Two Peoples


by Pastor Jim Jester

September 10, 2023

SCRIPTURE READING: Genesis 25:20-23

And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah to wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padanaram, the sister to Laban the Syrian. 21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD. 23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.


The seed for this sermon was planted in my mind with a recent book on the history of Christian Identity messengers. A very interesting book, but it began my mind brainstorming along the topic of Two Seedline.

This topic greatly concerns me because there are those in Christian Identity and Christian Israelism who deny the Dual Seedline doctrine. I have always sought to find unity within the church, for we have far too many things that divide us already. Most prominently, what has divided the Christian world, has been the controversies from the Reformation period, which were seeded by the debates between Calvinism and Arminianism. For most of us in C. I., this conflict has been resolved by Covenant Theology. Anyway, it did not make sense to me that many pastors in our movement are divided on this point; but maybe I can help to resolve the situation. And more importantly, the main point of the seedlines is that we can identify our enemy.

In the previous sermon (Does America Deserve God’s Blessing?) designed to teach the judeo-Christian world the truth of Christian Identity, I showed the difference between the jews and true Israel. This sermon will show them how these two people groups came about. It seems obvious to me that if there are two racial groups, one accepted and the other rejected by God, then there must be two genetic seedlines that have perpetuated these two groups of people down through history.

Those who deny a dual seedline doctrine, and at the same time recognize the truth of these two racial groups, I certainly can have fellowship, even though I don’t understand their position. But I must say that I cannot believe them when they deny two seedlines, because, for all practical purposes, they believe that the other races are rejected, while Israel is accepted. So, perhaps their argument lies in how the seedlines have come about rather than if they came about at all. And, perhaps the answer lies in their definition of “Satan.”

I hope this sermon will be helpful to all.


In the perspective of the psychologist, everyone is either sane or insane. To the judge, the suspect is either not-guilty or guilty. To the politician, the citizen is either of the elite or of the deplorable. To the evangelical, everyone is either of the “saved” or of the lost. But to Christian Identity, everyone on earth is born either of good seed or of bad seed.

From our opening Scripture reading, Genesis 25:23a, And the LORD said to her [Rebekah], “Two nations are in your womb, two peoples shall be separated from your body…” (NKJV)

This verse is prophetic of what would result from the birth of the twins, Esau and Jacob. The RSV says this, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples, born of you, shall be divided.” (Gen. 25:23a) Now, it is possible that we can take this version in a slightly different meaning.Note that “separated” and “divided” are very similar terms, but the object may change. In one verse, these people are “separated from your body [birthing];” in the other verse, these people born of Rebekah, “shall be divided” [split up, in conflict]. The KJV says, “…two manner[kinds, types] of people shall be separated from thy bowels [body].” We need not be dogmatic about which of these is closest to being correct; but we can see from history that they both have been true. The literal birthing speaks for itself, but the historic conflict of the ages is still going on between these two peoples (races). Genesis 25:23b, “…the one [Jacob’s seed]shall be stronger than the other [Esau’s seed], the elder [Esau] shall serve the younger [Jacob].”


We read in chapter four of Genesis:

      And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. (Gen. 4:1-2a)

The word “again” in this verse is curious. Of its significance, we cannot be sure, but it could mean there was something unusual about her pregnancy.

Genesis chapter five gives us the record of Adam s descendants.

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.(Gen. 5:3)

Where is Cain if he was born of Adam and Eve? He is not listed in this genealogy. He was not of Adam, but was conceived “of that wicked One” (I Jn. 3:12). We must conclude that Cain had a different father, the serpent.”Biology tells us there is the possibility of a double pregnancy (known by the term, Heteropaternal Superfecundation). We believe this was true of Eve. Adam Clarke says in his commentary:

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.” (Clarke, p. 24)

If “Satan” was not a literal physical being then there could not have been a literal conception with Eve. But of course, there was a conception, for the woman said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.” (Gen. 3:13b)Then God said to the serpent, “Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed…” (Gen. 3:14a) “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed…” (Gen. 3:15a) So here was the introduction of the dual seedline: the serpent’s offspring and the woman’s offspring.

Eve’s seedline was to come through Abel, but because of his murder by Cain, the seedline came later through Seth. Eve was mistaken when she said, “… I have gotten a man from the Lord.” Cain could not have been referred to as from God if he were of the “evil one.” She must have had the hope, as females do, that one day she would bear the child that would fulfill the promise of the woman’s seed. God had promised her a seedline that would bruise the head of the serpent. When the child arrived, she assumed her seedline had begun. She was wrong, for we know her seedline did not begin until Seth was born.

The origin of these children, Cain, Abel, and Seth, is explained in the parable of the wheat and the tares, found in Matthew 13:24-30 and 13:36-43. In Matthew 13:37 our Lord says: He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man,”meaning Himself. Since the Father and Son are one (q.v. Col. 2:9), He is the Founder and Creator of the Adamic race. Good seed continue to be sown, every time an Adamite child is born. He then says, ...the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil...” (Matt. 13:38-39). So it is evident that the enemy who …came and sowed tares among the wheat…” (Matt. 13:25) is the devil, the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan…” (Rev. 12:9). When may all of this have happened, except in the garden with Adam, Eve, and the serpent, as shown in Genesis chapter 3, albeit shrouded in symbolism?

The children of the kingdom” aren t, as many suppose, some future people who may decide to be Christians. Rather, they are the House of Israel and the House of Judah (Heb. 8:8). One is either born into this seedline, or is not. It is not a matter of belief, or decision, or a spiritual “born again” experience. It is a matter of proper genetic joining. Paul explains (Heb. 2:14) that the children have already taken part in flesh and blood, and they continue to do so.


The debate over a two seedline doctrine is almost a moot point, because there are undoubtedly two groups of people fighting each other for a position of supremacy in the world. The “non-seedline” (only one seedline) person is “barking up the wrong tree.” The only question up for debate now is to how it all came about. Perhaps this is where their point of contention lies.

Regarding the twins of Rebekah, where did Esau go wrong? He corrupted his descendants by marrying into the wrong seedline.

And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite: Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah. (Gen. 26:34-35)

This was evidently the seedline of the Adversary (Satan), the line of Cain.

Regarding the twins of Eve, what happened in her case? A double pregnancy by two different fathers: the evil one called Cain (the firstborn), by his father the “devil” (serpent), and the good one called Abel, by his father Adam.

Now, I put quotes around the word “devil” because sometimes it can be difficult to distinguish exactly who the devil is. I should give an example:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (Isa. 14:12)

We often think of Lucifer as another name for Satan; this may or may not be justified. Clarke had this to say, which is quite enlightening:

“O Lucifer, son of the morning”— The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render heilelas signifying Lucifer, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn. And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer (the bringer of light!), an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil. That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines [theologians] have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. Heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, Howl, son of the morning;” and so the Syriac has understood it. (Adam Clarke)

In Ezekiel we are told that Satan, at one time, was an anointed cherub; and perhaps he was the chief over all the cherubim. It would seem to indicate that as Ezekiel addresses him in the form of the king of Tyre, “The anointed cherub that covers. Thou has been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering…” and so forth. “Thou wast perfect in all your ways until the day that iniquity was found in thee.” (Ezek. 28:13-15) And then he speaks of his fall.

Isaiah tells us exactly what the iniquity was. It was his declaring, “I will…” (Isa. 14:14), in opposition to God s will. The context of Isaiah reveals he is speaking of the king of Babylon, not necessarily Satan; although we may consider the king a type or figure of Satan. In the same manner, Ezekiel spoke of the king of Tyre as a figure of Satan.

Is the devil a fallen angel? Is he a wicked ruler? Is he simply a personification for the embodiment of evil? Did he exist at one time in the past, but now only lives in his descendants? Is he a shape-shifter? I’m trying to cover all the possibilities, because I believe those who deny a duel seedline do so on the basis of whether Satan exists or not. Without a Satan there cannot be his very own seedline.

I am not saying there is no devil; but I will say that there is no mythical being with a pointed tail and horns who has god-like powers. There is only one true God! The term “Satan” can be viewed as a dysphemism for the actual person. Isn’t this a real possibility? The dictionary says a “dysphemism is a derogatory or unpleasant term used instead of a pleasant or neutral one, such as ‘loony bin’ for ‘mental hospital’; the opposite of euphemism.” Jesus said to Peter at one point of disagreement, Get thee behind me, satan…” Satan means adversary or opposition. He did not mean to imply that Peter had literally turned into Satan. At least in this case, “Satan” was a dysphemism.

The Apostle Paul said there was “spiritual wickedness in high places” (Eph. 6:12); but how do I really know that some of these entities are fallen angels (as Satan), or that some are men who are agents of Satan acting against God’s people? Satan is not always that fallen angel with horns and a tail. Many times he is that very evil dictator oppressing the righteous at his (Satan’s) bidding.

Perhaps those who deny two seedlines, do so because they do not believe in a literal Satan, a fallen angel that had the ability to impregnate Eve. Without a devil, there is no evil seedline. Thus, there is only one seedline representing all men (which sounds quite universal).


Our Lord Jesus Christ witnesses to the truth of two-seedlines (as well as in His parable of the Wheat and Tares, and other statements):

John 8:44a, [Speaking to the Jews] Ye are of your father the devil [the serpent], and the lusts of your father ye will do.

Luke 11:51, From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation [this race, this seedline].

The Apostle Paul makes an obvious allusion to Genesis 3:15 when he tells the Romans, And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” (Rom. 16:20)

The early church also has witnessed to the truth of two-seedlines. Clifton Emahiser, a Christian Identity teacher of the past, has reported on this history.


Most of you are aware of the extensive research I have done on the subject of Two Seedline. I will now present solid evidence that Two Seedline is no new doctrine as some insinuate. I get this testimony from the book The Celtic Church In Britain by Leslie Hardinge, in a chapter entitled The Role of the Scriptures,” page 48. Though Hardinge does not trace the Celtic Church back to the church set up at Glastonbury by Joseph of Arimathea about five years after the Passion, he does, however, quite well after 400 A.D., and proficiently documents his material. In this chapter he demonstrates the various methods of teachings used by the Celtic clergy. One of those methods was a question and answer liturgy of which the following is an authentic specimen (answers in parentheses):

Who died but was never born? {Adam} Who gave but did not receive? {Eve, milk} Who was born but did not die? {Elias and Enoch} Who was born twice and died once? {Jonas the prophet, who for three days and three nights prayed in the belly of the whale. He neither saw the heavens nor touched the earth} How many languages are there? {Seventy-two}Who spoke with a dog? {St. Peter} Who spoke with an ass? {Balaam the prophet} Who was the first woman to commit adultery? {Eve with the serpent} How were the Apostles baptized? {The Saviour washed their feet}.” (Hardinge cites R. E. McNally, The Bible in the Early Middle Ages, 38-9, a translation of Ms. 908, The Ioca monachorum,” an eighth-century Celtic text.)

Now all of you anti-seedliners that have been running all over the country making all kinds of snide remarks and asking, If Two Seedline doctrine is true, why didn t the early Church Fathers teach it?” My answer is, They did teach it.” The anti-seedliners simply haven t done their homework!…

Hardinge finished this chapter by saying the following: ...The Celtic Church cherished a deep love of the Bible, and from the Epistles of St. Paul developed their theology. The Psalms were used in worship, and were the inspiration of poets and preachers. Without the influence of the views of church fathers, Celtic theologians set about discovering what the Scriptures meant. Their tenets and practices, based on this understanding, show the eclecticism and pragmatism of exegete and layman. The legislation of Moses pervaded social, economic, and legal relationships to an extent seldom seen in the history of other branches of the Church. Unlike the theologians of Roman Christianity who appealed more and more to the teachings of Church and councils, Celtic teachers stressed the Bible. The role of the Scriptures in Celtic Christianity was indeed a vital one, so much so that no thorough study of the beliefs and practices of the Christians of Celtic lands is possible without bearing this fact in mind.”

That Eve committed adultery with the serpent was one of the tenets that the Celtic clergy taught! Over the last several years, I have piled substantial evidence on top of substantial evidence. Yet hecklers on the sidelines continue to criticize my research. It will be interesting how they will try to gainsay this evidence… (

Another source which shows that the Celtic Church was not alone on Two Seedline can be found in The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, The Protevangelion” 10:1-10, speaking of Joseph s Mary:

1 And when her sixth month was come, Joseph returned from his building houses abroad, which was his trade, and entering into the house, found the Virgin grown big: 2 Then smiting upon his face, he said, With what face can I look up to the Lord my God? or, what shall I say concerning this young woman? 3 For I received her a Virgin out of the temple of the Lord my God! and have not preserved her such! 4 Who has thus deceived me? Who has committed this evil in my house, and seducing the Virgin from me, hath defiled her? 5 Is not the history of Adam exactly accomplished in me? 6 For in the very instant of his glory, the serpent came and found Eve alone, and seduced her. 7 Just after the same manner it has happened to me. 8 Then Joseph arising from the ground, called her, and said, O thou who hast been so much favoured by God, why hast thou done this? 9 Why hast thou thus debased thy soul, who wast educated in the Holy of Holies, and received thy food from the hand of angels? 10 But she, with a flood of tears, replied, I am innocent, and have known no man…”

I do not know of a single source that connects the Protevangelion with the Celtic Church! It surely is strange how these sources, though distant from each other both in space and time, seem to declare the same message! (


There are some things in Scripture that are “hard to understand” (See II Pet. 3:16). But we do what we can as “ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.” (I Cor. 4:1)

As I have said in the introduction, if you believe there are two racial groups, one accepted and the other rejected by God, then there must be two genetic seedlines that have perpetuated these two groups of people. If you believe this, then as far as I’m concerned, you are a two-seedliner, irrespective of what you call yourself. You are still accepted in fellowship with our Lord. There are some in our movement that I do not understand because I have not heard their argument, but I am willing to listen. If, in the future, I am convinced otherwise, then so be it; if not, then I will continue among those who accept the Dual Seedline doctrine.