tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

Clifton A. Emahiser’s serpent seed of Satan theory

Clifton A. Emahiser established Non-Universal Teaching Ministries and the website emahiser.christogenea is “the official site for Clifton Emahiser’s Watchman’s Teaching Ministries.” In the website’s about page somewhat cryptic statements are made such as that “Israelites literally throw their money at the Roberts, Hinns, Robertsons, Weilands, Weismans, Jones, Bruggemans and the like and close their purse strings to ‘Two Seed-line Racial Identity.’”

Emahiser notes that at some point he had about 110 contacts “of Two Seed-line Identity people” and asks readers to send in the names of anyone they may know of “Two Seed-line Racial Identity people.”

Sadly, this implies an eisegetically interpretative framework derived from the so called “Christian Identity” movement. And what does this, in turn, imply? A good example is provided on the website circa 43:10 minutes into the audio titled The Problem with Genesis 4:1. Within the audio “Clifton Emahiser and William Finck discuss Clifton’s early essay on the circumstances surrounding the birth of Cain and Abel.” Finck succinctly states the context and tenor of their discussion by stating:

It’s perplexing to me how anyone could be told these things and see the persistent treachery of the Jews, in all of their generations throughout history yet, still deny two seedlines. Yet still deny these Jews had their origin in rebellion from God…a serpent race.

The essay is posted here, therein Emahiser decides that “the Hebrew is badly corrupted on this passage” and that “Unless one understands” that, they “will, like most everyone else who has ever read it, arrive at a mistaken conclusion.
The problem, in his mind, is that when people read, “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord” then “Most people will respond upon reading this, ‘That’s perfectly clear, Adam was the father of Cain.’” But it is his purposed to “fathom the true significance of Genesis 4:1” but it “is indeed corrupted.” In order to restore the corrupted text (the Hebrew manuscripts) he appeals to The Interpreter’s Bible which notes (vol. 1, page 517):

Cain seems originally to have been the ancestor of the Kenites…The meaning of the name is “metalworker” or “smith”; here, however, it is represented as a derivation of a word meaning “acquire”, “get” — one of the popular etymologies frequent in Genesis — hence the mother’s words I have gotten a man. “From the Lord” (KJV) is a rendering, following the LXX and Vulg., of ‘eth Yahweh, which is literally, “with Yahweh”, and so unintelligible here (the help of [RSV] is not in the Hebrew). It seems probable that ‘eth should be ‘oth — so, “the mark of Yahweh” — and that the words are a gloss…”

The main claim is that the text should read, “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man with the Lord” or, apparently, “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man, the mark of Yahweh (or, the Lord).”
For what it is worth, the KJV renders the word ‘eth variously just as in any language one word can have various meanings, various utilizations within various contexts. As “from” in Genesis 4:1 As “by” in Genesis 49:25 As “into” in Exodus 39:3 As “for” in Leviticus 5:7 As “among” in Judges 1:16 As “before” in Genesis 19:13 As “in” in Genesis 6:14, 42:16 As “against” in 1 Kings 16:22, 1 Kings 20:25 As “of” in Genesis 37:23, Deuteronomy 9:14, 1 Chronicles 2:18

And as “with” in Genesis 5:22, 6:13, 13:5, 14:2, 26:24, 34:6, 34:21, 43:16, Joshua 14:12, Ezekiel 3:27

Emahiser also quotes The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary On The Bible which states that “under circumstances which are obscure (vs. 1b can scarcely be translated, still less understood).” Thus, Emahiser reasons that “if Genesis 4:1 is ‘unintelligible’ and ‘can scarcely be translated, still less understood’…It should then be quite obvious that we need to look somewhere else for the answer.”
For some strange reason, he claims that “Torah & Old Testament are the first volume of the Talmud.” Well, some interchange the terms but if one references the Old Testament, then the Torah are the first five books found therein In any case, it is simply mistaken they are “the first volume of the Talmud.” Firstly, there are two Talmuds; the Talmud Bavli or Babylonian Talmud and the Talmud Yerushalmi or Jerusalem Talmud both of which date to circa 500 AD.

Yet, Clifton A. Emahiser’s focus is an Aramaic paraphrase of Genesis that dates to 1,500-2,000 years after Genesis was written (the date (depending on when one dates the writing of Genesis).
I dealt with this in detail in the article Reply to Zen Garcia on the serpent seed of Satan theory but let us see just how far and off base Emahiser goes:

First, in the Aramaic Targum (Aramaic was merely one of the languages which Messiah and his disciples knew), called pseudo-Jonathan, on Genesis 3:6, which is unique inasmuch as it identifies the angel Sammael as the “serpent”: “And the woman saw Sammael, the angel of death, and she was afraid and knew that the tree was good for food, and that it was a remedy for the enlightenment of the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise. She took of its fruit and ate and also gave (it) to her husband and he ate.”

Again, they will also condemn the Aramaic Targum pseudo-Jonathan, on Genesis 4:1: “And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the Angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And he was like those on high and not like those below. And she said: ‘I have got a man from the angel of the LORD’.”

So Eve was impregnated by Sammael who is the Angel (of death) and she stated that she got a man from the angel of the LORD. For a man concerned with what the Hebrew of the Bible actually states, he does not seem to mind that it is 100% certain that no Hebrew manuscript of any age states that which the Targum states (also, different Targumim paraphrase this differently; Emahiser quotes Pseudo-Jonathan because it suits his serpent seed of Satan theory).

Also, if text should read, “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man with the Lord” or, apparently, “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man, the mark of Yahweh (or, the Lord)” then, as per Emahiser it should really read, “…I have gotten a man with Sammael-the Angel (of death)-the angel of the LORD.”

But since Clifton A. Emahiser’s aim is to solve the issue with ‘eth and not removing the Hebrew for YHVH-LORD from the manuscripts the new rendering would be even stranger and incoherent as it would read something to the likes of “…I have gotten a man with Sammael-the Angel (of death)-the angel of the LORD, the LORD.”

Of course, how one translates ‘eth or whether it should be ‘oth cannot possible lead to such a radical and very late dated invention of what Genesis 4:1 is stating. Also, that “Aramaic was merely one of the languages which Messiah and his disciples knew” as, of course, utterly nothing to do with inventing tall tales to insert into Genesis 4:1 without any historical warrant.

Clifton A. Emahiser also quotes The Palestinian Targum apparently not realizing that this title is merely an aka for the previously quoted Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which is also aka Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel; since he is quoting the same Targum twice the quotes are, of course, the same.

He also appeals to Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, 21, “And she saw that his likeness was not of earthly beings, but of the heavenly beings, and she prophesied and said: I have gotten a man from the Lord.”
The Pirke (chapters) should be called de Pseudo-Rabbi Eliezer as Eliezer lived 80-118 AD and yet, since the text references, for example, the Muslim conquest of Arabia, Spain and Rome; it must date to the 9th century AD. In any case, the Pirke does nothing for him as it reads just as does the Hebrew for Genesis 4:1.

Emahiser notes (with some editorializing from me) that “It would appear from those” very late dated “references” which include obvious and unfounded inventive paraphrases “that the problem with Genesis 4:1 is an omission of some of the words of the Hebrew text.” The issue is not that the Hebrew is lacking words but that the Targum adds words from thin air. Many ancient writers are known for doing exactly this sort of thing; finding vague statements within the Bible and inventing narratives to fill the gaps.

He then engages in the following exercise:

I will now quote Genesis 4:1 from the King James Version and I will add the potentially needed words in italics from the Targum of Jonathan so it will make some sense:
“And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael, and she conceived and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of the Lord.”

Concluding that “this evidence brings the Scriptures into context” he then quotes Clarke’s Commentary, vol. 1, p. 58 within the context of correlating Genesis 4:1 and 1 John 3:12 to the effect that:

Unless she had been under Divine inspiration she could not have called her son (even supposing him to be the promised seed) Jehovah; and that she was not under such an influence her mistake sufficiently proves, for Cain, so far [remote] from being the Messiah, was of the wicked one; I John 3:12.

Apparently, Clarke claims that Eve called her son “Jehovah” (YHVH, the LORD). Consider the context into which Clarke places the portion quoted by Emahiser (available here:

I have gotten a man from the Lord – Cain, קין, signifies acquisition; hence Eve says קנתי kanithi, I have gotten or acquired a man, יהוה את eth Yehovah, the Lord. It is extremely difficult to ascertain the sense in which Eve used these words, which have been as variously translated as understood.
Most expositors think that Eve imagined Cain to be the promised seed that should bruise the head of the serpent. This exposition really seems too refined for that period. It is very likely that she meant no more than to acknowledge that it was through God’s peculiar blessing that she was enabled to conceive and bring forth a son, and that she had now a well-grounded hope that the race of man should be continued on the earth.
Unless she had been under Divine inspiration she could not have called her son (even supposing him to be the promised seed) Jehovah; and that she was not under such an influence her mistake sufficiently proves, for Cain, so far from being the Messiah, was of the wicked one; 1 John 3:12. We may therefore suppose that היוה את eth Yehovah, The Lord, is an elliptical form of expression for יהוה מאת meeth Yehovah, From The Lord, or through the Divine blessing. [emphasis added for emphasis]

Thus, Clarke does not even hint at Cain being the son of Sammael-the Angel (of death)-the angel of the LORD but reasons that Eve, “acknowledge that it was through God’s peculiar blessing…From The Lord, or through the Divine blessing.” And now you know why Emahiser did not quote that portion from Clarke.
Let us also see what Clarke had to state on Genesis 4:2 for that matter:

And she again bare his brother Abel – Literally, She added to bear (ללדת ותסף vattoseph laledeth) his brother. From the very face of this account it appears evident that Cain and Abel were twins. In most cases where a subject of this kind is introduced in the Holy Scriptures, and the successive births of children of the same parents are noted, the acts of conceiving and bringing forth are mentioned in reference to each child; here it is not said that she conceived and brought forth Abel, but simply she added to bring forth Abel his brother; that is, as I understand it, Cain was the first-born, Abel, his twin brother, came next.

From the apparent fact that they were twins and that “In most cases…births of children of the same parents are noted” it is “mentioned in reference to each child” some serpent seed of Satan theorists, such as Zen Garcia (see link below) invent the idea that they were, indeed, twins but from two different fathers. This is known as superfecundation aka superfetation but is, in really within our context merely superfluous.
However, Clarke did state something with which I dealt in detail in the article Zen Garcia on Eve’s desire for the Angel of the LORD and that is the 1 John text. It is very, very clear in that text that Cain and others are “of the wicked one” due to actions, to sin, to rebellion and not due to a genetic bloodline / seedline; this is also the case in the text considered in Did Jesus teach the serpent seed of Satan theory in John 8.

But, while we are at it, let us see what Clarke makes of the 1 John text which I will first quote from verse 9-13 (note the emphasized action terms):

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 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 [recall John 3’s statement about the necessity of being born again].
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. [emphasis added for emphasis]

Thus, Cain of the wicked one because his actions were commensurate with wickedness and he could have been a child of God if he had repented. Now, let us see what Clarke states which we will do in part as he does some sermonizing on other issues such as whether “believers are to be saved from all sin in this life” which is beyond our context (available here:

Verse 8 He that committeth sin is of the devil – …He who committeth sin is a child of the devil, and shows that he has still the nature of the devil in him; for the devil sinneth from the beginning – he was the father of sin, brought sin into the world, and maintains sin in the world by living in the hearts of his own children, and thus leading them to transgression; and persuading others that they cannot be saved from their sins in this life, that he may secure a continual residence in their heart. He knows that if he has a place there throughout life, he will probably have it at death; and, if so, throughout eternity.
For this purpose – Εις τουτο For this very end – with this very design, was Jesus manifested in the flesh, that he might destroy, ἱνα λυσῃ, that he might loose, the bonds of sin, and dissolve the power, influence, and connection of sin. See on 1 John 3:3; (note).

Some serpent seed of Satan theorists claim that, indeed, 1 John, John 8, etc., affirm that one is a child of the devil–that wicked one if one behaves as he does but that this is because they have within them his genetic traits and are thus, sinners. Well, of course this simply could not be as all sinned (Romans 3:23) and so we must all, literally, have satanic genetics. In short, that Cain was a murderer does not mean that Satan was his father since, after all, Adam and Eve sinned.
Note Clarke’s reference that they who commit sin “has still the nature of the devil in him.” Well, Romans 6 states:

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

It appears that being “dead to sin” does not mean living the rest of our lives in sinless perfection but that we do not “live any longer therein”—with un-repented sin as a chosen lifestyle. Rather, that we should “walk in newness of life” because the “old man” the nature of which Clarke speaks, “is crucified with him…that henceforth we should not serve sin.”

Clarke continues with verse 9 “Whosoever is born of God” by relating a story about Socrates and asks “Christian divines…real or pretended Gospel ministers” whether they will “allow the influence of the grace of Christ a sway not even so extensive as that of the philosophy of a heathen who never heard of the true God?”
He gets back to our context by commenting on verse 10:

In this the children of God are manifest – Here is a fearful text. Who is a child of the devil? He that commits sin. Who is a child of God? He that works righteousness. By this text we shall stand or fall before God, whatever our particular creed may say to the contrary.
Neither he that loveth not his brother – No man is of God who is not ready on all emergencies to do any act of kindness for the comfort, relief, and support of any human being. For, as God made of one blood an the nations of men to dwell upon the face of the whole earth, so all are of one family; and consequently all are brethren, and should love as brethren.

The sentence, “Who is a child of the devil? He that commits sin. Who is a child of God? He that works righteousness” being simply a paraphrase of the 1 John 3 could simply have a “Period! Full stop!” stated after it. Again, this is about actions, about sin and about rebellion or their opposites and not about genetics.
For verse 11 Clarke states, in part, “God hath taught men that they should” note the actions, “love one another…the comfort and well-being of man…Mutual love…acts of kindness.”

Here is Clarke on verse 12 (note my emphasis—bold plus underlining):

Not as Cain – Men should not act to each other as Cain did to his brother Abel. He murdered him because he was better than himself. But who was Cain? Εκ του πονηρου ην, he was of the devil. And who are they who, through pride, lust of power, ambition, gain, etc., murder each other in wars and political contentions?
Εκ του πονηρου εισι. To attempt to justify the principle, and excuse the instigators, authors, abettors, etc., of such wars, is as vain as it is wicked. They are opposed to the nature of God, and to that message which he has sent to man from the beginning: Love one another. Love your enemies. Surely this does not mean, Blow out their brains, or, Cut their throats. O, how much of the spirit, temper, and letter of the Gospel have the nations of the world, and particularly the nations of Europe, to learn!
And wherefore slew he him? – What could induce a brother to imbrue his hands in a brother’s blood? Why, his brother was righteous, and he was wicked; and the seed of the wicked one which was in him induced him to destroy his brother, because the seed of God – the Divine nature, was found in him. Verse 13

Marvel not – if the world hate you – Expect no better treatment from unconverted Jews and Gentiles than Abel received from his wicked and cruel brother. This was a lesson to the Church, preparatory to martyrdom. Expect neither justice nor mercy from the men who are enemies of God. They are either full of malice and envy, hateful, hating one another, or they are specious, hollow, false, and deceitful. “A foe to God was ne’er true friend to Man.”

Thus, the Bible is clear and so is Clarke. Concepts such as “the seed of the wicked one which was in him induced him to destroy his brother, because the seed of God – the Divine nature, was found in him” is all within the context of living an un-repentant lifestyle as “A foe to God was ne’er true friend to Man” and a foe can repent and become a friend of God.

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God (James 2:23).
Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you (John 15:15).

In short, the only reason to even begin to imagine and invent the idea that Eve had sex with Sammael-the Angel (of death)-the angel of the LORD is because our knowledge of the historic, cultural and grammatical of ‘eth may not be as detailed as we would like it to be. Moreover, Clarke seems to have hit the nail on the head by noting that Eve “acknowledge that it was through God’s peculiar blessing…From The Lord, or through the Divine blessing.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.

Twitter: #CliftonEmahiser, #Serpentseed, #racism
Facebook: #CliftonEmahiser, #Serpentseed, #racism


Posted

in

by

Tags: