Metal Workers of West Africa

The first workers of metal in the Bible are associated with the ruling line of Kain. One of his descendants, Tubal-Cain, "forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain's sister was Naamah." (Gen. 4:22)  Naamah married her patrilineal cousin Methusaleh and named their first born son Lamech after her father.

Watch this fascinating video that shows the smelting of iron from ore by a West African smith family. Watch as the elders make charcoal, dig ore and flux, build the kiln, fire the kiln, offer sacrifice, smelt the iron, and finally forge the iron into tools. The women play an important role also.

Related reading: Red and Black Smiths; Afro-Asiatic Metal Workers; Methusaleh's Wife; Lamech Segment Analysis

Righteous Job and His Hebrew Kin

Alice C. Linsley


The book of Job is difficult to classify. The person of Job is regarded as a prophet, but the book that bears his name is not like the other books of the Prophets. Possibly this is because the material is organized by someone from a much later time.

Job is often classified as a wisdom literature, but unlike other books of wisdom it involves direct debate or disputation among apparently historical figures. The debate probably dates to a later time than Job and his friends actually lived. The author ridicules Job's friends as people from the desolate wilderness who live in the clefts of the valleys and in the caves. They are portrayed as donkeys braying among the bushes (Job 30:3-7). This is not how Job himself would have regarded his kin. We can be fairly certain that the author of Job was not someone who lived in Arabia or even in that part of Canaan that was Horite Hebrew territory.

The first two chapters of Job provide a clue as to when the author lived. Here we find a picture of Satan as a "son of God" who has the power to accuse. This suggests an author from the Persian Period, writing long after the time that Job, Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar and Elihu would have lived. Satan as the accuser was a favorite theme of that period.

Job reasons that God is not as his friends describe Him. In fact, a close reading of Job will dispel most notions of God, whether ancient or modern. God is not cruel like the pagan gods. God is not impersonal as conceived by the Deists. God is not deceived, as sinners hope. God is not blind to the suffering and death of the righteous. He recognized the blood of Abel which cried to Him from the ground and He knows of every tear and drop of blood shed by His righteous ones. Nor is God the Divine Arbitrator of karma as in Hinduism and Buddhism.

Yet Job never claims to know God's mind. For the righteous, suffering gives way to contemplating the "secret councils of God" (Job 15:8) and to prayer that we might not experience the second death of which Baruch 2:17 speaks: "The dead who are in the graves, whose souls [ka] are taken from their bodies, will give unto the Lord neither praise nor righteousness." Abraham's people believed that the soul and the body must stay joined after death to enjoy eternal life. This is Job's last hope. He proclaims that "I have a living Defender and that he will rise up last [as Job's final witness] on the dust of the earth. After my awakening, he will set me close to him, and from my flesh I shall look on God. He whom I shall see with take my part; my eyes will be gazing on no stranger." (Job 19:25-27 NJB) In Job 13:16, Job declares that his trust in God as his salvation (Yeshua - Jesus) will never be destroyed. Job comes to this in his suffering, but his friends are not suffering. For them this life is good and Job's suffering can only be explained has having lost God's favor. They said the same about Jesus in His passion.

Eliphaz was a descendant of Teman, one of Esau's sons (Gen. 36). The Temanites were known for their wisdom. Jeremiah 49 links the Temanites with the Dedanites. According to Genesis 10:7 and Genesis 25:3, Dedan was descended from Kush and from Abraham by his cousin wife, Keturah. Dedan's father was Abraham's first-born son Joktan. Dedan's brother was Sheba the Younger. Isaiah 21:13 alludes to the "caravans of Dedanites" in Arabia, and Ezekiel 27:20 speaks of Dedan as supplying Tyre with precious things. Dedan is associated with Uz in the hill country of Edom, Job's homeland. This is Uz the Elder, son of Nahor, whose grandson (by his daughter) was Uz the son of Dishan (I Chron. 1:42). Dishan was a son of Seir the Horite. Uz the Younger was Seir's grandson. Here is Seir's Horite family:








So we know that Job had Horite blood. The Horites were devotees of Horus who was called "the son of God" and "Horus of 2 Crowns". Uz, Buz and Huz represent a 3-clan Horite confederation based on kinship.

The trial of Job in which Satan acts as the accuser parallels Zechariah 3:2-6 where Satan accuses the High Priest Joshua (Yeshua). In that trial God acquits Joshua and commands that he be clothed in clean garments and crowned with 2 crowns (ataroth). This points to Jesus who as the Son of God would wear 2 crowns according to Horite Hebrew belief.

The Horite confederation is not identified as Uz, Huz and Buz, but rather as Dedan, Tema and Buz. The oldest Arabic script emanated from the North Arabian oases of Tema and Dedan in the Hijaz. Tema is known by Arabs as Taima and lies about 70 miles north-east of Dedan. Tema, Dedan and Dumah were caravan stops along the trade route from Sheba to Babylon. The Dedanites were famous for mining.

Job's kin shared appearance and life style. They dwelt in hills and built shrines in caves (such as at Petra) and the men shaved their heads (Jeremiah 25:23), as did Horite priests. This suggests that this was a confederation of Horite priestly families. Genesis 36 confirms this, listing Uz's grandson Dedan as a Horite ruler. Here we also find reference to Huz or Husham of the land of Tema (Gen. 36:34).

Bildah the "Shuhite" was a descendant of Abraham's son Shuah (Gen. 25:2). Zophar the "Naamathite" was a descendent of Naamah, the daughter of Lamech (Gen. 4:22) who married her patrilineal cousin Methuselah (Gen. 5:25).

The last of Job's kin to speak is the young man Elihu. The name Elihu, which appears only in Job, is a priestly name. In Strong's Concordance Elihu is said to mean "He is my God". However, it is more likely that the name relates to God's Word since El refers to God and Hu was the ancient Nilotic/Horite Hebrew word for the divine Word that overcomes chaos. This fits the context of the book of Job.

Elihu is of the clan of Buz. I Chronicles 5:14 tells us that the son of Buz was Jahdo and Jahdo's son was Yeshishai, the Aramaic form of Yeshua/Jesus. Elihu is the mysterious figure whose speeches fill the last chapters of the book of Job. He was likely the brother-in-law of Judah's grandson Hezron. This suggests that Elihu lived with his father Barachel in Buz but was Ram's heir. Ram was his maternal grandfather and the high priest. (Ram means "high.") This means that Elihu was a ruler-priest and an ancestor of David. It is Elihu who takes us beyond the wisdom of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar. He moves us from the retributive justice of Job's 3 friends to the reality that "God is greater than any human being. Why then quarrel with Him for not replying to you word for word? God speaks first one way and then in another, although we do not realize it." (Job 33:12-14NJB) Elihu's 230 line discourse elaborates and illustrates how this is true.

Job and all his friends are descendants of Enoch, a man who is commended for his faith in Hebrews 11: 6. Each had his own answer to why Job was suffering, but only the suffering Job glimpsed something of the mystery of God's counsel. As a man of faith, Job remembers that "God watched over me" (Job 29:2) and that "the friendly counsel of God was over my tent" (29:4), and this sustains him in his suffering. Those who accuse him are his own kin, as was true with our Lord Jesus. Their accusations are the same as those used by the Jewish rulers to accuse Jesus, the Righteous One.

The central message of Job is to remember God at all times, even as we hope to be remembered in the eternal Kingdom. It is to love God whether enjoying life or afflicted, and to look to Jesus Christ, the Author and Finisher of our faith. In this sense, Job is a prophetic book which presents wisdom of the deepest kind. Patrick Henry Reardon recognizes that Job moves toward the "Bible's apocalyptic principle", that is to say, "More is happening than seems to be happening." (The Trial of Job, p. 46).

Related reading: The Horite Confederation of Uz, Buz and Huz; Job's Friends and Their Contribution to the Message of Job; Abraham and Job: Horite Rulers

Methuselah's Wife

Lamech Segment Analysis
© 1998 Alice C. Linsley


According to the Hebrew Scriptures, the ruler Methuselah lived 969 years, the perfect number set in the context of ancient Egyptian numerology. By his cousin wife Naamah, he had a son named Lamech. This is Lamech the Younger named for Naamah’s father (see bottom portion of the diagram.)

Naamah and Lamech are both names associated with the rulers among Abraham's people. Naamah is a royal name as attested by the name's connection with the Davidic Dynasty. David's grandson's mother was named Naamah (II Chron. 12:13). This is also the name of a region of Judah (Joshua 15:41). Lamech is a variant of la-melech which appears on several thousand Egyptian seals. It means "of the King" or "for the King."

Lamech ruled after Methuselah and is assigned another perfect number in the Masoretic text. He is said to have lived 777 years.[1] However, while the Scriptures agree on Methuselah’s 969 years, they disagree on the numbers assigned to Lamech. The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) assigns Lamech 753 years, whereas the Samaritan Pentateuch assigns him 653 years. The Masoretic text provides the number that fits the biblical pattern. St. John Chrysostom noted the assignment of 7 to Cain, 77 to Lamech the Elder, and 777 to Lamech the Younger and believed that the number 7 in these cases speaks of God’s mercy shown to sinners.

It is likely that seven represents the seven visible planets and is linked to astrological concepts of ancient Egypt. We may never know exactly what these number sets signify, but the association of such auspicious numbers – 6, 7 and 9 – with Methuselah and his son Lamech indicate their greatness.[2]

Some view Lamech the Younger, named in Genesis 5, as the same Lamech named in Genesis 4 who bragged about killing a man. This is a mistake. Lamech the Elder is not presented as a righteous man, but as a braggart who set himself up as an equal to God.[3] Lamech the Younger, on the other hand, is the son of a righteous father and the father of Noah who found favor with God.

Why should there be such discrepancy in the number of years assigned to Lamech the Younger? Possibly the Septuagint didn’t recognize that there are two different persons named Lamech. Or the discrepancy might indicate dispute over Lamech’s character among the different recensions. Or it simply may be that the Septuagint and the Samaritan texts reflect lack of understanding of the kinship pattern of Abraham’s ruling ancestors.

I believe the discrepancy in numbers assigned to Lamech the Younger indicates lack of understanding of the kinship pattern. In this patrilineal system involving royalty and ascent to the throne, mother and first-born son do not belong to the same clan. The bride belongs to her husband’s clan while her son, if given her father’s throne name, belongs to the bride’s clan. The brilliant anthropologist, Lévi-Strauss recognized this in 1949, but his research was largely ignored by biblical scholars.

So it is that Naamah belonged to Methuselah’s clan, of the lne of Seth, while their first-born son belonged to the clan of his maternal grandfather, of the line of Kain.

NOTES



1.  The number seven has special significance as related to the first-born son’s marriage and his reception of a kingdom. In Jewish weddings the seven marriage blessings (Sheva Brachot) are recited under the huppah and the wedding feast lasts seven days. The assignment of 777 to Lamech the Younger symbolizes the son's marriage and ascension to the throne of his father.

2. Numbers were associated with totems such as the Lion, the Falcon, the Baboon, etc. The four sons of Horus are an example. Imsety is shown with a man’s head. Tuamutf is shown with a jackel’s head. Kabhsenuf is shown with a baboon’s head, and Hapi is shown with a falcon or hawk’s head. Mummification involved removing the body's organs which were placed in four jars adorned with the heads of these four sons. These four stood as guardians over the organs until such a time as the Ka and the Ba could be united, thus avoiding the second death (of which John speaks). Likewise, the Four Gospels have totems: Eagle (Matthew), Bull (Mark), Lion (Luke) and Man (John) and the Gospel writers are indeed guardians of Holy Tradition concerning the Son of God.

3. Lamech’s wives were named Adah (dawn) and t-Zillah (dusk), suggesting that Lamech the Elder placed his 2 wives on an east-west axis. All the other rulers listed in Genesis 4 and 5 likely had 2 wives also but it appears that they placed them on a north-south axis, as did Abraham. Sarah lived in Hebron and Keturah lived in Beersheba, to the south. By placing his wives on an east-west axis, Lamech the Elder claimed a territory corresponding to that of the Creator, whose emblem the Sun, makes a daily journey over the Earth, traveling from east to west. It is interesting to note that Mohammed, a descendent of Abraham by Keturah, placed his 2 wives’ apartments on the east and west sides of his mosque in Medina. Doubtless, this lent credibilty to his claim to be The Prophet of Allah.


Related reading:  The Cousin Bride's Naming Prerogative; African Naming Practices; An African Reflects on Biblical Names

Methuselah's Real Age

Alice C. Linsley


The only "old" dude mentioned in Genesis is Abraham, as St. Jerome, notes: "I am reviewing carefully the places in Scripture where I might find old age mentioned for the first time. Adam lived for 930 years, yet he is not called an old man. Methuselah's life was 969 years, and he is not called an old man. I am coming down all the way to the flood, and after the flood for almost three thousand years, and I find no one who has been called old. Abraham is the first, and certainly he was much younger than Methuselah." (Homilies on the Psalms 21)

Jerome's observation is significant. Abraham was old. Those who lived before the flood are not called old because the numbers assigned to them are symbolic.

Invariably, people ask: “What is the significance of the long lifespans listed in Genesis?” and “Why did those who lived before the flood live longer than those after the flood?” Many seem unaware of the semitic association of numbers to the letters of the alphabet. In the Hebrew system (Gematria), there is no notation for zero and the numeric values for individual letters are added together. This poses a challenge when attempting to understand the symbolism of years which include a zero, such as Kenan's 910 and Seth's 600 years.

Then there is the discrepancy between the Septuagint, the Masoretic, and the Samaritan texts. The three don't agree on the number of years before begetting sons and the total number of years. The total number of years in 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 New Jerusalem Bible, following the Masoretic Pentateuch, assigns Lamech 777 years.

In his extraordinary Commentary on Genesis (Volume 1), 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" (p. 265). Cassuto himself believed that the original figures are preserved in the Masoretic chronology. Those are the numbers I will use here.

Consider the lifespan 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 lifespan of each of the following 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 are 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 list of patriarchs (Gen.11) honored their forefathers by ascribing to them length of days.

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

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

Let us explore each of these explanations.

Evidence for Exceptional Longevity among Ancient Peoples

Studies in Paleopathology indicate that the lifespan 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. (For more information on this, go here.)

One might argue that the patriarchs listed in Genesis 11 enjoyed extraordinary longevity by divine providence. Were this the case we would want to know why God’s providence seems limited to a specific time, people and place. In other words, the singularity of the extraordinary longevity of these patriarchs is a miracle and therefore beyond scientific explanation. While I believe in miracles, I find this explanation unlikely, unnecessary and without support from the Bible itself.


God Shortened the Lifespan

Genesis 6 hints that God shortened the lifespan. 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 lifespan 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, but what it symbolizes is unclear without access to the numerology that stands behind this text. If we examine the mystical symbolism of Kabbala, we find clues as to what the number 120 might signify in this context.

The directional poles are critical to the interpretation of the numerical symbolism. The number 1 is associated with north and always represents the Creator God. The number 2 represents the Generative Word and zero is a placeholder that makes this a 3-digit number. The number 3 is associated with the Spirit of God. With this in mind, the symbolism of the number 120 seems to be that the lifespan of the sons of Adam is the exclusive knowledge of God, God’s Generative Word and God’s Spirit. It could also be that the zero is a pictograph representing a cycle or eternity. If so, the meaning would be that what God creates and imbues with the Generative Word will be eternal.


Honoring the Forefathers by Ascribing Length of Days

The Assyrian Kings List provides evidence that ascribing length of days to noble persons was not a common practice. If anyone expected to be shown honor, it was the ancient kings, but their regnal years are, by all appearances, historical. This is borne out by the similarity between the different inscriptions that speak of these kings’ reigns.

Were the Forefathers honored by the assignment of length of days, we would expect Abraham to have been assigned many years since he is the principal Patriarch and the progenitor of Jews, Arabs and other Semites. Yet we are told that Abraham's days were only 175 (Gen. 25:7). If we take up the idea that the longer days are a sign of honor, then we would expect Abraham, the most honored of the Patriarchs to have a very great number. Instead his number - 175- is the equivalent of 4 average lifespans for people at that time.


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.

Were I to interpret the significance of this number based on the mystical numerology of Kabbala, 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 Kabbala, not because I believe it accurately represents the number system of Abraham's people, but because it has affinity to the older Afro-Asiatic cosmology which assigns numbers to the directional poles and to points between the north-south and east-west axes.

This exploration of the Patriarchs' lifespans seems to indicate that the numbers are symbolic and intended to say something about these individuals. What is being communicated is not 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 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 (Greek Septuagint) 753, (Samaritan) 653, and (Hebrew) 777. No other man in the chronology has such a discrepancy in total number of years. It makes one wonder what the numbers suggest about Lamech in each cultural context.

So if the numbers are symbolic, what is Methusaleh's real age? He is assigned 969 years. The sum of these numbers is 21. That would mean that Methusaleh's lifespan was shorter than average. But there is another possibility. As the number system of Abraham's people was base nine, 969 might indicate that Methuselah lived 2 full cycles plus 1/3 again. If the average lifespan was 35 years, this would mean that he lived 35+ 17 + 35 = 87 years.


Who was Melchizedek?

Melchizedek, the ruler-priest of Jerusalem (Salem), is one of the most fascinating figures of Genesis. His Hebrew name means "righteous king." He is mentioned in Genesis 14, Psalm 110:4 and in the New Testament book of Hebrews. Melchizedek is also considered in the works of modern philosophers such as Soren Kierkegaard.

It is clear from Genesis 14 that Melchizedek and Abraham were well acquainted. Both belonged to the Horite caste of ruler-priests which practiced endogamy. In other words, they were kin. It is likely that Melchizedek was the brother-in-law of Joktan, Abraham's father-in-law.

Melchizedek comes to Abraham after a battle in which Abraham incurred blood guilt. Melchizedek's ministry in this situation would have been to perform the appropriate purification ritual. Every warrior society has a purification ritual to help returning warriors deal with their blood guilt. Melchizedek performed the purification ritual that absolved Abraham of blood guilt. In thanks, Abraham offers him the tithe.

Related reading:  Methuselah's Wife; The Lifespans of Methuselah and Lamech; Methuselah's Ancestry

An Eastern Orthodox Approach to Genesis?

Alice C. Linsley

Is there an Eastern Orthodox interpretation of Genesis? Father Seraphim Rose (1934-1982) thought so. In his book Genesis, Creation and Early Man, this Orthodox monk who lived in the woods of California, rejected evolutionary theory and proposed that the six days of creation ended about 6,000 years ago. His view would be appreciated by Young-Earth Creationists, if they were to read his work.

Fr. Rose believed in a catastrophic worldwide flood and insisted that this is the view of the Church Fathers and the teaching of the Church until modern times. His evidence for this is fairly thin. Detailed study of the Genesis flood account permits the view of an extensive regional flood, during the African Humid Period (the African Aqualithic).

In Part I of Genesis, Creation and Early Man, Fr. Rose looks at the writings of the Church Fathers to give us "an Orthodox patristic commentary" on Genesis. He claimed to be setting forth Orthodoxy’s view on Genesis, but some Orthodox Bible scholars do not agree with his interpretations.

Part III is a letter to a Greek Orthodox medical doctor who was a theistic evolutionist. Fr. Seraphim argued that evolution is an essential piece in the developing one-world religious synthesis of the coming Antichrist. If that is true, many Evangelical, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox Christians have embraced a dangerous dogma.

There are problems with Seraphim Rose’s approach to Genesis. We will look at some of them briefly.

1. Rose’s book on Genesis demonstrates an inconsistency in his thought. He criticizes "some Protestant fundamentalists" for taking Genesis literally, but then attempts to demonstrate that the Church Fathers also interpreted Genesis literally. How can Rose regard the literalism of American Fundamentalism as a misguided approach while regarding the literalism of the Church Fathers as exemplary?

2. Rose is incorrect in asserting that the Holy Fathers interpreted Genesis in a uniform and literal way. The homiletical concern of the early Fathers influenced how they handled the text. They largely interpreted Genesis to meet the spiritual needs of their flocks. Some interpreted the stories allegorically, others in terms of patterns and types, finding rich material in Genesis for teaching about the re-creation and the recovery of Paradise. Blessed John Chrysostom noted something in the story of Lamech that none of the other Fathers mention, namely, that God's unfathomable grace is shown to Lamech.

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

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

Some early Fathers, such as St. Ephrem the Syrian, read the creation accounts as history, but were less concerned about verification of historicity than about the spiritual message. Some Fathers, such as St. Augustine, recognized that the days of creation in Genesis 1 may be taken as non-literally. Unlike Bishop Usher, they didn't attempt to discover the age of the earth by counting the generations from Adam to Jesus. They apparently recognized that the information in Genesis 4 and 5 is of a different nature than that found in Genesis 10 and 11.

To demonstrate the lack of uniformity in the patristic interpretation of Genesis, consider these differing conclusions about Lamech, the Elder (Gen. 4):

St. John Chrysostom 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.)

St John also wrote that mention of Lamech’s daughter, Naamah, in Genesis 4 is "to call our attention to something lying hidden." Indeed, Naamah is the key to understanding the kinship pattern of Abraham’s ancestors. She married her patrilineal cousin Methuselah and named their first-born son Lamech after her father. This is the first place in the Bible where we find the cousin bride's naming prerogative. This naming practice of the cousin brides of the Horite ruler-priests makes it possible for us to trace Jesus ancestry back to Cain and Seth, whose lines intermarried.

The kinship pattern of the rulers listed in the Genesis genealogies shows two lines of descent. One is traced through the cousin/niece bride who named her first-born son after her father. Example: Naamah, Lamech the Elder's daughter,(Gen. 4) married her patrilineal cousin Methuselah (Gen. 5) and named their first-born son Lamech. This pattern, which I call the "cousin bride's naming prerogative," is found with the names Joktan, Sheba and Esau, among others.

The other line of descent is traced through the first-born son of the half-sister bride, as Sarah was to Abraham. The ruler-priest lines of the two first-born sons intermarried, thus preserving the bloodline of those to whom God made the promise that a woman of their people would bring forth the Seed who would crush the serpent's head and restore Paradise.

St. Ephrem the Syrian took a different approach to the Lamech story. He wrote that Lamech, the Elder killed Cain and Enoch so that his daughters could intermarry and be saved from the curse. (St. Ephrem’s Commentary of Genesis, Section IV, page 132. The Catholic University Press of America.)
 
Tertullian took yet another approach to Lamech, writing: "Finally, ‘there shall be,’ said He, ‘two in one flesh,’ not three nor four. On any other hypothesis, there would no longer be ‘one flesh,’ nor ‘two (joined) into one flesh.’… Lamech was the first who, by marrying himself to two women, caused three to be (joined) into one flesh."

Fr. Rose failed to demonstrate that there is an Orthodox interpretation of Genesis, but he did do a good job of aligning some of the Fathers’ writings with the assertions of Bible literalists. He maintains that all the peoples of Earth are descended from Adam (p. 480), that the Earth is young, and the Noah's flood was worldwide. Many in Orthodoxy do not hold these views, but all Orthodox claim the Fathers and Scripture to be authoritative.

Fr. Rose was correct is asserting that the Bible teaches a fixed order in creation. Each original kind was fixed to reproduce according to its nature and not to evolve into a different kind (pp. 123, 133–137, 386–388). Even evolutionists are beginning to recognize that this may be true, since after 85 years of frantic searching the common ancestor of apes and humans has never been found.

Further, brilliant minds such as Saul Kripe are asserting the reality of essentialism. Essentialism is the view that a specific entity (group of people, living creatures, or objects) has a set of attributes or traits all of which are essential to its identity and function and without which the entity would not exist. In his book Naming and Necessity (1980, Cambridge: Harvard University Press) Kripe maintains that entities have essential properties that can be discovered by scientific investigation and that their essences are independent of human language and culture.


Conclusion

The part of Rose’s book that seems to best represent Orthodoxy is where he gives three reasons to study Genesis. Here are the reasons he gives:

First, humans behave according to what they believe they are, so what a person believes about man’s origin influences his actions and attitudes. He is right! Orthodox believe that through Jesus the divine image is fully restored, and to be made in the image and likeness of God is to be like Jesus. The belief that humans are simply animals can be used to justify behaviors and actions that are cruel and barbaric.

Second, Genesis is part of Scripture and God gave us Scripture for our salvation. To that, I would add: All of the book point to the fulfillment of God's promise in Genesis 3:15 that the Woman would bring forth the Seed who crushes the serpent's head, overcome death and restores Paradise.

Third, Christianity is about eternal life. This too is true. Our life is in the One by whom all things were made. Genesis is as much about human destiny as it is about our beginnings. That is the one truly Orthodox view of Genesis that can be affirmed by all.

If it is possible to speak of "an Orthodox approach" to Genesis is is not what Fr. Rose proposed, but rather attendance to what the Fathers have observed. A reading of St. Augustine (354-430), St. John Chrysostom (344-407), Ephrem the Syrian (306-372), St. Basil the Great (329-379), Ambrose of Milan (339-397) and Tertullian (155-230) on Genesis makes it clear that there is no uniform patristic interpretation of Genesis. These is a consensus, however, that the text is divinely inspired and worthy of deep study, for therein lays wisdom. Let us attend!

Related reading:  Metropolitan Nicholas of Mesogaia and Lavreotiki on Science and Faith; A Coptic Monk Reflects on Genesis; St. John Chrysostom on Lamech's Speech; St. Ephrem the Syrian on Genesis; St. Jerome on Genesis; Fr Hopko on the Image and Likeness of God; The Orthodox Study Bible; Theories of Change and Constancy; Evidence of an Old Earth, Part 1; Evidence of an Old Earth, Part 2; Support Research in Biblical Anthropology

St. John Chrysostom on Lamech's Speech

Alice C. Linsley

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

St. John’s interpretation of Lamech’s speech to his two wives is absolutely brilliant and unfortunately, largely ignored. What he says about Lamech the Elder and his daughter Naamah sheds light on the text and clarifies the confusion surrounding the persons of Lamech the Elder (Gen. 4:23) and Lamech the Younger, his grandson (Gen. 5:26).

The confusion arises from the assumption that the two Lamechs are the same person, and that the genealogical lists in Genesis 4 and 5 are about the same people, but from different sources or traditions. This assumption of mid-century source critics assigns the chapter 4 list to the Yahwist source and the chapter 5 list to the Priestly source. Von Rad and E.A. Speiser promoted this interpretation in their commentaries on Genesis and many versions of the Bible assume that this interpretation is correct, noting the similarity of names in the two lists (Irad/Jared; Enoch/Enosh).

However, using the tools of kinship analysis developed by E.L. Schusky in his Manual for Kinship Analysis, it is possible to show that the king lists in Genesis 4 and 5 represent two distinct lines of descent and that these ruling lines intermarried.

This information influences the way we interpret the Bible. It points us to God's love for us sinners, an undeserved love. It is part of a larger pattern that is seen throughout the Bible. For one thing, this overturns the idea that Cain's line died out.  It also indicates that God never abandoned Cain and his descendants.

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


God's Love and Faithfulness to Sinners

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

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

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

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

St. Chrysostom’s interpretation is consistent with the Bible's message about God’s love, grace and mercy, and departs from the interpretation found in Bibles today which stress that God destroyed Cain’s line in the flood. In fact, the text supports Chrysostom’s view, as we will see through tracing the number 7 from Cain to Lamech, the Younger. Let us look at the number symbolism to see that Chrysostom’s interpretation is indeed upheld.

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

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

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

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


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

Lamech Segment Analysis

Lamech Segment: Genesis 4 and 5

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

Lamech Segment Analysis

Dr. Alice C. Linsley

Levi-Strauss observed in 1949 that in a patrilineal kinship system the mother and child do not belong to the same clan or house. For the rulers listed in Genesis 4 and 5 this applies only to the second wife, the cousin bride. The first wife was a half-sister and belonged to the same clan as her husband. Sarah and Abraham, for example, belonged to the clan of Terah, their father. He was an Aramean ruler and a priest. The word Terah means priest.

Naamah is named in Genesis 4. She is a descendant of Cain. Her son, Lamech the Younger, is named in Genesis 5 as a ruler in the clan of Seth. It is clear from analysis of the Lamech segment that the clans of Cain and Seth intermarried. Likewise, the clans of Ham and Shem intermarried. The Hebrew were a ruler-priests caste that practiced endogamy. That means, they married only members of their caste.

Naamah married Methuselah, her patrilineal cousin and named their firstborn son Lamech, after her father. Lamech is a royal name, and a variant of la-melech found on hundreds of Egyptian seals. The word Lamech is related to the word melech which refers to a king or high-ranking ruler. 

The marriage and ascendancy pattern revealed in the diagram above is identical to that of Abraham and his two wives, and Moses' father and his two wives, and to Samuel's father and his two wives. Many Hebrew rulers had two wives. Of the ruler’s two wives, the second bride was usually a cousin who named her first-born son after her father. The cousin bride’s naming prerogative is evident in the naming of Lamech the Younger (Gen. 5) after his maternal grandfather, Lamech the Elder (Gen. 4). 

Naamah is the key to understanding the marriage and ascendancy pattern of Abraham's ancestors. Lamech's daughter. Naamah, married her patrilineal cousin Methuselah (Gen. 5:26) and named their first-born son Lamech, after her father. Recognition of cousin bride's naming prerogative makes it possible to trace the ancestry of Jesus Messiah back to both Cain and Seth.

Analysis of the Lamech story reveals that this Nilo-Saharan ruler had two wives, following the marriage and ascendancy pattern of Abraham's early Hebrew ancestors.  However, Lamech is said to have placed his wives in separate households on an east-west axis instead of a north-south axis, as was the case with his righteous descendant Abraham. Sarah resided in Hebron and Keturah in Beersheba to the south. Abraham's father Terah maintained wives in Haran and Ur to the south. The location of the wives is significant because their positions marked the southern and northern boundaries of the chief’s territory. The Creator’s territory was marked by the solar arch from east to west.

Lamech’s two wives lived in separate settlements, probably on an east-west axis. As the Hebrew scholar Theodor Gaster noted their names Adah and Zillah indicate dawn and dust. This rounds out the picture of Lamech's arrogance, for besides killing a man without impunity, he set himself as an equal to God.

In Genesis 4 only sons are listed as they became the rulers. However, this doesn't mean that Cain and Seth had no daughters. One of Cain's unnamed daughters married her cousin Enosh (listed in Genesis 5) and named their first-born son Kenan after her father. Kain and Kenan are linguistically equivalent names. Likewise, Irad's unnamed daughter married her cousin Mahalalel and named their first-born son Jared, after her father. Irad and Jared are linguistically equivalent. The pattern is consistent throughout the ascendancy data in Genesis chapters 4 and 5.

Factoring the daughters into the genealogical picture of Genesis 4 and 5 clarifies the kinship pattern of Abraham's Hebrew ancestors. Naamah, daughter of Lamech, is key to understanding the Hebrew marriage and ascendancy pattern. The consistency of the pattern throughout Genesis 4 and 5 indicates that these lists are authentic king lists.

It is difficult to establish a time framework for the rulers listed in Genesis 4 and 5, but it is safe to say that these lines of descent, with the daughters marrying their patrilineal parallel cousins, represent a very old pattern for the Horite rulers, going back to at least 4000 B.C.


Related reading: Five Features of the Hebrew Social Structure; Cousin Brides; Evidence of the Cousin Bride's Naming Prerogative; Hebrew Rulers with Two Wives; BIBLICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: The Hebrew were a Caste