The Covid Vaccine, Fornication and the Mark of the Beast

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Internet Radio


The Covid Vaccine, Fornication and the Mark of the Beast

This podcast is something that I promised a good friend perhaps two or even three months ago, as we discussed the fact that the concept represented in the title was the subject of many discussions elsewhere, even in denominational churches. I apologize for being a couple of months late. If you are a denominational Christian who happened upon this podcast because of the title, that is good and we hope that you listen through to the end. But you should prepare now, because you certainly shall be offended. However we would assert that we are rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

There has been much speculation concerning the Covid vaccine and the Mark of the Beast which is described in the Revelation of Yahshua Christ. Here we are going to do a brief survey of the passages where the Mark of the Beast is mentioned, and discuss them from our historical perspective of the Revelation. But first I must provide some background, briefly and loosely summarizing some of the things which I had in my interpretation of the Revelation presented here ten years ago.

The first eight chapters of the Revelation mostly concern the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, with an interlude in chapter 7 for the sealing of the 144,000 and the innumerable multitude of other Israelites who would wash their garments in the blood of the Lamb. Then chapters 9 through 11 prophecy aspects of history in the aftermath of the fall of Rome, namely the plague of Islam and the Reformation.

Revelation chapter 12 is another interlude, and it describes the origin and summarizes the motivations and activities of the enemies of Christ. Then Revelation chapter 13 is a summary of the history of the seven times period of punishment of the children of Israel, which was facilitated through those same enemies of Christ. In my opinion, Revelation chapter 13 and the foregoing prophecies take us right up to the time of the end of the temporal power of the Papacy and the beginning of a new age, the so-called Age of Liberty guided by the Masonic ideals of the French Revolution in which man supposes that he can make his own laws and rule over himself. This is the beginning of the prophesied Time of Jacob’s Trouble.

So we read in the final verses of Revelation chapter 13, which we believe is speaking of the power that the popes had asserted over the people of Christendom:

Revelation 13: 15 And there had been given to him to give a spirit to the image of the beast, in order that the image of the beast may also speak and may make it that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be slain. 16 And it makes all, those who are small and those who are great and those who are wealthy and those who are poor and those who are free and those who are slaves, that they have given to them an engraved mark upon their right hand or upon their forehead, 17 and in order that one would not be able to buy or to sell if he has not the mark: the name of the beast or the number of his name. 18 Thus is wisdom: he having a mind must calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is six hundred sixty-six.

In our commentary on that chapter, we established the historical and other evidence to support the assertion that this second beast of Revelation chapter 13 is the Papacy, and we presented the evidence that the popes did indeed enjoy such power. The office of Pope was established by the emperor Justinian circa 530 AD, who had given the bishop of Rome temporal authority over all other Christian bishops in his laws. Based on that authority, later popes asserted authority over the kings, and even placed kings under the interdict, so that kings could not buy or sell unless they bent the knee to the pope.

As a digression, once we understand that the plague of locusts in Revelation chapter 9 represents the rise of Arabic Islam, and that the unbinding of the Euphrates allowed the Turkic hordes of Asia, which were also Islamic, to invade and destroy what was left of the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine Empire, we see that the Byzantines had suffered such a fate on account of idolatry, where we read at the end of that chapter that “20 And the rest of the men, those who had not been killed by these plagues, did not even repent from the works of their hands, that they do not worship demons and idols, things of gold and things of silver and things of copper and things of stone and things of wood, things which are able neither to see nor to hear nor to walk. 21 And they did not repent from their murders nor from their drugs nor from their fornication nor from thefts.”

That word for drugs, φαρμακεία, is the same word from which we get our English words pharmacy and pharmaceutical today, and we chose to represent the meaning of the word in that manner because that was the most common use of the word in ancient Greek. The word has other connotations relating to sorcery, but to the ancients, the use of drugs was certainly one of them, and ther primary use of the term. The men of Byzantium were punished for their idolatry and their sorcery, as well as for fornication and other sins.

So moving forward, while the temporal power of the papacy as well as much of the power of the kings of Europe was diminished in the so-called Age of Liberty, wherein democratic forms of government have been introduced throughout Christendom, in Revelation chapter 14 we see announcements which relate to those circumstances. The opening of the little book (Revelation chapter 10) represents the placing of the Bible, the Word of God, into the hands of the people, and democracy gave men the power to take it up, or to ignore it.

So we read in Revelation chapter 14: “6 And I saw another messenger flying in mid-air, having an eternal good message to announce before those sitting upon the earth and before every nation and tribe and tongue and people, 7 saying with a great voice: ‘You must fear Yahweh and you must give honor to Him, because the hour of His judgment has come, and you must worship He who has made the heaven and the earth and the sea and springs of water!’”

Then next we see an announcement of the inevitable fall of Babylon:

Revelation 14:8: 8 And another, second messenger followed saying: “Babylon the great has fallen, has fallen! She who has made all the nations drink from the wine of the passion of her fornication!”

Perhaps Babylon may have fallen if sufficient men had taken up their Bibles, but then there would have been no Time of Jacob’s Trouble, and Yahweh foresees all things without leaving any hypotheticals unsolved whereby men by themselves can change the course of history. The course of History may change upon certain events or actions of men, but Yahweh God foresees that as well. So the announcement assures the fall of Babylon, even if it was not immediate. The next verses demonstrate the truth of that assertion:

Revelation 14: 9 And another, third messenger followed them saying with a great voice: “If one worships the beast and its image and receives an engraved mark upon his forehead or upon his hand, 10 then he shall drink from the wine of the wrath of Yahweh which is poured unmixed into the cup of His anger, and he shall be tormented in fire and sulfur before the holy messengers and before the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends for eternal ages, and they who worship the beast and its image and one who receives the engraved mark of its name shall not have rest day and night. 12 Thus is the patience of the saints, they keeping the commandments of Yahweh and the faith of Yahshua!”

Under the temporal power of the Papacy, men had little choice but to bend the knee to the Pope, as the only alternative was death. Notice the text of Revelation chapter 13 in relation to the mark says that “it makes all… that they have given to them an engraved mark upon their right hand or upon their forehead…” But here in chapter 14 we read If one worships the beast and its image… as if the choice does indeed belong to man. This is why I believe that in modern times, the choice is voluntary, to worship the beast and take the mark, even if for some of us, perhaps once again the only alternative may be death. Of course, Yahweh also knows which men will make that choice, but at the moment a man does, only he is responsible for his actions, and he cannot blame God for his sins.

While there are other interludes, we believe that Revelation chapters 14 through 17 describe what has happened in more recent history, up to the point where we are today, awaiting the actual fall of Mystery Babylon the Great. So in chapters 15 and 16 we see further references to the mark:

Revelation 15: 2 And I saw like a glass sea mixed with fire, and those prevailing from the beast and from his image and from the number of his name standing upon the glass sea holding lyres from Yahweh. 3 And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of Yahweh, and the song of the Lamb, saying: “Your works are great and wonderful, Prince Yahweh Almighty! Your ways are righteous and true, King of the Nations! 4 Who should not be afraid, Prince, and honor Your Name? Because You are the only Holy One, because all the nations shall come and they shall worship before You, because Your judgments have been made manifest!”

So here we see that the purpose of the Old Testament and the New Testament are one and the same, and those who overcome the beast know that, because they sing the song of Moses. That song is found in Deuteronomy chapter 32, and in Deuteronomy chapter 31 Yahweh commanded Moses to write that song before his death. The song sings of the judgment which Yahweh shall execute upon all of His enemies, and upon all those who have brought or caused harm to the children of Israel. So those found singing the song must also know who is truly Israel, and it is not some church organization. The song of Moses is the judgment which shall be manifest in Yahshua Christ, as His purpose was executed by Moses and as Moses in turn had written of Him. Those who sing that song are those who prevail over the beast and his image.

In Revelation chapter 16 we see the seven bowls representing seven plagues, and we believe these are symbolic of certain circumstances and phenomena in our modern world. These are the days which were prophesied in Jeremiah chapter 31: “27 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast. 28 And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the LORD. 29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. 30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.” The very first plague affects those who have this Mark of the Beast:

Revelation 16: 2 And the first went out and poured his bowl out into the earth, and there came a bad and grievous sore upon the men who have the engraved Mark of the Beast and who worship its image.

These men were not given the mark, but rather, they had it already.

Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the Mark of the Beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Here it is evident that those who accept the Mark of the Beast are not necessarily cast into the Lake of Fire, but those who have deceived them into accepting it do face that fate.

In spite of the dismal image for the future of those who accept the Mark of the Beast which is drawn in Revelation chapter 14, we do not believe they will lose their eternal life, that their immortal Adamic spirits will somehow be destroyed. Rather, they shall be punished and the memory of their punishment, the “smoke of their torment”, abides forever. We see this as another description of what we also read in Daniel chapter 12, that “2… many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”

While we believe that Revelation chapter 20 is an interlude describing an aspect of past history, since the reference to resurrection is an interpolation, we nevertheless see a description of the fate of those who do not have the Mark of the Beast, which may also in itself be prophetic of the future:

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

So with all of this, we see that there are different ways which indicate that one has taken the Mark of the Beast. One way certainly is the submission to receive a Covid vaccination. But then on the other hand, the receiving of any vaccination is that same sin. While a child cannot help what his parents had compelled him to do as a child, as that is a sin of the parents, as an adult if a man submits to receiving one vaccine or another, then one vaccine is not a sin any more than the other, they are all the same sort of sorcery. But if one more easily suffers from some plague as a result, that is a punishment from God. Even the voluntary wearing of a mask in public is at least an indication that one may readily accept the Mark of the Beast, since in displaying an open fear of a virus they are worshipping the beast, rather than displaying any faith in God. Even in the midst of the plagues of Egypt, the children of Israel were never said have worn any face masks. But another way which indicates one has accepted the Mark of the Beast is by committing, or even merely accepting race-mixing fornication.

This is evident, that fornication is one of the sins committed by those having the Mark of the Beast, in Revelation 14:8-9, but we shall read through verse 12:

Revelation 14: 8 And another, second messenger followed saying: “Babylon the great has fallen, has fallen! She who has made all the nations drink from the wine of the passion of her fornication!” 9 And another, third messenger followed them saying with a great voice: “If one worships the beast and its image and receives an engraved mark upon his forehead or upon his hand, 10 then he shall drink from the wine of the wrath of Yahweh which is poured unmixed into the cup of His anger, and he shall be tormented in fire and sulfur before the holy messengers and before the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends for eternal ages, and they who worship the beast and its image and one who receives the engraved mark of its name shall not have rest day and night. 12 Thus is the patience of the saints, they keeping the commandments of Yahweh and the faith of Yahshua!”

The concept of Universalism promoted by the Roman Catholic Church is no different than the concept of the Age of Liberty found in the slogan of the French Revolution and perpetuated throughout Christendom by the Masonic Lodges of Jewry which proclaim “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”, and that concept of the so-called universal brotherhood of man is promoted by world Jewry and its agencies, such as Freemasonry, that is indeed the fornication of which the Scriptures speak. The popes had come to represent the “system” of the time, even if Jews had to feign conversion in the Middle Ages in order to infiltrate and corrupt the Church. Now the “system” is controlled by the Jews themselves through banks and other international corporations which promote these same things. So in every age there have been men who worship the “system”, the beast which receives its power from the dragon, and who by doing so, ignore the Word of God.

Sorcery, or pharmaceuticals, is a sin associated with the Mark of the Beast, but so are idolatry, fornication, and other sins. Today some men, and women, are trapped in sorcery, in part because the knowledge of natural and Godly remedies for their ailments is suppressed. But a man may often make himself dependent upon sorcery, while another is dependent upon idolatry, and another on fornication. When a man enters into a State-enforced marriage contract with a beast, he makes himself dependent upon fornication, and he can never hear the truth. While we may not be able to visibly see the Mark of the Beast, the fact that all three sorts of men bear the mark is made evident by those choices which they have made for themselves.

It is evident that the Mark of the beast is also related to the mark of Cain, as it is his descendants who represent that dragon which gives its power to the beast. Even the mark of Cain was not necessarily a visible mark.

So we do not think that the Covid vaccine by itself is the Mark of the Beast, but it is evident that one who has taken it has already received the Mark of the Beast. But those who take the vaccine reveal that they have taken the mark since they are engaging in idolatry as they worship the “system”. Neither do we think that the commission of fornication by itself is the Mark of the Beast, however one who commits such miscegenation reveals that he has accepted the Mark of the Beast by that very act, and thereby his children, or hers, shall indeed be literal beasts. So either of these things, and others, are manifestations of the Mark of the Beast because they are outward signs that one has accepted what the mark is said to represent.

We should cross-reference those verses from Revelation chapter 14 with Revelation chapter 18:3-4: “3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”

The fact that the two announcements of the fall of Mystery Babylon the Great bracket the seven plagues and other things described in Revelation chapters 14 through 17 also helps to establish that all of these things are associated, that they all describe our modern circumstances, and that all of the sins mentioned therein are witnesses, that those who willingly partake in them have also voluntarily accepted the Mark of the Beast. Even if one does not sin in like manner, by accepting those who do one is just as guilty as the perpetrators (Romans 1:32). So going along to “get along” rather than being obedient to Christ is also an acceptance of the Mark of the Beast.

Today, if one refuses a vaccination, or if one rejects beasts and refuses to accept race-mixing, or sodomy, one may indeed become an outcast, but that is the fate which we may all suffer in one way or another, on behalf of Christ. Today we await the fall of Babylon. We know that with confidence, because all of the circumstances described as Mystery Babylon the Great are fully manifest in the world today. The Kingdom of the people of God has been handed over to the beast, as it says in Revelation chapter 17 (17:17). The Jewish-controlled international banks and corporations operate the global system of commerce associated with Mystery Babylon in Revelation chapter 18, and all governments are subjected to it. Aliens have flooded the nations of Christendom for the sake of the banks and corporations, and we see that once again the remnant of the race of Adam is in the condition which Christ prophesied where He said, as it is recorded in Luke chapter 17: “26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.”

These and many other circumstances inform us of this time in which we are in. But how Babylon will fall, or when it will fall, are not for us to know even when we can all perceive that the fall should happen any day now. So now, because we have spoken of fornication here in relation to the mark, we will continue our discussion with a review of a paper written by Clifton Emahiser, which is titled What Scripture Teaches About the “Unclean”. Clifton really tried to cover all of the angles in this paper, going to lengths to describe who are clean and who are unclean in relation to the Bride of the Lamb, which is the collective children of Israel. This was apparently written in January, 2008. Here we shall offer our own comments as we present his paper.

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.

But I must add that the meaning was not even understood by the translators. In the New Testament where the word unclean appears, it usually is translated from one of two words, and these words are not the same. The first is ἀκάθαρτος, which does literally mean unclean, and that is how it should be translated. Generally, ἀκάθαρτος is properly translated in the King James Version. But the second word is κοινός, which does not mean unclean. Rather, κοινός means common, referring to something which is not sanctified, but which is rather shared in common. Sometimes such things are also described as βέβηλος, which is an adjective meaning trodden, as in the ground which is common.

In the law, there are things which are deemed unclean, such as swine, which can never be sanctified, or set apart and dedicated to God, on any altar. Yet there are things which are common, such as cattle or a man who has been defiled ceremonially for some reason, which may be cleansed and sanctified on an altar. In their translations of κοινός, the King James Version translators often failed to distinguish between the two words, thereby proving that they did not properly understand them. One crucial place where they did this is in Romans chapter 14 where it reads Paul as having said: “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.” This creates a lie, as Yahweh never cleansed swine or shellfish or anything that the law prohibits men from eating. When the apostles were writing, they themselves did not consider swine or shell fish to be food, as food is something which is normally eaten. Rather, the teachings of Christ in this manner had to do with the Levitical ceremonies and the scribes and Pharisees who added to them with their legalistic demands that men wash even from the hands up to the elbows before they could permitted to eat. The Christogenea New Testament translates the same passage from Romans to read: “14 I know and have confidence by Prince Yahshua, that nothing is of itself profane: except to he who considers anything to be profane, to him it is profane.” Paul was not advocating the eating of swine. Rather, he was discussing the eating of foods which had come from pagan temples, which would therefore have been considered common, and we translated the word as profane, which is a synonym when it used in relation to sanctification.

With that distinction having been explained, we shall continue with Clifton:

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. [Peter’s response proves that the food laws were still relevant several years after the Resurrection of Christ.] 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 [three times]: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.”

Peter’s vision related to people, not to food, which the rest of the account demonstrates as Peter had on that same day accepted Romans, uncircumcised men with whom he would not normally fraternize, and accompanied them to the house of Cornelius. But if the vision related to food, how are there warnings in the New testament concerning drugs, if Christians were permitted to eat anything? The Greeks and Romans had no hypodermic needles, and instead had ingested all of the drugs orally. If Christians could eat anything, there should have been no warnings against sorcery.

However eating vaccines, Christians ingest all sorts of unclean abominations, as vaccines contain bacteria grown on the organs of dead monkeys, for example, and even cultivated on the tissue of aborted human fetuses. Ingesting these things in a hypodermic needle into one’s bloodstream is indeed the same as ingesting them orally.

Clifton now comments on the passage:

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” [Hosea chapter 1], and came under the classification with unclean heathen.

The reference to unclean heathen which Clifton made here is to people who are common, or κοινός, which is people who are not sanctified. The word for holy, whether it be qodesh in Hebrew or ἅγιος in Greek, means sanctified, as in separated for the purposes of God, and the children of Israel were commanded to be such a holy, or separate, nation, i.e. Leviticus 19:6. But in the time of the apostles, the children of Israel were alienated from Yahweh so they were not holy, but common, or ceremonially unclean. Continuing with Clifton’s comments:

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.

This Paul had also explained in the opening verses of Romans chapter 7, in the terms of a wife bound by the law until the death of her husband, whereby she is freed. Yahweh dying had fulfilled the law, and because He is eternal, He is able to reconcile Israel to Himself in Christ, thereby fulfilling the prophets. So in that manner did Christ fulfill both the law and the prophets.

But the law itself prevented reconciliation, as it forbid a man from taking back an adulterous wife or a wife whom he had divorced and who then had been with another man. This is found in Deuteronomy chapter 24, which Clifton will cite below. So here he next says, in reference to the passage from Acts chapter 10:

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.”

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.

That Israel was a “virgin” in a religious and national sense is clear in the narrative of Genesis, as the sons of Jacob had worshipped the God of Abraham, and not the idols of the world, before they went down to Egypt.

That Yahweh had cleansed a divorced Israel on the cross of Christ is evident in the many promises that He would cleanse Israel of their sins, for example in Jeremiah chapter 33: “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.” So we read in a prophecy of Christ found in Isaiah chapter 53 “5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” Then we read in Micah chapter 7 a promise which is worded very similarly to what is professed in Luke chapter 1 that Christ had come to fulfill: “19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. 20 Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.” The children of Israel were the only people whom Yahweh had sanctified and cleansed their sins.

Now once again continuing with Clifton, as we have gotten ahead of him:

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.” 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, [those] such as the clergy calls “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!

It is true, that the denominational churches, and especially the Roman Catholic and so-called Orthodox Churches, accuse Christ, God Himself, of being both an adulterer and a fornicator with their wayward universalist teachings and so-called replacement theology. Clifton continues, explaining how Yahweh transcended His law, while having kept it at the same time, which is also what Paul explained in Romans chapter 7:

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! [In the promise of the new Covenant in Jeremiah chapter 31, it is promised by Yahweh that Israel shall always be a nation, which is a homogenous ethnic group of people, not a church made up of disparate races of people.] 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! [Clifton now makes sense of this by citing the words of Christ from the Gospel of John:] (“... 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.

In the prophecy of the two sticks, Israel and Judah, which Yahweh promised to make into one, which is found in Ezekiel chapter 37, we read: “23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.” This is what was cleansed on the cross of Christ, which Yahweh refers to in Acts chapter 10. Now 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”.

Here Clifton himself failed to distinguish the proper meaning of the term κοινός. When the children of Israel worshipped the gods of Canaan, and when they were finally divorced by Yahweh, they became κοινός, or common, and we can call them unclean in a ceremonial sense, but they were not unclean, or ἀκάθαρτος, in the sense of things in the law which could not ever be sanctified. While ἀκάθαρτος can describe either type of uncleanness, κοινός only refers to what is common, but which can be cleansed according to the law.

So we should notice a deeper distinction in this dialog between Peter and God in Acts chapter 10. Notice that Peter said “I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean”, and he used both terms, κοινός and ἀκάθαρτος. When Yahweh responded, He did not mention anything which was ἀκάθαρτος, and therefore He never professed to have cleansed anything which was unclean and that could not be cleansed according to the law. Rather, Yahweh responded using only the word κοινός for common and He said, as it is even in the King James Version: “ What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” This is an important distinction since it helps to prove that Yahweh did not clean anything which He had not promised to clean. He did not clean swine, nor other races of men. Now we shall continue with Clifton:

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 [referring to the phrase “What God hath cleansed”], 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. Furthermore, Yahweh married Israel only, and by His law 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!

Yahweh would become unclean having joined Himself to the unclean, as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 6:15 and again in a different way in 2 Corinthians 6:17, where he cites a prophecy found in Isaiah chapter 52. In 1 Corinthians chapter 6 we read: “15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Then having raised the members of the Christ, shall I make members of a harlot? Certainly not! 16 Or do you not know that he joining himself to the harlot is one body? “They shall be,” He declares, “two into one flesh.” 17 But he joining himself to the Prince is one Spirit.” So if Christ accepted races other than Israel, He himself would be doing what the children of Israel were forbidden to do, for which they were punished. The proof of our interpretation is ascertained in the very next verse here Paul wrote: “18 Flee fornication. Every error which perhaps a man may make is outside of the body, but he committing fornication, for his own body he fails. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit in you? Which you have from Yahweh, and you are not your own? 20 Indeed you have been purchased for a price; so then you honor Yahweh in your body.” Only the children of Israel were bought, redeemed, with the blood of Christ. Paul used the same word for fornication just a few paragraphs later, in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, to refer to an episode of race-mixing from the Book of Numbers.

Now returning to Clifton:

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. [Isaiah could not be correcting Jeremiah, who recorded the promise of the New Covenant about 120 years after Isaiah wrote these chapters.] They will quote Isaiah 56:3, 5, 6, 7, 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…. [Clifton now skips to verse 6, not to verse 5:] 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.” 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 to this by exclaiming:


Of course MacDonald’s comment is ludicrous because it ignores the context of the chapter, as well as the entire context of the surrounding chapters of Isaiah. That “Yahweh God… gathers the outcasts of Israel” proves that the eunuch and the dry tree, for examples, are outcast Israelites, and only Israelites would have known to keep the Sabbath in the first place, as the concept of the Sabbath was alien to all other nations where Israel was sent into captivity. If Yahweh was meaning to describe people of other races in Isaiah 56:3-8, why would He even describe them with terms such as “eunuch” and “dry tree”? Rather, where it says “son of the stranger” a better translation in the context of Isaiah would be “son of the estranged”, as an outcast would be estranged. An estranged man may say “Yahweh hath utterly separated me from his people”, but someone who had no place to begin with would have no such expectation. This fully reflects the stupidity of denominational church doctrines.

Continuing with Clifton’s response to MacDonald’s folly:

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 [“He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.”]. 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 [nekar] instead of # 1616 [geyr].

We have recently demonstrated, in a review of another paper written by Clifton, which I had titled Clifton Emahiser on Ted Weiland and presented here in January of 2020, that the words nekar and nokriy do not denote people of other races, but rather they only denote people who are unknown or unfamiliar to the beholder, without any racial connotation. A geyr stranger is a guest-friend, someone with an expectation of hospitality or a treaty ensuring them such an expectation.

Returning to Clifton once again:

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 [enosh] & # 120 [adam] 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!

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. [Isaiah lived and continued to write for at least several years after the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib which is commonly dated to 701 BC.] At that time the ten-tribed northern house of Israel were already captive in Assyria [again, along with much of Judah], and the southern kingdom of Judah [or actually, the remnant in Jerusalem] 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 for 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.

We would interpret the others of Isaiah 56:8 to refer to the many Israelites who had left Palestine and settled in Europe over the centuries prior to the Assyrian captivity, as Isaiah is primarily addressing those of the Assyrian captivity in that chapter, something which is established in the preceding chapters.

Returning to 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 [described] 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.

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 whoever 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 [according to the law it is ἀκάθαρτος and not κοινός]!

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!

That mark which cannot be washed off surely is the Mark of the Beast, as the man who has it is part beast. This is also a good proof text in our assertion that something which is ἀκάθαρτος can be something which is unclean by reason of its nature and cannot be cleansed, as opposed to something which is κοινός, something which is ceremonially unclean because of its circumstances, so it is common although it can be cleansed. Now Clifton cites Ezra, where:

Ezra, at 9:10-11 [had] 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.”

Christ declared to the scribes and Pharisees that they were an unclean racial people at Matthew 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.”

In other words, they were “twice dead”, as Jude described them in his epistle, they did not have the Spirit which Yahweh had imparted to the Adamic man. Clifton continues:

At 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 [actually 7:12-16] 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?”

Here the use by Paul of the word ἀκάθαρτος to describe children which are ceremonially unclean may seem to betray the distinction we have elucidated with the word κοινός, but it does not. Contrasted with κοινός, the word ἀκάθαρτος must designate something which is rendered unclean by the law, as opposed to something which may be cleansed. But while by itself ἀκάθαρτος may be used to describe something which is only ceremonially unclean, and which may be cleansed, κοινός does not describe something which cannot be cleansed at all. Swine are not merely κοινός because Yahweh will not accept them to be sanctified, and because they are ἀκάθαρτος by their very nature they cannot be accepted.

Returning to Clifton once again:

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. 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.

I do not quite agree with Clifton’s analogy here, at least in the manner in which he had expressed it. Eve was not sanctified in Adam, but rather Adam was defiled by accepting Eve in her sin, and neither would be sanctified until they could be sanctified by Christ. For the children which Paul mentions to be sanctified at all, they would have to follow the believing spouse, and be children of Israel in the first place. Continuing in reference to Adam and Eve, Clifton now rather appropriately says:

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: “… 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 (1 Corinthians chapter 7) 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.

The children would be unclean because they would not have known the Gospel of Christ. As Christ told His disciples, “You are clean through the Word which I have spoken to you” (John 15:3). not having heard the Gospel, they would have been lost in the pagan world.

Continuing with Clifton:

Uncleanness always generates more uncleanness. Homosexuality generates more homosexuality, among both 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.

Now Clifton cites Peter from the King James Version, but I will take the liberty of replacing his citation with the version from the Christogenea New Testament:

Peter said at 2 Peter 2:5-6: 5 and He did not spare of the old society but He had kept Noah, the eighth proclaimer of righteousness, having brought a deluge upon the society of the impious, 6 and the cities of Sodom and Gomorra burning to ashes He had condemned to destruction, having been set forth for an example of those who are going to be impious…

So Clifton responds and says:

We’re not playing a game of tinker toys here; race-mixing and homosexuality will be punished!

According to the apostle Jude, the sin of Sodom also included race-mixing fornication, where he wrote in his epistle that “7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” From the incident with Lot, where the men of Sodom sought to know the angels carnally, we can determine that they were Sodomites as well as fornicators.

Now Clifton continues in reference to race-mixing:

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.”

But actually it was James and the other elders of Jerusalem who had uttered those words, however those words uttered while Paul was present. The content of his later epistles proves that he was in full agreement. Now Clifton cites Paul:

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

Paul did make a direct reference to fornication as race-mixing, in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 where he warned the assembly not to commit fornication as their fathers had, referring to the race-mixing event where the men of Israel joined themselves to the daughters of Moab, in Numbers chapter 25.

Now, responding to the passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:3, Clifton says:

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.”

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!

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] ...”

This concludes our presentation of Clifton’s paper, but I have a few closing remarks.

There is one thing I did not mention in my earlier discussion of the Covid vaccine in relation to the Mark of the Beast, and that is the fact that many new vaccines, including this vaccine, contain something which is called Recombinant DNA, which is DNA that evidently has the ability to recombine with other cells and change the nature of those cells. While I do believe this needs to be studied further in order to truly understand the consequences, this is relatively new and unproven technology and it may take many years to discover the consequences. If man becomes part beast, then he is actually fornicating his own living body.

In 1 Corinthians chapter 15 Paul wrote that “42 In this way also is the restoration of the dead. It is sown in decay, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in honor. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; if there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual.” So while we should believe that the eternal spirit existing within the Adamic man is a part of his intrinsic nature from the time of his birth, and as Christ Himself had said, the enemy cannot harm the Spirit, if a man, or woman, fornicates his own body then he is risking the nature of his own children, as they may be born bastards even if they are of two White parents. So perhaps in that manner, these new-fangled vaccines are just as bad as race-mixing fornication in that they may destroy the seed of descendants forever. A bastard of any sort shall not enter into the congregation of Yahweh, not for ten generations, and in effect, not for ten million generations.

There is no worse a Mark of the Beast than to marry and give birth to beasts.