The Kenites: A Rebuttal
Note To Internet Readers: The following rebuttal was written in response to a specific article given to me by an acquaintance, converted to HTML and now found here.
The controversy of the Kenites is a lesser-known interpretation of biblical accounts concerning a significant number of circumstances. While the Synagogue of Satan (hence referred by SOS) of Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 could refer to the scribes, in the line of those who were the primary accusers of Christ and thereby sentenced him to the (inevitable) sacrificial death, it could also apply to a significant number of other possibilities. Among these include others in the remaining of the ten tribes of Israel (non-Judahites and non-scribes) who professed but truly did not believed (see discussion in paragraph 1. (after the alphabetized list), or even a Christian group in a future scenario masquerading as official heirs to the line of Judah on the basis of the laws of adopted inhertance. Connecting the SOS to the scribes seems to be a significant leap in assumption, however.
Despite this, the relationship of the Kenites to Cain is not implausible -- but there are also exists significant scriptural evidence that links the Kenites as descendants of Seth. Also, the concept of Cain being unrelated to Adam is unlikely, since Eve's biological fingerprint is very similar if not identical to Adam since she came from his rib. If Cain's mother is Eve, Cain, in genetically traceable terms, came from Adam in some variety. Thus Cain is still a relative of Adam if not via traditional reproductive methods. For Cain to exist in some otherwise capacity, Satan, being an angel would have mated with Eve to produce Cain. The purpose of Noah's flood is speculated to be for the purposes of ridding the world of angel-human hybrids (a common rationale to give the theory of localized flooding momentum) -- which would include Cain and his descendants if the localized flood theory were true. I would not venture to assert that an effort of God, the flood, lacked thorough effectiveness.
As a precursor, allow me to acknowledge in agreement, that it is by trust and faith Christ's sacrifice for the recompense for the incurred sin debt alone by which heavenly citizenship is acquired, to the credit of Christ and not the believer. Given this overarching circumstance, a disagreement about the nature of the Kenites -- a doctrinal issue -- is somewhat trivial, despite having the potential to be a serious notation that encompasses more accurate understanding of scripture.
I became suspicious from the beginning due to the recommendation to use the King James Version specifically to look up the verses. Suggestions of an un-mainstream doctrine are frequently based on the wording from one translation, because it begins to fall apart in others. This is a selective nature of interpretation, rather than seeking what the scripture truly means. An abundance of scripture references need to be consulted, because the syntax of languages dissimilar to English (as Greek and Hebrew are) contain a variety of colloquialisms and references to common-knowledge of the time without being more specific. Other translations seek to more accurately explain these terms. For instance, if I were to write to a friend that "the day was cool", but my intent was to express that the day was good for me, he might assume I meant the day had a lower temperature. Wisely consulting other translations of the bible offers insight as to whether a word is what one suspects it might mean. A translation of my letter might instead decrypt it as, "the day was favorable to me" instead of "the day's temperature was less warm". Even still, I have opted to prove the Kenite doctrine highly unlikely using the KJV itself exclusively, although it appears in other translations likewise.
Discussion hereforth includes the origin and general discussion of the Kenites as cited by the OT and their relation to the SOS. Double checking the verses for accuracy, from one's own bible, is welcome and encouraged. Allow us to be likeminded in dilligence for truth as the Jews in Berea, according to Acts 17:11 -- "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
Now firstly the origin of the Kenites, if they are actually to be descendants of Abel's murderer Cain, need biblical evidence to indicate it so. I haven't been able to find adequate evidence to this case, but rather the reverse. The Kenites, as defined by Old Testament geneologies, appear more likely descendants of Seth -- not Cain.
(a) According to Genesis 15:18-19, scripture indicates that a section of land is given from the LORD to Abram's seed. The presence of the colon concluding verse 18 indicates that the land just indicated is to be given to the following people, previously indicated as Abram's seed -- The Kenites being the first group. The Kenite lineage to Abraham is backed up scripturally in section (c), (f) and (g).
(b) According to Genesis chapter five, Adam's descendants (exclusive of Cain) are noted. From Adam to Shem, we find: Adam (v1), Seth in v.3 (or Sheth in 1Chr.1:1), Enos in v.6 (or Enosh in 1Chr.1:1), Cainan in v.9 (noted as Kenan in 1.Chr.1:2), Mahalaleel (v.12), Jared (v.15), Enoch (v.18), Methuselah (v.21), Lamech (v.26), Noah (v.30), and finally Shem (v.32). The cross reference of Kenan in 1 Chronicles 1:2 seems a better link for the origin of the Kenites than to Cain in terms of surname roots. The book of first Chronicles itself refers to both the Kenites and Kenan. If Kenites does actually mean "sons of Cain", then it could refer to the name of spelling of Kenan given as "Cainan" in Genesis 5:9.
(c) In 1 Chronicles 1:17, the descendants of Shem are outlined. For the purposes of determining lineage of the Kenites, we discover the following path starting with Shem: Arphaxad (v.17, 24), Shelah (v.18, 24), Eber (v.18, 25), Peleg (v.19, 25), Reu (v.25), Serug (v.26), Nahor (v.26), Terah (v.26), Abram (v.27) being the same as Abraham as v.27 notes. Abram had a concubine named Keturah, with whom he begat Midian (v.32, 33). I must admit that the verse 32 merely states "the sons of Keturah" which could have existed prior to her link with Abraham, but would have unlikely been listed if so since the purposes of the passage are to indicate the lineage of Abraham.
(d) A reference is made in to the Kenites in 1 Chronicles 2:55 mentions scribes, but does not name the groups listed as the only scribes of Israel. From the grammar of the sentence, it would appear they were scribes beforehand, now being counted as scribes as a facet of Israel's tribal delegation of duty (refer to paragraph (i) below). Included are the Tirathites, Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These three make up the Kenites, having a forefather of Hemath, "the father of the house of Rechab." Therefore, Hemath fathered the house of Rechab and the Kenites. John Wesley's Bible Notes indicates Hemath is a Kenite, as well as that the scribes mentioned in this verse, "were either Levites, Simeonites or rather Kenites and are here mentioned not as if they were of the tribe of Judah, but because they dwelt among them and probably were allied to them by marriages, and so in a manner incorporated with them." It also seems that v.55 cites that these are scribes that dwelt at Jabez, as if there were scribes elsewhere that are not included in this verse.
An interesting point to the favor of the secret Kenite doctrine of becoming the SOS is that they did strictly adhere to their forefather Jonadab/Jehonadab's (Jeremiah 35) edict that lust-prone luxuries not be sought after. This type of strict intent to abstain does resemble the perceived mindset of Pharisee scribes of Jesus' time. However, they were commended by the LORD thereby, unlike how the Pharisees were discouraged by Christ later.
(e) Scripture searches for Rechab reveal the following -- [2 Samuel 4:2, 5-6, 9]; [2 Kings 10:15, 23]; 1 Chronicles 2:55, Nehemiah 3:14, and [Jeremiah 35:2-3, 5-6, 8, 14, 16, 18-19].
-- "And Saul's son had two men that were captains of bands: ... and the name of the other Rechab, the sons of Rimmon a Beerothite, of the children of Benjamin:" (2 Sam 4:2)
-- Jehonadab is "the son of Rechab" per 2 Kings 10:15
-- Malchaiah is "the son of Rechab" per Nehemiah 3:14
-- Jeremiah 35 is foremostly about the Rechabites. A comparison is made to the amazing obedience of the Rechabites to their forefather Jonadab, who proclaimed they should not give into pleasures that have potential to be abused -- such as drinking. Owning a house is included in the list of things to avoid, so they lived in tents***. A remark is made in this chapter that it is amazing that these Rechabites could heed with such esteem a mere man and obey his command than Judah could do to esteem the words of the LORD, making Judah's disobedience more easily apparent. In v.18 Jeremiah proclaims mercy to be given to the house of the Rechabites for their remarkable obedience. This sets the Rechabites, forebearers of the Kenites, to be of merit in the eyes of the LORD according to Jeremiah. This makes the Kenites out to be more righteous than Judah in the eyes of the LORD, the all-knowing (according to Jeremiah).
*** -- Cain's descendants are described in Genesis 4:17-18, starting with Enoch (v.17), Irad (v.18), Mehujael (v.18), Methusael (v.18) and finally Lamech (v.18). Lamech took two wives, Adah and Zillah. With Adah came Jabal (v.20) the father of tent dwellers, as well as Jubal (v.21). With Zillah came Tubal-cain and his sister Naamah. It is reported that Lamech supposedly slew Cain and was thence cursed. There doesn't seem to be any indication that Cain's Lamech and Methuselah's Lamech were the same person since they are noted in different geneologies, despite the similarity to Kenites (who live in tents). Cain's geneology of Genesis 4:17 and following seems to rather abruptly cease as if they died out from the Cain-borne Lamech's rather tragic mistake and thenceforth curse. It might also be noted that there is a city named Naamah, which was given to Judah as an inheritance in Joshua 15:41.
(f) In Numbers 10:29, a notation is made that a man named Hobab being Moses' father-in-law. The verse also notes that Hobab is the son of Raguel, a Midianite priest. Midian is the offspring of Keturah and Abram. This compares with the mention of Jethro in Exodus 3:1, who is described as Moses' father-in-law as well as being a priest of Midian. Midian is the offspring of Abram. Hobab and Jethro (same person? John Wesley's Bible Notes claim he is) are simultaneously a Midianite priest and the father of Zipporah (Moses' wife, Exodus 18:2), an Ethiopian.
(g) "Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses" seperated himself from the Kenites according to Judges 4:11. In (f) the verse states that Hobab is the son of Raguel, a Midianite priest, which makes Hobab the descendant of Midian, Keturah's (Abraham's concubine) son. The Kenites are therefore descended from Midian, in the line of Abraham -- and Abraham is a descendant of Seth.
(h) Somewhere in the mix, the descendants of Japeth and Shem (sons of Noah) possibly intertwine. In 1 Chronicles chapter one, Japeth begat Tiras (v.6 and Gen 10:2). This might be the forebearer of the Tirathites, three groups that descend from Hemath noted in (d) above being the begotten of the Rechab group. See Fig. K1.
(i) In Numbers 10:29, Jethro observes Moses being the answer-all person and considers this a bad idea due to the enormous size of the group he serves. Hobab (Zipporah's father) recommends delegating duties up to different sections of the group, of which Moses carries out. It is not implausible to suggest that Hobab had a motive in mind with his suggestion -- such as making an avenue through which the Kenites could more effectively "pretend" to be Judahites. This is undocumented, though, so it is completely speculative.
(j) Trivia -- a running list of all Kenites noted by name, descent or association, include (that I can find):
Hemath (1 Chron. 2:55),
the sons of Rechab -- [Jonadab (Jer.35:6) or Jehonadab (2 Kings 10:15) -- the same person] and Malchaiah (Neh.3:14),
the Tirathites, Suchathites, and Shimeathites (1 Chron. 2:55),
Heber (Judges 4:11), and Jael (Heber's wife)
Jethro (Exodus 3:1) and Hobab (Judges 4:11) -- same person, "father-in-law of Moses".
Regardless, the Kenites seem likely to be genetically descended from Seth as evidenced above. While the Kenites are "not Jews" (that is, from the tribe of Judah), they are indeed of the same blood line as Judah originated and thus seemingly less likely to be biologically children of the devil.
Further Rebuttal to Cited Evidence
1. The verses of John 8:31-47, where Christ addresses Jews who claim to be the seed of Abraham but "seek to kill me" appears at first to refer to the devil as their biological father -- but it is clear that he is referring to spiritual father instead. If eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is actually a euphemism for reproductive endeavors, we can see that Cain's lineage (of which was recorded, that is) stops abruptly and that the Kenites descended from Abraham. It would be further asserted that all unsaved people are children of the devil without knowing it (because they are being lied to, of course, Satan being the father of lies), according to the exchange starting in v.33. The Jews here insist that they are the biological sons of Abraham, but it seems clear that Christ is referring to spiritual begottenness. He remarks that if the Jews were actually spiritual-sons of Abraham (that is, in obedience to their father like the Rechabites were in Jeremiah 35), they would not be after to kill him. But since they are not, they are spiritual/obedience -sons to Satan, despite being DNA-wise sons of Abraham. In v.43 Christ asks them, "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word," making it rather clear that the Jews are hearing contrary to what Christ is saying -- that Christ is speaking in different terms that the Jews are. Having not been spiritually born of God, they are by default spiritually fallen, or sons of Satan -- which includes all people not in accordance of accepting Christ as God's Son, not just these Jews, since Christ set up the universal qualifyer of v.42. The reference in v.44 to "and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning," does not refer to Cain, as that would mean Christ is speaking on biological terms. It refers to Satan, a spiritual father (of whom one obeys or holds allegiance to) since "the lusts of your father ye will do." The lusts of Cain's spiritual father he did do, and murdered Abel. Cain's spiritual father was Satan, and obeyed Satan instead of God therefore murdering Abel. It is Satan who was the murderer from the beginning -- Cain was not present "in the beginning" at the creation of the heavens (which includes the angels, one of which being Satan/Lucifer).
2. In 1 John 3:10-12 (cited as v.10-11), we see that "children of God" refers to spiritual begottenness, not blood-borne descendants since Christ had no children aside from the adopted saints. The "children of the devil" would highly unlikely (and illogically) therefore, in the same sentence, refer to biological children. "Whoever doeth not righteousness is not of God" refers to the spiritual relationship, not the DNA variety. In the same vein, (since the verses were not originally numbered) it is logical to assert that the reference to Cain in v.12 is toward a spiritual "of that wicked one."
3. Rev.2:8-11 -- The passage cited supposedly contains remarks about the "Jews who are not Jews" so to speak, but the concept does appear to another church. For instance, in the address to the church of Ephesus (2:2), "thought has tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and found them liars." I have asked a number of learned colleagues if they can find any variety of relation between the SOS being identified as Kenites, and none resulted.
4. The reference to Ezekiel 28:12-17 should be noted that the king of Tyrus does not appear to me to be an actual man, but a symbol. Thus, it describes Satan's historical downfall and predicted obliteration, not the indwelt nature of Satan into a man as the Kenite article seems to assert.
5. The reference to "touch" as being "to lie with a woman" (Gen. 3:3) is merely one of many possible defintions -- which cannot conclude that any one of those defintions is the correct intent written. In the interest of seeking the truth of the matter, deciding on one possibility instead of seeking all possible avenues seems counterproductive. The inference that the location is a fig grove seems likewise overly assumptive, in that it (Gen.3:4-7) merely states that fig leaves were at hand or within easy reach. Considering that in a garden, according to our understanding, plants are grouped by type -- the location could be just as easily bordering an apple orchard and a fig grove, since there is apparently only one Tree of Knowledge of Good And Evil. That is, unless the reference to plants is merely euphemistic since the assertion was made that the Tree of Life was Christ. Further, Adam and Eve both obeyed their lusts for "wisdom to be as gods" and therefore according to the John 8:31 and 1 John 3:10-12 discussion above were "children of the devil" (spiritually) in that they did not what God had told them. The reference cited as 2 Corinthians 11:1-3 paying specific attention to "beguiled, which means wholly seduced" -- a seduction does not exclusively imply reproductive or sensual endeavors. A man may just as likely be seduced into gluttony because of the stimulus of the taste buds that bring him a stupor-like pleasure, not implying that he is romantically attracted to tasty combustibles. So likewise does Eve appear to be seduced. Beguiled (also in Genesis 3:13) seems to imply a rationalizing-type trickery, whereas it would "make sense" to disobey, especially since Genesis 3:6 notes that Eve saw that it was good for eating, pretty, and that it was plainly available -- three rationalizations to partake -- rather than being lured in a woo-some, sensual, come-hither scenario reminiscient of impulse action than thoughtful consideration.
6. Genesis 3:15, referring to enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of women (but does not mention a seed of men so may therefore mean the same one as women) seems to suggest the reason snakes bite near the foot (also being without legs now) and the reason we know it is best to sever a snake's head from its body to destroy its potency. The consequences that God deals to the serpent prior to this (v.14) does not seemingly befit the judgement toward Satan but to the species and kind thereof itself, in that it must crawl on its belly and be cursed of cattle (as cattle are indeed rather unsettled in the presence of snakes and like variety). Instead, the LORD tarried his doomsday sentencing, of the serpent's controller, clear until Rev.12:9. Likewise it could be mentioned that all of the consequences in the Genesis passage are foremostly physical and emotional, not spiritual. Thusly the serpent was cursed to crawl on its belly, women bear children with sorrow, and men despise eating from the ground and all to die. Not until the final judgements will spiritual consequences be delivered.
7. The remark, "I find it interesting that the first murder was committed in connection with religion," is misleading. The cause of the murder was not exactly an example religious intolerance, but sibling rivalry and obedience to a temptation. Religion did not cause it; religion was in proximity. Cain could just as likely have recognized his own faults and strived to correct them, but had jealousy (seperate from the altar sacrifices) of his brother Abel and slew him. Using the rationale of the statement, all murders documented in the bible could be associated with religion, despite evidence to the contrary that they were comitted by the fault of the individual responsible.
8. There is no apparent indication that Cain and Abel reached the age for sacrifice at the same time, since the text merely notes, "in the process of time it came to pass, that..." meaning loosely, "over the years, there came upon one situation, whereas..." which connotes that the incident about to be described happened out of a number of years later when they were sacrificing the fruits of their labor, nor indicates that this was the first, second or twelfth sacrifice either had made. While it neither indicates they were not of dissimilar ages, the absence of detail makes it a non-issue. We might as well remark they both had similar haircuts or had a fondness for the springtime -- the detail is inconsequential. The situation does seem to imply (without specfically stating so) that the sacrifices were made at the same time, but the events technically could have carried out just the same if the sacrifices were made in seperate occasions -- Cain seeing that Abel's sacrifice was blessed. I might suspect it unlikely that Cain would even care to be present during Abel's sacrifice if they were at different times, so I suppose it is likely they were at the same time.
9. Regarding a partial or localized flood, Genesis 6:17 is hard to defeat: "And, behold, I, even I, do bring the flood waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein there is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die. (18) But (except) with thee.." Scarce it would be for me to conclude that God was not thorough enough with his edict (!). It is also fairly clear from the lettered paragraphs (a) thru (j) above that the Kenites are descendants of Noah, not Cain.
10. The woe upon the Pharisees in Matthew 23 (whereby Christ calls them a generation of vipers) seems much akin to the Father/father argument from paragraph 1., being a generation spiritually of the devil, rather than being from the DNA of him, since the intents are revealed despite the actions. Intents are the breed of spirituality and indwelt motivations, and are exclusive of lineage. Each person chooses and has his own intents; sour grapes (Ezekiel 18:2) they are not.
11. The approval of God in Revelation concerning Smyrna and Philadelphia are not exclusive blessings. You might note that their blessings are different -- the church of Smyrna will be partly cast into the fire but remain unscathed if proven loyal to Christ. Upon Philly will be written the name of God. Both mention the SOS but not in such a way that the results of such knowledge is in duplicate ways beneficial. The churches of Sardis, Ephesus, Thyatira, Pergamos and Laodicea seem to have different and/or better rewards despite the SOS remaining unaddressed. All, including lukewarm Laodicea, address rewards for "him that overcometh" -- in all cases. There seems nothing so special about recognition of the SOS in these passages.
From these discussions, I hope it would be well and objectively reasoned that the Kenites are: (knowledge of is) inconsequential to received blessing from God, proven not to be descendants of Cain -- but in at least two seperate lineages from Seth, survivors of the flood specifically by Noah and his kin -- not a localized deluge, and highly unlikely not a secret society of conspirators responsible for Christ's death and subterfuge/sabotage of Christ's plans. May the remarks made here be considered carefully (from both sides) with objectivity in search for the truth, not in an assertion of monopoly of knowledge. I do not proclaim myself as the final authority, and merely offer evidence I consider legitimate.
M. James Moore
Proverbs 3:5-7
Feel free to add comments/remarks here :
|
