The Cain-Satanic Seed Line
By Bertand L. Comparet
This booklet contains the talk which Dr. Bertrand L. Comparet delivered to a group of friends attending one of his regular Bible studies, and is reproduced in this printed form, for the benefit of those who would like to preserve the message, and those who did not attend the meeting but would like to know what was said.
The Cain-Satanic Seed Line
Ordinarily I don't let anybody else affect the course of what I talk about. Tonight I'm going to, because I feel it is time to reply to a certain minister. This gentleman has quite an extensive radio ministry, head quartered in Minneapolis. He publishes a magazine which reaches a great many people. He has been on many occasions a distinct force for good, and because of his large following he can be an equally disastrous force for evil.
In the April issue of his magazine, he launched an attack against me: not by name, but by the things you know we have been learning out of the Bible. He sneers at the name of God, "Yahweh." He says, "Now we are being told we must address God as Yahweh, and that the word Lord is a heathen term." This is my answer to his nonsense. He quotes a few non-applicable scriptures. He says, "To insist we must use the Hebrew word Yahweh is not scriptural." And he sneers, "I suppose soon someone will also insist we must pray in the Hebrew language." He says, "The Moffatt Bible refers to God by the words, the Eternal. Ferrar Fenton uses the term, The Ever-Living. Both of these expressions are scriptural and proper."
As I think most of you know, in the Old Testament the true name of God, Yahweh, is used several thousand times. The Jews, the same ones who tried to get it out of the Bible, admit in their own publications that Yahweh is used over 5,000 times in the Old Testament. And I have seen the statement made by a Christian writer, of considerable ability, that the number is nearer 7,000 times. I haven't bothered counting it. But take it on either basis, when you say that the Bible itself is not scriptural, it seems to me that is about as absurd a statement as I have heard. Now, if you will read the preface in the Moffatt's Bible, Moffatt admits he knows better. He admits that the name of God should be given in the Hebrew form, Yahweh, but he goes on to explain, of course for general sale, it is easier to sell it, than if he used the real name. Now if it were for students, he says he would use that term, but he wants the wider sale. He says, "I know it loses some of the force of the original, but I hope that even those who do not approve of what I do will understand."
I took the trouble to look this up: Never once in the Bible are either the words "The Eternal" or "the Ever-Living" used, as God's name, in the Hebrew of the Old Testament or the Greek of the New Testament -not once. I suppose a good Nazi might have chosen to put in the words, Adolf Hitler if he had wanted to, but that would not have made it so; and somebody else, substituting some other word, doesn't make it so either. In the Old Testament only two Hebrew words have been translated "Eternal." Two variant forms of the same word, "kedem," which literally means, in the forefront either of space or of time. In space they generally apply it to the east. In time they say "the forefront of time, that is way back in antiquity." The other is "olam" the basic meaning of which is "conceal." Applied to time they say, "so far in the past or so far in the future that the actual time we can't find out." So in a vague way it could be used as a long time.
In the New Testament, three brief words have been translated, everlasting or eternal: "adios" - everlasting, never used as the name of God; and "aion" meaning an age, and translated on very doubtful authority as "eternal" when literally it speaks of an age. The Bible speaks of several ages: one of them isn't, for that reason, eternal. It is used only once with reference to God. First Timothy 1:17 uses the phrase, "The King Eternal," not as a name but as a descriptive title. The other word "aionios" - "age abiding," is never used as a name of God. Neither can you say the Eternal or The Ever-Living can be considered as a translation of Yahweh. You will find an excellent discussion of it in the preface to Rotherham's translation. He points out that Yahweh is the third person, singular, masculine form derived from the root "Hawah," an older form of the root Haya. The one and only meaning of Hawah is "become." Therefore, Yahweh, derived from that, has no possible meaning assign able to it in the Hebrew but this: "He will become" or "He who becomes." You remember, in your King James Version among the various "botched" mistranslations (which make it, at times, very difficult to understand), God said to Moses, "I am that I am," which is a meaningless phrase. Go back and check it in the Hebrew. It is "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" and the verb Ehyeh - "I will become." So "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" means "I will become whatever I will become." You have heard such expressions as "I will go where I will go," meaning nobody is going to stop me or I will make my own choice. And similarly, there in the Hebrew, God says "I will become whatsoever I choose to become" - I will become the leader of My people to bring them out of Egypt - I will become the Savior and Redeemer who saves them on the cross - I will become whatever it is My will to become.
The other thing this same pastor attacks, and this seems to bother him greatly, is the matter of the Satanic-Cain seed line. This gentleman has gotten along notably well with the descendants of Cain. I have never seen any indication of any ill feeling between them on either side, and he becomes violently incensed that some of us have pointed out that the descendants of Satan through Cain are in the world today. He says that this is one of the most vicious among scriptural doctrines: so I thought it was time for us to review it. You have known of the fact of the Satanic origin of the Jewish people; but I don't know whether many of you have seen how much proof there was in the Bible. I thought it was just about time to get down to that proof.
Now let us start in the beginning. Satan, of course, was not a serpent. The thing that deceived Eve and seduced Eve was not a scaly thing wriggling on the ground. The Hebrew word Nachash means "enchanter'' or ''magician.'' A fallen angel, retaining still a lot of his angelic powers, no doubt could be very much of an enchanter and magician. Now his children, (and I mean children, not just followers) through the centuries used a serpent as a symbol or emblem of their ancestor, until finally they attached a secondary meaning of serpent to the word. But it is not in the root meaning of the word at all. The Bible was never so ridiculous as to suggest that a snake accomplished all this. In Genesis 3:1-3, you remember Satan has said to Eve, "Why, is it really true that God said, You can't eat of any tree in the Garden?" And she replies to him, (here is how it reads in the Hebrew): "And the woman said unto the enchanter, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the Garden," but (now I am quoting from the King James Version and I am going to correct it as I go) ". . . of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the Garden, God has said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." Now let us see what it actually says in the Hebrew: "Fruit" is the Hebrew word "pirchach" meaning progeny, brood, children, descendants. Do you talk about the children of a walnut tree or an apple tree? Of course you don't. Now, of the pirchach, of the descendants, of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it." And that word "touch" is the Hebrew word naga, which is a more polite expression, meaning, "to have sexual intercourse with." Do you need to be warned not to have sexual intercourse with an apple? Of course not. It isn't that kind of a tree.
God had millions of the pre-Adamic Asiatic and African peoples around; if he just wanted somebody wide between the shoulders and narrow between the eyes, to spade up the Garden, he had them. He didn't have to create a special being for that. Satan had been the Governor of this Planet until he forfeited the right to it by rebellion. God sent Adam here (and you remember that the last verse in the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke tells you that Adam was the Son of God: it doesn't say that about any of these pre-Adamic peoples mentioned in Genesis chapter 1. Adam was the son of God) and God sent Adam here to take over by force, kick Satan out and govern this Planet. The trees in the Garden of Eden were the family trees of nations and races.
Adam and Eve were supposed NOT to intermingle with these people. If these Negroes and Mongoloids were all that God wanted, He already had them. What He created a different and separate being for, was to have a different sort of person, whom the Mongoloids and the Negroids could never produce. The Hebrew word Awdawm, which we translate Adam, means "of a rosy, fair complexion." Adam was the first person of a specifically created new race. Adam and Eve were told, "Do not mongrelize your race, with these pre-Adamite peoples in the world." Now when you come to Genesis 3:13 God has called Adam, Eve and Satan before Him to give an accounting of their misdeeds; and according to your King James Version, Eve says, "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat thereof." Here again is the Hebrew word Nachash meaning enchanter, but instead of "beguiled" the Hebrew word nawshaw means "seduced." Now "beguiled" is no more than "deceived." Somebody who sells you some mining stock, in a mine that doesn't have any good ore in it, beguiles you; but this word means seduced. And Yahweh God said unto the woman, "What is this (that) thou hast done?" And the woman said, "The enchanter seduced me." That is what it says in the Hebrew, and Cain was the product thereof. So in reply, in Genesis 3:15 God says (speaking to Satan): "I will put enmity between thee (Satan) and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed." Now the same Hebrew word, "zehra," literally meaning "seed" (and it could be used as grains of wheat for example, but it is used throughout the Bible as meaning the descendants of a person too - children, posterity), between Satan's seed (zehra) and the woman's seed (zehra). In other words Satan was to have just as literal children in this world as was Eve, because the very same word with the very same meaning is used for it.
Our minister back in Minnesota says, "Oh that doesn't mean anything, because he quotes Genesis 4:1: "And Adam knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain." Now you notice, what is not said is more significant than what is said. The Bible nowhere says Adam begat Cain. Remember now, as you have read in the Old Testament, the monotonous regularity with which it always says, "And so-and-so begat whozis and whozis begat what's-his-name and what's-his-name begat somebody-else," and so on. It was important to know your ancestry in those days, because you didn't get your citizenship for two box tops and a dime: you got it because your ancestors for twenty generations back were Israelites, and no other way.
So Adam knew his wife, and she conceived. Now I can tell you something, and I can prove every bit of it by witnesses: I went to a movie one night and the next morning the sun rose in the East. Now I did not say the one caused the other. I said two things happened, one of them first and the other second; and they did, but I never said they were cause and effect. The Bible never says there was cause and effect here. Now if you want further proof out of this, you go right on to the fifth chapter of Genesis which gives the list of Adam's descendants, and you notice that Cain is not mentioned. Neither Cain nor Abel are mentioned among the descendants of Adam. And if you say Abel might have been omitted, because we don't know, but he was probably killed before he left any descendants of his own. But that is not true of Cain, because the Bible traces Cain's descendants for six generations, naming them on down the line. But never once does it say that Cain was a descendant of Adam: never in any way, shape, form or manner. The first time it says Adam begat a child is Genesis 5:3: "And Adam lived 130 years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth." Not Cain.
So the Satanic blood line crept in, definitely, with Cain - possibly earlier among the pre-Adamic peoples. Now there were pre-Adamic peoples who were not necessarily Satanic. There were some pre-Adamic people into whom the Satanic blood line came and there were even some of the descendants of Adam who probably mongrelized. In fact, it is evident that they did from the very fact that those living around Noah were wiped out by the flood because the Bible tells you that Noah was perfect in his ancestry (no mongrelization) and he was the only one left in that area who was. That is why the mongrelized Adamites around him were wiped out by the flood. The real descendants of Adam were multiplied, and then you come to the fact of the Satanic blood line getting in there. Remember, God had announced His purpose, that He was going to take back the world from Satanic domination, He was going to rule it according to His purposes, and He was going to rule it through His children, going down through Adam. Now, what is the obvious move on Satan's part to thwart that? Mongrelize the two blood lines, so he can sneer in God's face and say, "These are my children; and where are Yours? All these have my blood in them." And that is exactly what he set out to do.
Genesis 6: 2 says, "The Sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all they chose." Now you don't get the full significance of it in that translation, "the sons of God" (beni-ha-elohim, the sons of the Elohim). Now you remember the Hebrew word El (the mighty) is used as a title of God derived from it, eba (singular) is practically always translated God or a God, and is a correct translation. And elohim is the plural, meaning Gods. In the 82nd Psalm it says, "God standeth in the congregation of the Gods." He says to them, "I have said Ye are all Elohim, and children of the Most High." Your King James Version just says "Gods" but it is a correct translation of "the Elohim." "The sons of the Elohim saw the daughters of Awdawm that they were fair." Now the Elohim are the children of God, and to that extent distinct from the angels, who are merely servant spirits. Now we are not given too much detail on the rebellion that took place in Heaven, but the Bible very definitely suggests that along with a number of the angels some even of the Elohim (sons of God) followed Satan into rebellion. Now some people have tried to say, Well, since the Adamite is spoken of as the sons of God, this is merely the Adamites here. But "the sons of God saw the daughters of Adam that they were fair and took them wives of all whom they chose." And it is written with obvious disapproval. The male descendants of Adam were not allowed by God's law to marry anybody but the daughters of Adam; so if they were marrying within their own racial line here, it couldn't have been spoken with disapproval. So the "beni-ha-elohim" are evidently of those Elohim who followed Satan into rebellion.
Now you go on into Genesis 6:4 speaking of the same thing, and again it is botched up in your King James Version. "There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and they bare children to them. The same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." This is what it says in the Hebrew: "There were Nephilim (the fallen ones) in the earth in those days." They were fallen angels. That is what the Bible calls them in so many places. "angels who had not kept their first estate," who had fallen from Heaven and from their former powers. ''When the sons of God and it's again the beni-ha-elohim, "came in unto the daughters of Adam . . ." -so it's the same thing. So here you have the spreading of the Satanic blood line, and the Bible in Genesis chapter 6 goes on to trace many of these descendants of the fallen angels. You find that all through Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan River, clear down into Mount Seir, the rugged mountain range southeast of the Dead Sea where Esau and his family lived, all through there you have these various people with the Satanic blood line in them.
Now there are two different places, one in Isaiah, the other as I remember it in Ezekiel, where it speaks of what it calls a King or Prince, in the one case of Babylon, and the other case of Tyre; but nevertheless it speaks of him in language which could not possibly apply to anybody except Satan: indicating therefore that at some time or other, Satan had incarnated in the form of these various kings - one king of Babylon, one king of Tyre. Now don't think that that is so impossible, because, remember the many times that your Old Testament tells of these angels appearing in very solid form. They came and talked with Abraham on several occasions - one of them, you will remember, wrestled with Jacob almost all night. Another came when the people of Israel were about to cross the Jordan River and take over Palestine. Joshua, making a scouting trip around his camp, saw this armed man standing there in armor and with sword, and Joshua asked, "Are you with us or for the enemy?" And the man said, "I am the Captain of the Hosts of Yahweh." So, let us take Isaiah 14:12-21 and note that this could not possibly apply to anyone except to Satan himself; and then, taking it out of the King James Version too, for the benefit of my friend back in Minnesota, "How art thou fallen from the heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations: for thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north." He says, "I'm going to be the ruler over Israel (God's people). I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." But Yahweh God told Lucifer, the devil, "Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms, that made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof, that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house; but thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcass trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people; the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned."
You could not say that about any kings of Babylon. The only one who may possibly have failed to get burial and an elaborate tomb, and all that, might have been Belshazzar: but he was nothing but an incompetent drunkard, and nobody ever could say of him that he was the one who shook kingdoms, and so on. He didn't even rule Babylon. He stayed drunk.
These passages are speaking of none other than Lucifer. Note how it goes on (I am reading from the same passage, Isaiah 14:21): "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities." And that word translated as "children" is from the Hebrew word "beni" (sons). So, Satan obviously was to have children who could be slaughtered, to keep them from multiplying to the point where they would take over and rule the world. Old Testament? Sure. Now let us see what the New Testament has to say about it.
This gentleman back in Minnesota claims to be a Christian: so I want to call his attention to the words of Jesus Christ and see whether he is going to say Jesus Christ was a liar or mistaken, or whether he is willing to admit perhaps he himself was mistaken, because you cannot reconcile the two. Jesus plainly, and in a number of places, says the devil has children, not mere followers. You remember the parable of the Tares and the Wheat: He spoke of the farmer who sowed good seed in his field, and his enemy came along during the night time and sowed these poisonous weeds - the tares among the wheat; and when the farmer's servants saw the tares growing among the wheat they asked him, "Should we go out and pull them up now?" And he said, "No, you might pull up some of the wheat with them. Let them grow together until the time of the harvest, and then the reapers will first gather the tares into bundles to be burned, and then put the wheat in my barn." Then He explains this parable to His disciples. In Matthew 13: 38-39 He says, "The field is the world; the good seed, are the children of the kingdom (and He uses here the Greek word which is plural of "huios," meaning sons - the good seed are the sons of the kingdom); "but the tares are the children (same Greek word, huios) of the wicked one." So Satan has just as true children in this world as does God.
Again, speaking to the Pharisees (who, as you know, were Jews), in Matthew 12:34 (your King James version botches it up to an extent that seems to me often to be willful), Christ says, "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." But the word is not "generation" at all. A generation is a number of people, of not too different age, living at the same time. You for example constitute one generation. He wasn't talking just about the people living then. They were not any more wicked than the generation that lived before them or the generation that lived after them. What He said was (it's the Greek word genema which means "children" or "offspring"): "O children of vipers . . . sure, all these centuries you Jews have used the serpent as the emblem or symbol for your ancestor. All right, taking you at your word, You children of serpents," right down the line - vipers. He knew who they were. Again Matthew 23:29-35: "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets." And here again is that Greek word "huios." "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye genema (ye offspring, children) of vipers. How can ye escape the damnation of hell? That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom you slew between the temple and the altar.''
Now does my friend back in Minnesota say that Jesus Christ was so unjust that He was going to punish these Jews for the murder of Abel if they weren't even descendants of Cain? Of course not. He was here tracing the children of the serpent - the enchanter -Satan, down through the centuries, who had murdered the righteous, including all the prophets, right down the line. So He said, "Upon you (upon this race) these descendants of the serpent, will come the responsibility for all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel even unto the blood of Zacharias."
Now, throughout, the Bible speaks of two seed lines (and I do not mean merely somebody who has been converted to good views or bad). The Bible makes no reference here as to what your religious point of view may be; it is talking about literal descendants. We read in Romans 8:16: "The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Now, the word children there - the Greek word "teknon" - means one born a child, not adopted. Nothing is more fallacious than this church doctrine about being "adopted" children of God. You read what Paul said on this subject, and nothing in it can justify the mistranslation of that as "adoption." He says that before the coming of Christ we were held in bondage under the law, governed strictly by the law, and he said we are just like an heir under age. He has inherited from his father, who has died, all the estate: but he is still a minor, and he is not allowed to take control of it. He is under the control of trustees and governors, appointed guardians, appointed by his Father, until he comes of age. And Paul says, all the time he is the owner of it all, and yet he is controlled as though he is just a servant. Now you couldn't say that about anybody who was adopted. If you take somebody else's illegitimate child and decide you are going to adopt him, is he already the owner of your property before you adopt him? Of course not. And Paul wasn't stupid enough to think he was. Only the churchmen are stupid enough for that.
Now, what Paul was talking about was the coming of age ceremony by which they marked the fact that the heir had now become of full age and his property was put into his hands to control as an adult. So here in Romans 8:16: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God" - teknon -one born a child, not adopted. Romans 9:26 (and he is quoting from Hosea 1:10): "And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God" - and it is that Greek word Huioi - sons. We are the born - not adopted - children of God. Now as to the born - not adopted (or converted) children of the devil, read Acts 13: 8 which tells about a Jew sorcerer, Elymas, who opposed Paul when Paul was trying to make some converts. "Then Saul (who also was called Paul) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him and said (in verse 9): "O full of all subtility and mischief, thou child of the devil (that Greek word Huios - son) thou son of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?" Paul was under no illusion. He knew them to be children of the devil, by perfectly legitimate ancestry, for what it's worth.
Now the child of a cat is another cat, isn't it? The child of a Negro is a Negro; and a child of God is what? Now he is not as wise, and he is not as powerful, and he is not as important as his Father: but nevertheless he partakes (within his limitations) of a godly nature. And that is what the Bible tells us about; and that is exactly why we of God's people Israel are held to so much greater responsibility than other people. After all, you cannot expect a Negro to act like anything but a Negro; but a child of God is expected to act like one.
Now the child of a devil is what? Another devil, isn't he? Now John 6:70-71 is part of a very important passage which began in this manner: Jesus asked His disciples who were all gathered there, "Whom do men say that I am?" and they said "Oh some say that you are this prophet or that one who has been reincarnated and come back here." Then Christ said, "Whom do you say that I am?" and Peter spoke up and said, "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Christ then said, "Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jonah: because flesh and blood didn't tell you that fact: it was my Father in heaven who told you that." And He said, "Upon this rock (Petra, the solid bed-rock of the earth) I will found My church." Now He didn't say He was going to found it on Simon Peter (Petros), a little stone. In Greek, Petros means a little stone, just barely bigger than a pebble. Was He going to found His church on a pebble that anybody could kick out from under it? No. "I will found it upon Petra," the solid bed-rock of the earth.
You remember the example He gave, the parable wherein He said one man had built his house on the sand and when the storm came along, the flood washed the sand out from under it and it collapsed; but another man built his house upon the rock (Petra - the bed-rock) and the storm beat upon it and couldn't do anything to it, because it was founded on a rock (Petra). If any of you have ever been up to Yosemite Valley and seen that enormous cliff, "El Capitan," you've seen a good example of what the Greeks meant by the word Petra. You could build a castle on that and nothing could blow it off or wash it away. So upon this fact, that you have recognized who I am: the Christ, the Son of the Living God; upon that I will found My church, and the gates of death shall not prevail against it." John 6:70-71 says, "Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spoke of Judas Iscariot, (the son) of Simon, for he it was that would betray him, being one of the twelve." Now our Savior was not just being vulgarly abusive and calling people names. He never did that. Oh, He denounced these Pharisees. He called them hypocrites, and they were. He wasn't abusing them with lying epithets. They were hypocrites, and He was accurate. And when He called them children of serpents, they acknowledged the statement was true, for that was the emblem they had used from ancient times. And when He said that one of them was a devil, He wasn't being abusive, He was speaking the literal truth.
Now the First Epistle of John again states the existence of these two seed lines. First John 2: 29: "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that does righteousness is born of Him." First John 3:2: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God (and here we have that Greek word teknon - a born child, not adopted - a born child of God). First John 5: 9-10: "Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Now by that, he didn't mean that none of us commit any sins at all; because, if that is the case, we wouldn't have needed the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. We do all have our sins: but you know people are divided into two classes: the ones who are only sorry because they don't get a chance to sin more, and the others who are sorry because they have sinned a little. So what he means there, is, whoever is born of God doesn't habitually sin. So he says, in verse 10, "In this the children (that Greek word teknon), the children of God are manifest, and the children (and again it is that same Greek word teknon) of the devil." Remember he has talked about us as the born teknon of God, and the others as the born teknon of the devil.
Now First John 3:12 says that as for those that are our brothers, not the children of Satan, that we should love them and not be as Cain. Your King James version says, ". . . who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother." So the people who have churchianity rather than Christianity say, "Oh well now, you know it doesn't say that he was a son, it just means that Cain was morally associated with Satan and was bad and reprobate, and so on. "Well I believe my friend back in Minnesota will concede that there was just one Greek language at that time; and so they didn't have two separate Greek languages: one to write the Gospel according to Luke, and a different Greek language in which to write the First Epistle of John. As you know, different languages have their different idioms. In many languages one word may have a meaning that can only be expressed by a phrase of several English words. I think nearly all of you have a King James Version of the Bible and you know that in most editions of it, some words are printed in italic and those words in italic are the words which the translators added because they thought it was necessary to give the English the same meaning that the Hebrew or the Greek had, without these added words. Now the third chapter of Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus Christ, starting with Jesus Christ and running back all the way to Adam. So let us start with Luke 3:23 as it reads in the King James Version: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli (but those words "the son" are in italic showing that they were not in the Greek and the translators added them) which was the son of Matthat, (again added in italic), which was the son of Levi (in italics), which was the son of Melchi (italics), which was the son of Janna," and so forth - all in italics. Now let us read this the way my friend would read Luke 3:23-24: ". . . the son of Joseph who was as big a reprobate as Heli, who was morally no better than Matthat, who was as bad as Levi . . ." Is that the way that he thinks Luke wrote this? And if that is not the meaning of the Greek here in Luke, it is not the meaning of the same Greek phrase over in First John 3:12. So where it says "not as Cain who was of that wicked one," in Greek it means he was the son of that wicked one. In Greek, if you say John was of William, you will say John was the son of William. Now the better modern translations recognize this. For example, in the Weymouth translation, this same verse, First John 3:12 reads, "We are not to resemble Cain who was a child of the evil one and killed his brother." Phillips' translation: "We are none of us to have the spirit of Cain who was a son of the devil and murdered his brother." The New English Bible, a magnificent job of translation, by the way: "Unlike Cain who was a child of the evil one and murdered his brother."
The thing which this gentleman cites in his magazine as the final proof positive that there isn't anything at all to this "Jews are the children of Cain and hence of the devil" theory, is found in the 8th chapter of John, beginning with verse 31. You know how often I've cited that for you: but the man in Minnesota shows his ignorance. You remember Jesus Christ was talking to Jews (and it says Jews too, comes right out with the word). And it isn't simply that He was behaving like a petulant spoiled child because somebody didn't believe in Him, because it says, "these were Jews who believed in him." Yes, so-called "converted Jews." You know all about these missions to the Jews. So these were converted Jews. He says to them (and you can just hear the ring of sarcasm in His voice), "If ye continue in my doctrines indeed, then you shall be my disciples; and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." And immediately they bristle up at this and ask, "What do you mean - make us free?" They say, "We are Abraham's seed and we have never been in bondage to any man." And He says, "I know you are Abraham's seed." Now to anyone who knew his Bible (and of a minister it is utterly inexcusable that he does not know it: because, remember, this is the blind leading the blind into the ditch, when an ignorant minister is leading his congregation). Who was it who could say that he was descended from Abraham and had never been in bondage to any man?
If these Jews were of any of the twelve tribes at all, they would have been in bondage the first time in Egypt, wouldn't they? If they belonged to the ten tribed northerly kingdom of Israel, they would have been in bondage a second time in Assyria, wouldn't they? And if they belonged to the. two tribed southern. kingdom of Judah, they would have been in bondage for the second time, Babylon, wouldn't they? And they said "We have never been in bondage to any man," and Jesus Christ admitted the truth of that. He didn't deny that. So they were not of any tribe of Israel whatsoever. Now who could say that, nevertheless, 1,800 years earlier than that, Abraham was one of his ancestors - Esau? Remember Esau and Jacob were twins, born with (presumably) the same blood line: but Esau married two Canaanite women in violation of God's law. Now he couldn't leave anything but mongrelized half-Satanic descendants, because among these Hittite Canaanites you had the Satanic blood line. What the Bible tells you about Esau selling his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of lentil stew: that isn't when he lost it. That was merely a formal ceremony by which he gave up any claim to it; but he lost it when he did the thing that rendered it impossible for him to continue as the head of the clan. His descendants from then on would be mongrelized, half Satanic. So recognizing that he was already out of the line for leadership, he sold it for a bowl of stew. Now the Bible tells you that Esau and his two Canaanite wives moved down to Mount Seir, a very rugged mountain range southeast of the Dead Sea. But Mount Seir is exactly where some of these people lived who were descendants of these fallen angels. Go back to Genesis, chapter 6, and among the people who had the blood line of the fallen angels were these Horites - the Horim, the cave dwellers who lived in Mount Seir.
Now suppose a white man married two Negresses here, and then he moved to the interior of the Congo; and for the next 18 Centuries his descendants lived there with nobody they could marry except the Negroes around them; so of course the last trace of white blood would have vanished. Nevertheless, after 18 centuries of breeding into the Negroes they could still say, "18 centuries ago we had one white ancestor." Now these weren't Negroes: these were the Satanic Canaanites, but the principle is the same. These Jews talking with Jesus Christ had identified themselves as Edomite Jews. Genesis chapter 36 lists Esau's descendants. Verses 20 to 30 specifically list all the various dukes or chieftans among the family of Seir, the Horite, Satanic line, including his daughter Timna. And Genesis 36:12 shows that Timna was a concubine to Esau's son Eliphaz and bore him a son Amalek. And you remember what a pestilential lot the whole tribe of Amalek were. They behaved, throughout, according to the Satanic blood line. You will find a good deal of that in Exodus 17:8-16 and Numbers 20:14-21.
This same Satanic conduct on the part of the Edomites was repeated as opportunity arose. You remember that when the people of Israel came out of Egypt in the Exodus and they wanted to march on up to Palestine, they were attacked by the Edomites and driven back so they had to detour around, down through the wilderness in the Sinai Peninsula. Again, when the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem and looted and burned the city and massacred a lot of the inhabitants, the Edomites came rushing in to help in the massacre and plunder. The whole book of Obadiah is just one continuous condemnation of the Edomites, for the way they acted, and predicting their eventual slaughter and punishment for it. Obadiah, verse 10: "For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever." Obadiah, verse 15: "For the day of Yahweh is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head." Obadiah, verse 18: "And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for Yahweh has spoken it." Amen, say I. Exodus 17: 14-16: "And Yahweh said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Yahweh-Nissi (Yahweh-our banner). For he said, Because Yahweh hath sworn that Yahweh will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." Now, how did these Satanic, mongrel, Edomite Jews get up there into Judea? They came in two principal waves.
During the time that the southern kingdom of Judah was practically empty during the Babylonian captivity, the Edomites were driven out of Mount Seir by a heavy invasion of an Arab people, the Nabateans, from the east. So the Edomites were driven westward. Now they couldn't go southwest or straight west: they would then be getting into Egyptian territory, and they weren't strong enough to fight the Egyptians. So they went slightly north of west and took over the southerly half of what had been the kingdom of Judah, and settled there. Now when the little remnant came back from Babylon, the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah show that 42,600, or something like that, came back. But it lists them by their families: and you run those down and you find that slightly over 8,000 of these were not from any tribe of Israel. In other words, only 34,000 of the 42,000 that came back were Israelites of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and a few Levites among them. Now they were too few to drive out these numerous and warlike Edomites; all they could do was settle in the little territory left to them. To give you an idea of the size of that - the entire territory of the twelve tribed nation of Israel before it broke up, set down here in Southern California, would extend from the Mexican border to the southerly part of Los Angeles; and inland from the coast it never was more than 40 miles wide.
Now divide that into thirds. The northerly two thirds of that comprised the kingdom of Israel - the ten tribed, northern kingdom. So only the southerly one-third of that was the Kingdom of Judah. Now of that one-third, take out the southerly half of that, now occupied by the Edomites, and the little strip left is all that remains for the true Judahites and Benjamites to settle in. Before the captivity, the tribe of Judah had been on the south, the tribe of Benjamin on the north, with the city of Jerusalem lying right on the boundary line between them. Well, they sorted themselves out as well as they could, the way they had been before - Judah on the south - and Benjamin pushed to the north. But Benjamin couldn't just move up to the north a little bit, because north of them was Samaria (remember I said, you divide this twelve tribe territory into thirds) - the middle third constituted Samaria. Both Isaiah and Kings and Chronicles tell you that when the Assyrians captured the northern kingdom of Israel and deported all its people, they brought other people from Assyria and settled them in Samaria. Now it purposely failed to say they settled anybody in Galilee, the northern most portion - because they didn't - they left it vacant. Now the Benjamites were pushed to the north by the Judahites, as they returned after the captivity. They just couldn't move up into Samaria: that was fully settled. So they had to leap-frog over Samaria to the vacant Galilee, to the north of that.
Now remember, up in Galilee was Christ's own home town of Nazareth. He was born in Bethlehem, down close to Jerusalem, but his family home was up in Nazareth. You remember He got nearly all of his converts up in Galilee; and of the twelve disciples only Judas was a Jew. Your Bible calls him Judas Iscariot: and there is no such word as "Iscariot" in any language known to man. It is a corruption of the Hebrew word "Ish Kerioth," meaning, a man of Kerioth - and Kerioth is a little village down in the southwesterly portion of Judaea, down in the territory occupied by the Edomites. So Judas was an Edomite Jew, and he was the only Jew of the twelve. The other eleven were all Galileans, therefore, Benjamites.
You remember, that when Jesus was arrested and taken into the high priest's home for illegal questioning and Peter followed Him in, the servant said, "Well, you're one of them, you're a Galilean, your accent shows it." Sure, you don't have any difficulty telling the Mississippians from a Maine Yankee here in this country, do you? They speak English with a different accent, and the Galilean spoke the Aramaic of the day, with a little different accent from the Judaeans down around Jerusalem.
Now, again, consider Pentecost. When the people were gathered there and the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples (and remember they were all there except Judas Iscariot), they began speaking to this assembled multitude in a wide number of different languages. And how astonished the people were, when they heard the disciples speaking all these different languages, which obviously they didn't know. They said, "Aren't all these Galileans?" They were. All the remaining disciples were.
So, down to the south of what was left of the territory of Judah you have these Edomite Jews settled, and of course, pestiferous people always, they were constantly raiding the southerly boundary of Judaea, the way their descendants are raiding the Arabs' territory today. A leopard doesn't change his spots, you know. And for a long time after the return from the Babylonian captivity, the people in Judaea were a conquered province of one empire or another - Syria or Egypt, and finally Rome. But they got their little flare-up of independence under the Maccabee kings, beginning about 150 BC., and about 120 BC. John Hyrcanus, one of the Maccabee kings (who had by that time a good disciplined army) got tired of these Edomite Jew raids on his southern border, and he marched down there and defeated them thoroughly. Remember that Saul, the first king of Israel, was told by God, "You go down there and you absolutely exterminate these Edomites: don't you leave one of them alive. "But he didn't do it, and when he came back the Samuel said, "Because you have disobeyed God, God has deposed you from being king, and He is going to put a better man in your place."
Approximately 900 years later, John Hyrcanus made the same mistake. After he had defeated the Edomites, he then decided he was going to be a missionary: he would convert them to the religion of Judaism. So he offered them the choice: he would spare them if they would accept the religion of Judaism (which was not the religion of the Old Testament, ever - it was what they had brought back from Babylon with the Babylonian Talmud). - The late Rabbi Stephen S. Wise said it so briefly and accurately, I have never been able to improve on his words. He said, "The return from Babylon and the introduction of the Babylonian Talmud marked the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism." - The people of the Old Testament were real Hebrews and the religion God had given them could well be called Hebrewism. And of course, the Talmud-Judaism began as they destroyed the religion of the Old Testament. But in Christ's time they had not yet given it the name of Talmud: they called it "the tradition of the elders." Remember how often Jesus Christ rebuked them for following their tradition. "Why have ye by your tradition set aside the laws of God?" He was referring to the Talmud. So John Hyrcanus was going to be a Billy Graham of his day: he was going to make converts. He said, "If you will adopt the religion of Judaism, I will give you full citizenship in the kingdom of Judaea. If you don't, I will cut your throats." Well, you know that is the most effective missionary technique they have ever developed. Even Billy Graham doesn't make converts that fast. Of course the converts he makes with the sword are of doubtful validity So the Edomites adopted the religion of Judaism and were accepted in full citizenship in the kingdom. Now you will find that described in great detail in the one reliable history of that period - Josephus, in his history, "Antiquities of the Jews, Book 13, chapter 9.
The second wave of Edomites came in when the Edomite chieftan Herod conquered and became king of judaea, under the Roman Empire. He was a very able, very evil scoundrel. He raised a large sum of money by taxation and by raiding his neighbors, and with it he bribed Mark Anthony who was over in Egypt with the Roman legions at that time. He bribed Mark Anthony to lend him a couple of the Roman legions, in addition to his own Edomite troops, for a conquest of Judaea. And, with the Roman troops and his own, he did capture Judaea. In 40 BC. the Romans recognized him as governor with the title, Ethnarch, and in 37 BC. they formally recognized him as the local King of Judaea. Of course, he was subject to Roman foreign policy but he had complete self-government at home. Now he had come in with a conquering army and, of course, his Jewish Edomite followers came in, for the sake of the plunder they could get (just as they are already going back to Germany, now, for the sake of the plunder they can get). So they overran the place. You may learn much about these events by reading Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews," Books 14 to 18. In his other history, the "Wars of the Jews," Book 4, chapters 4 and 5, Book 5 and chapter 6 and thereafter, he tells of the horrible conduct of these Edomite Jews within the besieged city of Jerusalem while it was undergoing siege by Titus in the year 70 AD. Their robbery and massacre of the inhabitants inflicted probably more casualties than the Roman army did. In the Jewish Encyclopedia, the article "Edom," (in the edition I used to look it up, it was Volume 5, page 41), the article "Edom" concludes with these words: "The Edomites are found today in modern Jewry."
These Edomites had come in first, when they were given full citizenship by John Hyrcanus; second, they had come in as a wave of conquerors under Herod (that is the same Herod who tried to murder Jesus Christ as a baby). They had overrun the land. They had the entire civil and religious government, until the death of Herod in 4 BC. Then Herod left the kingdom of Judaea, by will, to his son Herod Archelaus. The Romans were too wise to trust somebody with the kingdom when they didn't know anything about him. They gave him a trial period as governor, under the title, Ethnarch; and he gave them 10 years of the most miserable misrule that any nation ever had, 4 BC. to 6 AD. - and the people finally petitioned Rome to send a Roman to govern them. Now remember the people didn't like the tyranny of Rome a bit: but when this was so bad they said, "We would rather be governed by a foreigner, a Roman," you can understand how bad it was. The Romans tried Herod Archelaus, found him guilty of misrule, banished him to Vienne; and from that time on there were a series of Roman governors called procurators: Pontius Pilate was number six in that series. So the military government was entirely in the hands of the Roman procurators. The collection of taxes for Rome was entirely under the supervision of the Roman procurator. On the other hand, these Herodian Jews had control of the entire religious government and the temple. They also had control of the civil government, in all respects concerning purely local self-government - could collect their own taxes, and so on.
You remember, when the priests were getting greatly upset about Jesus' teachings they said, "If we let Him alone, all men will believe on Him; and the Romans will take this place, this kingdom, away from us." Now the way the clergymen have taught it, that is meaninglessly stupid. They pictured Jesus as a whining, cringing, milk-sop, going around, whimpering to people that they ought to be good. If that was all He did, these Jews would not have honored Him even with their contempt, much less be worried about Him. He was explaining to the people, the utter evil of the Jewish economic and religious system under which they were living. The Jews said look, if we let Him alone, He is going to awaken the people to these evils. They will petition Rome just as they did with Herod Archelaus, and the Romans will kick us out of here." That is what they were talking about. So here were these Jews, these Edomite Jews, who said to Jesus Christ, "We are descendants of Abraham." They were illegitimate descendants of Abraham but, nevertheless, descendants of Abraham, and they said, "We've never been In bondage to any man." And Jesus Christ said, "That's right." - Now continue that same passage through John 8:31-44, and you will come to the place where Christ tells them that they were the children of their father, the devil, and they would do the lusts of their father, who was a murderer from the beginning.
Christ recognized the two seed lines. He didn't say, "Well, you have adopted some of the bad principles of the devil." He said, "You are the children of your father the devil." So the entire Bible, Old Testament and New Testament, recognizes the two seed lines. The Adamic seed line coming down through a carefully selected best one in each generation, right on down to Abraham, Isaac, Israel and then on down through the twelve tribes of Israel. The seed, the children of God and the seed, the children of Satan; some of whom, the most pestiferous of them, have come down through the line of Cain.
Somebody asked me, "Do you think these Jews know of their descent from Cain?" They certainly do, and here is how they prove it. Jews have given the owner of the radio station on which I broadcast, a very bad time. As some of you know, a radio broadcasting station license is good for only three years. If it is renewed you have a going, money-making business of considerable value. If it is not renewed, all you have is some used machinery. So it makes a great deal of difference to the owner, whether he gets his license renewed or not, and the Jews were putting pressure on this radio station owner to put two programs off the air - mine and Richard Cotten's - and he refused. He said, "I have no authority to censor any of these programs" - and he said, "besides, this is the United States and I believe in free speech." They said, "No, you've got to put those programs off the air." So he said, "If either one of them has said anything that you think is untrue, although they are paying for their time, I will give you free time, an equal amount of free time, for you to answer them." But they wouldn't take him up on that, because neither Cotten nor I go off the deep end with any statement we can't prove. So they insisted that he put them off. When he refused, they filed objections to the renewal of his license which came up for renewal about that time. They kept the matter before the Federal Communications Commission for more than a year, and the owner operated his station on a day-to-day basis, not knowing whether his license would be renewed or not. In that time they finally terrorized him into making this agreement: he would hire a Jew employee who would censor my program and Richard Cotten's, cutting out whatever material the Jews objected to.
Now, I don't send any tapes to that station that have been cut and spliced. When you are paying $100.00 an hour for broadcast time, tape is the cheapest thing you use; and while I have never known of one of my splices to come apart, I don't take any chances on it. The tapes I send in are complete, without splices. But when they come back, they are cut and spliced in a number of places where this Jew censor has cut portions of them out. Now I don't like one bit the idea that a Christian broadcast can be censored by a Jew, to remove matters of essential Christian doctrine. But nevertheless, this station owner doesn't have to carry my program. They are still fighting and this is now three years. He won before the Federal Communications Commission. They appealed the thing to the Federal Court and he won before the Federal Court. And they appealed to the U.S. District Court of Appeals and he won there, and they have appealed it to the U.S. Supreme Court. This radio station owner undoubtedly has spent somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000 in legal expenses, fighting to preserve his station license (and indirectly to preserve my right of free speech). Now, if I make myself too troublesome, to him, he may decide he just doesn't want to carry my program any further; so I don't argue with him about it: I let the thing go on that way.
On one of my broadcast tapes, I mentioned the fact that, as the Bible tells you, after Cain killed Abel, Cain up to that time had been a farmer, you remember, and God said "Cursed is the ground for your sake. I will not hereafter yield you its strength." And Cain said, "My punishment is greater than I can bear. You have driven me off the face of the land, and I'll be a wanderer and a vagabond." And I said, "I suppose you have noticed that the children of Cain are not farmers today. You find them in the financial, money lending institutions." Now, I didn't use the forbidden word "Jew." I just said, "The Children of Cain" - and the Jew cut that out of my tape. As a Jew he knew exactly Who I was talking about. Yes, they know it.
You know, the Bible says that Cain said, "Why, you've driven me out of this land where the descendants of Adam would be." And he said, "Wherever I go, whoever meets me will kill me." And in those days there were a lot of places that weren't too hospitable to strangers. If as the preachers say, Adam and Eve were the parents of the only people on earth (the only other child had been Abel and he was dead); now with Cain driven away from Adam and Eve, out into some other part of the earth, who was he going to meet there to kill him? And you remember, it says that he very speedily found enough people, that with them he built a city. So the Bible recognizes these pre-Adamite races. But God said, "Well, I'll put a mark on you, so that people will recognize you and not kill you." Now, what was this mark? Did God tattoo something on the sole of his foot or where he would sit down on it? No. Long before any hidden mark could possibly have been seen, he would have been killed. God had to put it where it was the first thing they would see, and He put it right in the exact geometrical center of his face: that big Jew nose which they have borne ever since, and the sculptured monuments of the ancient empires show it.
The ancient kings were extremely vain of the conquests they had made. The pharaohs of Egypt, the kings of Babylon, the kings of Assyria, the kings of Persia, all left elaborately carved monuments telling how they had captured this city or that, and massacred so many of its inhabitants and made slaves of the others, and took so much loot, and so forth. In addition to the inscriptions they nearly always had a carved panel illustrating this, showing some of the captives. Now wherever any of these show an Israelite, it is invariably a straight nose, typical, what we would call an Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian or Teutonic type of face. But where it shows these Canaanite peoples, it is always a typical hook-nose Jew.
The evidence of the evidence of archaeology all show one thing, definitely, right down the line: the existence of the Satanic seed line, and the existence of the other seed line of God's own children.