|
| |
Clifton A. Emahiser
http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/who-deny/who-deny1.html
Special notice to
ALL WHO DENY
two seedline
IDENTITY
Chapter 1
For those who may not be aware of it, we are at war! Even at the time of our birth, there
was an enemy in the background plotting to destroy us along with all that we hold dear.
This war has been going on continuously now, without a break, for over 7,000 years. There
have been many fatalities by murder including Abel, the prophets, John the Baptist and his
father Zacharias, the Messiah, and in more recent history, 20,000,000 White Ukrainians.
While we have a genuine enemy, there are those on the sidelines who declare the enemy
doesn’t exist. Such an attitude is the zenith of irresponsibility. While the enemy is
literally destroying our very being, those distracting gainsayers only want to play a game
of theology.
Ted R. Weiland, Jeffrey A. Weakly, Stephen E. Jones, among other one-seedliners (or maybe
you could call them “non-seedliners”) go to a lot of effort to prove that the
Two Seedline doctrine is a “dangerous” teaching. I will tell you what is really
dangerous: When we have an enemy who has a history of 7,000 years of murder, including the
Messiah, and to proclaim this enemy doesn’t exist, NOW THAT IS DANGEROUS! Because of
this, I am getting a little perturbed and distraught over all the refuse being promoted by
well-meaning, people, but really immature-in-the-Word-of-Yahweh, who ridicule Two Seedline
teaching. They go to great lengths with their oral gymnastics trying to prove it’s
all a “spiritual” matter. They scoff at the idea of a genetic enemy. I am not
the one making the claim that it is a matter of genetics, but the Bible unmistakably
conveys this definite fact in no uncertain terms.
The one-seedliners (or non-seedliners, or maybe anti-seedliners) point to Genesis 4:1
where it says: “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and
said, I have gotten a man from Yahweh.” They will say: “You see there, Cain was
the son of Adam.” They don’t seem to realize that Eve was already pregnant with
Cain before Adam “knew” her. If they would take the time to study and see what
the rest of the Bible has to say on the matter, they wouldn’t come to that erroneous
conclusion. Let’s consider 1 John 3:12:
"Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his half brother..."
Here, the word "of" in Greek is #1537 in the Strong’s Concordance. When
used implying a person, it means “a son of.” (Will develop more on this
shortly.) To show this, we will consider some of the various translations of the Bible on
1 John 3:12:
The New Testament in Modern English by J.B. Phillips: “We are none of us to
have the spirit of Cain, who was a son of the devil...”
Smith And Goodspeed: “We must not be like Cain who was a child of the
evil one...”
Living Bible: “We are not to be like Cain, who belonged to
Satan...”
New English Bible: “... unlike Cain who was a child of the evil
one...”
New Century Bible: “Do not be like Cain who belonged to the Evil
One.”
The New Jerusalem Bible: “... not to be like Cain, who was from the
Evil One ... ”
The Modern Reader's Bible: “... not as Cain was of the evil
one...”
Now that we have consulted some various translations on 1 John 3:12, let’s take a
look at some Bible commentaries on this same verse:
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary page 1473: “He [Cain] is said to have belonged
to the family of the wicked one.”
Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Holy Bible, volume 3, page 936: “Which
showed him [Cain] to be of that wicked one, of the serpent’s seed: so early was such
seed sown, and so ancient the enmity between seed and seed.”
Matthew Henry’s Commentary, volume 6, page 1077: “It showed that he
[Cain] was as the firstborn of the serpent’s seed ... ”
That it is speaking concerning the genetics of Cain and his descendants compared to the
GENETICS of the woman and her descendants can be readily observed in 1 John 3:9 (three
verses before) contrasting the seed (offspring) of the serpent and the seed (offspring) of
the woman:
“Whosoever is born of Yahweh doth not commit sin; for his seed (sp�rma) remaineth in
him: and he cannot sin because he is born of Yahweh.”
Here the word for seed in the Strong’s Concordance is the Greek word #4690, sp�rma,
and you can’t get any more genetic than that! In other words, the reason the
descendants of Satan through Cain (the “Jews”) act the way they do is because it
is in their genes. Likewise those born of Adam and Eve, the offspring of Yahweh, will
behave according to their genetics.
There is a real problem with the word “seed”, sp�rma, expressed by W.E. Vine in
his An Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words. This is what he says on page 339:
“While the plural form “seeds”, neither in Hebrew nor in Greek, would have
been natural any more than in English (it is not used in Scripture of human offspring; its
plural occurrence is in 1 Sam. 8:15, of crops), yet if the Divine intention had been to
refer to Abraham's natural descendants, another word would have been chosen in the plural,
such as ‘children’ ... ”
Note: There is nothing wrong with the first half of Vine’s statement, which is
actually helpful, explaining that in Hebrew and Greek a singular “seed” is used
to denote a collective plural, as in English. It is the second half of Vine’s
statement, which is faulty, using a word that describes a collective and limiting it to a
single one. Further, in the original Hebrew, it may very well be that “seed” is
always singular except in 1 Samuel 8:15, where multiple varieties are implied, and the
plural would certainly be proper! It would, therefore, be proper to indicate that
Eve’s “seed”, like Jacob’s “seed”, would be a singular kind
of seed. There is a world of difference between a single variety of seed and a single
seed. How are we to interpret Genesis 17:7 where it says: “... thy seed after their
generation (s)”? It should be noted that all of Yahweh’s Covenants with Adam-man
were made with a single variety of “seed.” The word “seed” in
Scripture is important, for it excludes all those who are not “seed.” Whether or
not Vine had an ax to grind is hard to say, but he doesn’t seem to ring entirely true
according to Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies, page 377 where Wilson states
concerning this word:
“... semen virile, hence children, offspring, posterity; spoken also of one child
when an only one...”
It would seem that Vine is applying the singular “seed”, sp�rma, in all cases,
both in a collective sense as well as in situations where there is but one child. Also,
Vine’s statement does not square with #2233 (seed) in the Gesenius’ Old
Testament Lexicon. I believe that many of the one-seedliners have been misled by Vine. By
Vine applying a false premise for the word “seed”, sp�rma, it would be hard to
estimate his influence in many Bible commentaries and religious books. There is one thing
about it: either Vine is wrong or Wilson is wrong! It should also be noted, Vine referred
to various “Rabbis” regarding the word “seed.” More than likely, this
is where he got the idea that in all Scripture, both Old and New Testament, in every case,
the word “seed” was used in the singular.
HOW THE IDEA OF ONE SEED CAME ABOUT
If you will look up #2233 in your Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old
Testament, page 255, you will find the following comment in brackets, which indicates it
is the writer’s opinion:
“[The remark upon Gen. 3:15 is intended apparently to contradict its application to
the Lord Jesus Christ and his redemption, as if he could not be the seed of the woman; in
reply it will here suffice to remark, that in the very passage cited, immediately after
Gen. 4:25, it is clear that [2233, seed] is used of one son, namely, Seth, when he was not
an only one, because Cain was yet alive; and further, this seed of the woman was to bruise
the head of the tempter, ‘thy head’, which can in no sense apply to any but
Christ individually, who became incarnate ‘that by means of death he might destroy
him that had the power of death, that is the devil,’]”
There are several things the writer has assumed which really are not in context or
Biblically applied correctly:
(1) The death of Yahshua was not the bruising of the head of the serpent, but the bruising
of the heel of the Messiah for He arose again
(2) The “seed” of the woman of Genesis 3:15 is not implied in the singular, for
in Hebrews 2:11 it indicates Yahshua has many physical brethren, and He is not ashamed to
call them as such. Also, I would remind you again of Genesis 17:7 quoted above.
(3) In Romans 16:20, Paul told the Romans they would soon tread upon the head of Satan. By
Yahshua using the Romans as His representatives to do this, suggests very strongly, with
this “bruising”, He was not acting in a “singular” individual sense.
No doubt, this “bruising” took place when the Roman army besieged Jerusalem, for
the majority of “Jews” there at that time were of their father, Satan. Those who
know the story of the establishing of Rome understand it was founded under the sign of the
wolf, Romulus and Remus. This is the insignia of Benjamin. In other words, many of the
Roman soldiers under Titus were Benjamites. Also Zerah-Judah had settled in that same area
at one time and probably had a bigger role than imagined, and was in all likelihood part
of that Roman army. Also, if you will check Josephus Antiquities 17:8:3, you will find
there were Israelite-Germans (Kelts) and Israelite-Galatians in that Roman Army to help
bruise the serpent’s head. With this, Yahshua was using His people Israel to
incapacitate the Satanic “seed” at Jerusalem. While the Serpent’s head was
bruised with the siege of Jerusalem, I am sure that it was just the beginning of the
bruising which he will eventually receive.
From this, it is obvious the “seed of the woman” of Genesis 3:15 is collective
in nature as well as the serpent’s “seed.” Let’s now consider John
8:44:
SMITH & GOODSPEED ON JOHN 8:44
“The devil is the father you are sprung from, and you want to carry out your
father’s wishes. He was a murderer from the first, and he has nothing to do with
truth, for there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in his true character,
for he is a liar and the father of them.”
You can see very clearly, then, this verse is not speaking in a “spiritual”
sense, as most one-seedliners would have you to believe. If so, how would one murder
someone spiritually? It would be ridiculously absurd to interpret this verse in a
“spiritual” manner. When it is speaking of murder in this verse, it is speaking
of Cain murdering Abel. It is not speaking of Cain murdering Abel “spiritually”,
but physically. I am not the only one who understands this verse in such a way. The New
Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, edited by Jerome H. Smith, published by the Thomas Nelson
Publishers, page 1203, understands John 8:44 to be speaking of the murder of Abel by Cain,
for it makes reference to Genesis 4:8. This is an entire book of cross-references. As far
as I know, this book is in no way promoting the Two Seedline doctrine, nor does it have an
ax to grind on this subject. Let’s take a look at Genesis 4:8 to which this book
makes reference from John 8:44:
“And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the
field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.”
For evidence to help prove that John 8:44 is speaking of the “Jews” as being
descendants of Cain, and that Smith & Goodspeed have translated this passage
correctly, we will check on the word “OF”, like in “Ye are of your father
the devil.” The Strong’s number in the Greek is 1537. The New Testament Word
Study Dictionary by Dr. Spiros Zodhiates devotes five pages to define and expound the word
“OF” as used in the Greek, pages 529-534. Obviously, I cannot quote this entire
document here, but cite only that which is relevant to John 8:44:
“1537. ... Preposition governing the genitive, primarily meaning out of, from, of, as
spoken of such objects which were before another ... Of the origin or source of anything,
i.e., the primary, direct, immediate source ... Of persons, of the place, stock, family,
condition, meaning out of which one is derived or to which he belongs ... Of the source,
i.e., the person or thing, out of or from which anything proceeds, is derived, or to which
it pertains...”
MORE ON THE WORD “OF” IN JOHN 8:44
As I stated before herein, we really need to examine the word “OF” in John 8:44,
for it is very critical in understanding that the “Jews” are the descendants of
Cain. The word “OF” is the Greek word #1537 in the Strong’s Concordance.
Most one-seedliners will claim John 8:44 should be taken spiritually only; that it is not
speaking of a literal genetic offspring of Satan through Cain. Jeffrey A. Weakley (a
one-seedliner) in his 1994 booklet The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History, page
24, in his attempt to discredit the Two Seedline teaching, says this of John 8:44 (this is
an “Argument” and “Answer” debate conducted solely by him in his
booklet):
"This does not show that Cain was of that wicked one physically, but rather he was of
that wicked one spiritually. Let’s look at part of 1 John 3:8: ‘He that
committeth sin is of the devil...’ When one studies out 1 John 3:8-12 the meaning
becomes crystal clear. It must be talking about whom we are serving spiritually. If it is
talking about physical descendants, then all of us are physical descendants of Satan
because we all have sinned. ‘For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of
God...’ (Rom 3:23) ... So if we have all sinned and if he that committeth sin is of
the devil, we must conclude that all of us are of the devil ... So what is it saying? Are
you of the devil by physical descent or are you of the devil because you serve him (or
have served him in the past)?” ... “ARGUMENT [of the two seedliners]: John 8:44
says, ‘Ye are of your father the devil ... This shows that the devil is their
physical father” ... “ANSWER [by Jeffrey A. Weakley]: “Wrong. This once
again shows that the devil is their spiritual father (the one that they serve).”
We must then determine whether John 8:44 is speaking of a “spiritual children or a
physical children.” The word “OF” is critical in John 8:44 for determining
this. The word in the Greek is #1537. In John 8:44 the Greek form is:�6 which is sometimes
�>. You can check this out in most any of the Greek interlinears. The New Testament
Greek Study Aids, by Walter Jerry Clark, says, on page 230, about the Greek word �6:
“out of ... with the genitive: by means of, out of.” The Intermediate New
Testament Greek by Richard A. Young, page 95 says the following about the Greek word �6:
“�6 often conveys special extensions ‘out of’ or ‘from.’ For
example, the prophet said that God would call His Son out of Egypt (Matthew 2:15)”
From the Greek to English Interlinear by George Ricker Berry, page 31 of his
“Greek-English New Testament Lexicon”, we have this on �6: “�6 or before
a vowel, �>, a preposition governing genitive, from, out of.” The Thayer
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 189 expresses �6 this way: “... out
of, as separation from, something with which there has been close connection...” In
other words, the “Pharisees” in John 8:44 had a close genetic connection out of
or from “the devil.”
Back to Index
| |
|
