Genesis and Jacques Derrida

Alice C. Linsley


Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) focused on the ontological status of criticism and he established himself as a leading figure in deconstructionism. His analysis of the Western philosophical project employs important descriptors such as: logocentrism, phallogocentrism, the metaphysics of presence, ontotheoloy and metaphysics. “Logocentrism” emphasizes the primacy of logos or speech in the Western tradition.

“Phallogocentrism” points to the patriarchal sources of this primacy. Derrida's “metaphysics of presence” borrows from the work of the German philosopher, Martin Heidegger. Heidegger maintains that Western philosophy has always granted primacy or “privilege” to presence itself. That is to say, something is because it can be and something can be because it is.

We might add that "something isn't" is also about metaphysical presence. Derrida is familiar with the apophaticism of eastern thought. (For more on this, go here.)

While Derrida loved to play with words and poke fun at conventional interpretations of texts, he was never very far from Plato's essentialism when he spoke of ontological presence. He regarded the center as absolute, eternal and immutable and believed that the philosophical project in the West has reached a dead end because of the abandonment of essentialism. (In reference to this, I recommend J. Jeremy Wisnewski's essay "An Antirealist Essentialism?" which is available to read online.)

His understanding of the mystery of gender reversal comes from his recognition of the fixed nature of binary oppositions. In subordinating the dominate entity to the subordinate entity we discover not only a different perspective, but also extended meaning derived from the relationship of the opposites.

“Ontotheology” was one of my favorite Derrida terms because it speaks of “the center” to which we inevitably must return and there we find different names, including “God” and “Logos”. As Derrida said, “It would be possible to show that all the terms related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the center have always designated the constant of a presence, ... essence, existence, substance, subject, ... transcendentality, consciousness or conscience, god, man, and so forth.” Derrida demonstrates that language is unstable and plays havoc with the concept of a transcendental, self-evident logos. That said, it is important to remember that Derrida never denies the existence of “the center”, or that there is something there. He regards the center as a function, not a being, but to which we must return in search of being.

Deconstruction dismantles the underlying assumptions upon which a metaphysical argument is based. It requires detailed reading of a text, parsing of terminology, and language “freeplay” on the part of the critic. Derrida’s method involves exploration of contradictions, oppositions and reversals and hangs on a binary framework. He sees that Western metaphysics rather consistently grants privilege to one side of an opposition and marginalizes the opposition. Studying Western philosophy, one would have to agree with him. Aristotle has won the day and Plato has been exiled from the picture.

Derrida ascribes to objects a less substantial existence than the shadow they cast, or their trace. His reversals are a strategic intervention within the bounded Western philosophical system whereby he attempts to break out of that system.

As Derrida suggested: "Deconstruction cannot limit itself or proceed immediately to neutralization: it must, by means of a double gesture, a double science, a double writing, practice an overturning of the classical opposition, and a general displacement of the system. It is on that condition alone that deconstruction will provide the means of intervening in the field of oppositions it criticizes" (Metaphysics).

This reversal of the subordinated term of an opposition is no small aspect of deconstruction's strategy. Derrida's argument is that in examining a binary opposition and reversals, deconstruction brings to light traces of meaning that cannot be said to be present, but which must have metaphysical existence. This is not a new idea or even a new approach to meaning. As I will demonstrate in this essay, it is consistent with the mystical approaches of the Semitic peoples and we must remember that Derrida was a North African Arabic-speaking Jew. In a real sense, Derrida’s contribution to Western Philosophy has been to re-introduce the Semitic interpretive approach to meaning.

Let us now examine a case in point to understand the value of Derrida’s method.

Genesis 12: 8 says that Abraham proceeded “to the mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar to the Lord and called upon the name of the Lord.”

This sentence is full of meaning because of the reversal that it represents. Bethel means “House of God” and is associated with the east, the direction of the sunrise. Yet we are told that Abraham pitched his tent with Bethel to the west and Ai to the east. This orientation represents a reversal and point to a mystery. The word Ai in Jewish mysticism is great Mother. The feminine principle has moved to the positon of priority in the east, signaling a gender reversal.

In Jewish mysticism Ain soph is associated with north and the number 1 and represents the Hidden God, the Cause of all causes. Aima is associated with south and the number 3. Because the house of Ain (Bethel) has moved to the west, south has moved to the position of north. We have a reversal of directional poles that places south in the position of priority. South also presents marriage and reproduction. Then in Genesis 12:9 we are told that Abraham’s next journey takes him to the south, to the Negev. It appears that this was when he took Keturah to be his second wife. Now with Sarah in Hebron and Keturah in Beersheba, Abraham was able to establish control over a territory on a north-south axis, following the pattern of his forefathers.

We have further confirmation of the association of 1 with north and 3 with south in I Kings 7:23-26 and II Chronicles 4:1-4. Here we read that the altar in Solomon’s temple was to rest on 12 oxen: 3 facing north, 3 facing west, 3 facing south and 3 facing east. We note that north heads the list, having the position of priority. Then comes west (associated with the numbers 9 and 10) and then in the third position we have south.

The logic of “supplementarity” (Derrida’s term) shows that what is conceived as the marginal object does in fact define the central object of consideration. We have seen this in the complementarity and supplementarity of gender roles. So the binary polarities of the Afro-Asiatic worldview that assigned priority to north and east (those being associated with God) are reversible, bringing south and west to the position of priority. This reversal of south and north interpreted for Abraham the direction he was to go.

With south at the position of priority, Abraham knew to head in that direction. There, at the well of Sheba, he took his second wife, Keturah, his patrilineal parallel cousin. Just as he had worshiped between Bethel and Ai (Genesis 12:7), so Abraham worshiped in Beersheba. Genesis 21:33 tells us that, “Abraham planted a tamar tree at Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God.” The tamar is a date palm that was a symbol of fertility among the peoples of ancient Arabia and was used in the installation of priests and kings.


Related reading:  Levi-Strauss and Derrida on Binary Oppositions; Binary Sets in the Ancient World; Binary Distinctions and Kenosis; Blood and Binary Distinctions; Circumcision and Binary Distinctions

Males as Spiritual Leaders: Two Patterns

Veiled Tungus shaman

Alice C. Linsley

Early man had an intuitive anxiety about blood. We see this in the belief that the blood of Abel cries to God from the ground (Gen. 4:10). Wall paintings inside archaic rock shelters and primitive artifacts indicate that anxiety about blood shed in war and in the hunt was universal. The shaman and the priest are the oldest known religious offices. They likely came into existence the first day that blood was shed and the individual and/or the community sought relief of blood anxiety and guilt. However, the shaman and the priest represent different worldviews and different approaches to relieving blood anxiety and guilt.


Review of contemporary religious literature reveals confusion surrounding the offices priest and shaman. This is evidenced by Christian priests calling themselves "shamans" and employing shamanic practices as if these were consistent with the Christian worldview. It is evidenced also in the World Religions textbook that I am required to use at the college where I teach. The author of that text fails to make a distinction between the two offices, a distinction that is significant for those who wish to understand world religions.

Both offices are extremely ancient, but emerge from different cultural contexts. The priesthood can be traced back to Abraham's Nilo-Saharan ancestors. They  represent the oldest known order of priests and they spread their religious views and practices across the Afro-Asiatic world.

In this essay we will look at the etiologies of the offices of priest and shaman from an anthropological perspective.


Binary Distinctions Characterize Ancient Peoples

A prominent feature of primitive societies is division of labor along gender lines. This division represents a binary worldview where reality is ordered by binary distinctions such as sun-moon, male-female, hot-cold, raw-cooked. When we consider primitive societies we note almost universally that hunting, war and decisions about punishment were male responsibilities. Archaic man hunted, waged war and deliberated judicial questions in a council of elders. These actions were performed by men, and women were not present during the deliberations. The tribal council is the first know form of government and it consisted of a ruler, elders and a holy man who was either a priest or a shaman. Historically, females never functioned as priests due to the contact with blood in animal sacrifice. Women have functioned as shamans.

Among the elders there was one who was regarded as having special spiritual gifts. He is referred to by various names, including “the holy man” or “the medicine man.” Depending on the cultural group, this man was either a shaman or as a priest. Shamanism is generally found in the more northern regions and especially among peoples in the Ural-Altaic language group. The priesthood is found in the more southern regions, especially among peoples of the Afro-Asiatic language family. Shamans and priests serve a similar function in their societies but represent different worldviews.


The Pattern of Shamanism

Underlying shamanism is the belief that there is a powerful spirit world that requires an intermediary to balance benevolent and malevolent energies. This is a dualistic and animistic worldview. When sickness, sudden death, or a great calamity such as flooding or plague affects a tribal group, the shaman’s job is to investigate and determine the cause and seek to restore the natural equilibrium. This is a symmetrical binary view of the gender boundaries and responsibilities. Violation of boundaries can bring calamity to the tribe in the form of drought, floods, disease, war, etc. The shaman must discover the nature of the violation, or what action has thrown off the balance. The shaman gains this knowledge by putting himself in a trance through the use of drums, rituals, and hallucinogens.

Once the shaman has determined the cause of the imbalance, he must find a way to restore the balance. This may mean offering something to the spirits, performing a ritual exactly as it was taught to him, or disciplining the individual who has caused offense and disturbed the balance. This is the work of the shaman, and it is different than the work of the priest.

Shamans are male and female.


The Priesthood

Priests are males. Women who are identified as "priestesses" are seers, not priests. The women seers of the ancient Greek and Alexandrian temples did not offer blood sacrifice. They were "wise women" like Themistoclea, the Pythia of Apollo at the Delphi temple in the 6th century BC. She was reputed to be wise in math, natural science, medicine and philosophy. She was one of Pythagoras' teachers. Diogenes stated that "Aristoxenus asserts that Pythagoras derived the greater part of his ethical doctrines from Themistoclea, the priestess at Delphi."

Underlying the priesthood is the belief that there is a supreme benevolent Being in charge of all things and to whom humans must give an accounting, especially for the shedding of blood. In this view, the one Great Spirit, God, holds the world in balance. This is not an animistic and dualistic worldview. The priesthood is intrinsically linked to blood sacrifice for atonement and also is the functionary who addresses the guilt and dread that accompany the shedding of blood.

There are two types of blood anxiety: blood shed by killing and blood related to menstruation and birthing. To archaic peoples both types were regarded as powerful and potentially dangerous, requiring priestly ministry to deal with bloodguilt through animal sacrifice and/or to deal with blood contamination through purification rites. This is why we find a linguistic connection between the Hebrew root ‘thr’ = to be pure, the Hausa/Hahm ‘toro’ = clean, and the Tamil ‘tiru’ = holy. All are related to the proto-Dravidian ‘tor’ = blood. And those who did this work were called 'sarki', an ancient word for priest. Sarki also refers to red ochre powder, a symbol of blood, used in the burial of rulers between 80,000 and 20,000 years ago.

Blood represents both life and pollution. Because of this, it is the custom among many peoples that women about to give birth are isolated from the rest of the community, often remaining in a birthing hut until they are restored to the community. The period of isolation depends on the gender of the child, the condition of the mother and the preparations for the mother and child to be re-introduced to the community. This practice is observed in many cultures, especially among the Afro-Asiatics. The "churching of women" after childbirth is a vestige of this practice and reflects this worldview.

Sacred law prohibited the blood shed in taking life (male) and the blood shed in giving life (female) to share the same space. God doesn't want confusion about the distinctions of life and death. The same distinction of life-taking and life-giving is behind the prohibition against boiling the young goat in its mother’s milk (Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26 and Deut. 14:21, ).

From earliest times man observed that when an animal or human bled heavily, death resulted. Blood was recognized as the liquid of life. Among the Hebrews and other people of the ancient Near East there was a prohibition against eating flesh that still had blood in it. This taboo is widely found. All hunters drain the blood from the animal before butchering it for consumption. When archaic man took life, the priest offered prayers with animal sacrifice, which sacrifice preserved the life of the guilty and protected the community. Prayers and sacrifices were performed according to sacred law, which appears to have been established as early as 12,000 years ago. So the priest symbolizes prayer, sacrifice and law. The spread of the Afro-Asiatic worldview is largely due to the ruler-priests who controlled the ancient water systems and who intermarried within their priestly lines according to a specific kinship pattern. This observed and well documented reality stands behind the tradition of male spiritual leaders in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

In the West the male priesthood has come under attack from feminists, theological revisionists and academics. In this debate little attention has been given to the distinctive pattern of the priesthood. Instead the focus has been on interpretations of gender that are informed by the language of civil rights, employment law and status. It is helpful, therefore, to clarify the difference between and reciprocal nature of “ascribed status” and “achieved status.”


Ascribed Status Versus Achieved Status

Status assigned to a task depends on whether males or females do the work. Higher status is ascribed to males. The status associated with the hunt is ascribed, not achieved. However, if a man distinguishes himself as a great hunter, he has both ascribed and achieved status. Likewise, lower status is ascribed to agriculture and gathering, but that does not mean that every female is without achieved status. Higher status is ascribed to males, but there exists a reciprocal dynamic between male and female roles. Both hunting and agriculture are regarded as essential to the survival for the community, but hunting is the labor of men and agriculture is the labor of women. Even here we see that the lines of division do not represent a strict dichotomy because men participate in the harvest and women participate in the hunt when portioning out the butchered game and preparing it to be eaten.

Ascribed status and achieved status are separate but related. While status of the labor depends on whether it is done by males or females, an individual male often does not achieve as high a status as a female. Likewise, lower status is ascribed to females but that does not mean that every female is without achieved status. The status of the Delphic Oracle was ascribed as she was chosen by a male priest of the oracle. Some of the Sybils were so charismatic that they achieved status beyond what was ascribed to their function.

In ancient Israel women never served as priests, but some achieved such great spiritual status that they were consulted by rulers and priests. Huldah is an example (2 Kings 22).


Related reading: Women Rulers in Ancient Israel; Shamanic Practice and the Priesthood; The Horite Ancestry of Jesus Christ; Why Women Were Never Priests

The Priesthood and Genesis

Alice C. Linsley


The priesthood is intrinsically linked to blood. The priest is the functionary who addresses the blood guilt that resulted from killing and the dread that accompanied the shedding of blood. In the ancient world blood was regarded as having mysterious power and there had to be an accounting for all shed blood.

There are two types of blood anxiety: blood shed by killing and bloodshed related to birthing. To archaic peoples both types were regarded as powerful and potentially dangerous, requiring priestly ministry to deal with bloodguilt through animal sacrifice and/or to deal with blood contamination through purification rites.

From earliest times man observed that when an animal or human bled heavily, death resulted. Blood was recognized as the liquid of life. Among the Hebrews and other people of the ancient Near East there was a prohibition against eating flesh that still had blood in it.

Blood represents both life and pollution. Because of this, it is the custom among many peoples that women about to give birth are isolated from the rest of the community, often remaining in a birthing hut until they are restored to the community. The period of isolation depends on the gender of the child, the condition of the mother and the preparations for the mother and child to be re-introduced to the community. This practice is observed in many cultures.

After her time of isolation, Blessed Mary presented herself for ritual purification according to Jewish law. The "churching of women" after childbirth is a vestige of this practice. While the churching of women is not observed much in the West because western women regard it as humiliating, it is still practiced among eastern Christians, who view the practice as following the example of Blessed Mary, the most honored woman in history.

This information on blood anxiety helps us to understand the primeval origins of the priesthood as it is developed in Genesis. Let us consider the pertinent passages.

Genesis 1:29

God also said, “Look, to you I give all the seed-bearing plants everywhere on the surface of the earth, and all the trees with see-bearing fruit; this will be your food.”

In Paradise there is no blood sacrifice because there is no bloodguilt. Adam does not need a priest because Adam enjoys perfect communion with God.


Genesis 4:3-6

“Time passed and Cain brought some of the produce of the soil as an offering to God, while Abel for his part brought the first-born of his flock and some of their fat as well. God looked with favor on Abel and his offering. But He did not look with favor on Cain and his offering…”

After losing Paradise, blood sacrifice with prayer became the acceptable way to commune with God. Here Abel is the archetypical priest whose offering is acceptable to God. Cain brings only a grain offering, which involves neither blood nor priestly action. This is not acceptable to God and Cain becomes angry. Cain represents all who seek communion with God on their own terms, instead of God’s terms.


Genesis 9:1-5

God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Breed, multiply and fill the earth. Be the terror and the dread of all the animals on land and all the birds of heaven, of everything that moves on land and all the fish of the sea; they are placed in your hands. Every living thing that moves will be yours to eat, no less than the foliage of the plants. I give you everything, with this exception: you must not eat flesh with life, that is to say blood in it. And I shall demand account of your life-blood too. I shall demand it of every animal and of man.”

Here we see man as hunter who must account to God for the shedding of blood, not only the blood of animals, but also the blood of his fellow human being. Man is not excused from offering fruits and grain, as he had done from the beginning. It is just that where animals are killed in the hunt, there must be a priestly offering of sacrifice with prayer to address blood guilt according to the law.

This helps us to better understand the Cain and Abel story. Cain’s grain offering represents the old offering, which did not require a priest, because no blood was shed. Cain’s guilt for killing his brother, Abel, requires a new offering. The new offering requires a priest since there must be an accounting for the shed blood.

In Christian belief, an aspect of Jesus Christ’s uniqueness is his service as both sacrificed victim and priest. In the one person both roles are fulfilled.

Finally, we turn to the mysterious character, Melchizedek, the priest of Salem (Gen. 14:17-24) Melchizedek came to Abraham after Abraham and his allies routed their common enemy in battle. Melchizedek did not offer a blood sacrifice for Abraham to cover blood guilt. This suggests that blood sacrifice was not required by Abraham in this situation. Was Abraham without bloodguilt in this war?

Melchizedek brought bread and wine, a different kind of offering, and gave this blessing: "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High for putting your enemies into your clutches." The defeat of the enemy did not involve bloodguilt for Abraham since God delivered the enemy to Abraham. In recognition of this, Abraham gave to the priest a tenth of everything as a thank offering, but he refused to accept any booty for himself, as doing so would make him guilty of bloodguilt. The King of Sodom was greedy for all he could get, but Abraham refused to accept what was gained by bloodshed. In this account Abraham appears as one who is scrupulous about avoiding bloodguilt and conscious of God's intervention on his behalf.


Related reading:  Blood and Binary Distinctions; Mining Blood; The Blood of Jesus; Life is in the Blood

The Origins of the Priesthood

Alice C. Linsley

Chrismation in the Orthdox Church

The priesthood is verifiably the oldest known religious institution and appears to have originated in the Upper Nille region. Despite what feminists, theological revisionists and politically-correct academics might say, the priest was from the beginning and has continued to be exclusively the work of men, and not all men.  In the most ancient times the office was unique to the priestly castes which in Genesis are represented by the priestly lines descending from Kain and Seth and Ham and Shem.

Before turning to the pertinent texts in Genesis, it would be helpful to briefly explore gender roles in primitive societies. We must also examine another principle of cultural anthropology that can help us to understand the primeval origins of the priesthood.


Statuses and Roles in Primitive Societies

In primitive societies (where we find the origins of today’s primary religious systems) division of labor along gender lines is very evident. The more important the task to the community’s welfare, the more status is ascribed to the task. Both hunting and agriculture are regarded as essential to the survival for the community, but hunting is the labor of men and agriculture is the labor of women. Even here we see that the lines of division do not represent a dichotomy because men may participate in the harvest and women may participate in the hunt when portioning out the butchered game and preparing it to be eaten.

Tasks of lesser importance to the survival of the community are not fixed as to gender. Basket weaving, an important aspect of many primitive societies, is not essential for survival. Among the Hopi basket weaving is a female task whereas among the Navaho, it is a male task. (Grunlan and Myers, Cultural Anthropology, Zondervan, 1979, p. 137)

Status assigned to a task depends on whether males or females do the work. Higher status is ascribed to males. This does not mean that males achieve higher status. The status associated with the hunt is ascribed, not achieved. However, if a man distinguishes himself as a great hunter, he has both ascribed and achieved status. Likewise, lower status is ascribed to agriculture and gathering, but that does not mean that every female is without achieved status.

For Christians this relates to the blessed Theotokos, to whom God ascribes the status of Queen among saints, an unachieved glory. In Mary we find realization of these words of the Magnificat: “He has exalted the low and brought low the mighty.” In Mary, God fulfilled the first promise of the Bible, the Edenic Promise of Genesis 3:15.

In exploration of the primeval origins of the priesthood the difference between ascribed and achieved statuses is important. Ascribed status is assigned by society whereas achieved status involves the individual’s accomplishments. Status may be ascribed on the basis of birth order, hereditary office, age, special circumstances surrounding one’s birth, unusual physical appearance or body marks, and social class or caste.

While roles and statuses are different there exists between them a reciprocity that suggests the existence of sacred laws or rules. No strict separation or dichotomy exists since roles are always complementary and rules exist so that some plants require being killed by both males and females and some animals require protection and nurture by both males and females.


An Important Principle of Cultural Anthropology

Primitive societies are characterized by division of labor. Universally hunting is a male task whereas cultivation of plots near residences is a female task. Both hunting and cultivation require physical strength, but the spiritual danger associated with bloodletting requires that hunting be undertaken by the physically stronger. Among every primitive society that has been studied anthropologists have noted the belief that here is power in the blood and this power is spiritual and potentially dangerous. Those who carry the young and tend the home fires are not to be exposed to the blood shed in war and hunting. The division of labor applies to the sacrifice of animals.

This brings us to an important anthropological principle that states: “The older the trait, the wider the distribution.” Since this anxiety about the shedding of blood is universal, we conclude that it is also very old. It is in fact primeval, and from the first day that man shed blood, the priesthood has existed to address this anxiety.

When archaic man took life in the hunt, the spiritual leader of the community offered prayers for the sacrifice of the animal. The ritual act of sacrifice and prayer is apparent from the beginning. The sacrifice gave the community life and the prayer protected it from bloodguilt. The prayers and the sacrifice of the hunt were performed according to sacred law. The spiritual leader symbolizes prayer, sacrifice and law. This observed and well documented reality stands behind the Church’s tradition of a male priesthood.

This anthropological information helps us to understand the primeval origins of the priesthood as it is developed in Genesis.


Related reading:  What is a Priest?; Who Were the Horites?; Why Women Were Never Priests; The Origins of Animal Sacrifice

Shamanic Practice and the Priesthood

Tungus shaman with a hide drum

Alice C. Linsley

A fundamental principle of cultural anthropology states that the study of extant primitive societies helps us to understand archaic societies and vice versa. This is especially the case when we compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. What do I mean?

There is no benefit in comparing practices of peoples who belong to different regions, have different histories, and different languages, yet this is done fairly often in textbooks to prove a point. Female shamans in ancient Greece, for example, are called "priestesses" but they do not function as priests by any definition of that term. It is intellectually dishonest to misapply terms.

The sloppy comparison might be excused on the ground that the people who present this fallacy are ignorant of the distinction between priests and shamans. If this is the case, they should neither claim to be experts nor should they be recognized as experts.

Hupa female shaman
Photo Edward S. Curtis, 1923

To illustrate the comparison of apple and oranges, I’ll refer to a textbook that I’m using to teach World Religions. In the section on shamanism, the author generalizes that shamans are the priests of the ancient world and that since there are Japanese and Korean female shamans, there must have been female priests. This is the politically correct thing to say, but it is based on a false premise and employs an incorrect anthropological method. Here is the author’s reasoning in syllogistic form:

Premise: All shamans are priests.
Females are shamans.
Therefore, female shamans are priests.

The premise is false. While there are ways in which shamans and priests are similar, the distinction between them is clear. The priesthood's origins are among the early Semitic populations and those influenced by them. The cultural context of shamans is rooted in Altaic populations.

The offices of priest and shaman are probably the oldest known religious offices. Both serve as intermediaries between their communities and the supernatural. They share some common symbols such as the Tree of Life, and the Sun as the emblem of the Supreme God. However, they represent different worldviews, different ways of reasoning, and different practices.

Veiled Tungus shaman with drum

Underlying shamanism is the belief that there are powerful spirits who cause imbalance and disharmony in the world. The shaman’s role is to determine which spirits are at work in a given situation and to find ways to appease the spirits and restore balance or harmony. This often involves use of psychoactive substances to induce a trance state. Rarely, does the shaman perform blood sacrifice. The hides used to make their drums come from animals that have been hunted for food.

Underlying the priesthood is belief in a supreme High God to whom humans must give an accounting, especially for the shedding of blood. In this view, one Great Spirit (God) holds the world in balance, and it is human actions that cause disharmony. Priests are to discern the spirits, recognizing that evil spirits are the enemy of God. The ancient laws and received traditions governing priestly ceremonies, sacrifices, and cleansing rituals clarify the role of the priest as one who offers sacrifice for the people according to sacred law. 

Shamans tend to serve small tribal communities or nomadic clans, whereas priests historically serve at shrines and temples under the authority of high kings and rulers. Another difference is that gender-transgressive (cross-dressing, transvestite) shamans can be found among many populations around the world: Africa, Asia, and the Americas. However, the Bible forbids transvestism among God's people.

Drawing broad conclusions from comparison of apples to oranges violates a fundamental principle of cultural anthropology. It leads to generalizations that gloss over significant differences.


Related reading: Hallucinogenic Substances Found in 3000-year Hair of Shaman; Males as Spiritual Leaders: Two Patterns; Blood Guilt and the Priesthood of Christ; Why Women Were Never Priests; God as Male Priest; Female Shamans, Not Women Priests; Ideologies Opposed to Holy Tradition; Binary Distinctions and Kenosis; Traditional Healers of Central Australia

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