The Unpardonable Sin


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


  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20200612-UnpardonableSin-Emahiser.mp3 — Downloaded 4728 times

 

The Unpardonable Sin

While the Dindu Apocalypse has apparently subsided, at least for a time, with each new wave of negro aggression it seems that a greater number of White Christians become aware of the fact that the differences which we have with negros are certainly more than skin deep. However the spineless and effeminate capitulation of so many liberal politicians and cuckolded law enforcement officials is ultimately only going to further embolden the beasts, and it is inevitable that a complete breakdown of the rule of law will become manifest in many places in America and in the other nations of Christendom. That is the true objective of the Antifa and Black Lives Matter movements, to wear down the resolve of Christians, to destroy the constructs of Christian governance, and to plunge us all into anarchy, a process which has always resulted in tyranny. This is one aspect of world history that sadly, far too few White people understand: that the rule of law in the modern world is a product of Christendom, and those who hate Christ have always wanted to see it destroyed and replaced with laws of their own. If they are successful, the result will inevitably lead to a new tyranny of the Left, and the long-sought victory of global Communism. Any kindness which they are shown, they perceive as weakness, and it opens up new avenues for them to exploit. The controlled media and global corporations are on their side, all of the liberal and progressive politicians are on their side, and all of them have actively helped them advance this agenda. The Coronavirus lockdowns and recent riots over the death of a career criminal are only the newest phases in an age-old war against Christendom. The timing of these events was not a coincidence.

But this is not new to us. We have not reached these conclusions recently. We have known and have been writing about these things for over twenty years. Of course, as we often point out, Wesley Swift and Bertrand Comparet and others wrote about them sooner. Even if we do not always know what form it will assume, when the next attack is launched against our Christian society we certainly do know who is behind it, and we know who is on the side of our enemies. Where the Satanic war against the Camp of the Saints is prophesied in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, for us there are no allies and there are no neutral parties. All the nations are gathered, and one is either a sheep or a goat. There is no third choice.

However for the last twenty years, many supposed Identity Christians have claimed that we are mean-spirited, or worse, because of our position towards the non-Adamic so-called races. This is in spite of the fact that we were told that the Good Shepherd distinguishes the sheep and the goats on sight, and separates them in that same manner. So to this day, very often it seems that we are still only a divisive minority even within Christian Identity. But we are confident that they who despise us need to repent, that in spite of their supposed knowledge they still share in the sins of the world. So until other Identity Christians agree with us on these important issues, and profess that agreement, we will always be divisive, we will always choose to quarrel, and purposely so.

There is no option of bargaining with the devil, there is no concession to be made, and there is no concession to be found in Scripture whereby any acceptance of any of the other races could possibly be deemed righteous. Those who purposely throw the bread of the children of God to the dogs, calling it “crumbs”, will themselves be thrown to the dogs. That was the fate of Jezebel, who taught the children of God to commit fornication and who would not repent. So in the end we shall be vindicated, because it is our position which is the proper Biblical and Christian position. Once the rest of the world is overrun by “joggers”, all of the so-called Identity Christians who endeavor to ignore or marginalize us will be left without excuse.

This issue concerning the acceptance of other races certainly does impact the lives of many people, even within Christian Identity, as more and more people come to understand rudimentary Identity truths, while at the same time more and more White families have members who are race-mixing, which is a form of fornication. We would assert that those who teach such fornication, like Jezebel did, are also blaspheming the Holy Spirit, committing the unpardonable sin. So this is not an issue that should be lightly dismissed, or considered peripheral. It is central to our cause, and therefore it is even a grounds for fellowship. As Paul had written in 1 Corinthians chapter 5: “9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators”, and unfortunately, that earlier epistle must have been lost at a very early time.

Last month I received a long email letter from a gentleman who professed to having been familiar with Christogenea for a long time, for 15 years although the website is only 11 years old, but that seemed to be an honest mistake. He said he was listening to a particular series of podcasts which are probably about five years old now, and he became troubled when we discussed fornication and its consequences, because earlier in his life he had been such a fornicator, a miscegenator or race-mixer, and he had children as a result. He certainly seemed to be repentant, and I answered him kindly. However that led me to realize that perhaps there was not one single article or commentary that I could refer him to which fully states our position on this subject, so now I have thought to do that, and I will use a paper that was written by Clifton Emahiser as a starting point.

According to his own records, Clifton wrote this paper in January of 2007. Only 8 months later, for reasons which are lost to me now, Clifton wrote another paper on this same subject titled Unforgivable Sin, [a] Step-by-Step Explanation, and perhaps we shall review that here one day soon. It seems as though perhaps some of his readers did not fully understand what he was saying here, and Clifton also needed to address a denominational teaching which claims that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a only lack of belief, or a refusal to believe. They go so far as to claim that therefore Christians cannot possibly commit the unpardonable sin, while in reality they themselves have been teaching people to commit that sin! For now we hope to elaborate on Clifton’s first paper on this subject, while also offering some further clarifications.

The Unpardonable Sin, by Clifton Emahiser

Over the years there has been a lot of speculation to just what constitutes the sin unto death. The Scripture we are referring to is Matthew 12:31-33: “31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. 33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.”

The context of this passage refers to the race-mixed Pharisees claiming that Yahshua was casting out devils by the prince of devils, Beelzebub. Because they constituted an “adulterous generation” brings the process of miscegenation into play which is our subject. One must read from verses 25 to 36 of this passage to get the gist of it.

For the duration of his ministry, Clifton published his long-running series of Watchman’s Teaching Letters, and while they were four pages long, in a format which actually contained closer to what I may publish in six or more pages, he could take his time and elaborate on many subjects because they continued from month to month. But he also wrote these relatively short essays, which typically contained four columns on each side of a legal-size page, but sometimes only three columns on each side of a letter-size page. Over the years he learned to play with fonts and font sizes, letter kerning and spacing, and word and line spacing in order to make something fit. But he still had to leave things out, so here we shall present all of the passage he cited, and more, because my format is much more flexible:

Reading a much larger portion of Matthew chapter 23, from the King James Version, I will interpolate some of my own comments: “22 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?” So at least many of the people did believe that Yahshua was the Messiah, on account of the works which He did. “24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. 25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.” It is evident in Acts chapter 19 that the sons of one of the later high priests were indeed doing that very thing, while Paul was in Ephesus, which is about 20 years after the Crucifixion. There Luke had written “13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. 14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.” So there should be no doubt that they were also doing that at this time, and clearly, it is that to which Christ was referring.

Continuing with Matthew chapter 23: “28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. 29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.” By the Spirit of God, Christ warns that He will overcome His enemies. “30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” This was the topic of a paper I had written several years ago titled Scatterers and Gatherers, where I also described what constitutes blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. But that paper had a slightly different objective, and I did not discuss the possibilities or consequences of repentance.

Again returning to the words of Christ in Matthew: “31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” It is not about mere belief. If a man speaks against Christ, he certainly cannot believe Christ. So there is something more to speaking “against the Holy Spirit” than disbelief in Christ.

But now Christ Himself tells us what that something is, and His words in verse 34 help prove the veracity of our interpretation of verse 33: “33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” How does a man make a tree good or evil? By race-mixing, as the Word of Yahweh God says in Jeremiah chapter 2, speaking to the remnant of Judah that “20 For of old time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; [a reference to the Exodus from Egypt and the promises that Israel would keep the law] when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot. 21 Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me? 22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.” The Baal religion of the ancient world was a sexual fertility cult which compelled people to commit fornication, and its purveyors were the Canaanites, who are indeed the antecedents of today’s Arabs and Jews.

Verse 34 proves that we are correct about verse 33 because where Christ told His adversaries that they were a “generation of vipers”, the Greek word γέννημα properly means offspring. Christ was calling their parents vipers. So they themselves must have been, at least in part, descended from an evil tree. Earlier, in Matthew chapter 7, Christ had spoken of wolves among the sheep and said “16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [Men do not gather wolves from sheep, and the Canaanites were once described as thorns and thistles.] 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.” Therefore vipers can only produce vipers. His adversaries must have come from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which was represented by the serpent in order to be evil, and not be able to do good as He said to them here “can ye, being evil, speak good things?”.

So now Clifton asks:

What does it mean here “make the tree good” in verse 33? What does that have anything to do with blaspheming the “Holy Ghost [or better, Spirit]”? As we continue, you will begin to see that “making the tree good” has everything in the world to do with not “blaspheming the Holy Ghost.” The reason we don’t understand the sin unto death, among many other things, is because many times we inaugurate [begin or introduce] a flawed premise.

Notice the naked contradiction that “all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.”

It is more of a naked contradiction because Christ had revealed in John chapter 14 that He is the Holy Spirit, as He promised His apostles a Comforter and said “18 I will not leave you comfortless [or fatherless]: I will come to you.”

It is evident by the very nature of this statement, that the sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost has to be something that once committed cannot be reversed – that not even Yahweh can do anything about it. Therefore, what other sin or blasphemy could it be other than the product of race-mixing? Once a bastard, always a bastard! No other sin in itself is eternal, an example of nature so far gone in depravity that repentance is impossible, and recovery hopeless.

Later in this essay Clifton cites Jeremiah chapter 2 in relation to this, as race-mixing is indeed the sin which cannot be removed, a bastard face cannot be washed. There are all sorts of examples of this in Scripture, and Christ even told His apostles that they were clean, but not all, referring to Judas Iscariot, who was also described as a devil. Continuing with Clifton:

The word “blasphemy” in the Greek is Strong’s #988 blasphemia, and is sometimes used especially in a sense including the resistance against the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. When one commits miscegenation, one rebels against that convicting power. Sometimes actions speak louder than words! But the greatest blasphemy of all is to promote race-mixing by deceitful words! The Tyndale Bible Dictionary, page 226, defines blasphemy as: “... Profane or contemptuous speech or writing (or action toward) God. In a general sense, ‘blasphemy’ can refer to any slander, including any word or action that insults or devalues another being.” So it is evident that “blasphemy” can be in either the form of speech or action.

Without the modern denominational baggage, the Greek word βλασφημία is defined by Liddell & Scott as “word of evil omen, profane speech” at a pagan religious ritual, “defamation, slander” against men, or “irreverent speech against God,” or a god, as it was used for centuries before Christ. Clifton is correct, however, to state that blasphemy may consist of actions as well as words. Now he cites Mark, where the same event, which happened as Christ was in Galilee, is recounted from a slightly different perspective, and he says:

The language at Mark 3:28-29 is even stronger:

“28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.”

In order to comprehend the sin unto death, we need to understand Paul’s mission. There’s a lot of Paul bashing going on today from a lot of people who simply don’t know what they are talking about. That’s an entirely different subject which needs to be addressed, but that will have to wait for another time.

As I have said, this essay was written in January of 2007. Beginning in September of 2005, with Watchman’s Teaching Letter #89, and extending through April of 2007 and Watchman’s Teaching letter #108, I had written the greater portion of 20 of Clifton’s teaching letters, all of which addressed Paul-bashing, so the subject was certainly weighing on Clifton’s mind at this time. So he says:

What is important here to consider is Paul’s stated mission at Acts 28:20: “For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.”

Once we understand Paul’s primary commission, we will then understand what Paul did! Now Paul was the official Apostle to what is incorrectly termed the “Gentiles.” The word in Greek is “ethnos / ethnê”, and means nations. And these are the many nations promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. [The fulfillment of this was described by Paul in Romans chapter 4.] Therefore, the so-called “Gentiles” are none other than Israelites. If one has established a flawed premise that the “Gentiles”, at least in most cases are non-Israelites, he is for the greater part mistaken. And if “Gentiles” are not Israel, or the ten northern Lost Tribes, Paul would have said “I am bound in these chains for the hope of Israel and the Gentiles.” But he didn’t say that!

This reflects a dilemma with which we always struggle, and that is, where do we start? Every time we write an essay or article, it is difficult to determine what prerequisite information we must include so that readers may understand our premise. So to explain the fact that the New Covenant is for one race, for our modern White or Israelite or Adamic race, we have to provide sufficient information proving first that Adamic people are exclusively White, then that Israel was chosen out of that wider White race, then that the covenants, Old and New, were established exclusively for the people of Israel, then that the apostles had taught that same thing, and then that the White nations of modern times did indeed descend to a great extent from the ancient Israelites.

That is a great challenge indeed, and if a reader does not first understand those things, he is going to reject papers such as this one. But to come to understand it, many other papers must be read and understood where all these things are proven, yet few readers are going to make the effort to accomplish that. So here Clifton finds a simple way to prove it, by merely asserting that all of Paul’s labors were for the hope of Israel. Paul also expressed that same thing a little earlier and a little more completely, which Clifton shall cite shortly, from Acts chapter 26.

So if Paul labored exclusively for the hope of Israel, then the nations, or the so-called gentiles, to whom he brought the gospel must have been descended from those twelve tribes, or Paul is lying and contradicting himself. But Paul is not lying, while Christian Identity has to be studied for some time in order to prove that. Therefore Clifton’s premise is established, and the burden of proof is shifted to denominational Christians, who do no understand Identity, as it is they who accuse Paul of lying by their wayward interpretations of his words. So Clifton further asserts:

What we need to do is check these Scriptures to see if our premises are Christian. For if our premises are incorrect, surely they are un-Christian! When Paul said that his mission was for Israel, was he following his Master? If Paul’s mission was for Israel, would not our Savior’s be the same [as it is recorded] at Matthew 15:24?: “But he [Yahshua] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Question: If Yahshua was sent only to the “lost sheep of the House of Israel”, why would Paul be sent to non-Israelites? Are we to believe that Paul would be commissioned to something that Messiah wouldn’t do Himself? This is what most people claim! Are you beginning to see just how dangerous a flawed premise can be? How do we relate to all this? How do the mainstream churches relate to this? Today we have several hundred churches teaching hundreds of thousands of flawed premises. Is it any wonder, then, we are in such deep trouble? And the Israel Identity Message is no exception.

The Israel Identity message is no exception, as there are many denominational church ideas which have beeen introduced into Identity circles by men who learn Christian Identity yet still cling to the errors of the world. Sadly, we have so-called Identity pastors looking for room in the Kingdom of Heaven for mexicans, negroes, chinamen, and every other beast whom they presume to have “God consciousness” or to be able to “believe in Jesus”. Even devils have “God consciousness”, but they are still devils, and ultimately condemned to the Lake of Fire. The “Christian Identity Lite”, or “Compromise Identity” adherents all need to be reproached and mocked continuously, until they repent. So Clifton continues with another excellent point:

The next thing we should consider is Paul’s confession of faith at Acts 24:14: “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.”

Isn’t it simply amazing how Paul believed the entire Old Testament, and that we today are supposed to deem all the Old Testament done away? Where did that flawed premise come from? Did Paul ever tell us that the Old Testament was done away? What did Yahshua say at Matthew 4:4?: “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Did Yahshua say, “now that I’ve come, you can ignore 85% of the Bible”? Is there anyone so arrogant that they would say that the entire Old Testament is not the Word of Yahweh? Well, it seems there are many!

It is evident in Scripture, in the gospel of Christ, that the men who had considered Christianity a heresy had believed that only they themselves had the authority of God, handed down through the temple from Moses, to baptize and to make propitiation for sins, and to do that for anyone who would convert into their religion by submitting to their rituals of baptism and circumcision. Comparing that attitude to the doctrines of the medieval Roman Catholic Church, as well as the Protestant denominations which it eventually spawned, the churches have all clearly followed those who had considered true apostolic Christianity to be a heresy, and they continue to consider true Christians to be heretics. Likewise, the Jews did not believe Moses or the prophets, and today’s churches instruct Christians to ignore Moses and the prophets! So Clifton continues with that citation of Acts chapter 26 by asking:

What is Paul’s hope? What is Paul’s expectation?, Acts 26:6-7: “6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the [false] Jews.”

We see here that Paul’s hope had substance. It was a concrete promise made to our fathers under which providentially included all twelve tribes earnestly serving Yahweh day and night with a hope to come.

They were serving God, albeit in ignorance, as they were fulfilling what things were outlined in the prophets that would come of them, what things were prophesied of the children of Israel which Paul also had believed. This is what Christian Identity proves, and it is what Paul taught, so Clifton asks:

Is this same hope which Paul had our hope too? Again what is our premise? Is it a Christian premise? Does this not show that Paul understood that all the twelve tribes were still in existence? Let’s take a look at Hebrews 6:13: “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself.”

The promises to which Paul refers are the promises that Abraham’s seed, or offspring, would become many nations, inherit the world, etc. Those promises were unconditional, and they were indeed fulfilled by the time of Christ. Clifton continues in Hebrews:

Next let’s take a look at Hebrews 6:16-18: “16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. 17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.”

Do we have a correct premise here or not? What kind of premise do the present-day churches have?

The present-day churches had the wrong premise from the beginning, since to a great extent they had initially followed the school of the Alexandrians, Clement, Origen and Eusebius, the earliest of whom were former Gnostics and they taught replacement theology. They did not follow Paul, who taught Fulfillment Theology, which is the explanation of the fulfillment of the words of the prophets, which is Covenant Theology. Continuing with Clifton:

It is important to have a proper premise as it determines our conclusions and understanding. Let’s now go to Jeremiah 14:7-9 to see what kind of hope we should have:

“7 O Yahweh, though our iniquities testify against us, do thou it for thy name’s sake: for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against thee. 8 O the hope of Israel, the saviour thereof in time of trouble, why shouldest thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man that turneth aside to tarry for a night? 9 Why shouldest thou be as a man astonied, as a mighty man that cannot save? yet thou, O Yahweh, art in the midst of us, and we are called by thy name; leave us not.”

First, we should inquire just what people are “called by thy name.” This is what Yahweh charged Israel with, and let’s see where it all goes. It can go right to the ultimate sin of the flesh, the unpardonable sin. Do you ever wonder why the Almighty destroyed nearly an entire continent? [Clifton refers to the race-mixing in the days leading up to the flood of Noah.] What sin is so great that He said it would be better if He destroyed them? I hope we can begin to see the enormity of this type of sin, and why many don’t relate to this type of sin today. Hosea 4:1-2: “1 Hear the word of Yahweh, ye children of Israel: for Yahweh hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of Elohim in the land. 2 By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.”

Now Clifton elaborates by describing his expectations and we see this much more clearly today than even 13 years ago when he wrote this in 2007:

We’re headed again for the days of Noah where “blood toucheth blood”, as also in Hosea 4:2. And looking at reality, it’s already after the fact. All kinds of loose living, killing, street violence, robbery, but the killing of the unborn goes beyond all comprehension. There’s a blood-debt somewhere that is going to have to be paid! How does all this [which] we see going on today relate to the final stage of things? Here we see the Bible defining adultery as meaning, blood touching blood. The word “touch” in the Hebrew is “to lay the hand upon, euphemistically to lie with a woman.” It’s not the “swearing” that is blood touching blood. It’s not the “lying” that causes blood to touch blood, and while “killing” is bloody, it is not blood touching blood in the context here. Again, it’s not the “stealing” that causes blood to touch blood, but the committing of adultery that causes blood to touch blood. Actually the Hebrew does not say blood touching blood, but bloods touching bloods.

The Hebrew term for blood, where it appears in the plural, was often, but not always, an idiom for bloodshed. However here the context is adultery, and therefore we must know that such adultery, which in Hebrew describes sex in race-mixing as well as having sex with another man’s wife, is indeed a form of bloodshed. Paul had urged, in 1 Corinthians chapter 6: “18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” Therefore teaching men to commit fornication blasphemes that Holy Spirit which is within all true Christians.

Continuing with Clifton, he is still discussing Hosea 4:1-2:

When it mentions “controversy” in verse 1, it is speaking as a judicial ground of complaint (Isa. 1:18; Jer. 25:31; Mic. 6:2). And inasmuch as all 12 tribes of Israel are under Yahweh’s Marriage Covenant, He can prosecute that legal claim in any manner He sees fit. And that legal claim is not restricted to any individual tribe, but [perhaps or] any individual member of one of those tribes. So what it all boils down to is this: if any individual member of one of those twelve tribes imagines he is an exception to the rule, he is sadly mistaken! (Heb. 12:7-9)

The passage Clifton refers to from Hebrews 12 explains: “6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. 9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” Now he continues:

When Abraham placed Isaac on that altar, if you are one of Isaac’s descendants, Yahweh has every legal right to chastise you by any possible means until He brings you into line. Now if you don’t like those terms, you will have to talk it over with Him! 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 sums it up nicely as follows:

According to ancient custom, which is evident in the ancient writings of the Greeks and the nations of Mesopotamia, when something was placed on the altar of a god, it became the property of that god. So when Abraham placed Isaac on the altar he became dedicated to Yahweh, he became the property of Yahweh, and that included everything in his loins – Jacob and Esau. From tqat point, world history revolved around them.

“19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.”

The children of Israel, all of them, were and still are Yahweh’s peculiar possession. So we read in Deuteronomy chapter 14: “2 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.” Then in the 135th Psalm: “4 For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.” Then in 1 Peter chapter 1, which evokes Exodus 19:5: “9 But ye are a chosen generation [or race], 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:” Next, where Peter is addressing Christian assemblies in Anatolia, he indicates that they were in a fulfillment of promises made to the same ancient children of Israel found in Hosea chapter 1 and he says: “10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.” Peter was not taking those words of Hosea and applying them to anyone other than Israel, as they applied explicitly to Israel. Rather, like Paul, the people to whom he wrote were some of the “lost sheep” for whom Christ had come. Now Clifton concludes this part of his premise and says:

As for this humble servant, I‘m so happy that I’m bought and paid for, I wouldn’t have it any other way. The premise here is, Israel is Yahweh’s inheritance, and we legally belong to Him come what may.

If we are of ancient Israel, we are bought and paid for in the blood of Christ, and we cannot change that one way or the other. Men cannot amend the covenants of God, as Paul explained in Galatians chapter 3. Men cannot add other races or individuals other than Israel to them, and they cannot remove any Israelite from them. The ancient Israelites had sold themselves into sin, and Yahweh promised to redeem them without money.

Now Clifton also speaks in that manner, and cites from a Messianic prophecy found in Isaiah and says:

But this brings up the subject of who are not Yahweh’s inheritance, Isaiah, 63:17-18: “17 O Yahweh, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants’ sake, the tribes of thine inheritance. 18 The people of thy holiness have possessed it but a little while: our adversaries have trodden down thy sanctuary.”

“Our adversaries”?, who are they? If one were to dissect verse 18 here, it would require an enormous amount of material from the Bible and history to analyze, and few there are who are willing to take the time and effort to do it! Then in Isaiah 63:19: “We are thine: thou never barest rule over them; they were not called by thy name.”

Now we can imagine that when Clifton wrote this, he must have had the Compromise Identity pastors, or the so-called “CI Lite” crowd in mind, as he refers to Dave Barley of America’s Promise Ministries and says:

Where are Barley and company on this verse? Who are all those who are “not called by thy name”? Who are the “them” and “they”? Again, what is the Biblical premise here?!?! There are different kinds of people, are there not? And Yahweh has a chosen people! This Scriptural witness hardly supports the unholy doctrine of “universalism”, does it? Should not our hope be the same as Paul’s hope which is in turn the same as Yahweh’s hope?

But Israel became a stranger to the Covenant, Ephesians 2:12-14: “12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without Yahweh in the world: 13 But now in the Anointed Yahshua ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us.” Colossians 1:21 puts it this way: “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.”

Actually the ancient Israelites had forsaken the covenant, for which reason they were put off in divorce by Yahweh. For that reason they became estranged from the covenants of promise. But they were still bound by those promises, whether they acknowledged it or not, and the Gospel of Christ is the announcement that they were being called back to be reconciled to God through Him. Clifton returns to his primary subject:

Getting back to the “sin unto death” we will take a look at Hosea 7:8-9: “8 Ephraim, he hath mixed himself among the people; Ephraim is a cake not turned. 9 Strangers have devoured his strength, and he knoweth it not: yea, gray hairs are here and there upon him, yet he knoweth not.”

In other words, burned very dark on one side and still light on the other (half & half)! So here’s the final stage. Some of Adam’s descendants started mixing with the earthy. Adam is heavenly seed. The earthy are earthy seed. What happens when you mix heaven and earth together? Another Scripture to help clarify what we are speaking of is at Hosea 5:6: “6 They shall go with their flocks and with their herds to seek Yahweh; but they shall not find him; he hath withdrawn himself from them.”

Hosea chapter 5 describes the sin of Israel, idolatry and the race-mixing fornication by which it was accompanied, and Yahweh promises to destroy the bastards, where He says “now shall a month devour them with their portions.” It was not the Israelites whom He promised to destroy, as He promises them reconciliation at the end of that same chapter and the beginning of the next where it says: “5:15 I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence [meaning they must repent], and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early.” Then it depicts them as saying: “6:1 Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.” Clifton continues:

Now we’re coming to the crux of the [meaning of the] unpardonable sin. It is when Yahweh withdraws his Spirit. And, why has Yahweh withdrawn His Spirit? Hosea 5:7: “7 They have dealt treacherously against Yahweh: for they have begotten strange children: now shall a month devour them with their portions.”

Now let’s take a look at Hosea 4:14: “I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery: for themselves [meaning the men] are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots: therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall.”

Today men worship sports idols on television, whores as actresses as movies, “joggers” who are predominantly negros, and their wives and their daughters are now found to be in bed with negros. The wives and daughters will not be punished for this, for their ignorance, but the fathers who brought the idolatry into the home will be punished. So Clifton asks:

Can you now see the terrible results of the missing ingredient of knowledge? Today, the lack of Yahweh’s knowledge is tearing us apart at the seams, and for the most part, hardly anyone really cares. For that I will quote Hosea 4:6: “6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” [Now he responds:]

Take a good, long, hard look around us today and tell me that Yahweh has not forgotten our children! We, as a people, should be ashamed! The sin unto death is being committed by the millions every night in beds all over America and throughout the world. And once the Israel flesh is corrupted, it never shall recover! This was the very reason for Noah’s flood. Yahweh destroyed an entire society to prevent a further spread of bastardization of race, Genesis 6:12: “And Yahweh looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.”

Again, what kind of a premise do we have? One might be very sincere to the point of honesty about one’s premise, and be totally wrong! In such a case, it’s like playing a game of Russian roulette!

One can either gamble that the denominational churches are right on this issue, or one can study Scripture to find the truth. Clifton continues:

To mix kind is the last step in Satan’s plan because there’s no recovery from it! You will notice that at Genesis 6:12, it was the flesh that was corrupted, not initially the Spirit. But as goes the flesh, so also goes the Spirit.

There is no future for a fornicator’s children, even in the case of Judah in respect of Er, Onan and Shelah. We see this at Hebrews 12:16-17: “16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. 17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.”

Whatever Esau did, he did on his own volition, and it was wrong. He took wives of the Hittites, but it is not explained that he first inquired of his parents, and his mother was vexed by what he had done. So his mother made sure Jacob inherited the promise and blessing. When Esau noticed his error, he attempted to correct it on his own and married a woman of the Ishmaelites, so he failed once again. He could never have the birthright which he lost for his race-mixing, because he could never repent of the error of his ways. Continuing with Clifton:

At 1 John 5:16 we are informed [of] the following: “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.” How shall we explain this Scripture? Here we have a sin that we’re told not to pray for. Why not? Because it’s past repenting for.

As Paul had said in Hebrews chapter 12 in relation to the chastisement which is from God, “8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.” Chastisement is punishment for correction, but bastards cannot be corrected, as they do not have the spirit of God. Now Clifton returns to Jeremiah:

Again, we are told at Jeremiah 7:16: “16 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not hear thee.”

This last Scripture is explained at Jeremiah 6:15: “15 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith Yahweh.”

Neither could they blush: the people could not be embarrassed on account of their sins, as they saw no sin in their deeds so they were not ashamed. As we had said, bastards cannot be chastised for their sin. Clifton continues:

Next, let’s go to Jeremiah 2:3-4: “3 Israel was holiness unto Yahweh, and the firstfruits of his increase: all that devour him shall offend; evil shall come upon them, saith Yahweh. 4 Hear ye the word of Yahweh, O house of Jacob, and all the families of the house of Israel.”

When other peoples or races mingle with Israel, they are offending against Yahweh God, and they will be punished for it. Their presence alone is an offense. In the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew chapter 25, the goats are judged for how they have treated the sheep, and for that, all of them are condemned. Clifton continues in Jeremiah chapter 2:

Jeremiah 2:11-13: “11 Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit. 12 Be astonished, O ye heavens, at this, and be horribly afraid, be ye very desolate, saith Yahweh. 13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.”

Observe in the Hebrew “be astonished” means to be appalled as this is a great sin. “[Be astonished,] O ye heavens, at this, and be horribly afraid.” Now what is the fountain of living waters? Its the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of Yahweh Himself! But notice these are offspring that are broken cisterns that can’t hold that water. Why are the cisterns broken? Yahweh connects with man through the Holy Spirit [Romans chapter 8], but these are broken cisterns that cannot contain His Spirit! It can only be so due to the process of race-mixing! When the product of miscegenation has been completed, it can no longer contain Yahweh’s Spirit! Thus, a broken cistern! What did you think a “broken cistern” was? If it were literally a broken cistern, it could be fixed. But the cistern-children of mixed marriages can never be repaired! Thus they can never contain Yahweh’s Holy Ghost! They are ruined vessels that can’t hold the Spirit!

I had written a 2-part series of essays in or not long before October, 2004 titled Broken Cisterns, and Clifton published it at that time. Years later, he told me that they were among his most-requested reprints. I recollect having commented here in the recent past that those essays were written at a later time than that. Sometimes Clifton’s records are confusing, because he often reformatted documents and assigned them a later date. I found an older folder of his documents recently, which I have also preserved separately for various reasons, and evidently they were written no later than that. I have better records in storage, and perhaps one day I will get them here to my office. I did not keep a diary in prison, but every day spent a few seconds jotting down in a notebook what I had written or studied each day. Again, Clifton continues in Jeremiah chapter 2:

At Jeremiah 2:21-23 the “broken cistern” offspring are referred to as a “degenerate plant”: “21 Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me? 22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith Yahweh Elohim. 23 How canst thou say, I am not polluted, I have not gone after Baalim? see thy way in the valley, know what thou hast done: thou art a swift dromedary traversing her ways.”

Where Clifton responds, he takes a shot at the heretics who claim that there is such a thing as “spiritual” sperm:

Now we’re getting down to the “seed” showing and it’s fleshly. We should notice the words “...how then art thou turned into a degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?” In verse 22, it speaks of a sin that won’t wash off (For though thou wash thee with lye and take thee much soap, yet thy iniquity is marked before me saith Yahweh Elohim). It just can’t be washed off! What is the sin that won’t wash off? Let’s look at Jeremiah 11:14-16 as it even gets plainer:

“14 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up a cry or prayer for them: for I will not hear them in the time that they cry unto me for their trouble. 15 What hath my beloved to do in mine house, seeing she hath wrought lewdness with many, and the holy flesh is passed from thee? when thou doest evil, then thou rejoicest. 16 Yahweh called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.”

Now some commentaries try to say that Holy Flesh is the flesh of the offerings. That could hardly be! It’s their own flesh! ‘Yahweh called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.’ The “seed” is not Holy here, and in turn the flesh is not Holy.

For this same reason Christ had exclaimed, as it is recorded in Matthew chapter 15 and in reference to the Pharisees who had rejected Him: “13… Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” Clifton continues by turning to Malachi, and a prophecy which was actually fulfilled in John chapter 8, but which is just as relevant today:

Look at Malachi 2:10-12, the last book of the Old Testament:

“10 Have we not all one father? hath not one [God] created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? 11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of Yahweh which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. 12 Yahweh will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto Yahweh of hosts. 13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of Yahweh with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.”

Where it says that Judah had “married the daughter of a strange god”, that is the answer to the earlier question, “hath not one God created us?” Clifton wrote Elohim here, a reference to Yahweh, but in my opinion that was wrong to do in this context. In any event, the passage informs us that we are not all of the Creation of God. This was actually both a statement concerning the sin of Judah personally, which had contributed to the corruption of the ancient kingdom, and a prophecy of what was to come of the Judaeans of Malachi’s time, as he wrote not long after the beginning of the period of the second temple.

But while Yahweh had mercy on Judah, for the sake of the promises to his fathers, He did not have mercy on Esau, and it is evident in Malachi chapter 1, Ezekiel chapter 35, John chapter 8 and Romans chapter 9, it would be Esau who would corrupt Judaea in the second temple period. The adversaries of Christ were actually of Esau, and not of Jacob, and the histories of Josephus explain how that had happened. So Clifton continues along those lines and, where he is evidently speaking of the Edomites using the term Esau collectively, he says:

Here’s Esau crying, weeping and wailing, and Yahweh doesn’t hear him! Yahweh does not regard the offering anymore or receive it with goodwill at his hand. So all Esau’s pleading meant nothing under his mixed-race condition! Actually, becoming bastardized, it’s not Adam anymore!

But the subject of the prophecy, as Clifton continues, is still the remnant of Judah in Judaea, and particularly the priests who would betray the nation and cause it to be defiled:

Let’s go on to Malachi 2:14-15: “Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because Yahweh hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit ... [We’re talking about complex things here of a conflict of the spirit and the flesh, and we don’t have a premise to deal with it, except if we go to the Scriptures and believe exactly what it says.] ... [why the residue of the spirit?, and why one? ... That he might seek a godly seed, a Holy seed. a Holy child] ... Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.” And in verse 16, Yahweh speaks of “putting away.”

THESE PREIESTS METPH FORSAKE ISRLEA,

This was actually a warning and an indication that there would remain men in Jerusalem who did have the spirit of God, and Christ came to seek a godly seed, that His gospel be delivered to His people as He was slain by His enemies. The verse itself is problematical, and we discussed it while offering a resolution in Part 4 of our Malachi commentary, titled Preparing the Way of the Lord. Clifton moves towards a conclusion:

Here, with Esau, we’re dealing with the same thing that Ezra had to deal with, Ezra 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.”

It seems that Clifton may have thought that Esau was the subject of Malachi chapter 2, when it was actually the Levitical priests who were the subject. Or perhaps Clifton was taking for granted that his readers understood that it was Esau with whom the Judaeans of the time were mixing, at least primarily. So from that perspective he is correct, but it may be a little confusing to someone who does not understand the underlying historical background. In any event, the passage from Ezra certainly clarifies what is meant by the passing of the holy flesh from the nation in Jeremiah chapter 11, as it begins with the mingling of the holy seed with that which is unholy. Now Clifton ends his essay:

If one will look at verses 3, 4, and 5 you’ll see how a Holy man of Yahweh reacted to this sin! He tore his hair, his beard and clothes, and fell to the earth in shame. What premise did Ezra have that we don’t have? The difference is, Ezra obeyed Yahweh’s Spirit (which all Adamites have), and Ezra reacted as Yahweh would have reacted!

Ezra’s reaction was to compel all of the race-mixers to put away their strange wives and the children who were born of them, as we read in Ezra chapter 10: “2 And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. [So there is no hope in race-mixing!] 3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.”

This commandment is among the same commandments which Christ had told His disciples that they must keep. Ultimately, as the law states, “A bastard shall not enter the congregation of Yahweh.” This is just as true in the New Testament as it is in the Old Testament. This we know from the words of Christ Himself, in Revelation chapter 2 where chastising the church in Thyatira He says “20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.”

In the spirit of Clifton’s method here, we can imagine that he would have asked: “What premise did Yahshua Christ have that we don’t have? ” And, perhaps “Why would He kill the children, and not those who committed the sin?” So it is evident that in the end, all bastards shall be consigned to destruction in the Lake of Fire. The presence of a bastard is a blasphemy against God, it is a living example of a violation of His Divine law. But as we see in Ezra, and in the words of Christ in the Revelation, those who sin in this manner do have room for repentance, even Jezebel, although she herself would not repent.

So we read in 1 Corinthians chapter 6: “9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” There it is clear that a man, or a woman, can be a repentant fornicator and be forgiven for the sin.

The sin is unforgivable insofar as the results of it, the bastard children, are irredeemable. We cannot force Yahweh our God to accept the results of our sin. But for those who teach men to commit fornication, there is a greater punishment. Notice in the words of Christ in Matthew chapter 12, that if a man blasphemes the Holy Spirit “… it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” If a man is not forgiven in the world to come, that indicates that he shall nevertheless have a part in the world to come, in which he shall not be forgiven.

So we read in Daniel chapter 12: “… and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Only those who have the spirit of God can be resurrected, as we are told that resurrection is through that spirit, in one way or another in John chapter 6, Romans chapter 8, 2 Corinthians chapter 3 and probably elsewhere are we told this. So it seems that the children of Israel whom in this life had blasphemed the Holy Spirit, will be resurrected to shame and everlasting contempt. But if a man repents, as Paul explained in 1 Corinthians chapter 6, “ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” All of Israel shall be saved, but perhaps some Israelites will not be so pleased as others with the quality of their salvation. In any event, the time to repent is now, and now is rapidly passing.