of the men of Sodom, and then later in Genesis chapter 17 of the men of Abram’s house, and Genesis chapter 18 of the angels who visited Abram at the place where he had dwelt in Hebron. So if enosh could describe men of the household of Abraham, and then even describe angels, it could certainly have been used to describe Israelites in captivity.

Continuing with Clifton:

It should also be evident that when it speaks of others at Isaiah 56:8, it does not mean non-Israelites! It should be noticed that “others” is italicized here, although the remainder of the verse does support its use. So just whom are the others? Sometimes it would help if one were familiar with the history surrounding it, when the passage was written. Isaiah wrote this when Manasseh was king of Judah, who reigned 696-641 B.C. At that time the ten-tribed northern house of Israel were already captive in Assyria, and the southern kingdom of Judah was a tribute-paying province of the Assyrians. During Manasseh’s reign, he tolerated the high places, and Judah’s morals dipped to an all-time low, even beyond that which the northern Ten Tribes had committed, leading to a certain amount of race-mixing with the Canaanites, thus producing half-breed unclean sewer-children. So the “others” at verse 8 can only be pure-blooded members of the ten northern tribes! This whole passage at Isaiah 56:3-8 can only be speaking of the restoration of the ten northern tribes, at the time of Isaiah, back into the Kingdom after their Christ-bloodwashed cleansing under the ministry of Paul, which Peter saw in his four-cornered sheet-vision. Yahweh in the flesh didn’t die for pigs, but rather Israelites! It is blasphemous to even suggest that Christ died for pigs! Nevertheless, pig is unclean and unfit for consumption by White men, but permissible for the other races.

Clifton’s paper betrays some of the problems with chronology in the Old Testament, which we have discussed in our recent commentaries on Genesis and Isaiah. But Isaiah himself had not claimed to have prophesied in the days of Manasseh, but only in the time from Uzziah, or Azariah as he was also called, to the time of Hezekiah, the predecessor and father of Manasseh. That in itself is a long stretch, where it is apparent that the duration of Isaiah’s prophetic ministry was greater than forty years, so it is unlikely he continued under Manasseh, whom he had never mentioned. That being said, the last 25 chapters of Isaiah certainly did follow the time of the failed siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib, which is generally reckoned to about 702 or 701 BC. Clifton neglected to mention that by that time, only Jerusalem was under tribute to Assyria, and most of Judah was also in captivity in Assyria along with the others of the tribes of Israel, although he had mentioned that earlier.

Furthermore, Manasseh had done much worse than tolerate the high places, the groves for the idols which Judah had come to worship. Reading of the reforms of Josiah, who followed him as king only two years after he died, and his own father and predecessor Amon also died, Josiah found the Law and the temple in neglect, and he removed the houses of Sodomites and the women who manufactured hangings, or as the Septuagint has it, tents, for the idol groves from the very grounds of the temple in Jerusalem (i.e. 2 Kings 23:7). So in the time of Manasseh, it is evident that faggots and witches had taken over the temple of Yahweh, very much like they have taken over the churches of the children of Israel today.

Continuing with Clifton:

Adultery happens within a woman’s body with the introduction of an alien element. In metallurgy the word “alloy” means “... 2: to reduce the purity of by mixing with a less valuable metal ... 3b: an impairing alien element ...” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed.) “Impairing” means: “cause to diminish in quality, power or value; make worse.” Is this not exactly what happens when an alien sperm fertilizes the egg of a pure White female? Such an introduction is a sin for which there can be no forgiveness, for the end product can never be corrected. Once such a conception of a sperm cell and an egg takes place, every succeeding cell forming the baby has the blueprint of that alien element, which is unclean. Under such a scenario, every single cell is polluted, therefore nothing short of complete annihilation by the angels of Christ at Matthew 13:47-50 can remedy such a sin. If the conception is unclean, so too the entire formation of the final product, as well as all generations downstream forever, and that’s a lot of uncleanness.

This is absolutely true. Just as coins are debased with common metals, a race of men is debased when it mixes with foreign elements. The prophet Daniel had said in his prophecy of the Roman Empire, in Daniel chapter 2, that it would crumble because the iron would not cleave to the clay. Saying that, Daniel was also speaking of people, where we read:

43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

Once again continuing with Clifton:

That is why 1 John 3:9 states: “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” This is not some kind of spiritual seed as some would suppose, for the word in Greek is sperma, and who [has] ever heard of spiritual sperm? And the way “his seed remaineth in him” is – he chooses a wife of his own kind. Was not Eve made from Adam? Didn’t Adam’s seed remain in him when Abel and Seth were conceived? It’s when a man goes into a foreign woman that his seed remaineth NOT in him and he committeth sin, or likewise when an alien goes into a White woman is when she sins. That’s why the Bible defines such an offspring as a bastard! And because it has an alien element, it’s unclean! And no amount of washing can make it clean!

In Romans chapter 4 Paul spoke of the faithful of Israel as well as the faithful Abraham where he quoted David in the 32nd Psalm and he wrote:

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

So Yahweh had promised to forgive all of the sins of the children of Israel, and in Jeremiah chapter 31, which Paul had also cited in Hebrews chapter 8, we read:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Now where Clifton continues, speaking of the sin of fornication he cites an earlier passage of Jeremiah:

Jeremiah’s language makes that quite clear at 2:21-22: “21 Yet I had planted thee [Judah] a noble [unmixed] vine, wholly a right [racial] seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate [race-mixed] plant of a strange vine unto me? 22 For though thou wash thee with nitre [strong lye], and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith Yahweh.” In other words, one could buy forty gallons of strong lye soap and shower for forty days and forty nights, and one could not wash away the mark of an alien! Such a mark is a mark of uncleanness! Oh the money that is wasted on foreign missions!

Ezra, at 9:10-11 lamented: “10 And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments, 11 Which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abominations, which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness.” This is a similar description of America today, with all of the unclean sewer-people pouring in from distant lands from all over the world to become bloodsuckers and leeches on our economy, while at the same time defiling our women to annihilate us as a pure race. The introduction of the mexican sewer-people alone has lead to a major catastrophe! At this verse, Ezra was addressing White people, advising them of the evils of a race very much like today’s mexicans.

At Job 14:4 we read of his wisdom: “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.”

This supports our assertion that things which the Law deems are unclean cannot be cleansed. So continuing with Clifton, Christ addresses His adversaries, whom elsewhere He had declared were not His sheep, for which reason they did not believe Him (John 10:26):

Christ declared to the scribes and Pharisees that they were an unclean racial people at Matt. 23:27: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all [racial] uncleanness.”

At 1 Cor. 7:12-14 we come across another manner of uncleanness, and that would be “clean” or “unclean” children: “12 If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” Paul is here addressing something which is little understood and seldom addressed by churchianity today. This passage is indicative of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Because Eve was genetically of Adam, Eve, though she sinned, was sanctified in Adam, just as the wife or husband in this passage.

I would not have employed this example without saying much more about it. Eve was not sanctified in Adam, but rather, Adam had defiled himself when he accepted Eve, so that they were both alienated from God. However Yahweh God knew that this would happen, as Christ is later called “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. That world, the world of Adam, had fallen and remained fallen, in a state of idolatry and disarray, until the children of Israel were organized as the Kingdom of Yahweh at Sinai. For this, Solomon wrote in chapter 19 of his Wisdom, speaking about that event of the Exodus:

4 Indeed a fitting necessity had dragged them to this end and applied a forgetfulness of the things which happened, that the punishment lacking would be added to fill their torments, 5 and that Your people would be tried by an incredible journey: but they would find a strange death. 6 For the whole creation within its own race was again perfectly formed from above, serving Your commandments in order that Your sons may be kept unharmed.

Here Solomon had spoken of the giving of the law to Israel, and described that signal act as “the whole creation within its own race” as having been “again perfectly formed from above”, and where he said again he must have considered the giving of the law at Sinai to have been a replacement for the fall of Adam and the failures of the world, the race of Adam found in the Genesis 10 nations, up to that point.

But Paul of Tarsus did rather indirectly explain how both Adam and Eve would be sanctified, as their race had to continue if such sanctification were to be achieved. So we read in 1 Timothy chapter 2:

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Adam and Eve, having continued on after the fall in apparent holiness and sobriety, the race continued with Seth and would ultimately be sanctified in Christ. However many of their descendants would follow in their sin, beginning with those who died in the flood of Noah, and now, in these end times, they have once again committed those same sins that were being committed in the days of Noah, as Christ Himself had attested would happen, in His gospel.

So in that aspect, as he continues what Clifton says is correct:

Take away the equation of race here, and Paul’s words mean nothing. This whole passage is based on believing the Gospel that Christ died on the cross in order to redeem his former wife, the twelve tribes of Israel, back to himself. The Gospel has nothing to do with what some term as “the original sin”. There are some teachers who, on every reading of the word “sin”, will replace it with the words “old Adam”. But at 1 Timothy 2:14, Paul declares that: “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” But we are told that Adam also ate of the forbidden tree. Think of it this way: If your wife takes out the family automobile and has an accident causing several thousands dollars of damage, when a claim is made for damages, you, the husband will find yourself equally liable along with your wife. In other words, when Eve committed adultery with the serpent, Adam was equally responsible for Eve’s action. Now that was the original sin! So why don’t the preachers say “old Eve” rather than “old Adam”? The “children” in this passage are NOT racially “unclean”, but without at least one believing parent, are doomed to grow up in an unclean idolatrous environment and become mentally unclean. And it is simply appalling the mental uncleanness that our children are receiving today from our public school systems.

Rather, the children would be considered common, although in 1 Corinthians 7:14 Paul of Tarsus also used the word unclean in the ceremonial sense, or perhaps more properly, the Levitical sense, referring to clean things which had been profaned in some manner. but even with that, there remains a distinction between what is common and what is unclean according to the Law. 

The children of a spouse who does not follow Christ would be clean so long as they followed the examples of the parent who does follow Christ, since it is one’s behavior, ones keeping of the commandments of Christ, which makes an Israelite into a Christian, and not the mere profession of one’s mouth.

Now Clifton continues with a discussion of sin which results from a rejection of Christ and His commandments:

Uncleanness always generates more uncleanness. Homosexuality generates more homosexuality, both among men and women. Today, our armed services are replete with such unclean activity. In the high schools tremendous peer pressure is directed toward any young White virgin lady to have sexual intercourse with a member of a different race. And should she have a date with a young Caucasian man, she will be scorned and ridiculed to no end. Therefore, race-mixing generates more race-mixing! When we view what is going on in the world today, Sodom and Gomorrah would compare to a Sunday school picnic. Peter said at 2 Peter 2:5-6: “5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly ...” We’re not playing a game of tinker toys here; race-mixing and homosexuality will be punished!

As a digression, in Greek the clause which reads “Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness” actually reads “Noah, the eighth proclaimer of righteousness”, and Noah was the eighth of the line of the eldest living males including Adam. Continuing with Clifton, he explains why Noah had been called such:

Few there are who notice that the reason Noah and his three sons and their wives were spared is because they were perfect in their genealogy. There wasn’t a halfbreed among them! Paul warned at Acts 15:20 and 1 Thessalonians 4:3 that we should avoid all pollutions of idols and unclean fornication (interracial sexual intercourse).

Acts 15:20: “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”

These words are not of Paul, but rather they were from James, Peter and the other elder apostles, when they decided the disagreement which Paul had with the Judaizers who had confronted him in Antioch.

1 Thessalonians 4:3: “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication.”

It would be better to read a longer portion of that passage from 1 Thessalonians chapter 4:

2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: 4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

Among other aspects of the Gospel of Christ, Paul’s having made this statement helps to establish the fact that where Yahshua Christ had exhorted His disciples to keep His commandments, He had been referring to all of the commandments of the Law, and not just the so-called Ten Commandments, which should only be seen as the ten primary commandments, as they were the first laws given at Sinai, but they do not explicitly mention fornication.

Continuing with Clifton:

Among the holiness movements they usually refer to sanctification as a second work of grace. But I believe it is so important to guard one’s racial purity that it should be considered a first work of grace. What Paul was trying to warn the Thessalonians about was: So your offspring will be born Holy, don’t perpetrate any race-mixing. Today we see a lot of unclean, unholy children coming into the world, and they are nothing more than sewer-creatures. One either has Holy seed or nothing! Ezra speaks of “holy seed” at 9:2: “For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.”

Here in this description, Clifton betrays a Judeo-Christian background of which I have always been oblivious, a circumstance which I also see as a blessing. So I searched for the term “second work of grace” and Google’s Gemini returned the following, where it cited Wikipedia:

The Second Work of Grace, also called the second blessing or entire sanctification, is after a person is saved (the first work of grace).

So perhaps Clifton is correct, that to abstain from fornication is a first work of grace, since bastards, or people of mixed race, shall not ever enter the congregation of Yahweh, and shall not be saved. Rather, as Christ had said in Matthew chapter 15, “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up”, and Yahweh certainly did not plant bastards, which are instead products of the sins of men.

Clifton continues by mentioning the example of Ezra:

Holy, clean seed was important to Ezra during his day, and it is still just as important in our day. Though the majority seem to be following Satan’s agenda for interracial multiculturalism, there is an even greater need for followers of Yahweh’s program for segregation! At the moment, Satan seems to be winning his cause, but in the end he and his fallen will lose. But meanwhile we must not give up the fight. This war between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman has been going on now for nearly 7,500 years, and will soon end with the defeat of satanic-Canaanites and their father!

In Ezra chapter 9, the children of Israel who returned with Zerubbabel had been found race-mixing with the surrounding Canaanites and Edomites and others, and we read in part:

1 Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. 2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.

Following that, Ezra is portrayed as having offered a long prayer of repentance, where a multitude of people were described as having assembled around him, where in the opening verses of chapter 10 they admitted their sins and decided to resolve the matter with an assembly of all of the people of Judah, for which we read:

7 And they made proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves together unto Jerusalem; 8 And that whosoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of those that had been carried away. 9 Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered themselves together unto Jerusalem within three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month; and all the people sat in the street of the house of God, trembling because of this matter, and for the great rain.

Once all of the people were assembled, Ezra had addressed them, where we read:

10 And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. 11 Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives. 12 Then all the congregation answered and said with a loud voice, As thou hast said, so must we do.

So with this, we see that all of the tribes excluded from communion with Israel in the Law were still excluded in the time of Ezra. But Ezra also excluded Egyptians, something which the Law did not do. However it is evident in Isaiah chapter 43 (43:3) that Yahweh had given up Egypt, Kush and Sheba, and at the time when the prophet had written, Egypt was overrun with Nubians, who were in alliance with Kush. So Egypt having been given up by God Himself, Ezra was only observing the words of the prophet and making a just application in response to them. So following this, the children of Israel in Judah and Jerusalem had agreed to “to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them”, as it was proposed in verse 3 of the chapter.

Now Clifton concludes:

Christ informed the scribes and Pharisees at Matthew 23:32 that they were of the “unclean” racially-mixed Canaanites mentioned at Genesis 15:16. (Compare “Fill ye up thou the measure of your fathers” to “... for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.”) These two verses cross-reference each other in many Bibles. In addition, Paul also identifies them as Canaanites at 1 Thessalonians 2:16, “... to fill up their sins alway[s] ...” 

Clifton explained this comparison more fully in another of his papers, titled The Power of the Dog ... Psalm 22:20. There he cited Genesis 15:16, and also Matthew 23:32, where Christ had said to His adversaries “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.” Clifton may have also cited the very next verse where Christ continued and told them “33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” Calling them a “generation of vipers” the Greek words are γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν or literally, offspring of vipers. So because their parents are vipers, they must have originated in a race of vipers, and it is clear that both he and Paul of Tarsus had been speaking of bastards. A more complete reading of 1 Thessalonians chapter 2 confirms this, but we shall read it from the Christogenea New Testament:

14 You have become imitators, brethren, of the assemblies of Yahweh in Judaea which are among the number of Christ Yahshua, because these same things even you have suffered by your own tribesmen, likewise they also by the Judaeans: 15 those who killed both Prince Yahshua and the prophets, and banished us, and are not pleasing to Yahweh, and contrary to all men. 16 Preventing us from speaking to the Nations that they would be preserved, for which to fill their errors at all times, but the wrath has come upon them at last.

So Paul evoked the words of Genesis 15:16 and Matthew 23:32 in relation to the enemies of Christ, that they “fill their errors at all times”, and if the tree is known by its fruit, he must have been referring to that same race of vipers.

Of course, we have concluded our presentation and commentary on Clifton’s paper. But we have one further point of discussion in relation to what Scripture teaches about the unclean, and we shall conclude with that. But first, we must acknowledge that Clifton had to squeeze these essays into not much more than 3,500 words, and even that was a lot for his 8-column pamphlets, which he printed on two sides of an 8 1/2” x 14” sheet of paper, and folded in fourths as he printed them in four columns per side of a page. That is why so many of Clifton’s essays were written so concisely, as they were written for that format so that he could easily distribute them in the mail.

But in addition to what Clifton has said, the prophetic command to touch not the unclean, but to depart out of their midst, which is found in Isaiah chapter 52 and cited at length by Paul of Tarsus in his second epistle to the Corinthians, really does belong with this subject. So for that we shall read a portion of our recent commentary on Isaiah, from part 55 of that commentary, which was titled The Report of the Gospel:

[There we find] a prophetic call for the children of Israel to come out of the places of their captivity, which is relative to the near vision of Isaiah, but also to a far vision fulfillment which we still await in our own future [which is the call to come out of Mystery Babylon]:

11 Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD. 12 For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the LORD will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rereward. 

In all of the popular translations of this passage, the word for unclean is imagined to be a reference to things, where the King James and other versions add the word thing to the text, and some more modern versions elaborate on that addition, without indicating the addition with italics as it is represented in the King James Version. The word for unclean, טמא or tama (# 2931), is an adjective in a masculine form, and it can also refer to people, and not mere to things. This is how Paul of Tarsus interpreted this word unclean where he cited this passage in 2 Corinthians chapter 6 and wrote, as it is found in the Christogenea New Testament:

14 Do not become yoked together with untrustworthy aliens; for what participation has justice and lawlessness? And what fellowship has light towards darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Beliar? Or what share the faithful with the faithless? 16 And what agreement has a temple of Yahweh with idols? For you are a temple of the living Yahweh; just as Yahweh has said, “I will dwell among them, and I will walk about; and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” 17 On which account “Come out from the midst of them and be separated,” says the Prince, and “do not be joined to the impure, and I will admit you”.

There, in verse 16 of that chapter, Paul had [also] cited verses such as we read in Ezekiel 37, where it speaks of the children of Israel and says:

27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28 And the [Nations] shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

Then in verse 17, Paul had cited this passage here in Isaiah chapter 52, and his paraphrase reveals his interpretation of the unclean as people, since people must be the subjects where he wrote “come out from among them, and be ye separate”, them being the the untrustworthy aliens, the lawless, the faithless and the idolaters of his statements in the verses which had preceded. Ostensibly, it is for that same reason that Paul must have made these citations together, because the stated purpose of a new covenant and God walking among His people is that “… the [Nations] shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.” Since only the children of Israel are sanctified by Yahweh, all other peoples are to be considered unclean, and from them are the children of Israel to be separated. Writing that epistle, Paul did not associate these sayings of the prophets by chance.

If the children of Israel are “what God has cleansed”, as Peter had been told when he received the vision of the sheet in Acts chapter 10, then apparently all others, the goat nations and the tares of the field of the parables of Christ, are indeed the unclean from whom Christians are exhorted to come out from among. When He comes, Christ shall separate the wheat from the tares, the sheep from the goats, and root up every plant that Yahweh God had not planted. But if we learn to make the proper distinction now, then we move to accept His sanctification even before he comes, which is a sure sign of repentance from the sins of ourselves and our fathers.