St. John Chrysostom on Lamech's Speech

Alice C. Linsley

The more I read of St. John Chrysostom's writings the more I am in awe of his depth of insight. What grace was given to him!  What breadth of understanding! 

St. John’s interpretation of Lamech’s speech to his two wives is absolutely brilliant and unfortunately, largely ignored.  What he says about Lamech the Elder and his daughter Naamah sheds light on the text and clarifies the confusion surrounding the persons of Lamech the Elder (Gen. 4:23) and Lamech the Younger, his grandson (Gen. 5:26). The confusion arises from the assumption that the two Lamechs are the same person, and that the genealogical lists in Genesis 4 and 5 are about the same people, but from different sources or traditions. This assumption of mid-century source critics assigns the chapter 4 list to the Yahwist source and the chapter 5 list to the Priestly source. Von Rad and E.A. Speiser promoted this interpretation in their commentaries on Genesis and many versions of the Bible assume that this interpretation is correct, noting the similarity of names in the two lists (Irad/Jared; Enoch/Enosh).

However, using the tools of kinship analysis developed by E.L. Schusky in his Manual for Kinship Analysis, I’ve shown that the genealogical information in Genesis 4 and 5 represents an intact, non-telescopic list of historical persons, and two distinct lines of descent.  These are lines of Horite ruler-priests and I have identified the characteristics of their kinship pattern.

This information matters because it affects the way we understand or interpret the Bible. It points us to God's love for us sinners, an undeserved love. It is part of a larger pattern that is seen throughout the Bible. For one thing, this overturns the idea that Cain's line died out.  It also indicates that God never abandoned the descendants of Cain, contrary to the ignorant and racist notion that the black men Cain and Ham were cursed by God.

In reality the Genesis genealogies do indicate that all of teh ruelr-priests listed in Genesis were of Nilotic origin or Kushite ethnicity. Further, though one line is chosen as the principal line to move the biblical narative forwad, the other line is blessed as well. This theme occurs between brothers all the way through the Bible. Abraham was chosen over his older brother Na-hor, but both lines were blessed.  David was chosen over his older brothers, but all of Jesse's house was blessed. Moses was chosen over his older brothers Aaron and Korah, but even Korah's rebellion against Moses' authority does not lead to his being cut off from the land of the living (Numbers 26:11).  When we assume that Lamech's line was destroyed by God we impose something on the text that the text does not support.  It is a message contrary to the message God is communicating to us.


God's Love and Faithfulness to Sinners

Lamech is an example of God's love and faithfulness to sinners. If anyone deserved to be ‘cut off from the land of the living’ (no progeny) it was the braggart and murderer Lamech who set himself up as God. Yet God allowed Lamech's line to continue and to flow into the line of Messiah. St. John Chrysosotom has edifying comments on this unfathomable grace as it relates to Lamech, and it is he who noted that Naamah, Lamech's daughter is probably the key to understanding Lamech's story.

St. John didn't know that Naamah married her cousin, Methuselah, and named their firstborn son after her father (Gen. 5:26). However, he knew that she was important. He called her "Noeman" and said about her, "Well, now for the first time it refers to females, making mention of one by name. This was not done idly, or to no purpose; instead the blessed author has done this to draw our attention to something lying hidden." (Chrysostom's Homilies on Genesis, CUA Press, Vol. 74, p. 38)

Cain's line continues to the time of Jesus Christ because, as Naamah's marriage to her patrilineal cousin or uncle reveals, the lines of Cain and Seth exclsuively intermarried.  This is a trait of castes, and the Horites were a caste of ruler-priests to whom God showed great mercy.

Here is what Chrysostom said concerning Lamech, the Elder: By confessing his sins to his wives, Lamech brings to light what Cain tried to hide from God and “by comparing what he has done to the crimes committed by Cain he limited the punishment coming to Him.” (St. John Chrysostom’s Homilies on Genesis, Vol. 74, p.39. The Catholic University Press of America, 1999.)

St. Chrysostom’s interpretation is consistent with what is communicated throughout the Bible about God’s love, grace and mercy, and departs from the interpretation found in Bibles today which stress that God wiped Cain’s line off the surface of the earth in the flood (a view that isn’t supported by the genealogical information in Genesis 4 and 5). In fact, the text supports Chrysostom’s view, as we will see through tracing the number 7 from Cain to Lamech, the Younger. Let us look at the number symbolism to see that Chrysostom’s interpretation is indeed upheld.

The number 7 represents new life, grace and renewal. Cain murdered and tried to hide his crime from God. Cain’s just punishment was death, yet God showed him grace by sparing his life. Instead Cain was to be exiled from his people. Even then God shows Cain grace by placing a mark on him, not a brand of shame, but a protecting sign. Reflecting on this great grace shown to his ancestor, Lamech challenges God to show him greater grace. If grace was shown to Cain (7), then Lamech, the Elder, by confessing his sin, claims a greater measure of grace (77). Lamech, the Younger is assigned even greater grace because he is said to have lived 777 years. This younger Lamech is the son of Methuselah and Naamah, and the father of Noah.

St. Chrysostom recognized the story of Lamech to be about God’s mercy shown to sinners. He placed the emphasis exactly where it should be. Other interpretations reflect spiritual pride. Consider how this is so.

The Jewish Study Bible claims that the “poem of Lamech” attests to the violence associated with Lamech’s ancestor, Cain, and “to the increasing evil of the human race.” But apparently the interpreters exclude themselves from the human race because they go on to state: “The people of Israel will emerge from the lineage of the younger son’s replacement [that is from Seth], not from that of the murderous first born [that is Cain].” (The Jewish Study Bible, p. 20. Parenthesis mine.)

How easy it is to take the attitude that Cain and his descendents were sinners, but Seth’s descendents were righteous. Yet the lines intermarried and God showed grace to both, even allowing Lamech’s daughter, Naamah, to bear the righteous Lamech, father of Noah, ancestor of Abraham, David and Jesus Messiah.


Related reading:  Who Were the Horites?; St. John Chrysostom on Lamech; The Seventh Seal and Silence in Heaven; Lamech's Story and Horite Kinship

St. Chrysostom on Lamech

© 1998 Alice C. Linsley
Lamech Segment: Genesis 4

Explanation of Symbols
O Female Δ Male
= Marriage
/ Line of descent
_ Siblings


Those following this research on Genesis know that Lamech the Elder and Lamech the Younger are of great significance. Their relationship sheds light on the kinship pattern that characterized rulers among Abraham's people. To understand how the two Lamechs are related, we must consider Naamah, sister of Tubal-Cain.

St. John Chrysostom didn't know that Naamah married her cousin, Methuselah, but he did know that she was important. He called her "Noeman" and said about her, "Well, now for the first time it refers to females, making mention of one by name. This was not done idly, or to no purpose; instead the blessed author has done this to draw our attention to something lying hidden." (Chrysostom's Homilies on Genesis, CUA Press, Vol. 74, p. 38)

How did this great preacher, teacher and pastor of the early Church know? Because he believed that everything in Scriptures is written for our edification, instruction and correction.

Genesis 4 tells us that Lamech had two wives. This was typical of Afro-Asiatic chiefs before Abraham and after Abraham. Lamech is unusual however. Unlike other chiefs, he maintained his wives in separate households on an east-west axis. The location of the wives is significant because their positions marked the boundaries of the chief’s territory.

Among the Neolithic Afro-Asiatic peoples God’s emblem was the sun. We see remnants of this in the Psalms where it speaks of God riding the sun as a chariot. The Creator's territory was marked by the sun’s rising in the east and setting in the west. So when Lamech positioned his two wives on an east-west axis he was setting himself up as an equal to God. The Hebrew scholar, Theodor Gaster, noted that the names of Lamech's wives: Adah and Zillah, mean “dawn” and “dust”.

The key to understanding the kinship pattern is Naamah, Lamech's daughter. As can be seen from the diagram above, she married her patrilineal parallel cousin Methuselah (Gen. 5:26) and named their first-born son Lamech, after her father. This pattern is evident throughout the Genesis 4 and 5 geneological record. Cain's daughter married her cousin Enosh and named their first-born son Kenan. Kain (or Cain) and Kenan are linguistically equivalent names. Irad's daughter married her cousin Mahalalel and named their first-born son Jared. Irad and Jared are linguistically equivalent. Methushael's daughter married her cousin Enoch and named their first-born son Methuselah, again linguistically equivalent names. So it is evident that the pattern is consistent throughout the Genesis 4 and 5 record.

Discovering this kinship pattern has taken time because until modern biblical scholarship regularlized the names, the linguistic equivalents were not obvious.

In his homilies on Genesis St. Chrysostom, who used the Septuagint, gives the name Gaidad instead of the more accurate Irad. St. Ephrem the Syrian used the Aramaic and possibly the Syriac and his name for Irad was Edar. The confusion surrounding the person of Irad has for centuries made it difficult to discover the kinship pattern, so the Fathers can't be blamed for not discovering it. And yet, blessed Chrysostom recognized that Naamah is mentioned "to call our attention to something lying hidden."

St. Ephrem the Syrian on Genesis

Alice C. Linsley


While at the Monastery of the Transfiguration I did some valuable reading. The monastery library has an excellent section on the Church Fathers and I will share some of what I read in the next few weeks. I especially enjoyed reading St. John Chrysostom’s Homilies on Genesis, published in 3 volumes by The Catholic University Press of America (part of The Fathers of the Church series). In these sermons Chrysostom exhorts his listeners to hold fast the Faith once delivered. His insights into Genesis point to the immense love of God for creation and for the only creature made in the image and likeness of God. I'll have more to say about Chrysostom's remarks on Lamech, as they are truly golden!

The most fascinating reading was St. Ephrem the Syrian’s reflections on Genesis (Volume 91 in The Fathers of the Church series, The Catholic University Press of America). St. Ephrem (A.D. 309-373) has a lyrical expository style that makes his reflections on Genesis enjoyable reading. Besides being an excellent Bible scholar, St. Ephrem was a Christian poet held in such high regard that he is called “The Harp of the Spirit.”

St. Ephrem’s approach to Scripture avoids the literalism of Fundamentalists and the allegorism of the Alexandrian school. He approaches Genesis as history, type and symbol. St. Ephrem’s method is labeled “symbolic theology” and “is an intricate weave of parallelism, typology, names and symbols.” (The Fathers of the Church, vol. 91, p. 48)

For St. Ephrem types, symbols and patterns are woven throughout creation and are Christ God’s invitation to us to perceive Him and to share in the divine life He offers. If you have read my essay on Abraham and Moses (published here on April 12, 2007), you know that I believe serious Bible study involves teasing out the pattern of divine revelation by looking for parallels, reversals, types and symbols. Imagine how delighted I was to discover that I've been following St. Ephrem's footsteps!

Here is an example of the richness of St. Ephrem’s typology: He understands that the Incarnation began when the Word was spoken into Mary’s ear as an antidote to the serpent’s venom put into Eve’s ear. The life-giving Word spoken to Mary undid the word of death spoken to Eve.

While western exegetes attempt to geographically locate the 4 rivers that fed Eden, St. Ephrem interprets them typologically and in a fashion consistent with Revelation. He compares the 4 rivers that water the garden with the 4 Gospels that water the Kingdom. Hymns of Faith (48.10)

St. Ephrem’s method of interpretation is closer to Jewish Haggadah than to the exegesis of western Christianity. Since Genesis has a Semitic context and St. Ephrem was himself thoroughly immersed in that context, we do well to attend to his reflections and insights on the text. Here are a few:

“If God had not wished to reveal Himself to us there would have been nothing in creation that would be able to say anything at all about Him.” Hymns of Faith (44.7)

“From the very beginning God opened up the treasury of His mercy when He formed Adam.” Hymns of Faith (67.19)

“Wherever you look, God’s symbol is there; wherever you read, there you will find His types. For by Him all creatures were created, and He stamped all His possessions with His symbols when He created the world.” Hymns of Virginity (20.12)

“Creation gives birth to the symbols of Christ, as Mary gave birth to His limbs.” Hymns on Virginity (20.12)

“This Jesus has so multiplied His symbols that I have fallen into their many waves.” Hymns on Nisibis(39.17)

I hope you find these writings as nourishing as I do. Let me know what you think.


Related reading:

A Tree Without Roots

Alice C. Linsley

There is an African saying that "a people without knowledge of their history is like a tree without roots."

This saying is understood differently depending on one's culture. When Americans hear the word "history" we think of the academic study of past events chronologically arranged and recounted in a linear fashion.  We don't tend to think in cycles, as did the ancients, and we rarely consider that for most people of the world history is what happened to their ancestors. For them, history involves genealogies, especially those of the ruling families.

Many of my ancestors are listed in the book Connecticut Linsleys: Six Johns. Using this book, I've traced my ancestors to North Branford, Connecticut and from there, to Nottingham, England. Recently I communicated with the Rector of the parish in Nottingham where at least one Linsley is buried. Ironically, her name was Alice Linsley. The parish is Holy Trinity Lenton (Nottingham) and Fr. Martin Kirkbride was kind to send me this photo of a bronze plaque in memory of Alice Stickley Linsley, beloved wife of John Thomas Linsley. It is mounted on a wall in his church.

Alex Haley's experience of tracing his roots back to a village in West Africa speaks volumes about the African propensity to tell history through genealogy. This propensity among Abraham's Kushite ancestors lead to the preservation of the ruler-priest lists in Genesis 4, 5 and elsewhere in the Old Testament. Using these lists, we are able to reconstruct the kinship pattern of Abraham and his ancestors. That is the primary work of this blog.

The Genesis genealogical information is a treasure trove of information, ready to be opened by those who take the material seriously. If I had assumed that the genealogical record of the Connecticut Linsleys was unreliable I wouldn't have proceeded to discover a certain relative, John Thomas Linsley of Recourt, Notts. Likewise, if we assume that the Genesis genealogies are not reliable we will not discover our family heritage as children of Abraham by faith. We will be like "a tree without roots."