Wells and Brides

Alice C. Linsley


"Therefore blessed Jacob, as you have heard, went into Mesopotamia to take a wife. When he had come to a certain well, he saw Rachel coming with her father's sheep - after he recognized her as his cousin, he kissed her as soon as the flock was supplied with water. If you notice carefully, brothers, you can recognize that it was not without reason that the holy patriarchs found their wives at wells or fountains. If this had happened only once, someone might say it was accidental and not for some definite reason. Blessed Rebekah who was to be united to blessed Isaac was found at the well; Rachel whom blessed Jacob was to marry was recognized at the well; Zipporah who was joined to Moses was found at the well." - Caesarius of Arles (Sermon 88:1)

To this list, we must add Keturah who resided at the Well of Sheba where Abraham went to take her as his second wife. And there is the Samaritan Woman at the well to whom Jesus spoke. Her name, according to Tradition, is Photini and she symbolizes the Church, the "Bride of Christ."

In addition to the pattern of meeting brides at wells, we recognize that Rebekah and Zipporah were drawing water for their father's sheep. This is highly suggestive, since Zipporah was the daughter of the "Priest of Midian", Jethro. Mary's father was Joachim and tradition tells us that he was both a priest and a shepherd. Was Rebekah the daughter of a priest? Very likely.

Rebekah's father was Bethuel, which means "House of God" and probably refers to a shrine. Bethuel was a son of Nahor and Milka, a "brother" of the tribal unit designated by Huz, Uz, Buz, and a nephew of Abraham (Genesis 22:20-22).

The well also represents refreshment, neutral ground for strangers to meet, and a place of ritual cleansing. Caesarius of Arles explains that since Isaac, Jacob and Moses are all types of Jesus Christ, "for this reason they found their wives at wells, because Christ was to find His church at the waters of baptism."

The ancient shrines were built at wells, rivers, oases and springs which sustained the flocks of the priests who tended those shrines. It was here that Horite ruler-priests often met their future wives.

Related reading:  Water and Blood; A Woman at a Well; Shepherd Priests

The Prophetess Anna

Alice C. Linsley

And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then as a widow for 84 years. She never left the temple, but continued to worship there night and day with times of fasting and prayer. Just then she came forward and began to thank God and to speak about Jesus to everyone who was waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem. (Luke 2:36-38)


The name Anna is related to the Hausa annabi, meaning prophet, and probably to the Hausa word annuri, meaning heavenly light. She was the daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, a tribe known for producing prophets. (Hausa is a Chadic language spoken in the region where some of Abraham's ancestors lived.)

Asher was the seventh son of Jacob. His mother was Leah’s servant, Zilpah (Gen. 30:13). His name means “blessedness” or "contentment". The name appears in one of the most important Old Testament passages: where God gives his name to Moses, saying Ehyeh asher ehyeh (Exodus 3:14). It is generally interpreted to mean I am that I am, though it more literally translates as "I-shall-be that I-shall-be." It may be understood to mean: “I am the he who was, am and will be.”

Asher had three sons by one wife. Their names were Jimnah, Jishvah and Jishvi and they represent a tribal unit. By his other wife he had a son, Beriah, and a daughter, Serah. Serah is also mentioned in Numbers 26:46 and in 1 Chronicles 7:30. As we have learned, when a daughter is named in the Old Testament, we should pay attention to her. If she marries her cousin, her father’s name would be carried forward in the naming of her first-born son. If she marries her half-brother, her son would be regarded as belonging to her father’s household.

Dr Leila Leah Bronner, a Jewish commentator, has written, “To the modern reader, genealogical lists of names appear unimportant and tedious, but genealogical lists are of great importance in Jewish tradition. They affirm that the history of Israel was no human accident but was instead the result of divine purpose and plan in history... The fact that Serah is mentioned no less than three times by name in genealogical lists is remarkable in itself. Her triple appearance may be what made her seem to the sages extraordinary enough for them to want to embroider marvelous, even myth-like stories about her. The company Serah keeps may also have something to do with it: not only does Serah live during a time of exemplary women, but her closest male relations are among the giants of Israelite history-Jacob (her grandfather), Joseph (her uncle), and Asher (her father).”[1]

Asher’s son, Beriah, is the father of Heber (related to the word “Hebrew”). Heber was either the grandfather of Jael's Kenite husband or he was Jael's husband. (In Judges 4:17-24 we read how Jael killed Sisera, as foretold by Deborah.) The marriage of Asher's grandson to a Kenite bride indicates that the lines descending from Terah (Abraham's father) continued to intermarry as we have seen with the lines of Cain and Seth, and Ham and Shem. This means that Asher is connected to the oldest royal house alluded to in Genesis, the west African house of Nok. Deuteronomy 33:24 tells us that Moses blessed the tribe of Asher with these words: “Let Asher be the most blessed of the sons! Let him be the most privileged of his brothers and let him bathe his feet in oil.” (Remember the woman who came to anoint Jesus’ feet with oil before His crucifixion?)

In the New Testament we meet a remarkable woman of the tribe of Asher - Anna, the prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel. She was a widow who remained in the temple, serving God night and day with fasting and prayers. In a sense she is the first known “monastic” in the Bible.

Among Afro-Asiatic peoples, widows attached themselves to shrines or temples once their husbands died. This still happens in both west central Africa and in India (the western and eastern ends of the ancient Afro-Asiatic Dominion). The Hindu scholar, Dr Shubhash C. Sharma, explains: "The same type of consideration, as … for young girls, is generally applicable to adult women, especially the widows, when they decide to live in temples and religious places... Note that even though the widows living in such places (temples etc.) might number in several thousand they still represent an extremely small minority relative to millions of Indian widows..."[2]

Anna is the only widow that is known to have lived in the temple. Most chose to live with their families (as did Naomi and Oprah), but Anna (like Ruth) chose to follow a different path.

Anna was well known as a "prophetess" before Mary and Joseph brought Jesus to the Temple. She must have made other remarkable proclamations that were known to be true. In Luke 2 she bears witness to the appearing of Messiah and stands as one of the three witnesses to the Kingdom. Jesus said, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one Shepherd." (John 10:16) The Church is one flock and those who died in expectation of Messiah's appearing are the other flock. The kingdom of God consists of these two flocks. Anna, along with Simeon and John the Baptist, are the last of the generation that lived in expectation of Messiah's appearing. They are the three witnesses to which St. John alludes: "This is He who came by water and blood - Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit it truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and these three agree as one." (I John 5:6-8) Simeon, the priest, represents the Blood. Anna, the prophetess, represents the Spirit, and John the Baptist represents the Water.

Anna was a true daughter of her ancestor Serah, the seer. According to the Babylonian Talmud, God delivered the Israelites from Egypt because of their righteous women. It says, “As the reward for the righteous women who lived in that [Serah's] generation were the Israelites delivered from Egypt.” Because of their reputation for being righteous, the women of Asher's tribe were sought as wives by rulers and priests.

The Prophetess Anna shared Serah’s prophetic gift. According to the Babylonian Talmud, Serah was gifted with special sight. She is credited with finding Joseph’s true bones which the Egyptians had buried in the Nile to bless the waters. Likewise Anna identified the true Messiah, He who rose from the grave as Joseph's bones rose from the Nile.[3]


NOTES

1. Read Dr Bronner here: http://www.bibleandjewishstudies.com/articles/serah.htm

2. Read Dr Sharma here: http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/temple_shelter.html

3. The Talmud reads: “It is related that Serah, daughter of Asher, was a survivor of that generation. Moses went to her and asked, ‘Dost thou know where Joseph is buried?’ She answered him, ‘The Egyptians made a metal coffin for him which they fixed in the river Nile so that its waters should be blessed.’ Moses went and stood on the bank of the Nile and exclaimed, ‘Joseph, Joseph! The time has arrived which the Holy One, blessed be He swore, I will deliver you, and the oath which thou didst impose upon the Israelite has reached [the time of fulfillment].’ Immediately Joseph's coffin floated [on the surface of the water]” (Sota 13a).

St. Augustine on Chronology in Genesis

It is important to understand that while Genesis appears to be a chronological telling of creation and events of Abraham’s people, deep study reveals that some events must be understood to have taken place at nearly the same time or prior to the events being described. For St. Augustine this was so important that he included this distinction in his Christian Instruction.

Augustine explains: “In the Scriptures some things are related in such a way that they seem to be following the order of time or occurring in chronological succession, when actually the narrative, without mentioning it, refers to previous events that had been left unmentioned. Unless we understand this distinction, we shall fall into error. For example, we find in Genesis: ‘And the Lord God planted a paradise of pleasure in the east; and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.’ This last mentioned event would seem to have occurred after God had made the man and placed him in paradise. After both these facts have been mentioned briefly (that is, that God planted a paradise and there ‘placed man whom He had formed’), the narrative turns back by means of recapitulation and relates what had been planted and that God brought forth out of the ground all manner of trees fair to behold and pleasant to eat of.” (Christian Instruction 2:36.52)

Another example involves Abraham’s cousin wife, Keturah. The narrative of Abraham’s wives has Sarah’s death and burial before it speaks of Abraham’s marriage to Keturah. This creates the impression that Abraham married Keturah after Sarah died, but that is not the case. He married her shortly after he settled in the land of Canaan, his mother’s homeland. This second marriage enabled Abraham to gain territory in Canaan.

The narrative of Judah is another example. Judah is in Egypt to buy grain during the famine in Canaan. He was also in Canaan with his friends and there he has sexual intercourse with Tamar, the daughter of a priest. Judah was a worldly chief who traveled between Egypt and Canaan. Additionally, Genesis indicates that Judah had 2 wives, which means that he would have moved back and forth between their settlements.

Sometimes the arrangement of the Bible suggests a longer stretch of time than the actual genealogies permit. This is evident in the story of Oholibamah, the daughter Anah and grand daughter of Zibeon. Oholibamah was Esau’s wife (Genesis 36:5) who bore Korah, the Elder. Korah the Younger was a half-brother to Moses and resisted Moses' authority in the wilderness. He died when the earth opened and devoured him and his fellow conspirators (Numbers 26:10). This means that the events of Genesis 48-50 and the events described in the early chapters of Exodus must be understood as involving no more than 5 generations.

It is clear then that reading Genesis strictly as a chronological account leads to erroneous conclusions. The material is organized with a chronological sequence, but when we examine the genealogical material in Genesis we discover that some of the recounted events happened concurrently and some took place beforehand.

Mary's Ruler-Priest Lineage

Alice C. Linsley


Mary is without doubt the most honored woman of the Bible. She is called Theotokos which means God-Bearer because she brought forth Jesus Christ, who Christians worship as the promised Son of God who came into the world to save sinners, to make void the curse of death, and to restore Paradise.

Through Mary’s faithfulness God fulfilled the promise in Genesis 3 that the Serpent would be defeated (his head crushed) by the Seed of the Woman. This promise, preserved through thousands of years, came to focus on the Tribe of Judah and then more narrowly on a descendent of King David, the anointed of God.

Such religious expectation would have been preserved through the generations by priests and prophets. As the First Priest in Scripture is God [1], we have in the story of the Woman and the Serpent a type of Theotokos and Satan. For Satan to be defeated, the Woman’s Seed would have to be of God, not of man, and so Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, not the son of Joseph.

The expectation of Messiah was preserved through a priestly lineage that was carefully guarded, following the kinship pattern of Abraham’s people. As we have seen in our study of the kinship of Abraham’s people, rulers and priests were careful in the selection of their brides and married according to a unique pattern. Priests married priest’s daughters. Priests were brothers or half-brothers and they married women who were cousins or half-sisters. This is what is alluded to in Mishna Taanith[1]: “Four-score pair of brethren-priests took to wife fourscore pair of sister-priestesses in Gophne, all in one night.”

The people of Abraham took great care in the selection of wives for their priests since the offspring would trace their blood lines through their mothers. This kinship pattern enables us to understand the relationship of Mary and Joseph, both of priestly houses.


Mary’s Lineage

According to Holy Tradition, Mary’s parents were Joachim[2] and Anne. Joachim was a priest and his wife Anne was probably a daughter of a priest. Mary is said to have been born in the grotto under the Church of St. Anne which would have been adjacent to the Temple, in an area where the Temple priests lived.

Mary’s husband was Joseph. Before his marriage to Mary, he was an elderly widower with children of his own. Joseph’s father was Heli (also spelled Eli), a priest.

Bishop A. Hervey, who wrote a learned work on the “Genealogies of Our Lord Jesus Christ”, holds that Mary’ father was the brother of Joseph’s father. Mary and Joseph were therefore first cousins, and both descendents of David. This means that Jesus was a direct descendent of King David by blood (through Mary) and by status (through Joseph).

Hippolytus writing in the early third century, records that Mary’s mother was one of three daughters of a priest named Matthan[3] and his wife Mary. The eldest sister, Mary, was the mother of Salome; the second sister, Sobe, married a Levite and was mother of Elizabeth; the third sister was Anne, Mary’s mother. Mary’s cousin Elizabeth was the mother of John the Baptist. Elizabeth and Mary were cousins, and both daughters of priestly houses.

Mary is "Miriam Daughter of Joachim Son of Pntjr (Panther) Priests of Nathan of Beth Lehem." From the earliest predynastic times among the Egyptian Horites, ntjr designated the king. The name Panther or p-ntjr meant "God is King."

It is certain that Mary was of the ruler-priest class because even those who hated her admit this. Sanhedrin 106a says: “She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters.” It is said that she was so despised that some Jews tried to prevent the Apostles from burying her body.

I Chronicles 4:4 lists Hur (Hor) as the "father of Bethlehem." The author of Chronicles knew that Bethlehem was originally a Horite settlement in the heart of Horite territory. The prophets foretold Bethlehem as the birth place of the Son of God.

Joseph's family lived in Nazareth which was the home of the eighteenth division of priests, that of Happizzez (1 Chronicles 24:15). The words happi and ntjr originate in the Nile Valley, as do the names of many of the ruler-priests listed in the genealogies in Luke and Matthew. Melchi, a name that appears twice in Mary's ancestry, means "my image" in Amharic.



What the New Testament Genealogies Tell Us

Matthew 1:1–6 and Luke 3:32–34 are in agreement on the following line of descent:

Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Perez – son of Er by levirate law, son of Tamar by Judah
Hezron
Ram (Aram)
Amminadab
Nahshon
Salma (or Salmon), married Rahab
Boaz, married Ruth
Obed
Jesse
David

Luke 3:23–31 continues the list as follows (notice the recurrence of names, marked with an asterisk): If using the diagram at right, please cite this author.

David
Nathan
Mattatha *

Menna
Melea
Eliakim
Jonam
Joseph *
Judah – father of Er who died childless by his cousin wife Tamar

Simeon
Levi
Matthat *
Jorim
Eliezer
Joshua
Er – descendant of Er by his half-sister wife
Elmadam
Cosam
Addi
Melki
Neri
Shealtiel
Zerubbabel – who returned to Judah from Babylonian captivity with Mordecai
Rhesa
Joanan
Joda
Josech
Semein
Mattathias *
Maath
Naggae
Esli
Nahum
Amos
Mattathias *
Joseph *
Jannai
Melchi
Levi
Matthat *
Heli
Joseph *
Jesus

Note the recurrence of names, suggesting cousin brides who named their first-born sons after their fathers. The name Er appears in the 7th generation from Judah. This suggests that Judah's son Er, who married Tamar, had another wife besides Tamar. This may explain why Er refused to produce a son to be the heir of his deceased brother (levirate marriage) with Tamar. He would not have wanted his brother's heir to compete over territory with his own heir.

Tamar must have been Er’s patrilineal cousin. The firstborn son of the cousin/niece bride ascended to the throne of his maternal grandfather. Tamar's father was a ruler at Timna, and ancient metalworking site.
When we consider these Patriarch in Mary's lineage, we observe some common features. They were chiefs or kings over their territories. They kept flocks, dug wells, and built up their households through  two wives. One was a half sister, as was Sarah to Abraham.  The other was a patrilineal cousin or niece, as was Keturah to Abraham. Both firstborn sons ascended to thrones.  The firstborn sons of concubines served the ruling sons.  All other sons were given gifts and sent away to establish their own territories.
The Horite ruler-priests offered sacrifices to God at stone altars. They controlled the water systems, such as rivers, oases and wells. These were important not only for human survival, but also to water the flocks and herds kept by the ruler-priests. This is why the roles of ruler, priest and flock owner were inseparable.


The Protoevangelium of James[4] says that Mary’s father had flocks as did all priests of the Bible. Moses tended the flocks of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian. A common image of God in the Old Testament is as the Shepherd of Israel (Ps 80:1) and the priests of Israel are referred to as “shepherds.”  The Good Shepherd leads His flocks to the "still waters" because He controls the waters. They are his possession, just as the ruler-priests of Abraham's people controlled the ancient water systems.

What could be more natural than for priests to maintain a source of animals for sacrifice? Their lives were such that they would naturally learn the skills of a good priest. The shepherd makes a good priest because he must:

- watch for those who prey on the sheep
- defend the sheep from attackers
- heal the wounded and sick sheep
- find and save lost or trapped sheep
- call them by name and know their individual quirks
- and earn their trust

This is why Jesus is referred to as Good Shepherd, High Priest and “the Anointed [Messiah] of God”, the term applied to David, a king-shepherd who, according to 2 Samuel 24, offered acceptable burnt sacrifice at the threshing floor of Araunah, the Jebusite[6].

So Mary, in fulfillment of the first biblical promise (Gen. 3), was chosen by God to bring forth the High Priest, Good Shepherd, Messiah and Eternal Son of God. None other can claim this great honor. No other woman deserves the Church's highest acclaim.


Related reading:  Joseph's Relationship to Mary; Mount Mary and the Origins of Life; God's Word Never Fails, The Daughters of Horite Priests


NOTES

1. God sacrificed an animal to cover the nakedness of the man and the woman.

2. Mishna Taanit deals with the public fasts observed in ancient Palestine. Go here: http://www.archive.org/stream/mishnatractateta00greeiala/mishnatractateta00greeiala_djvu.txt

3. Joachim means “God will establish”. Joseph means “God will increase”.

4. The name Matthan/Mattai and its linguistic equivalents appear 5 times in Luke’s list. The name come from the word “gift” and can also refer to the “giving’ of Torah. Mattaniah means “gift of God”.

5. The Protoevangelium of James states that the “brethren of the Lord” were sons of Joseph by another wife. Here: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/480056/Protevangelium-of-James

6. Araunah was a Jebusite. Jerusalem (Salem) was a Jebusite city and one of the priests of Salem was Melchizedek.

The King is Risen!

Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah who rose from the dead. He is the Eternal King whose reign is foretold by the prophets and priests of old. Let us trace the signs that verify this.

His name means "Savior" and his birth was predicted by prophets and foreseen by seers.

His cross is the most basic symbol of the cosmology of the people of Abraham and the sign of Reality.

He was born in David's city of Bethlehem, of the Tribe of Judah, of the Virgin Mary.

His coming was marked by the alignment of Regulus, the King star with Jupiter, the King planet in the constellation of Leo at the beginning of the Jewish New Year in 3 BC. The conjunction produced the appearance of a single extraordinarily bright star.

In Genesis 49:9-10, we read: "You are a lion's cub, O Judah; you return from the prey, my son. Like a lion he crouches and lies down, like a lioness-- who dares to rouse him? The sceptre will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his."

The association of Messiah with the tribe of Judah and the lion clarifies Jupiter's triple conjunction with Regulus within the constellation of Leo, The Lion.

The Messiah-King was visited by wise men from the East who brought gifts fit for a king.

Like Abraham and Moses, both princes yet regarded as foreigners, King Jesus' noble lineage was not recognized by the Jewish authorities.

When the people used palm fronds to greet Jesus as he entered Jerusalem, they greeted him as one to be enthroned. Fresh palm tree fronds were used ceremonially at the installation of rulers. Even today fresh palm tree leaves are “employed on occasions of installation to the position and rank of a sovereign, and to the office of a priest of high rank.” Fresh palm tree fronds are used ceremonially at the installation of rulers even today. (For more on this, go here.)

When He appeared before Pilate he did not deny that he was the King of Israel.

Mocking Him, the soldiers crowned him with thorns and dressed Him in royal purple.

While on the Cross, many read the sign that named his crime: "King of the Jews."

In death, His body was layed in the tomb of Joseph, the Aramathean. "Aram" is an old word meaning ruler or exalted. Sarah's people were Aramatheans and the blood line of Messiah is traced through the mothers. When we consider Sarah's story we recognize her as a type of Israel. To her the promise of a son was given. Initially, she laughed at the promise because she thought only in natural terms and she was beyond the age of child bearing. Then in her later days, she received the promised son and even insisted that he alone was to rule over his father’s territory. This is what happened to the Jews. They were given the Messianic promise and they laughed at Him. Long after the promise was made, Messiah was born and made known in Israel, but many of the leading Jews wanted Him dead. However many more followed Him and insisted that He was the King who was to rule over His Father’s kingdom.

Before he died at age 108, Israel's leading rabbi, Yitzhak Kaduri, left a signed note indicating Messiah's identity: Yeshua - Jesus.

A few months before, Rabbi Kaduri had surprised his followers when he told them that he met the Messiah in dreams and visions. His manuscripts, written in his own hand, have crosses painted by Kaduri all over the pages.

Many Jews have attempted to explain away the crosses, arguing that the great Rabbi Kaduri was not a Christian. Of course not! However, he was wise and prayerful, and he knew the tradition and cosmology of his people. Those combined to lead him to Jesus, Messiah and King.

Christ's Resurrection in Genesis

Alice C. Linsley


In celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ Christians contemplate the profound implications of this event in history. One way to weigh the implications is to look at the types of Christ that we find in Genesis.

In Genesis 1 God rests on the seventh day. Jesus rested in the tomb on the seventh day. In Genesis 1 we find the neat ordering of the world. In the empty tomb, Jesus' followers found the neatly folded head cloth, signaling the restoration of Paradise.

In Genesis chapter 2 we meet Adam, created to enjoy fellowship with his Creator. He is the first of his kind to die and the first to be raised in Christ. This is why icons of the Crucifixion show the skull of Adam buried under the Cross. Taking a closer look, one notes that the Blood of Jesus drips on Adam's bones. The message is clear: Adam, who represents humanity, is redeemed by the Blood of Christ.

Another type of Jesus's work is found in Abel. Our first clue that Abel is a type of the Son of God is his name. Abel means "son" (cf. Assyrian aplu or ablu which means "son"). His name could also mean El (God) is Father, in which case Abel is a short version of Abimael אֲבִימָאֵל - my father is God.

We note also that Abel was a shepherd (Gen. 4:2) who offered an acceptable sacrifice (Gen. 4: 4-5). This also points us to Jesus Christ. Then there are additional details: Abel was killed by his brother outside the settlement, just as Jesus was killed by his fellow Jews outside Jerusalem. We are pointed to Calvary when we are told that Abel's blood called to the Father from the ground (Gen. 4:10) and God heard and undertook judgment upon Cain, expelling him, but preserving his life. Likewise, God heeds the Blood of Jesus and mixes justice and mercy in His dealing with us.

Abel was a shepherd who offered an acceptable offering. The shepherd-priest motif that we first find with Abel continues with Abraham who kept flocks and dug wells to support them. He also offered sacrifices that were acceptable to God. Likewise, Jethro, the Priest of Midian, whose daughter drew water for his flocks, offered sacrifices to God. Jethro was Moses' father-in-law. The shepherd-priest motif continues with David who tended his father's flocks and offered sacrifices that were accepted at the threshing floor of Araunah, the Jebusite. The motif culminates in Joachim, the Virgin Mary's father, a priest and a shepherd. As blood line was figured through the mother, Jesus has a priestly lineage.

Finally, in Genesis 3:15, we read that the One to be born of Woman will be bruised by the serpent but will crush the serpent's head. Jesus' crucifixion was mortal bruising. His resurrection crushed the serpent's head. By death He has trampled down death and delivers us from the grave. He restores sinners to Paradise/communion with God. Alleluia!

"Thy Resurrection, Oh Christ My Savior, the angels in Heaven sing! Enable us on Earth to Glorify Thee in purity of heart!"

Why Women Were Never Priests

Alice C. Linsley


In the Episcopal Church USA, the innovation of women priests has caused great confusion and division. This has spread throughout the whole Anglican Communion. This innovation is contrary to the binary pattern of Holy Scripture whereby the "blood work" of women and of men is distinct and never confused. A female standing as a priest at the altar is as confusing as a male image intended to represent the Virgin Mary.

If the priest is an icon of Jesus Christ, then the priesthood is a Christological matter, and as such, it necessarily touches on soteriology. It cannot be a matter of secondary importance. Anglicans, even bishops, have no authority to change the received tradition concerning Jesus Christ, our Priest who offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the salvation of the world.

C.S. Lewis is correct that when it comes to received Tradition, "We cannot shuffle or tamper so much. With the Church, we are farther in: for there we are dealing with male and female not merely as facts of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge. Or rather, we are not dealing with them but (as we shall soon learn if we meddle) they are dealing with us." (From Priestesses in the Church?)


Priests or shamans?

It is obvious that women are not strong enough to lift large animals and to restrain them long enough to slit their throats for sacrifice. It is also a fact that there is no anthropological evidence of women priests in the ancient world. The so-called "priestesses" of the pagan shrines such as the Pythia at Delphi, were not priests, but shamans. Priests and shamans represent different worldviews. Themistoclea of Delphi represents the shamanistic approach and Deborah represents an approach in which consultation of spirits and drug-induced trance states is forbidden. Both women were consulted by their people, but their methods and the sources of their information were very different.[1]

The priesthood originated among Abraham's Proto-Saharan ancestors and from the beginning was a sign pointing to the one true Form of Priest, Jesus Christ.[2]  Every priest, either living before Christ or after Christ’s appearing, stands as a sign pointing to Him and receives the priesthood from Him.

The priesthood is a unique office and it is impossible to change it in any essential way. All attempts to change the priesthood, such as developed out of Protestantism or the ordination of women "priests", corrupt the sign so that it no longer points to the Jesus the true Priest, who is the fulfillment of the Horite expectation of the Divine Seed (Gen. 3:15). The Church has no authority to change the ontological pattern since the priesthood existed before the Church. The priesthood was not established by the Apostles, nor even by Jesus Christ Himself, but is an historical reality with a point of origin among Abraham's Kushite ruler-priest ancestors (Horites/Horim).

The first ruler-priest mentioned in the Bible is Melchizedek who lived during the time of Abraham. It is clear from Genesis 14 that Melchizedek and Abraham were well acquainted. Both belonged to the Horite ruler-priest caste which practiced endogamy. In other words, Abraham and Melchizedek were kinsmen. It is likely that Melchizedek was the brother-in-law of Joktan, Abraham's father-in-law.

The author of Hebrews tells us that Melchizedek points to Jesus as the true Priest: “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)

Melchizedek represents the Messianic priesthood, but he does not represent the beginning of the priesthood. Cain and Abel acted as priests when they offered sacrifices in Genesis 4. This means that the priesthood was not established by the Apostles, it existed long before them. According to Saint John Chrysostom, a Church Father, the priesthood “is ranked among heavenly ordinances. And this is only right, for no man, no angel, no archangel, no other created power, but the Paraclete himself ordained this succession...”[3]

If the Apostles are not the source of the Christian priesthood, what is the source? It can only be the eternal Christ, who is the eternal Form/Priest. Through Jesus Christ the eternal truth signified by the Priesthood comes into focus. He alone is Priest, fulfilling atonement through His own shed blood. The Priesthood therefore, is necessarily tied to the Blood of Jesus Christ. Where people deny the saving nature of Jesus' Blood there can be no true Priesthood. Any priest who denies the necessity of repentance and trust in Jesus' Blood as the means of forgiveness, is a false priest.


What can we say about the Priesthood?

The priesthood is one of the oldest religious offices in the world, traced back to at least 4000 B.C. It emerged out of the Proto-Saharan and Nilotic context and extended from the Sudan and ancient Nubia through Arabia to the Indus River Valley. According to the Vedic book, the Matsya, the Kushites (Sa-ka) ruled the ancient world for 7000 years. They spread their binary worldview and their religious practices, such a falcon-shaped fire altars dedicated to Horus. The Vedic Priest Manuals (Brahmanas) [4] speak of how the Brahman offered sacrifice at altars which they constructed according to geometry and at the proper seasons which they determined through astronomy. The Vedas also reveal the danger of a priestly order that becomes too powerful and self-serving, as happened also with the ruler-priests of Jesus’ time (Sanhedrin). When the True Priest appeared among them, they were unable to recognize Him because their understanding of the office of the Priest had become corrupted.

The priest must be understood against the backdrop of Horite perceptions of blood as the substance of life or the ground of Being. The binary aspect of blood is seen in the belief that it can both purify and pollute. The priest was not to come into contact with blood before his time of service in the temple. Contact with blood or a corpse caused him to be ritually impure. At the same time, spiritual contamination was cleansed by the blood of sacrificed lambs. Purity, holiness and blood are closely related concepts among the Afro-Asiatics, as is evident from linguistic study. The Hebrew thr means "to be pure" and corresponds to the Hausa/Hahm toro, meaning "to be clean." They are related to the Ethiopian Amarigna word anatara, which means "pure" and to the Tamil tiru, which means "holy." There is a relationship to the proto-Dravidian tor, meaning "blood." In some Kushitic languages mtoro means rain and toro refers to God. The Egyptian ntr, meaning deity, is related and also refers to deified Horite rulers.

From the dawn of time humans recognized that life is in the blood. They saw offspring born of water and the blood. They knew that the loss of blood could bring death. Killing animals in the hunt also meant life for the community. They sought ways to ensure that their dead entered life beyond the grave, especially their rulers who could intercede for them before the Deity. This is why peoples around the world covered their dead rulers in red ochre dust as early as 80,000 years ago.[5] This red dust is a sign pointing to the Pleromic Blood of Jesus.[6]

God planted eternity in our hearts so we innately know that Christ's Blood is not only redemptive, but also the source of our life. This is what St. Paul calls "the mystery of Christ". As his second missionary journey, Paul preached that, “in Him [Jesus Christ] we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:28) He also wrote: “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. (Eph. 1:7-10)

These words follow Paul’s explanation of the saving work of Jesus Christ in 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)

Second, we know that the priest functions to mitigate blood guilt. Anthropologists have noted that there is considerable anxiety about shed blood among primitive peoples.[7] Among the Afro-Asiatics, the priesthood served to relieve blood guilt and anxiety and to perform rites of purity. The priest addresses impurities by seeking purification through blood sacrifice. He also addresses anxiety about shed blood through blood sacrifice.

Third, we know that no woman served as a priest in any official capacity. Women did not enter the area of the altar where blood was offered in animal sacrifice. We know this because the Afro-Asiatics, from whom we received the priestly office, believed that the blood shed by men and women were never to mix or even be in the same place. Sacred law prohibited the blood shed in killing (male) and the blood shed in giving life (female) to share the same space. This binary worldview supports clear distinction between life and death. The same distinction of life-taking and life-giving is behind the law that forbids boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk (Deut. 14:21).

The innovation of women priests begin in the Episcopal Church USA and has led to the demise of that denomination. Many of the women who were encouraged to become priests were latter inhibited from ministry with TEC's hit list now well beyond 600. Not surprisingly, the Episcopal Church has a seminary president, Katharine Ragsdale, who stated in a sermon that abortion is a blessing:

Let me hear you say it:

Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.[9]

When we overthrow the binary distinction between life-giving and life-taking, we are left with darkened minds and barbarity.


The ontological impossibility of women priests

Scripture speaks of numerous women in positions of leadership, but none were priests. Deborah and Huldah were regarded as prophets and their families were in the priestly lines. Daughters of priests, such as Asenath and Zipporah, are remembered as great women as well. However not a single women can be identified as a priest in the Bible or in the history of the Church. It is clear then that women have never been priests and that the nature of the priesthood from the beginning has been such that it pertains only to men.

The biblical worldview is not concerned with subjective opposites such as tall-short, talented-untalented, dark skin-light skin, intelligent-unintelligent, etc. as these are relative and subjective, not absolute and objective. The Bible is concerned about what is ontologically real. It is not a book of superstition or antiquated ideas. It is full of reason and evidence of empirical observation.

The binary distinctions were the basis for law and religious practice in the Afro-Asiatic Dominion. Both law and religion recognized that one of the opposites is always greater in some way. The Sun’s light is greater than moonlight. Males are stronger and larger than females. Heaven is more glorious than earth, and life is superior to death. Only in this last category is the feminine greater than the masculine, because the blood of menstruation and childbirth speaks of life, whereas the blood drawn by men in war, hunting and animal sacrifice speaks of death.

Warriors were responsible for the blood they shed in battle. Hunters were responsible for the blood they shed in the hunt, and priests were responsible for the blood of the animals they sacrificed. Midwives, wives and mothers were responsible for the blood of first intercourse, menstrual blood and blood shed in childbirth. The two bloods were never to mix or even to be present in the same space. Women did not participate in war, the hunt, and in ritual sacrifices. Likewise, men were not present at the circumcision of females or in the “mother’s house” to which women went during menses and to give birth.

Because the Creator wants the distinction between life and death to be clear at all times to all peoples, He established this distinction between the “blood work” of women and men. This distinction between the two bloods is the basis for the priesthood, an office ontologically exclusive to males, since only men in the priestly lines could fill the office.

From the Afro-Asiatic perspective, which is the perspective of the Bible, God is male and God is priest. It is clear also that God condescends to grant to the lesser a greater role. So it is that a young maiden, from the least of the tribes of Israel, should become the un-wedded Bride of God and the ever-virgin Mother of Christ our God.

God has not changed the office of the priesthood. It survives in Christian communities that preserve Holy Tradition received concerning the Son of God.[9] When the priesthood is held high and priests live above contamination, the world is drawn to Jesus Christ. This happens because there is only one Priesthood: the Messianic Priesthood. There is only one Priest: Jesus Christ, and there is only one Blood, Christ’s pleromic blood which is the life of the world.

St. Paul expresses it this way: “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)

As C.S. Lewis has written: “I have every respect for those who wish women to be priestesses. I think they are sincere and pious and sensible people. Indeed, in a way they are too sensible... I am tempted to say that the proposed arrangement would make us much more rational, but not near so much like a Church.” (From Priestesses in the Church?)


Related Reading:  How to Invite Ridicule; Anglicans on the Doctrine of Creation; What is Holy Tradition; Ideologies Opposed to Holy Tradition; God as Male Priest; Levi-Strauss and Derrida on Binary Oppositions; Passing Conversation with Priestess Elizabeth Kaeton; Response to Elizabeth Kaeton; The Question of Women Priests Must Be Addressed; Response to Fr Behr's Talk of Women Disciples; Women Priests: History and Theology by Patrick Henry Reardon


NOTES

1. To read about the difference between the worldviews of the priest and the shaman, go here.

2. Plato taught that there is but one true Form of all observable entities and this Form exists in eternity (outside of time and space). Species of natural objects observed are reflections of their true Forms. Plato studied for thirteen years at Heliopolis (Biblical On) in Egypt under a Horite priest.

3. St. John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press (1977), p. 70.

4. The Brahamas are Vedic texts that provide instruction for Hindu priests. These texts give detailed instructions about sacrifices offered at altars of fire. They also make it evident that the Priest is a close associate of the King and the King relies heavily upon the Priests’ services. This is evident in the Priest-King relationship that we find n the Old Testament. For more on this, see Bujor Avari’s book India: The Ancient Past, pp. 77-79.

5. Anthropologists have discovered that the wider the dispersion of a culture trait the older the trait.

6. 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 Wales, Czechoslovakia and Australia. Anthropologists agree that this red powder symbolized blood and its use in burial represented hope for the renewal of life.

7. 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.

8. Read the full report on the heretic Katharine Ragsdale here.

9. For more on Holy Tradition go here and here. Holy Tradition has two categories: kergyma and ecclesiastical order and discipline.  The first is non-negotiable and the second is accomodative.  The "priesting" of women touches on the first category. Women bishops would never have become a divisive issue if Anglicans had held to the received tradition.

Genesis: A Story Just for Ancient People?

Wolfgan Sailler of Salem, Oregon recently posted this comment/opinion on Genesis:

While I claim no special knowledge in the related sciences, natural or spiritual, it seems to me that the biblical story of Genesis is just that — a story told to an ancient people.

True, we are made of clay/earthly elements, so to speak, but there is too much evidence around to believe that everything present in the universe came into existence 5,000 years ago in literally seven days. If we equate one day with a billion years, that seems more like it.

Be that as it may, but everybody can see proof of some form of evolution/evolvement in their very own existence: We came from one cell and during nine months of gestation, went through every stage of life form evolutionary teaching claims. Only once out of the birth canal do we turn into true terrestrians when we take our first breath.

Considering scientific evidence is not to be equated with negating God or creation. It simply tries to find more logical and details underpinnings than a simple story can relate.

Mr. Sailler admits to having no special knowledge in the fields he has identified and should be thanked for his honesty. I'll take a Mr. Sailler over a self-proclaimed expert any day! He may not be an expert in science and religion, (he's in finance, actually), but his comment reveals a great deal about the general perception of Genesis and therefore is worthy of consideration.

Let us consider Mr. Sailler's points one by one.

Is Genesis just a story told to ancient people? That isn't what experts believe nor is this what Genesis claims to be. In fact, Genesis is many stories involving different peoples, but all of them Afro-Asiatics. There are 2 creation stories, quite different in focus, detail and cultural context. The same is true for the 2 floods stories. What we find in Genesis is certain promises that appear to have taken shape in history and these promises are not just for ancient people.

This leads us logically to the next point: Does Genesis say that everything that in the universe was created in 6 consequentive 24-hour days? If Genesis makes promises about things to be fulfilled in the future, than we can't claim that the work of the Creator ceased on the sixth day.

Genesis claims that the universe is a creation, and that the Creator creates what is "good" in an orderly fashion. It also presents the belief that the order of creation is fixed, unchanging and ultimately irreversible. That is why the Church Fathers taught that humans, having been made in the "image of God" can never fully erase the divine image.

Finally, there is nothing in the whole Bible that speaks of the universe or the earth as being only 5000 years old. Indeed the Bible provides reliable informaton for researchers to date many historical events in the ancient Near East and Africa that took place well before 5000 years ago.

Does the development of the human fetus prove that humans evolved from sub-human species? No more than the development of the elephant fetus proves that elephants evolved from sub-elephant species. Genesis portrays the growth, change and development to which Mr. Saillers points when it speaks of plants and creatures producing fruit of their own kinds. It is also evident that while plants can cross-pollinate to produce hybrids in nature, such is not true of humans.

Does holding a evolutionary view required rejection of a Creator? Of course not! But, on the other hand, macro-evolution is the only view to which atheists can subscribe since it permits replacing the Creator with the mechanism of evolution (something Darwin never claimed to do).

Is science more logical than Genesis? Best to answer that hypothetical question with the flip of a coin! Genesis presents an extremely orderly universe and an anthropologically truthful picture of humanity; more orderly and truthful than some scientific reports describing evolution and the origins of modern humans.

Mr. Sailler is correct that Genesis is a testament of an ancient people. To be specific, it is the work of the Afro-Asiatics, people who thought in a very orderly and logical manner as evidenced by the binary distinctions that frame their worldview.

Alignment of the Oldest Mosques

Alice C. Linsley

Some 200 mosques in Mecca do not point to the Ka'bah for prayers. Neither do the oldest mosques in Cairo, Baghdad and Wasit. They triangulate to a single point a little north of Dedan, probably Al-`Ula, one of several important ancient Afro-Arabian religious sites. Another is Al-Hijr, to the northwest of Al-Ula.  Al-Hijr which was earlier simply HR, the symbol of Horus. Incense was supplied to these ancient shrines in ka-Hr-ka-jars.

Al-Hijr is in northern Saudi Arabia, about 1400 km to the north of Riyadh. It is called "Mada'in Saleh" and is considered one of the oldest settlements in the Saudi Arabia. Mada'in Saleh was recognized by the UNESCO as a site of patrimony, the first world heritage site in Saudi Arabia.

The people of these ancient settlements spoke languages identified as Thamudic.  Within this group three dialects have been identified by linguists: Thamudic B, C and D. These were spoken at Petra and are mentioned several times in the Quran along with prophet Saleh.

Mount Ithlib (map) is located to the north-east of Al-Hijr. It was a Horite shrine later dedicated to the Nabatean deity Dushara. Đū Shará (Arabic: ذو شرى‎) means "Lord of the Mountain." It is transliterated as "Du-sares."  The Lord of the Mountain was worshipped by the Nabataeans at Petra and Madain Saleh. The Dushara sanctuary at Petra contained a great temple in which a large cubical stone (Ka'ba) was the centrepiece.  Ka-Ba is an Egyptian word that refers to the body-soul.

Abraham's Horite ancestors controlled this part of Arabia. The Nabateans appear to be descendants of the Horites. Keturah and Abraham were the progenitors of the Joktanite clans of Arabia who still reside in this region.

The three mosques under consideraton reflect a late development over a very ancient earlier religion. The Wasit Mosque (built 705 A.D.) and the Kufa Mosque (built about 698 A.D.) align to a point in northwest Arabia, not to Mecca. According to Islamic tradition, Mohammad's household taught that Kufa Mosque was founded by Adam. Another tradition states that it was built by the angels in accordance with Gabriel's revelation to Prophet Muhammad. No other narrator of Islamic tradition has referred to this however.

The oldest mosque in Egypt is Fustat in Cairo. It dates to the reign of Qurra b. Shira between 709-714 A.D. The oldest mosque in Saudi Arabia is Quba Mosque. It was rebuilt in the 1980's.

All mosques have a niche called a "Quiblah" which shows the direction of prayer. The older mosques are aligned with a point north of Mecca but south of Jerusalem. If early mosques were aligned toward northern Arabia or Jerusalem, a Qiblah facing Ka'bah represents a later development. Source: BBC News

The Qiblah of the oldest mosques in Mecca, Iraq and Egypt do not align with Mecca. Instead they align with a region in northern Arabia which was the home of Abraham's Horite ancestors. Abraham's Horite people spoke languages in the North Arabian group (sometimes called "Dispersed Oasis North Arabian").  Abraham's ancestors controlled this area and spread their religious beliefs along the water ways, expanding their influence across the ancient Afro-Asiatic Dominion. Abraham's six sons by Keturah are the founders of  the Joktanite clans who dwell in the region of Mecca and Southern Arabia.

The ancient Afro-Arabians included the clans of Joktan and Yishbak, Abraham's sons by Keturah and the clans of Yishmael the Egyptian, Abraham's son by his concubine Hagar. The Afro-Asiatic Arameans became linguistically distinct in the time of Peleg and Joktan the Younger. However, the ruling lines of the Afro-Arabians and the Arameans continued to intermarry exclusively according to the marriage and ascendency pattern of the ancient Horites.


Related reading:  The Afro-Arabian Dedanites; Who Were the Horites?; Peleg: Time of Division

Rabbi Hirsch on "The Nations"

Alice C. Linsley


Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch (1808-1888) was a German Bible commentator and Jewish philosopher. In 1846, he became the Chief Rabbi of Moravia. Shortly thereafter, he served as a member of the Austrian Parliament, where he fought for equal rights for the Jews of Austria and Hungary.

In 1851, Rabbi Hirsch returned to his native Frankfort to help the 11 remaining members of that decimated Jewish community. Rabbi Hirsh hoped to help them resist the secularization that was sweeping through Europe's Jewish communities. His writings represent Jewish neo-Orthodoxy, which insists on the divine origin of Torah. He attempted to provide philosophic and historical justification for the Bible.

Rabbi Hirsch understood the concrete rather than philosphical nature of the Hebrew language. He wrote, "Our sacred literature does not use obscure language, but describes most things in words clearly indicating their meaning. Therefore it is necessary at all times to delve into the literal meaning of words to achieve complete understanding of what is actually meant."

What follows is an excerpt from Rabbi Hirsch's Commentary on the Pentateuch, originally published in 1867, in which he examines Genesis 9:25-27 in the face of the spiritual darkness and bestiality of Europe in his day.

Noah's sons, as a confedertion of 3, do not represent the progenitors of all mankind. Instead we have a typical 3-clan Kushite confederation. Genesis 10 in not a "Table of Nations." It is a chronicle of related clans whose ethnicity was originally Kushite.  Many of these clans were metal workers.  For more on this read "The Peoples of Canaan" and "Afro-Asiatic Metal Workers."


Rabbi Hirsch wrote:

"Noah spoke: Canaan will be accursed. A servant of servants shall he be unto his bretheren. And again he spoke: God will be blessed, the God of Shem, may Canaan become his servant. God will open the mind of Japheth, but he will dwell in the tents of Shem. And may Canaan be a servant to them." (Genesis 9:25-27)

That which is said in these verses contains perhaps the deepest and farthest reaching prophesy which ever a human eye has been allowed to see of the future, and which God has allowed to be spoken by human lips. The whole history of mankind, the beginning, the end and the middle lies in these three verses.

We recognize in the names of the sons of Noah the essential nuances which characterize the nations which descend from them, according to whether spirit, sensuality or feelings predominate in their national character. Here they stand in their double significance, as individuals and as founders of the nations of the future.

When Noah woke up and got to know of Ham's behavior, his first thought was that the principle that showed itself here in Ham, can and will never be the ruling one. Raw sensuality, which has no control over itself, which has lost all reserve and all respect for anything spiritually high is unfit for ruling. For freedom, it in itself is unfruitful, is a curse without progress or blessing, it bears its ruin in itself.

That Canaan will have the fate of being a slave, there must undoubtedly be some connection between the Canaan-character and the slave fate. And, as a matter of fact, as the curse lies in Canaan, so that the future belongs only to the pure and ennobled, but not to the course, unrefined, so also in the social life, in the social and national life, in the relation of man to man and nation to nation, freedom is only achieved and retained by those who can master and control themselves. Sensuality, uncontrolled licentiousness, is the bait by which one is led by strings into slavery. He who at all times is master of himself, who can easily control giving satisfaction to the urges of his senses, he cannot be bribed or enticed, for him gold cannot become golden chains; he can die, but he cannot become enslaved. Thus for men, thus for nations.

In contrast to the curse of Canaan is the blessing of Shem, the recognition of the God whom Shem teaches will gain an ever greater circle, will spread, progress until finally it will become that principle to which all the world will subscribe. While Ham represents the most ignoble, unvarnished audacious sensuality, Shem teaches of a God who not only once served as the Original Force which called heaven and earth into being, but who still is mover of the heaven and earth, still rules everything, so that every fiber of our being and every impulse of our will belongs to Him; accordingly, the very opposite of Ham. Shem and correspondingly Canaan are not looked on personally as individuals, but as the future nations descended from them. Japheth designates feelings being open to all external impressions and influences. Hence naivety, one who is easily talked over and easily deceived. Japheth is responsive to feelings.

Thus we have placed before us the representatives of the three main tendencies which characterize people and nations. Spirit, sensuality and sentiment constitute the inner man, and these three powers predominate characteristically in nations. Not that there are completely one-sided nations who have either only mind, only sentiment, etc. But just as in individuals all three are present, but nevertheless everybody has one of them which marks his personality, so is it with nations. For us who do not stand, as Noah did, at the very beginning of history, but can look back on four thousand years of history, it is easy to see the working of these different forces in nations in the development of world history.

The greatest ado in the world has been made by Ham, that sensuality, worldliness, which harnesses all that belongs to spirit and mind to their chariots of fame, and only allows intellect to be used or valued as far as it serves as a means of furthering the material side of life, nations that conquer, plunder and enjoy. Nations pass across the stage who represent hardly anything but raw force, sensuality and bestiality.

But nations also appear which use their forces in the service of beauty who characterize themselves in nurturing art, aesthetic beauty. They are conscious of some higher ideal up to which mankind is to work itself out of crudeness. This tendency teaches people to cloak raw sensuality in the garb of respectability and graciousness. Through grace and beauty they foster a taste for more spiritual activities, music, poetry, art. All those nations who cherish that which appeals to feelings represent the Japheth character.

When we look to historical facts we can say: the stem of Japheth reached its fullest blossoming in the Greeks: that of Shem in the Hebrews, who bore the name of God as their God through the world of nations. Right to the present day it is only these two races, the descendants of Japheth and Shem, who have become the real educators and teachers of humanity. For all the spiritual treasures which the world has acquired these two have to be thanked, and everything, which, even today, works at the culture and education of mankind, connects up with that which Japheth and Shem brought to the world. The spiritual gifts of the Romans were only a gift of the Hellenes. Japheth has ennobled the world aesthetically. Shem has enlightened it spiritually and morally. Hellenism and Judaism have become the great active forces in the educational work on mankind, and the rest of the world has been merely passive material on which they worked. In this sense, Noah's enlightened eye sees three things:

He sees that coarseness and ruthless glowing sensuality does not bear the seed of the future blossoming of mankind within it; sees that nations who give themselves up to sensuality and in whose character, the lower nature of man remains the prevailing trait, instead of becoming free, independent and mighty, sink down to slaves. More, he sees centuries in which the conception of human beings having the right to freedom is quite lost. From Ham's descendants, tyrants, mighty despots and hunters of men went forth. Not freedom, slavery is begotten by passion. Freedom only lives in the law, only blossoms there, where untouchably above all, a law of moral rules. He remains free who learns to obey the law of morals. Sensuous nations are the breeding places of slavery, Ham begets slaves and where sensuality is at its height, as in Canaan, they sink to slaves of slaves."  From here.

Rabbi Hirsch casts Ham in a bad light, as sensual and tyranical. This is typical or rabbinic myths designed to make Genesis more acceptable to modern Judaism with its strong Zionist emphasis. This sort of myth making is never well supported by Genesis. There is always evidence to contradict the rabbinic myth. Consider, for example, how Ham and his descendants are portrayed on the one hand as conquerors, warriors, and kingdom-builders and on the other hand as slaves. Which is it?

The people of Ham were Kushites who migrated out of Africa. Further, the ruler lines of Ham and Shem intermarried, so what is said about the one, must apply to the other. Rabbi Hirsch's presentation of Ham as an archetype of evil doesn't align with the data of Genesis. This piece is an example of how European Rabbis disparaged the Nilotic peoples with whom Father Abraham and his Horite people had much in common.


Related reading:  Who Were the Kushites?; The Lines of Ham and Shem Intermarried

Gene Robinson on the Bible

Alice C. Linsley


Gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson delivered a speech on March 30 at Emory University titled “Why Religion Matters in the Quest for Gay Civil Rights.” In an interview about that speech, Robinson made these claims:

1. "..beliefs about homosexuality amongst Jews and Muslims and Christians are actually affecting the secular debate over gay civil rights. If you factored out the religious opposition to our civil rights, I think we would be there..."

2. "..what I perceive in the secular movement towards equal rights for gay folk is that we have an instance where the state is impinging on the secular society."

Robinson insists that progressive Christians need to "rescue" the Bible from the religious right. He is quoted here as saying, "It will take religious people and religious voices to undo the harm that has been done by religious institutions … It’s time to start demanding separation of church and state."

Now there's clear thinking! The religious right holds the Bible captive and the solution is to separate church and state. Could someone clarify this for me?
Robinson attacked anti-gay arguments based on the Bible, citing the example of eating pork and wearing two types of cloth as also being classed as "abominations".

Eating pork is a dietary restriction of the first order for devout Jews and Muslims, most of whom consider homosex an abomination. Could someone explain Robinson's reasoning to me?

The prohibition against mixing types, be they fibers or blood, is like the prohibition against confusing the holy with the unholy, or blurring the distinction between life and death, such as happens when a baby goat is boiled in its mother's milk (also forbidden in Scripture). Robinson obviously doesn't understand the binary distinctions that frame the biblical worldview. Or if he does, he rejects them, whereby necessarily rejecting the whole of biblical revelation.
Gene and other activists seem not to recognize that the biblical consideration of homosex is not restricted to a few verses in Genesis and Romans. It is fundamentally part of the binary framework of the entire Bible.He said: "You can’t take a 20th century word, stick it back into an ancient text, and expect it to mean something entirely unknown to the authors of the text. These verses are quoted as if our world has never changed."

The Anglican Primates don't agree. Last month, the Archbishop of Sudan, Dr Daniel Deng Bul, said "we cannot have a different Bible for the 21st century. We can’t change our Bible because of changes in human rights."

Gene, you might note that Archbishop Deng Bul, for whom you have so little respect, is actually a century ahead of you!

Beside that, the world hasn't changed in any essential way. Nothing ever really changes. That is what Plato understood and why he is still the greatest of the philosophers! There is one Reality and all people, in all times and places, exist in that one cross-shaped Reality. Things can only become more what they were created. They can't become less what they were created without rebelling against God's design.

You may say that the ancients didn't "understand homosexuality", but that's a deception and contrary to the evidence. They understood it all too well and tried to keep it hidden. The only verified evidence of homosex in ancient Egypt is a painting hidden on the wall of a cave in the mountains.
Robinson has said, “Although I believe the New and Old Testaments to be the word of God, I do not believe it is the words of God."

Gene, why don't you just admit it? You don't believe that the Bible is the authoritative written word from God. You reject the Bible as an authority for your life and you encourage others to foolishly do the same.
Robinson also cited verses in the Book of Genesis that are used to argue against homosex, saying they should be taken in the context of their time.

I fully agree with that statement. When we take Genesis in historical and cultural context we see clearly why homosex was considered an abomination. It blurrs the binary distinctions by which God orders our thinking to perserve our lives and souls.
According to Gene Robinson, the verses which forbid the spilling of a man's seed (onanism) should be considered in light of the ancient Hebrews, who as a minority struggling to multipy, saw the waste of semen as murder.

Wrong. The spilling of seed should be considered in the context of the older tradition of the Afro-Asiatic peoples to which the semitic peoples belong. Onanism is still regarded as an unrighteous deed among Afro-Asiatic tribal peoples. It is a violation of the order of creation. The seed that should fall to the earth is the seed of plants, which spring forth from the earth. The seed of man should fall on his own type (the womb), from which man comes forth. Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 A.D. 191).


Further, Abraham's people were quite fruitful. The ruler-priests among his people

had two wives and concubines as well. Abraham had eight sons. Jacob had twelve and Jesse had eight. And the Bible doesn't list their daughters. So the struggling minority interpretation doesn't fit the facts.


Evaluation of Robinson's crusade "to take back the church" makes it apparent that it is driven by ignorance and misrepresentation of the Church and of the Bible.

He said, "I am doing everything I can to undo the harm that has been done by churches... "

"I have tried to bring God's voice to the struggle we are all in. God's voice has been abused in the name of hatred and bigotry for far too long and it is time we took Scripture and the Church back from those that would use it to hurt us."

Gene, it would be easier to start your own church. Oh! You and Louie already did that. Its called "The Episcopal Church."

And, were your ego to permit you to work with others, you could help Max Mitchell write his gay bible. Yes, that's the logical thing to do, and much safer than messing with God's Book.


Related reading:  Genesis on Homosex: Beyond Sodom; Is Opposition to Homosexual Activity Irrational? by Thomas Stork; Some Thoughts on Sex; More Thoughts on Sex