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

St. John Chrysostom on Lamech

© 1998 Alice C. Linsley
Lamech Segment: Genesis 4

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








Alice C. Linsley

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

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

St. John’s interpretation of Lamech’s speech to his two wives is brilliant! Unfortunately, it is 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 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). I would argue that there is a single source: Habiru or Hebrew.

The English word Hebrew comes from the ancient word Ha-biru/Ha-piru. The Habiru were a caste of ruler-priests who venerated the Sun. In some ancient texts they are called O-piru. Here the O is a solar symbol (lexeme). The east-facing temple was termed O-piru, meaning "House of the Sun" and the priests at the water shrines were called W'pr. W is another very ancient lexeme that indicates water, waves, and things that curve like women, or paths that meander or wander.

Using the tools of kinship analysis developed by E.L. Schusky in his Manual for Kinship Analysis, I have shown that the kinship information in Genesis 4 and 5 represents an intact, non-telescopic list of historical persons, with two distinct lines of descent. These are lines of Horite ruler-priests and their lines intermarried (endogamy). All of the Bible as about them, their interactions and their expectation that the Righteous Ruler would come from them who would defeat death and lead his people to immortality. So there is really only one source: the Habiru, a stiff-necked people loved by God.

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

How did St. John Chrysostom, a great preacher, teacher and pastor of the early Church, come to understand Lamech the Elder as a repentant soul? Because he believed that everything in Scriptures is written for our edification, instruction and correction.

Genesis 4 tells us that Lamech had two wives. This was typical of the Horim or Horite ruler-priest caste. These rulers maintained two wives in separate households on a north-south axis. For example, Sarah lived in Hebron and Keturah lived in Beersheba. Lamech's wives (as with Mohammed's two wives Sauda and Aisha) were in separate households on an east-west axis. This means that Lamech the Elder and Mohammed were setting themselves up as God's equal since the east-west axis was regarded as the Creator's territory.

Among these Horite rulers the emblem or symbol of the Creator was the sun. The Creator's territory was marked by the sun’s rising in the east and setting in the west. So when Lamech positioned his two wives on an east-west axis he was setting himself up as an equal to God. The Hebrew scholar, Theodor Gaster, noted that the names of Lamech's wives: Adah and Zillah, mean “dawn” and “dust”.

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

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


Related reading:  St. John Chrysostom on Lamech's Speech; Is Enoch a Royal Title?; The Descendants of Noah; Methuselah's Wife; Lamech's Story and the Horite Kings; Two Named Esau; The Marriage and Ascendancy Pattern of the Horites