Celestial Symbols that Speak of God

Alice C. Linsley

East and north are the key reference points in Afro-Asiatic cosmology. East is associated with the rising sun and the arousal of God. East is easily identified by watching for the first sun rays at dawn. It is easy to know west once east has been identified. To Abraham's Horite people east represented new life, youth and vigor. West represented maturity, full strength and the future.  Horus, the son of the Creator God Re, was said to rise in the east as a lamb or calf and to set in the west as a ram or bull. This is the key to understanding the story of the binding of Isaac.  Isaac asked his father, "Where is the lamb for the sacrifice?"  Abraham answered in faith that God would provide the lamb, but instead God provided a ram. By this Abraham would have understood that Isaac was not the promised Son who would rise from the dead. That Son would come in the future.

North is associated with divine judgment. It is identified by observing the polar star, a fixed point in the heavens. The Pole Star was seen near Alpha Draconis 4000 years ago at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza. This was a reference point in the Pharaoh's hope of resurrection.  This is indicated by the fact that the entrance passages of six of the pyramids are inclined downwards at such an angle as to make the Pole Star visible perhaps even in daylight.

East-west and north-south are binary sets. Within these sets one was regarded as greater than the other. So east was greater than west because it represented God rising. Likewise north was regarded as greater than south because of the fixed position of the Pole Star. So east and north are the primary astronomical and religious points of reference and are associated with divine arousal (east) and divine judgment (north). West and south are their binary opposites. West generally represents the future and the Eschaton, and South represents earth, burial, fertility and marriage.

Among Abraham's people the sun was the emblem of the Creator. The glory and sovereignty of the Lord God were exemplified in the Sun's apparent journey from east to west and the shedding of light and heat over all the earth's surface. We see this in Psalm 113:3: "From east to west the name of the Lord is praised." And in Psalm 19:6: "He places in the heavens a tent for the sun, who is like a groom coming forth from the chamber, like a hero, eager to run his course. His rising-place is at one end of the heaven, and his circuit reaches the other; nothing escapes His heat."

Genesis reveals that the sun was the emblem of the Creator among Abraham's people. They would have conceived of God as the Great Chief. Since chiefs among them had 2 wives, and the chief made his circuit between the two wives, so the Afro-Asiatics conceived of God as having two wives: dawn and dust. This is why none of the chiefs placed their wives on an east-west axis except for the braggart Lamech who arrogantly posed himself as God's equal. Bible scholar Theodore Gaster noted this, explaining that the names of Lamech's two wives, 'Ada' and 'Tzilla', suggest dawn and dust (The Schocken Bible, Vol. 1, p. 28).
Imagine if the writers of the Bible had been from the Paleo-Siberian culture, where there are long periods of darkness and long periods of daylight. Were that the case, we would find a theological perspective that reflects that phenomenon. Such a perspective would not be a one with which most cultures could relate. Nevertheless, even the shamans of the Arctic recognize at least the four cardinal points and conceive of them as bisecting lines, presenting us with a cross-shaped Reality.
The cosmology of the Afro-Asiatic peoples provides the framework for the whole Bible and is especially evident in the book of Genesis. It is from them that Jews, Christians and Muslims receive the tradition of facing east in prayer. The temple in Jerusalem was aligned to track the Sun's light and the pyramids in Egypt faced the east.

The cosmology of the Afro-Asiatics is also represented in the cross-shaped Egyptian Ankh. The loop at the top symbolizes the sun. The cross bar represents the Sun's daily journey from east to west. The Ankh is similar to the Agadez cross of Niger (shown below at left) and to the Carthegian Sign of Tanit which often bears the letters TNT (shown at right.)

A similar image with the TNT inscription was found in the temple of Eshmun near Sidon. It dates to about the 5 century B.C. Assignment of the name 'Tanit' is guess work, however, since no one knows how TNT should be transliterated.

All the cross-like images of Africa have the solar symbol over a horizontal bar representing the East-West movement of the Sun. The horizontal bar rests in perfect balance on the top of a triangle. The triangle likely represents a mountain. In the tradition of the Afro-Asiatics, the mountain rising into the heavens was a place of meeting between God and Man. The Sun, a symbol of the Creator, is shown at the the sacred center of the mountain top. Consider the many incidents in the Bible of God self-revealing or making miraculous provision on the tops of mountains:

Mt. Moriah
Mt. Horeb
Mt. Sinai
Mts. Ebal and Gerizim
The Mount of Transfiguration


The Negative Image of the Sun

The horned altar is another image signifying God's sovereignty over the Earth, only the image of the sun has disappeared. The horned altar is an apophatic rendering of the God image. Apophatic means “unspeakable” (since God can not be fully known) and making the Sun invisible means that no one is tempted to worship the creation above the Creator. This dates to a later time than Abraham, when the Israelites rejected the old solar representation of God. That the sun was not to be worshiped is evident in Psalm 148:3, which says "Praise Him, sun and moon, praise Him, all bright stars." In the horned altar, God's presence is evident in the negative space since God cannot be presented as something created. St. Hilary of Poitiers (4th century A.D.) expressed it this way: “The proper service of faith is to grasp and confess the truth that it is incompetent to comprehend its Object.”

That the horned altar and the symbols of Agadez and TNT share a common cosmology is evident when one compares the altar and the so-called sign of Tanit. The upright horns are similar to those on the Tanit symbol shown at right.


Interestingly, the metal working chiefs of the Inadan who live in the Air Desert surrounding Agadez, maintain two wives in separate households on a north-south axis, as did the Horite chiefs of Abraham's people. The Inadan metal working caste speaks a secret language which they call TeNeT and they claim to be related to David of Judah (National Geographic, Aug. 1979, p. 389).


Related reading:  The Sun and Moon in Genesis; Solar Imagery of the Proto-Gospel; A Tent for the Sun

370 Million Old Fish Found

Tiktaalik roseae is a genus of extinct lobe-finned fish from the late Devonian period, with features like those of four-legged animals. It is an example of an ancient sarcopterygian fish which adapted to a swampy oxygen-poor water habitat. The creature lived about 370 million years ago and is regarded by macro-evolutionists as a transition in the evolutionary Tree of Life from fish to tetrapod.

What I find so exciting about this discovery is the critical method and logistics of the exploration over four summers in the Alaskan Arctic. Tiktaalik was discovered through a well-conceived methodically launched project to find a predicted specimen and demonstrates the predictive capacity of palaeontology. Ahlberg and Clack’s review explains Tiktaalik's importance:

The Nunavut field project had the express aim of finding an intermediate between Panderichthys and tetrapods, by searching in sediments from the most probable environment (rivers) and time (early Late Devonian). Second, Tiktaalik adds enormously to our understanding of the fish-tetrapod transition because of its position on the tree and the combination of characters it displays.

Watch the featured video here. Ignore the arrogant headline: "Evolution is a fact; Quran and Bible are False". Harvard's claim to being an institution of critical thinking certainly isn't upheld by this ignorant headline.

Here macro-evolutionist, Martin Brazeau, gloats:

"Creationists haven't said a lot about Tiktaalik, and it's no surprise. However, a few responses have trickled out and they more or less run in the same vein.I thought this was a rather telling remark on Tiktaalik posted over on Dembski's blog. We're treated to an excerpt of the pre-transformation version of the DI's original response that goes:

I especially like Crowther’s last sentence which I present in its original form (bold type included): “There’s a problem with the Darwinist position that runs even deeper than this, however: If Darwinian evolution is an undisputed fact, as its chief defenders routinely claim, why is this fossil find being billed as such an crucial piece of evidence?”

Icing on the cake! I love it!!!

What I love even more is all this rhetoric and absolutely no reference to the actual fossil material. So, I'll take that as meaning that these guys have nothing to say about its transitional status. The real icing on the cake is all this puff and no real substance.

Unfortunately, the media's response to the discovery is not quite the same as the palaeontological community's interpretation of it. Therefore, by responding to these articles, creationists and their ilk are just blowing smoke. The importance of Tiktaalik has nothing to do with proving the fish-tetrapod transition. That's pretty much taken care of by a wealth of data from the past 100 years."

You have to wonder why macro-evolutionists even care what creationists think. Do they harbor a certain fear that maybe their scheme actually points to a Creator?

I believe in the scientific approach and have applied it over 30 years to the book of Genesis. I have methodically gathered data and have done extensive analysis of the kinship pattern of Abraham's people. About 10 years ago I too was able to use the data to predict certain patterns and beliefs among Abraham's Afro-Asiatic ancestors. My findings are based on science. I began as a skeptic and ended up convinced that the people of Genesis 4, 5 and 11 are historical. It is impossible to back write an authentic kinship pattern into a literary text.

What Genesis Tells Us About Creation

Alice C. Linsley

The book of Genesis is used by young earth creationists to calculate the age of the earth, but Genesis can’t be used this way. Genesis doesn’t tell us how old the earth is. Bishop Usher’s calculations, based on the genealogical information, is flawed because he didn’t understand that some of the segments are telescopic, and that Adam and Eve are mythological first parents. He also didn’t realize that the kinship pattern revealed in Genesis 4 and 5 is the kinship pattern of Abraham’s African ancestors who lived only about 8000 years ago.

Genesis is regarded as irrelevant by macro-evolutionists (most of whom have never studied the text) because they think that it requires belief in six consecutive 24-hour days of creation. St. Augustine, an African bishop, believed each “yom” was an unspecified eon of time since this use of the word yom is found elsewhere in the Bible (as in the phrase "the day of the Lord").

At the risk of getting slammed by both macro-evolutionists and young earth creationists, I will briefly state what Genesis does tell us.

Genesis tells us that God created in an orderly fashion over a period of time and according to a plan. It is the work of science to discover that order and that plan. It is not the work of Bible scholars, although scholars of faith will have a fairly good idea about the plan. They will be waiting at the top of the mountain when the scientists finally arrive there.

The Life Spans of Methuselah and Lamech

Diagram copyright 2000 Alice C. Linsley

“What is the significance of the long life spans listed in Genesis?”
"How could Methuselah have lived 969 years? Or his son, Lamech, 777 years?"

"Why do the chiefs after the flood have shorter life spans?"

It is not easy to answer these questions because there are discrepancies in the number of years assigned to these Afro-Asiatic chiefs, and there is still much that we don’t understand about the number symbolism of the people from whom we receive the chronologies of chapters 4, 5 and 11.

The discrepancies between the Septuagint, the Masoretic, and the Samaritan texts have been discussed at length in various commentaries (see especially Cassuto). I find it interesting that the Septuagint and the Masoretic (Hebrew) records agree except in the case of Lamech the Younger (Noah's father). The Septuagint assigns Lamech a total of 753 years, whereas the Samaritan Pentateuch assigns him only 653 years. The Jerusalem Bible, following the Masoretic Text, assigns Lamech 777 years.

Other discrepancies exist also. For example: the Septuagint places the name ‘Cainan’ between Arphaxad and Shelah in Genesis 11, but this name doesn't appear in the Masoretic Text or Samaritan Pentateuch.

In his extraordinary Commentary on Genesis, Umberto Cassuto wrote, "What is the cause of the divergences between the three texts, and which recension has preserved the original figures? Much has been written on this subject, and the answer remains in dispute" (Vol. 1, p. 265). Cassuto himself believed that the original figures are preserved in the Masoretic chronology. Those are the numbers I will use.

Consider the life span assigned to each of these pre-flood patriarchs in Genesis 5:

Seth – 912 years
Jared – 962 years
Kenan – 910 years
Methuselah – 969 years
Lamech the Younger – 777 years

Now compare the life spans of those who lived after the flood in Genesis 11:

Shem – 600 years
Eber – 464 years
Serug – 230 years
Nahor the Elder (Terah's father) – 148 years
Terah – 205 years

Various explanations have been offered to make sense of the patriarchs’ longevity. They include:
· People lived longer in ancient times.

· God shortened the lifespan due to sin.

· Those who recorded the lists honored their forefathers by ascribing to them length of days.

· The numbers are symbolic and intended to convey information about each patriarch.

· The number symbolism is based on a numerological system that requires fuller investigation.

Let us briefly examine each of these possible explanations.

Evidence for Exceptional Longevity among Ancient Peoples
Studies in Paleoanthropology indicate that the life spans of ancient peoples living in an area extending from North Africa to Turkey and Mesopotamia was about 32 years. This data applies to peoples in the Late Paleolithic - 30,000 to 9,000 B.C., the Mesolithic - 9,000 to 7,000 B.C. and the Early Neolithic - 7,000 to 5,000 B.C.

One might argue that the men listed in Genesis 11 enjoyed extraordinary longevity by divine providence. Were this the case we would want to know why God’s providence is limited to a specific place, time, and people. The singularity of the extraordinary longevity of these Afro-Asiatic chiefs must then be regarded as a miracle and is therefore beyond scientific explanation. While I believe in miracles, I find this explanation unlikely, unnecessary, and without biblical support.

God Shortened the Life Spans
Genesis 6 hints that God shortened the average life span of humanity. The Lord said, “My breath shall not abide in man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years.” (Gen. 6:3) Were we to take this literally we would expect the life span of the patriarchs in Genesis 11 to be no more than 120 years, yet all exceed that number. This suggests that the number 120 is symbolic.

The directional poles are critical to the interpretation of the number symbolism of the ancient Afro-Asiatics. The number 1 is associated with North and always represents the Creator God. The number 2 represents the Generative Word (Logos). The Word goes forth from God, and by the Logos all things are created. Zero is a placeholder and a symbol of eternity. The zero makes this a 3-digit number and 3 represents oneness or unity. With this in mind, the symbolism of the number 120 seems to be that the life span of each human is up to God, who by the Logos, makes oneness or unity. This sounds like a Messianic promise.

Honoring the Forefathers by Ascribing Length of Days
The Assyrian Kings List provides evidence that ascribing long lives to noble persons was not a common practice. The ancient oriental kings expected to be shown honor yet their regnal years are, by all appearances, historical. This is borne out by the similarity found between the different inscriptions that speak of these kings’ reigns.

The Babylonian kings, on the other hand, attributed life spans even to tens of thousands of years to each ruler. These mythic lengths of life reflect the Babylonian view that their kings were demi-gods born of the Diety by noble females. But the Hebrews rejected this view, regarding even the most exalted among them as mere mortals. The Scriptures speak of the sinfulness and failings of Israel's leaders. We remember that Moses and David were both guilty of murder.

Were it the case that the large numbers reflect a way of honoring the forefathers, we would expect Abraham to have lived a very long life since he is the principal Patriarch and the progenitor of Jews, Arabs and other Semites. Yet we are told that Abraham lived only 175 years (Gen. 25:7).

The Numbers are Symbolic and Convey Information
That the numbers are not to be taken literally is supported by the assignment of 930 years to the mythological first Father, Adam (often paired with the historical first father, Nok or 'Enoch', as in Psalm 8:4).

Were I to interpret the significance of 930 based on the mystical numerology of Ten Sefirot, it would be this: The creature will enjoy the consummation of his faith at the end of time.

This makes Adam a type of Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten, who will enter the bridal chamber at the end of days. Paul may have had this in mind when he wrote: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the first fruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at his coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father…” (1 Corinthians 15:22-24a) And this: “And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (1 Corinthians 15:45)

I draw on the Cabalistic Ten Sefirot, not because I believe it accurately represents the number system of Abraham's people, but because it has affinity to the older Afro-Asiatic numero-cosmology.

Conclusion
This exploration of the Genesis chronologies indicates that the numbers are symbolic and must be interpreted in the context of the Afro-Asiatic numero-cosmology. What is being communicated is not entirely clear because we still have much to learn about the numerology of Abraham's people.

The view that the numbers are symbolic is supported by the numerical discrepancy surrounding Lamech the Younger. Some might not view him as especially righteous because he was named after his maternal grandfather who bragged to his wives about killing a man. Yet Lamech was Noah's father and Noah found favor with God. The different numbers pertaining to Lamech the Younger are (Septuagint) 753, (Samaritan) 653, and (Hebrew) 777. No other man in the chronology has such a discrepancy in total number of years. Again, Lamech is the lightening rod who draws our attention and provokes questions.

The Elder Lamech is the seventh generation from Adam and Nok. Lamech the Younger is the seventh generation from Noah and is assigned 777 years. According to Cassuto, the name Lamech is related to the Mesopotamian word ‘lumakku’, meaning “priest” (Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1, p. 233).

Cassuto also points out that all the numbers pertaining from Adam to Noah "are either exact multiples of five, or else multiples of five with the addition of seven" and the years assigned to Methuselah's life are "twice augmented by seven, one septennium having been added to his age when his eldest son was born, and another to the remaining years of his life" (op. cit., p. 260). This observation provides a clue to our understanding of the numero-cosmology of Abraham's people. Key numbers were 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9. The number five has the factors of 2 and 3 and is therefore a symbol of the kinship pattern of Abraham's people as revealed in the Bible. Each chief had 2 wives. These wives were essential to the establishment of the chief's territory. The chief's 2 first born sons were rivaled by a third "hidden" son, who is the sign of the Son whose dominion will last through all the ages.

The numbers 2 and 3 are significant also because numbers were linked to language and the western Afro-Asiatic languages are generally bi-consonantal whereas the eastern Afro-Asiatic languages are generally tri-consonantal.

With this in mind, we will consider the number symbolism of Methuselah, who is assigned 969 years. Here we have all factors of 3. The nine is 3 sets of 3 and the 6 is 2 sets of 3. The 9 represents consummation or the fullness of time and the 6 represents the dominion of human rulers. Methuselah's assigned days seem an omen of impending judgment, signifying the Deluge that destroyed the rule of the central African chiefs in and around Noah's homeland.

It was the custom for the cousin bride to name her first-born son after her father. Abraham's cousin bride Keturah named her first-born son 'Joktan' after her father, and Terah's cousin bride named her first born son 'Haran' after her father. (Haran is also a place name, just as Nahor is a place name. The Hebrew should not show the place name with a fricative het.)

Similarly, Methuselah was the father of Lamech by Lamech's daughter Naamah (see diagram above). Lamech the Younger was the father of Noah. The number assigned to Lamech the Younger is 777 and it carries a message of hope.

John Chrysostom commented on the unfathomable grace expressed through the story of the Elder Lamech. Here is what he said: “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.)

Chrysostom’s interpretation is consistent with what is communicated throughout the Bible about God’s love and mercy, yet his view is not referenced in any Bibles. Instead, most Bible footnotes stress that God wiped out Cain’s line in the flood, a view which is not supported by the genealogical information in Genesis 4 and 5. The chronologies support Chrysostom's interpretation, as we will see by tracing the number 7 from Cain to Lamech the Younger.

The number 7 represents new life, mercy and renewal. Cain murdered and tried to hide his crime from God. Cain deserved death, yet God showed him mercy by sparing his life. Cain was exiled from his people and God showed him grace by placing a mark on him as a protecting sign. Reflecting on this great mercy shown to his ancestor, Lamech challenges God to show him greater mercy. If grace was shown to Cain (7), then Lamech, the Elder, by confessing his sin, claims a double measure of grace (77). Lamech, the Younger is assigned a triple measure of grace because he is said to have lived 777 years. Lamech the Younger is the son of Methuselah and Naamah, and the father of Noah.

St. John Chrysostom recognized that the story of the 2 Lamechs is about God’s mercy shown to sinners. He placed the emphasis exactly where it should be.

For more on the numero-cosmology of Abraham's people, go here.

Hermann Gunkel on Genesis

Alice C. Linsley

Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932) produced three excellent commentaries on Genesis: Creation and Chaos (1895), Commentary on Genesis (1901), and The Legends of Genesis (1901). This last work introduced Gunkel's Commentary on Genesis.

In his writings on Genesis, Gunkel poses serious questions about the work of Julius Wellhausen, whose source hypothesis held pervasive influence in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Wellhausen regarded Genesis as a compliation of narratives projected backward into pre-Mosiac times at the time of the Monarchy. He argued that the material therefore reflects the life and times of the Monarchy and presents an erroneous picture of the earlier time of the Patriarchs. Gunkel, on the other hand, insisted that the Patriarchal sagas are reliable because they were orally transmitted from before the time of Moses.

Both men took an evolutionary view of human history, regarding Pre-Israelite societies as pre-literate and developing to literacy. Since their time, anthropologists have come to recognize a flaw in this scheme. They have identified literate societies which include sub-cultures that rely on oral transmission of their sacred stories and never commit them to writing.

Wellhausen wasn't interested in the archaeological discoveries of his time that shed light on the sophisticated Afro-Asiatic civilization in Canaan, but Gunkel recognized that the finds of biblical archaeology revealed that Canaanite culture was not an anomaly, but consistent with the larger ethnological and linguistic heritage of the Afro-Asiatics who had been around for centuries before the time of Moses.

The Afro-Asiatic Dominion extended from the Atlantic coast of modern Nigeria to the Indus River Valley. The Afro-Asiatic peoples were linked by rulers who intermarried and controlled the water ways and the caravan routes. Abraham's territory between Hebron and Beersheba corresponded to a caravan route. As W.F. Albright notes in his Introduction to Gunkels' The Legends of Genesis: "Abraham turns out to have been a caravan leader, and the very name 'Hebrew' refers to donkey caravaneering" (p. x).

Gunkel's historical-critical method was embodied in his first major work, Creation and Chaos in the Beginning and at the End of Time. In this work, Gunkel focused on the history of the tradition behind Genesis chapter one and Revelation chapter 12. It was Gunkel’s view that these constituted "myth" and that they could only be understood by tracing the development of the biblical literary form back to the pagan roots from which the myth was derived. Gunkel insists that "The more independent a story is, the more sure we may be that it is preserved in its original form" (Legends, p. 45).

Gunkel's work on Genesis is valueable because he rationally justifies his view that many of the legends of Genesis pre-date the time of Moses and the time of the Monarchy. He appreciates the primitive layer of narrative for its own merits, resisting the modern temptation of pyschological analysis of character and theme. He writes, "In very many situations where the modern writer would expect a psychological analysis, the primitive story-teller simply presents an action" (Legends, p. 60).

Gunkel's theory is that the older legends are brief because they represent the oral tradition of preliterate people and would have been told in "not much over half and hour" (Legends, p. 47).

Gunkel identifies the following categories of legends:

Aetiological legends which explain something, such why the serpent crawls on his belly.

Ethnological legends which speak of tribal identity and claims, such as why the well at Beersheba belongs to Judah, not to Gerar.

Etymological legends which make a linguistic connection between the older and the newer.(The region of Nok becomes Cain's wandering place of Nod)

Ceremonial legends which explain ceremonies and prohibitions, such as why Israel may not eat the thigh muscle.

Geological legends which explain how the landscape came to be a certain way. (The disobedience of Lot's wife is an explanation for the pillars of salt.)

Mixed legends, such as the Flight of Hagar, which have elements of several legend types.

Gunkel's appreciation of the narrative quality of the Genesis sagas is refreshing. Although he often speaks of the primitive nature of the narratives and the naivety of those who told them, he doesn't devalue their contribution. He is never disdainful. He wrote, "We have to do, then, even in the oldest legends of Genesis, not with aimless, rude stories, tossed off without reflection, but on the contrary, there is revealed in them a mature, perfected, and very forcible art" (Legends, p. 78).

I admire Hermann Gunkel's work, but I find it strange that he doesn't once mention the interesting and important legend of Lamech and his two wives (Gen. 4:19-24). Perhaps this is because he didn't have a category for this legend. Were we to give it a name, we should refer to the Lamech legend as a "cosmological legend" because it reveals the arrogance of the man who sets himself up as the ruler of the cosmos. By placing his 2 wives on an east-west axis, Lamech claimed equality with God and he expressed that equality by murdering another who, like himself, was fashioned in the image of God.

Even with this oversight, I agree with W. F. Albright's assessment that Gunkel's research holds an "epochal place in the history of biblical scholarship" (Legends, p. xi)

On the Lighter Side

At Students Publish Here, there is a delightful story written by a girl named Hannah Mulliken. She tells the story of the Flood from the perspective of twin mice born on Noah's ark. This is a story your children and grandchilren would love to hear!

Cemetery Dates to Time Before Noah

Alice C. Linsley

The oldest known cemetery in the Sahara dates to 7500 B.C., about 4000 years before biblical Noah. The material evidence indicates a settled population at the edge of a very large lake or trough, possibly Lake Mega-Chad or the Benue Trough.

According to a recent report, "The burial density, tool kit, ceramics, and midden fauna suggest a largely sedentary population with a subsistence economy based on fishing and on hunting of a range of savanna vertebrates."

The initial discovery was made by National Geographic photographer Mike Hettwer in 2000, and the excavation work was led by University of Chicago archaeologist, Paul C. Sereno.

Gobero skeleton measures 6 feet
Photo (c) Mike Hettwer, courtesy Project Exploration

Noah lived around 2500 B.C. in the region of Lake Chad which was at that time a much larger lake.  About 7500 B.C., at the time that this graveyard was used, Lake Chad had an area of about 249,000 miles.  It is likely that the graveyard that Paul Sereno uncovered was originally at the edge of Lake Mega-Chad.

Bor'No, in the Chad Basin, means "Land of Noah." This is the only place on the surface of the Earth that claims to be the biblical Noah's homeland. On the map above, the city of Kano (Cain) is shown to the southwest of Lake Chad. Directly south of Kano is Nok (not shown on map), named after Cain and Seth's father-in-law, Nok (Enoch). Cain and Seth married daughters of Nok. This is evident because the brides named their first-born sons after their father Nok/Enoch, according to the bride's naming prerogative.

Paul C. Sereno, known for his discovery of about 10 species of dinosaurs, has been studying the 200 human burials at the Gobero site, on the edge of a paleolake in Niger, on the rim of the Chad Basin. These provide a record of human occupation in this area from 8000 B.C. to about 2500 B.C., and yield tools, pollen, and other finds that help reconstruct a picture of how people lived. The oldest burials, dating to about 7500 B.C., represent the earliest cemetery in the Sahara.

Sereno has once again made a name for himself. He has what is now the largest collection of Early to Mid-Holocene bones ever discovered at a single site in Africa. When I asked him about the frequency of triple burials such as that shown in the photo to the right, Sereno replied that "There is only one triple burial, and only one ever found like this."

Sereno reports that "It is a woman and 2 children of 5 and 8 years."

According to Sereno, the Early Holocene people left when it became arid, but the area was repopulated by a taller people around 4600 B.C. when humid conditions returned.  There is no doubt that the residents of this area experienced flooding as the region was much wetter than today. There was flooding on and off over a long period, likely caused by monsoons moving into West Central Africa from the Indian Ocean. Wet conditions prevailed from 7700-6200 (phase 2). Sereno states, "The darkened bone color of all human skeletons in phase 2 burials is indicative of sustained inundation." (Read about Sereno's findings here.)

Another wet period corresponds to the time that Noah would have lived in the region of Lake Chad, between 3000 and 2000 B.C.

Related reading: Noah's Homeland in Historical Perspective;  Confirmation of Biblical Populations; How Big was Noah's Flood?

A Chief Must Have More Than One Wife

In the ancient Afro-Asiatic world rulers had more than one wife and usual at least two concubines.  What was originally a way to mark out one's territory using the settlement of wives in separate locations on a north-south axis, became a status symbol in the time of King Solomon.  The prophets criticised him for having so many wives and concubines, but it was his father David who broke his royal ancestors' marriage pattern of having only two wives.

All the kings listed in Genesis held to the pattern of only two wives. One was a half-sister (as was Sarah to Abraham) and the other wife was a patrilineal cousin or niece (as was Keturah to Abraham). This means that the rulers had two first-born sons, but only the son of the half-sister wife ascended to his father's throne.  The first-born son of the cousin/niece wife ascended to the throne of his maternal grandfather or launched out as a warrior (like Nimrod) to establish a territory for himself.  This is what makes Abraham's story so remarkable.  His older brother ascended to the throne of their father Terah. Haran, Abraham's older half-brother, would have ascended to the throne of his maternal grandfather, Haran, only he died in Ur.  Abraham was not considered to rule Haran's territory because it was contrary to the ancestors' pattern.  Instead, God promised Abraham a territory by divine provision.

To understand why we must investigate the genealogical pattern of Abraham's people, go here and here.

Patrick Henry Reardon on Genesis

Patrick Henry Reardon's commentary on Genesis, Creation and the Patriarchal Histories (Conciliar Press, 2008) is thoughtful, well referenced, and theologically sound. Father Reardon is pastor of All Saints Antiochian Orthodox Church in Chicago, and Senior Editor of Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. A former Anglican, he came to Orthodoxy in 1988.

Fr. Reardon was educated at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Kentucky), St. Anselm's College (Rome), The Pontifical Biblical Institute (Rome), the University of Liverpool (England), and St. Tikhon's Orthodox Seminary (Pennsylvania). In this book, he offers "Orthodox Reflections of the Book of Genesis", drawing on the writings of St. Augustine, Cyprian, and the Jewish historian Josephus, but he doesn't insist that there is an Orthodox approach to Genesis.

Fr. Reardon has written other excellent books, also available from Conciliar Press (800-967-7377). These include Christ in the Psalms and The Trial of Job. His latest volume, Creation and the Patriarchal Histories, is important reading for those seeking a readable commentary on Genesis. The book isn’t long and one need not hold a Doctorate in Biblical Studies to understand what is written.

I found the book to be fresh in many ways. It nods to Mosaic authorship but doesn’t insist on it. Fr. Reardon explicitly states that there is “strong evidence that the arrangement of the five books is later than Moses” (page 10). Based on internal evidence, I have argued that the Genesis material was brought together during the time of David and Solomon. This is the probable source of the strong Messianic material in the book, especially that touching on the ruler-priest, Melchizedek, and on the priority of the youngest sons over the first-born sons.

Fr. Reardon also doesn’t insist that the authority of Genesis is dependent on an original autograph, but instead upon the superintendence of the Holy Spirit throughout the centuries (page 11). It is refreshing that he values the Septuagint and the Hebrew texts equally.

He maintains that the Bible's understanding of history is "the key to its understanding of Genesis." He writes, "The human authors of Holy Scripture approached Creation itself through the path of salvation history. They arrived at the knowledge of the Creator through their knowledge of the Lord of history. It was Exodus that led them to Genesis!" (p. 26)

I'm not sure why he feels that it has to be one way. The Divine Author isn't restricted by the linear chronology of human scribes. In fact, this idea seems to undermine one of Fr. Reardon's most significant points: that creation is mediated through Christ, begotten of the Father from before time (pp. 28-30). Genesis reveals the timelessness of the Triune God.

Genesis speaks of events and people who lived by faith long before the Bible Canon was decided. Fr. Reardon recognizes this, pointing to the example of Enoch (pp. 55-56). Ultimately, Genesis is about the Kingdom of the Triune God. That Kingdom includes those who died in faith before the dispensation of the Church and those who are in Christ in the Church. This is typified by the rulers of Genesis having 2 brides in order to establish their kingdoms. (Fr. Reardon does not mention the practice of Afro-Asiatic chiefs maintaining 2 wives in separate households on a north-south axis, and he misses the significance of the "hidden" Son.)

Genesis makes it clear that Father Abraham experienced the Triune God as his Savior. These concepts are not back-written into the text at a latter date. Abraham actually experienced the Triune God in Genesis 18 as his Savior. (There is an ancient Semitic word for the Triune God - Baal Shalisha - usually rendered the 'God of 3 powers' or 'the third idol' which suggests a shrine dedicated to this God.) In Exodus, we are told that the nation of Israel shared this same experience of God. It is not necessary to assume discontinuity between Abraham's individual experience and the corporate experience of Israel, especially since Jacob's children are heirs of Abraham's Afro-Asiatic worldview, and God is always One and the Same.

The book would have been strengthened by an overview of the Afro-Asiatic worldview, about which there is now a good deal of information from Linguistics, Cultural Anthropology and Archaeology. For example, in his Ecursus on Exodus in Genesis (pp. 68-70), Fr. Reardon writes, "Doubtless the ancients loved those narratives in Genesis, but their major interest was in the rules and regulations that followed them. For them, the important thing was the Law, the Torah... revealed on Mount Sinai." Here Fr. Reardon fails to make a distinction between the practice of Torah and the Mosaic Law. The former was clearly in evidence among Abraham's people. Torah means "instruction" and Abraham received instruction at the Oak of Moreh, between Ai and Bethel, just a Deborah gave instruction - torah - at her palm tree between Ramah and Bethel.

By overlooking the geneological patterns in Genesis, Fr. Reardon has missed the similarity between Abraham and Moses, the similarity between Keturah and Tamar, and the scarlet cord that weaves through two passovers. The Church Fathers often noted these patterns, as did St. Paul, and used them to instruct in righteousness.

The devotional quality of Fr. Reardon's book is remarkable. There are moments when he soars into worship. Here are some samples:

"After Sarah, Abraham would be buried in the same place, along with his son, his grandson, and their wives; all of them rest at Hebron still, awaiting the return of that One who, for a very short while, lay in the grave of the Arimathean." (p. 92)

"Contrary to the assertions of countless preachers, then, it is not the function of a Christian funeral to put someone in his "final resting place." On the contrary, the very wording of a Christian funeral should go out of its way to emphasize that burial itself is a purely temporary housing arrangement... This is our final affirmation that 'Jesus is Lord'; namely, that He is Lord of the land, the true Landlord, proprietor of the real estate bought with His blood. And affirmed in the proclamation is the godly guarantee that this Landlord will duly serve eviction notices on us all, on that final day when Israel goes forth from Egypt and the house of Jacob from a people of alien tongue." (p. 156)

Commentaries on Genesis

Here is a partial list of commentaries on Genesis. They are listed alphabetically by author's or editor's last name.

Genesis
Robert Alter, ed.
New York: W.W. Norton, 1996.

The Book of Genesis
Basil Ferris Campbell Atkinson
Chicago: Moody Press, 1957.

Genesis: An Expositional Commentary
James Montgomery Boice
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998.

Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary
Thomas L Brodie
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching
Walter Brueggemann
Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1 (Adam to Noah)
Umberto Cassuto
Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1961.

Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part II (Noah to Abraham)
Umberto Cassuto
Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1961.
(This volume includes a Fragment of Part III. Cassuto died before he was able to complete his Commentary on the Pentateuch.)

Commentary on Genesis: The First Book of Moses
James Burton Coffman
Abilene, Texas: ACU Press, 1985.

Genesis
David W Cotter
Collegeville, Minnesotta: Liturgical Press, 2003.

Genesis 1:1-25:18
John D. Currid
Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2003.

Genesis 1-11
Robert Davidson
Cambridge University Press, 1973.

Book of Genesis: A Commentary
Samuel Rolles Driver
London: Methuen, 1911.

Genesis
Charles T. Fritsch
Richmond, Virginia: John Knox, 1959.

The International Critical Commentary on Genesis, Chronicles, and the Psalms
Kemper Fullerton
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1912.

The Book of Genesis
Calvin Goodspeed; D. M. Welton
Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1909.

The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History
Hermann Gunkel; William Herbert Carruth
New York: Schocken Books, 1970.

The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17
Victor P. Hamilton
Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1990.

The Women of Genesis
Sharon Jeansonne
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

The Story of Joseph (Genesis 37; 39-47): A Philological Commentary
Isaac Jerusalmi
Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College--Jewish Institute of Religion, 1965.
(Recently up-dated, but requires ability to read Hebrew.)

The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis
Leon R. Kass
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

A Commentary on Genesis: The Book of Beginnings
Martin Kessler; Karel Adriaan Deurloo
New York: Paulist Press, 2004.

Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary
Derek Kidner
Chicago: Inter-varsity Press, 1967.

Before Abraham Was: The Unity of Genesis 1-11
Kikawada, Isaac M. and A. Quinn. 
Nashville: Abingdon, 1985.

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. 1
Andrew Louth. ed.
Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Commentary on Genesis
Martin Luther
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1958.

A commentary upon the first book of Moses, called Genesis
Simon Patrick
London: Printed for Ri. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1698.

Creation and the Patriarchal Histories
Patrick Henry Reardon
Ben Lomond, California: Conciliar Press, 2008.

Chi Rho commentary on Genesis
J T E Renner
Adelaide, S. Australia: Lutheran Pub. House, 1984.

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. 2
Mark Sheridan, ed.
Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002

Genesis (Volume I in the Anchor Bible series )
E.A. Speiser
Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1964.

Genesis
Pauline A. Viviano
Collegeville, Minneapolis: Liturgical Press, 1985.

Genesis
Gerhard Von Rad
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972.

Genesis: A commentary
Bruce K Waltke; Cathi J Fredricks
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001.

The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
John H. Walton
Downer's Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Genesis 1-15
Gordon J Wenham
Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987.

Genesis : A Practical Commentary
Claus Westermann; David Green
Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1987.

Genesis 1-11: A commentary
Claus Westermann
Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1984.

Genesis 12-36: A commentary
Claus Westermann
Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1985.

Genesis 37-50: A commentary
by Claus Westermann
Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1986.

Genesis
by Thomas Whitelaw; F W Farrar; Henry Cotterill; et al
New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1913.

Genesis: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition
by Wilbur Glenn Williams
Indianapolis, Indiana: Wesleyan Pub. House, 2000.

The Book of Genesis: An Introductory Commentary
Ronald F. Youngblood
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1991.

Genesis: The Beginning of Desire
Avivah G. Zornberg
New York: Doubleday, 1996



Related reading: How to Read a Commentary; Reviews of commentaries by Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Herman Gunkel, Leon Kass and Patrick Reardon

Theodore Bobosh on Genesis

ON THIS WEEK'S COME RECEIVE THE LIGHT

Fr. Theodore Bobosh, the priest at St. Paul Orthodox Church in Dayton, Ohio, asks what the Biblical creation story tells us about God, why He chose to create the world in the way He did, and what it says about our relationship with Him.

For background on the Genesis creation stories, go here.

The Messianic Priesthood of Jesus

Alice C. Linsley

For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, saying, “Surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you.” And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men indeed swear by the greater; and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil, where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 6:13-20)

The promises God made to Abraham, to which all in God's Kingdom are heirs, are eternal and unchanging. They are fixed to God’s eternal and unchanging nature and God cannot lie. The writer of Hebrews presents a picture of Jesus' priesthood that helps us to understand how Jesus fulfills those promises. Hebrews explains that the promises are tied to a Messianic priesthood that existed in the time of Abraham and before. What can we say about this priesthood?

First, we can say that the priesthood is verifiably one of the oldest religious institutions in the world, traced back to at least 7000 BC. The priest emerges out of primeval perceptions of blood as a substance of life and purity or rightness. The Hebrew root "thr" = to be pure, corresponds to the Hausa/Hahm "toro" = clean, and to the Tamil "tiru" = holy. All are related to the proto-Dravidian "tor" = blood. These are cognate languages in the Afro-Asiatic language group and it is from these peoples that we received the institution of the priesthood.

Humans yearned for the death-defeating benefits of the Pleromic Blood as early as 80,000 years ago. Sophisticated mining operations in the Lebombo Mountains of southern Africa reveal that thousands of workers were extracting red ochre which was ground into powder and used in the burial of nobles in places as distant as Europe. Anthropologists agree that this red powder symbolized blood and its use in burial represented hope for the renewal of life.

Second, we know that the priesthood functioned to mitigate blood guilt. Anthropologists have noted that there is considerable anxiety about shed blood among primitive peoples. (This has been discussed in many of the great monographs: Benedict's Patterns of Culture, Lévi-Strauss' The Raw and the Cooked, and Turnbull's The Forest People). Among the Afro-Asiatics, the priesthood served to relieve blood guilt and anxiety and to perform rites of purity. Shamans serve a similar function among other linguistic groups, although the worldview of priests and shamans is different.

Observation of primitive peoples helps us to understand the context in which the blood of animals is used to purify, to discern the identity of offenders, and to protect homes, lifestock and children. The Mofu holy man (Cameroon) mixes python fat with the blood of a sacrificed goat when offering prayers for rain. The spirits of hunted animals are reverenced before their blood is shed and their flesh eaten to nourish humans. Warriors abstain from sexual intercourse before battle and purify themselves after battle. Women are purified after childbirth. This is the origin of "the churching of women", a custom that has virtually died out in the Western Churches. Among native peoples, brotherhood pacts are formed by the intentional mixing of bloods, uniting two of a kind, but binary distinctions such as male and female, or human and God are maintained.

Even today in the priests' manuals of the Eastern Churches there is concern about the mixing of bloods. If an Orthodox priest should cut himself while he is in the Holy Place, he must immediately leave. His blood cannot share the same space as the Pleromic Blood that is there by virtue of Christ's Priestly Presence. Eastern Orthodoxy speaks of Communion as a "bloodless feast" to distinguish the Eastern view from Transubstantiation, but the Pleromic Blood is the true Form of the bread and the wine. So it is that every Orthodox professes before receiving, "I believe that this is truly thine own immaculate Body, and that this is truly thine own precious Blood."

Abraham’s meeting with Melchizedek, "priest of the Most High God", was after battle (Gen. 14). This suggests that it had to do with relief of blood guilt. Abraham’s refusal to increase his fortune by war and his acceptance of the bread, wine and blessing offered to him by Melchizedek, show that he desired to be pure. It is noted that this meeting did not involve the sacrifice of animals, but only the offering of bread and wine. Melchizedek’s priesthood typifies the Messianic priesthood of Christ, who gives His own body and blood, prefigured by the bread and wine.

Third, we also know that no woman entered into the Holy Place where blood was offered through atoning death. The Afro-Asiatics, from whom we received the unique institution of the Priesthood, believed that the blood shed by men in war, hunting, execution, and animal sacrifice could not be in the same space as the blood shed by women in their monthly flow and in birthing. Sacred law prohibited the blood shed in killing (male) and the blood shed in giving life (female) to share the same space. God doesn't want confusion about the distinctions of life and death. The same distinction of life-taking and life-giving is behind the prohibition against boiling the young goat in its mother’s milk (Deut. 14:21).

So the author of Hebrews tells us, Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:11-14)


Related reading:  Who Was Melchizedek?

The Pleromic Blood and Gender Distinctions

Alice C. Linsley


I'm a traditionalist. My position takes as its basis the tradition of the priesthood which the Church received from Abraham's Horite people. This older understanding of the priesthood clarifies why "woman priest" is an ontological impossibility.

Many traditionalists go back only as far as the first and second centuries of Christianity, overlooking thousands of years of salvation history. Since the origins of the priesthood predate Abraham, ignoring the origins of the priesthood weakens the traditionalist defense of the male priesthood. This older tradition looks at what God established in creation as binary opposites and finds that male and female are as distinct as night and day and east and west. When we ignore, overlook or confuse such binary distinctions we distort Reality as the fullness of Christ.

The assumption that Tradition is ultimately rooted in Scripture is a Protestant perception that doesn't adequately express the fullness of Christ. Certainly the Church receives the Scriptures as authoritative, but what the biblical writers speak of is not contained within the pages of the Book. It is something beyond Scripture and Tradition, the one single Reality to which both testify quite clearly. Both Scripture and Tradition speak of Reality as being in Christ and very specifically in the Life-giving Blood of Christ. For St. Paul, the “pleroma” (fullness in Greek) is the manifestation of the benefits of the “blood of Jesus.” The blood of sacrificed animals prefigured the Blood of Jesus, but could never serve as a substitute.

The Apostle Paul refers to the Blood of Jesus no less than twelve times in his writings. Because God makes peace with us through the Blood of the Cross, he urges “Take every care to preserve the unity of the Spirit by the peace that binds you together” (Eph. 4:3). All Reality is in Christ and has been revealed in His incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension. Jesus Christ is the “pleroma” (fullness) of all things in heaven and on earth, both invisible and visible. The Gnostics used “pleroma” to describe the metaphysical unity of all things, but Paul uses the term to speak about how all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ in bodily form (Col. 2:9). This means that the Church expects no further revelation, only the consummation at the end of time when Christ returns.

In catholicity, Holy Tradition and Scripture are both received and unalterable.  They are not invented and accomodation to the age in which we live.  Holy Tradition is held alongside Scripture in a dialectical tension. This tension is needed to communicate a true picture of Jesus Christ and the necessity of redemption by His blood. The Church embodies Holy Tradition and Scripture and rejects practices that are contrary to this central message.  One such practice is women priests. The Bible does not say that women can be priests becaseu the very notion would have been unthinkable to the ancients from whom we received the tradition of the priesthood. They held to the binary distinctions that reveal “woman priest” as an ontological impossibility. The idea of women sacrificing animals in the Temple would have been a great affront to the Creator.  He created women to bring forth life, not to take it.

Evangelicals believe that the ordination of women does not touch on matters of salvation. This reveals how poorly they understand the biblical view of Reality which holds males and females, and the blood shed by males and females, as distinct and not to be confused, or even to be present in the same place. That is why women were not permitted inside the sanctuary and why men were not permitted inside birthing chambers. Evangelicals operate on the sola scriptura principle of the Reformation, and in so doing they overthrow the tension of Scripture and Tradition and produce a distortion of Christianity. This distortion paved the way for other distortions such as the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals and same-sex ceremonies in churches. These too are an affront to the divine order in creation.

Such practices represent attempts to break catholic orders and to revision Reality. Gay activist, Louie Crew, explains in his essay “Changing the Church” that Ellen Barrett, the first woman “canonically” ordained in the Episcopal Church was also a lesbian. With this single ordination, Bishop Moore of New York expressed his contempt for Reality and for the pleromic Blood of Christ.

Women priests and homo represent distortions that ignore the binary distinctions of male and female as divinely ordered. Both distort the message of Jesus Christ, our great High Priest. All the more reason why these should not be practiced within the Body of Christ.


Related reading:  Why Women Were Never Priests; God as Male Priest; the Importance of Binary Distinctions; Blood and Binary Distinctions; What is Holy Tradition?; Women Priests

The Pleromic Blood and Gnosticism

Alice C. Linsley

"Perhaps you have noticed that the creeds speak of the birth of Jesus and then of his death. There is no mention of the life of Jesus, no mention of the teachings of Jesus, no mention of the healing power of Jesus.The heart of the gospel is missing. The creeds are defective and need to be taken out of service. Instead, let us proclaim clearly the gospel of the Resurrected Jesus, "The seed of true humanity is within you. Follow it!" Gospel of Mary (Magdalene) 4:5
The Rev. John Beverley Butcher (Hat tip to Stand Firm.)

John Butcher, an Episcopal priest in Pescadero, California, wants to do away with the historic Creeds of the Christian Faith because they are incompatible with what he regards to be the heart of his religion. That is because his religion isn't Christianity. Butcher is a Gnostic.

It isn’t simply that Gnostics hold convictions and practices that are incompatible with Christianity. They hold different views of justice, language, truth, love, in short, a different view of Reality.

Yet there is but one Reality and Christians should know it better than any. St. Paul writes of this Reality as the pleromic “mystery of Christ” and he identifies this as the heart of the Gospel. It is, in fact, the central message of the Apostle’s writings and the Reality of which the Creeds speak.

The Apostle Paul explains that Jesus Christ is the fullness (“pleroma” in Greek) of all things in heaven and on earth, both invisible and visible. The term “pleroma” was used among the Gnostics to describe the metaphysical unity of all things, but Paul uses the term to speak about how all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ in bodily form (Col. 2:9).

Paul’s use of pleroma, as well the appearance of this idea in other New Testament writings, suggests that the term was widely circulating in apostolic times. Against the Gnostics, the biblical writers used it to explain that the mystical Body of Christ fills heaven (glorified Saints and Heroes of Faith) and earth (militant Saints). Reality, then, is the depository of the fullness of all things hidden and revealed in Christ. Paul wants his converts to understand that they are “entrusted with the mysteries of God”, so that they may faithfully proclaim Reality so that hearers “may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ” (I Cor. 4:1, Eph. 3:9 and Col. 2:2).

There is a significant difference between the Gnostic application of “pleroma” and Paul’s application. For the Gnostics, the pleroma is vague and undifferentiated, but for Paul the pleroma is the manifestation of the benefits of the “blood of Jesus.” Paul never allows the churches he planted to wander far from the Blood of Jesus that brings eternal life to all who receive this spiritual transfusion.

Paul articulated his understanding of the pleroma as early as his second missionary journey when he preached to the Athenians that, “in Him [Jesus Christ] we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:28) However, Paul’s thoughts on this developed further as he continued to reflect on the Hebrew Scriptures, prayed and fasted, and received greater illumination by Christ. We find the fullest expression of the pleroma in his latter writings, especially in Romans and in Ephesians:

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times, He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth. (Ephesians 1:7-10)

While not yet fully developed in the Church, the Trinity underlies Paul’s understanding of the pleroma. He speaks of the distinct Persons of the Trinity and of the oneness of the Body of Christ in the language of Shema: “There is one Body, one Spirit, ...one hope ...one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, and one God and father of all, over all, through all and within all” (Eph. 4:4-5).

These words follow Paul’s explanation of the saving work of Jesus Christ. He explained to the Ephesians:

But now in Christ Jesus, you that used to be so far apart from us have been brought very close, by the blood of Christ. For He is peace between us, and has made the two into one and broken down the barrier which used to keep them apart, actually destroying in His own person the hostility caused by the rules and decrees of the Law. This was to create one single man in Himself out of the two of them and by restoring peace through the Cross, to unite them both in a single body and reconcile them with God. In His own person He killed the hostility… Through Him, both of us have in one Spirit our way to come to the Father (Eph. 2:13-14).

Paul effectively and convincingly moves the Christian faith toward a Trinitarian comprehensiveness that forever distinguishes it from polytheistic dynamism (Hinduism), henotheistic animism (tribal religions) and the liberal mushiness of post-Christian Episcopalians such as Father Butcher.

The Pleromic Blood as Reality implies that there is but one eternal Kingdom. This is the corrective to the tendency of Christians to think that the Church and the Kingdom are one and the same. The Church is part of the Kingdom of God, but not the sum of the Kingdom. Christian historicism sees separate dispensations before Christ and after Christ. But there is no "before Christ" since He is eternal. This two-dispensations theology causes many to misunderstand Jesus' teachings about the Kingdom. The Pleromic Blood means that there is but one dispensation throughout all time, found in Christ from before the foundation of the world.

Are there two dispensations or one Kingdom? Are there two bodies or one Body? Are the heroes of faith before Christ’s Incarnation one dispensation and those in the Church another? Where is this found in Scripture?

There is only one dispensation, one Reality: The Pleromic Blood, of which St. Paul speaks. One is either in Christ or not in Christ; connected to the Life-giving eternal Reality or not connected. Was Abraham not connected? Was his Faith a symbol of a different dispensation or the Faith into which we are grafted?

All the things of God are realized in Jesus' Blood. All suffering, which many religions attempt to explain apart from Christ, or to avoid through asceticism or philosophy, are made meaningful by His Blood. All worldly striving is shown to be futile by His Blood.

So it is that the Apostle Paul refers to the Blood of Jesus no less than twelve times in his writings. Because God makes peace with us through the Blood of the Cross, he urges “Take every care to preserve the unity of the Spirit by the peace that binds you together” (Eph. 4:3). Paul's confession of the saving Blood of Jesus informs his understanding of the Body of Christ. He continues: “There is one Body, one Spirit, just as one hope is the goal of your calling by God. There is one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all, over all, through all and within all” (Eph. 4:4-5).

Lest we presume that the pleromic understanding of the Blood of Jesus is an invention of St. Paul, we should consider also these words from St. John:

Who can overcome the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? He it is who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with water alone but with water and blood, and it is the Spirit that bears witness, for the Spirit is Truth. So there are three witnesses, the Spirit, water and blood, and the three of them coincide." (I John 5:5-8)