The Two Seedline Teaching Explained
Ken McFarland, Northern Ireland
EDITOR'S NOTE: We are printing this article for the sake of clarification. Readers frequently ask if the Ensign Trust subscribes to the belief that Eve had a sexual encounter with Satan, thus producing a race of people sired by the Prince of darkness.
THE invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century brought about a revolution in knowledge and learning the effects of which were felt no more so, than in the religious sphere. As a result of the Bible now being accessible to the common man, many began to challenge the dogmas and traditions of the Roman Church culminating in what became known as the Protestant Reformation.
Today an equally ground-breaking revolution is taking place due to the introduction of the home computer and with it, the intemet and the World Wide Web. Again, for those who have an interest in such matters, religious study has entered an entirely new realm. Never before have religious beliefs and teaching been subjected to such scrutiny, with again many denominational doctrines being challenged.
I believe the effects of this new revolution have yet to be fully grasped by those in authority within many denominations who, because of deeply held doctrinal positions, are often incapable of addressing the issues raised. Failure to address such issues, or in the case of those who would seek to defend our Israelite origins,
While I fully appreciate that the 'Seedline' issue which I seek to address in this article is by no means prevalent, and indeed more often than not has never even been heard of by many who believe in our Israel heritage, the fact remains that because this viewpoint is credited with having grown out of Israel identity teaching and with this connection often highlighted by way of 'links' and associated articles on many internet sites, this issue can no longer be overlooked if our integrity is to be maintained.
In opening up the subject, let me first quote from the words of the apostle Paul as recorded in Titus 1:10-16:
The apostle Paul here warns us that 'vain talkers', especially those who would claim to be true descendants of Abraham, (of the circumcision) would continue to adhere to false 'Jewish fables' and in so doing, pervert the truth. To come straight to the point, it gives me no pleasure to say that one such 'Jewish fable' which continues to discredit and pervert the truth today, is the "Two Seedline" doctrine. This seedline teaching, which is based on a false interpretation of one passage from the Old Testament, and a few passages from the New Testament, must be addressed if the wonderful truth of our Israel Identity, and with it the key to understanding end time Bible Prophecy, is to be preserved intact at this vital time.
Because the two seedline hypothesis is found nowhere in plain texts of scripture, its adherents have to take us deep into what they claim are the 'correct' meanings and translation of certain words and phrases in order to reveal this 'hidden message'. As a consequence, it is only when we too take time to look at these words and phrases, and seek to properly explain their true meaning in context, that we can highlight the errors which undermine the entire teaching. This can indeed be quite tedious but is nonetheless necessary if the word of God is to be defended. Therefore, let us briefly examine the passages in question.
The one Old Testament passage which is used to support the seedline case is found in Genesis 3:1-21, where we have the account of how Eve was deceived by the serpent in the Garden of Eden. The seedliner's interpretation of this passage goes something like this; the sin committed by Eve in the Garden of Eden was physical, sexual adultery with Satan. As a result of this sexual union, Cain was conceived and in turn he became the progenitor of a wicked seed line of people who continue to reside on the earth today.
Despite the fact that in Genesis 4:1 we are clearly informed that, "Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD", seedliners insist on dissecting some verses in Genesis 3 in order to muddy the waters. First of all the seedliners declare that the Hebrew word 'akal', translated 'eat', as used in the context of Genesis 3:1-7, refers to the act of sexual intercourse. If indeed this is case, then this same word, which is used in the same context in Genesis 2:16 where God, "commanded the man, (Adam) saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat', (akal) must also mean the same thing. Are we therefore to believe that God permitted Adam to have intimate relations with other beings or Satan's in the Garden of Eden as he pleased? I for one don't think so.
Seedliners further declare that the word 'touch', Genesis 3:3, from the Hebrew 'naga' has sexual connotations and as such implies again, that a carnal liaison took place between Eve and Satan. However 'naga', out of the 155 times it appears in scripture, is only used on two occasions where it conclusively refers to sexual relations. Furthermore, according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, on which the seedliners rely, any sexual connotation that can be drawn from the word 'naga' is in the context of, "to lie with a woman", (Strong's No 5060). Are we therefore to assume that, as a result of Eve's 'sexual' sin, Cain's supposed wicked seed line originated from a lesbian relationship?
Continuing in Genesis 3:13; "And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said. The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat": attention is now drawn to the Hebrew word, 'nasha', interpreted, 'beguiled', which seedliners are adamant must be interpreted, 'sexually seduced'. However, of the sixteen times this word 'nasha' is used in the Old Testament, not once is it used with sexual connotations. If we allow scripture to interpret scripture the apostle Paul clarifies the matter:
Again in keeping with the Hebrew, 'nasha', the Greek word, 'exapatao' translated here in II Corinthians 11, as 'beguiled' is not once used with sexual connotations on any of the six occasions it appears. Therefore, far from instructing the members of the Corinthian Church, both male and female, that they must not
Genesis 3:15 is now brought under the spotlight, and it is this verse, more than any other, that seedliners rely on to bolster their viewpoint.
In stating that as Eve's seed line here in verse 15 is physical, they suppose that the serpent's seed line must also be physical in nature. However, while supporting references to any such on-going physical battle, with some inherently 'evil race' are impossible to find, the apostle Paul clarifies the matter when he informs us that:
In fact, the New Testament often portrays the flesh and the spirit at odds or at enmity with each other. For example, Matthew 26:41 speaks of "the willingness
It should be particularly noted in the above passage that the flesh and the spirit are spoken of as being contrary to one another. The word "contrary" comes from the Greek word "antikeimai," and is also translated in the New Testament as "adversary" and "opposeth." In other words, the flesh and the Spirit are adversarial, antagonistic, hostile, that is, at enmity with one another.
While seedliners persist with the view that Genesis 3:15 refers to two literal seed lines, and as such is proof that Satan was the father of Cain, the plain truth of scripture is found in Genesis 4:1-2, where we can clearly see that both Cain and Abel were fathered by Adam. Later in Genesis 4:3-7, we are further informed that Abel chose good, as opposed to Cain, who chose evil and again, while the seedliners insist that the evil in Cain was genetic, Genesis 4:7 clearly affirms that he had a choice:
f therefore, Cain had been Satan's son, the seedliners must come to terms with the fact that, had he made the appropriate sacrifice, God would have had no alternative but to accept him!
Continuing in Genesis 3:16-19:
Conceming the above passage, seedliners take the position that due to the punishment handed down to Eve, in that she was to endure pain and sorrow in childbirth, the original sin must have been sexual in nature. The argument being that the penalty must fit the crime. However, as Adam's sin was also sexual in nature, according to them, their case is somewhat undermined again when we consider that the male suffers no such pain and sorrow during the act of intercourse. Also, before leaving this passage, it is worth noting again that if the word 'eat', equates to a sexual experience, (as the seedliner's suggest is the case in Genesis 3:1-7) then the use of the same word here in Genesis 3:17-18 would imply that God is in effect condemning Adam to sin again by telling him that he "shalt eat (akal) the herb of the field".
Before leaving the book of Genesis, there is one final question to be answered which is, why is Cain not listed anywhere in Adam's Geneology? Seedliners make great play from this fact, stating that Cain is not listed because he is not Adam's son. However if this were correct, then we are forced to conclude that all Adam's other children (Genesis 5:4) who are not listed must also be children of Satan. Quite simply, the reason Cain is not listed is because most of the Bible focuses on Adam's lineage through Seth, which eventually produced our Lord Jesus Christ.
We will now examine the New Testament passages which seedliners point to in support of their viewpoint and in particular the phrase, "generation of vipers" as found in Matthew 3:7, 12:34, 23:33 and Luke 3:7 While the seedliners are quick to point out that the Greek word "gennema", translated "generation" can also be rendered "offspring" or "brood", and in so doing insist that this term be taken literally, their argument again falls down when they state that the word "vipers" does not mean a literal viper, but rather is symbolic of Satan. A brief look at each of these passages in context will further clarify the matter.
As we look therefore at this phrase, "generation of vipers" as found in Matthew 3:7-8, & Luke 3:7-8, let us first remind ourselves that the Bible often uses such terms as "children", "sons", "daughters" "offspring" etc. in a non-literal fashion. For example we often find such terms as, "children of light", "children of hell", "children of promise", "children of wrath" and "children of God" with none of these phrases meant to be taken literally. And so it is with John the Baptist as he simply directs this derogatory term, "O generation of vipers" at the entire multitude (Luke 3:7) including the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 3:7). In fact, far from telling all those assembled that they were literal sons and daughters of Satan, John addresses the crowd as Abraham's children, telling them that though they may be descended from Abraham, only true repentance was acceptable. (Matthew 3:9 & Luke 3:8) Also, worth noting is the fact that if the assembled crowd were the actual descendants of Satan, why did tell them that they needed to repent. After all, you can only repent for what you have done, not for who you are!
The next passage we must examine is Matthew 12:34, where our Lord Jesus labels the Pharisees a "generation of vipers". Again, taken in context, this has nothing to do with what is in their genes, but rather with what is in their hearts. A proper reading of the two verses in question will clearly establish this fact.
To digress for a moment, let me say that at the commencement of our Lord's address here in Matthew 12, he issues a stern warning which should be noted by all Israel Identity believers who would shirk away from addressing this seedline issue:
Finally we see the phrase, "Ye generation of vipers" recorded again in Matthew 23:33, where our Lord Jesus declares, "Ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Again the seedliners proclaim that because this phrase is used here, the Pharisees to whom it is addressed must be the literal offspring of Satan. However, this view is immediately contradicted in the very next verse when these same Pharisees are called Israelites:
Now, before I am accused of inserting the phrase "Judahite Israelites" without authority, let me ask the question, if these Pharisees were of the literal seed line of Satan, why would our Lord send the prophets and wise men unto them, after all, was not our Lord quite clear as to where the apostles were to go;
The fact of the matter is that these Pharisees were rebellious Israelites, so completely tied up in Talmudic traditions that they refused to listen to the words of Jesus and His Apostles and as a consequence, were denouncing all over again, the Prophets of old who had predicted that these days would come.
This 'stiff-necked' Israelite trait is further confirmed as our Lord continues to address the Pharisees:
Seedliners attempt to say that because the Pharisees here are charged with the murders of all the righteous from Abel to Zacharias, this proves that they are the literal seed of Satan via some Esau/Edomite lineage. First of all, while I would accept that there was an Edomite influence prominent within Jewry during the time of
On the contrary, there are numerous scripture references which fully back up the claim that it was again Israelites that actually perpetrated these crimes. Let us therefore 'look in the mirror' so to speak and consider, Jeremiah 2:28-34:
The prophet Nehemiah also levels the same accusation at the "seed of Israel" (Nehemiah 9:2) and states that despite the many blessings that were bestowed upon them following their deliverance from Egypt and repatriation into the promised land, these same Israelites, "were disobedient, and rebelled against thee, and cast thy law behind their backs, and slew thy prophets which testified against them to turn them to thee", Nehemiah 9:26.
As we conclude on this point let us retum to Matthew 23, and read the words of our Lord as recorded in verse 37:
If the seedliners seek to pervert the term "Jerusalem" to represent some satanic seed line manifest in the Edomites, then they are forced to admit that it was in effect, these children of Satan that our Lord intended to gather unto himself.
Continuing to look at the New Testament passages which are used to support the seedline teaching, we now turn to the the parable of the wheat and the tares, and in particular the reply given by our Lord to the disciples when they asked;
In declaring that the tares sown by the "wicked one" represent a literal physical seed line of Satan through Cain, the seedliners must then accept that the wheat would automatically represent a literal seed line from God through Seth. If this was indeed the case, then these sons of the kingdom, manifest in the wheat, would be saved simply because of their race, or lineage. Such a view runs completely contrary to scripture and would in effect make the atoning sacrifice of our Lord Jesus on Calvary's hill totally unnecessary.
Quite simply, the two crops represent two philosophies, one good and one evil, at work within the one group of people, the lesson being that it will only be the elect remnant, who follow the philosophy and teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ that will be saved. This truth, although unpalatable to some, is laid out in Romans 9:27
Confirmation of the truth that any physical lineage guarantees nothing is also found in Matthew 8:11-12:
Next, we come to a passage much quoted by seedliners, John 8:44: "Ye are of your father the devil ... " Again, those who would seek to defend the two seedline position, incorrectly state that the Pharisees to whom Jesus is speaking to here, are in actual fact Edomites, and as such are literal blood descendants of
First of all, as we examine the passage in context, the phrase, "Ye are from beneath; I am from above" (verse 23), far from proving that these Pharisees were descended from Satan, simply reaffirms the position that the Lord Jesus was virgin-born from above while the rest of humanity is born through natural means here below. Also, taken in context, the following words in verse 23, "ye are of this world; I am not of this world", again simply reaffirm the scriptural position that everyone, is of this world until they are born again from above.
The implications of the next verse also prove difficult for the seedliners when we read the words of our Lord,
Quite simply, if these Pharisees were literal seed line descendants of Satan, our Lord's pleas to them would have been a complete waste of time as it would have been a foregone conclusion that they would die in their sins. Once again the seed line position flounders and gospel truth is upheld.
Continuing in John 8, we find these Pharisees correctly pointing out that they are "Abraham's seed" verse 33, and indeed our Lord Jesus affirms this position in verse 37; "I know that ye are Abraham's seed". Nonetheless the seedliners still persist and point to the fact that as the Israelites were in bondage in Egypt, and as the Judahites were in bondage in Babylon, these Pharisees in stating that they "were never in bondage to any man" (verse 33), could not be either Israelites or Judahites but must therefore be descendants of Satan via their hypothetical Edomite lineage. If indeed the Pharisees were referring to some physical bondage, (which was not the case as the context of the discussion here is spiritual bondage) this idea might at first seem plausible. However we can easily put paid to this particular invention when we consider that the Edomites are recorded as having been in bondage to King David, II Samuel 8:13-14, and under the control of Judah, II Kings 8:20-22 & II Chronicles 21:8. Yet again, in the true light of scripture, the seedliners position becomes untenable.
Finally now, having set the context, we can look at John 8:38:44:
Seedliners naturally claim that the case is sealed here as our Lord Jesus, in effect disowns the Pharisees and declares unequivocally that Satan is their father. While we have already proved that this is not the case, let us assume for one last time that the seedliners are correct and that the phrase "ye are of your father the devil" must be interpreted literally, making these Pharisees literal, blood line, sons of Satan through Cain. As such, what are we to make of the statement of "If God were your Father, ye would love me". Are we to assume therefore, that anyone who loves the Lord Jesus is a literal blood descendant of God via Seth as a result of a sexual relationship between our Creator and Eve? This scenario of course is preposterous, but if the two seed line position is to be consistent, this is the only conclusion.
Finally, let me introduce the last passage we must address concerning this point; I John 3:11-12:
In effect this passage says the sarne thing as John 8:44, and as such, is also interpreted literally by the seedliners. However, again we have another statement in the
Again, if the two seedline position is to appear consistent, they are forced to accept that the term "sons of God" also refers to a literal seed line fathered by God. The truth of the matter is that even the seedliners themselves do not believe this.
One further point worth noting is that here in the same passage, we have another statement by John which raises serious questions for the seedliners; I John 3:8:
Are we therefore to conclude that anyone who commits sin is of a literal satanic seed line? Again, if the seedline position is to be consistent we would have to answer yes to this question; however, even the seedliners themselves are forced to admit that this view is complete nonsense.
To conclude, the seedliners are inconsistent when interpreting the term "father" as used in John 8 and I John 3, and indeed the terms, "father", "son", and
The reason of course is quite simple, in that if they were to admit the phrase is to be taken literally here, they would then also have to admit that these Levites, as blood descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are also literal blood descendants of Satan.
Having established that there is no basis in scripture for the two seedline teaching, it is only right therefore that we take a moment to examine what exactly did happen in the Garden of Eden. First of all, it must be appreciated that the language used here in Genesis 3 is highly symbolic, and as such, I do not believe that Adam and Eve were banished from the garden for simply eating an apple at the behest of a talking snake. It is necessary therefore to establish from scripture, what exactly is represented by the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil".
In opening up the subject, we first notice that when the serpent began to deceive Eve, she saw that the "tree (of the knowledge of good and evil) was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise", Genesis 3:6. It is interesting to note that these same characteristics are attributed to the law of God in Psalm 19 7-11:
The necessity of the law and the fact that it is represented here in the Garden of Eden by the trees is further borne out when we read in Genesis 2:9 that the other trees are also described as, "pleasant to the sight. and good for food". However, having established that the law itself is necessary, and indeed good, we still have to answer the question, what was it that God warned Adam against when He instructed him:
The key to answering this question is found in Genesis 3:4-5 where, the serpent having convinced Eve that if she disobeys God, she "shall not surely die", proceeds to further entice Eve with the promise that:
Here the serpent tells Eve that if she would only listen to him, she too can be like God knowing good and evil. By way of confirming the point I am about to make, we also see God declaring the same thing in Genesis 3:22 where, as a result of the sin committed by both Adam and Eve, He declares, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, (a god) to know good and evil". Clearly again, it is not the law itself that is in focus here as neither the keeping, nor the breaking of the law, has the potential to make us as gods. Instead I want to draw your attention to the word 'knowledge' as used in the phrase, "the tree of the knowledge of good
Up to that point in time, Adam and Eve had never questioned God. They simply obeyed His Laws, represented by the other trees in the garden with which they were encouraged to familiarize themselves and "freely eat"(Genesis 2:16). Good was good, and evil was evil, purely because their Creator said so. By now seeking the knowledge as to why good was good, and why evil was evil, Adam and Eve not only challenged the authority of God, but in so doing they put themselves on a level footing with God, and in effect made themselves "as gods": Furthermore, having presumed themselves "wise" and questioned God's perfect
We can now see how a true interpretation of God's word truly portrays the fall of man, and how untenable the seedline hypothesis really is. If the original sin was
As we bring our, all too brief, study to a close, it is clear that in every case where the seedline doctrine is put to the test, scripture proves it to be a spurious non-biblical based hypothesis. And as such we must ask; if this teaching is not found in the Bible, from where did it originate? Before we answer this question, I refer again to the passage with which I commenced this study, and particularly, the warning that we should refrain from "giving heed to Jewish fables". It therefore may come as a surprise to some, that the origins of this false teaching are found in the Babylonian Talmud, the Cabala and related Jewish writing.
For example, we read, "For when the serpent came upon Eve he injected lust into her" (Shabbath 146b, Talmud)
"...at the time that the snake had intercourse with Eve, he introduced filth into her". (Yevamot 103b, Talmud)
"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, etc." (Genesis III, 1.)
"More subtle' that is towards evil; 'than all the beasts' that is, the idolatrous people of the earth. For they are the children of the ancient serpent which seduced Eve...." (Zohar I, 28b, The Jewish Cabala)
In light of all the evidence produced, I would invite everyone to truthfully consider the following question - who gains most from this seedline perversion? Unfortunately I am able to answer this very question from personal experience and state that if this issue is not addressed, it will split congregations as adherents to this seedline teaching become more and more extreme and as a result more and more disparaging towards brothers and sisters who do not share their views.
Secondly, this false teaching acts like a weed killer, laying waste to entire communities when, following the collapse of a seedline group (which invariably happens), any attempts by genuine believers to resurrect our Israel Identity teaching along truly scriptural lines, is met with opposition as they are tainted with these previous views, even though they may have long disappeared. And so to answer the question, as to who really benefits from this two seedline teaching, I can say with some authority that it is only those who would oppose the true gospel of the kingdom that benefit in the long term.
Our Israel Identity can easily be defended from Scripture when we examine the doctrine of election, against the errors of replacement theology. Our true identity can also be defended, in light of the many prophecies fulfilled in the Anglo Saxon/Celtic/Scandinavian and related peoples, due to the great missionary exploits of first, the early Culdee/Celtic Church, and later as a result of the Protestant Reformation, following which the gospel was taken to, "all the families of the earth". Genesis 12:3, 18:18, 28:14. Sadly however, one consequence of the seedline teaching is that these missionary exploits, and with them one of the pillars which support our true identity, become discredited and undermined.
To conclude I can only reiterate how vitally important it is to take a stand on this seedline issue not least because it will drive away new converts, with the result that our numbers will become even more depleted in the years that lie ahead. Again, I quote Matthew 12:25:
In closing this all too brief study, let me put on record the fact that I owe a great debt of gratitude to evangelist and author Ted Weiland whose book, 'Eve, Did She or Didn't She' provided much of the material for this study, and in so doing I would strongly encourage anyone interested in further studying this subject to acquire a copy of MrWeiland's book. Amen.
Orange Street Congregational Church