The Faith of the Early Hebrew Delivered to Us

 

Alice C. Linsley

This green malachite stone, a gift from the Egyptian king with whom the Hittites signed a treaty in 1258 BC, was at the center of a shrine in the Hittite capital of Hattusa (in Çorum Province in Turkey). Green malachite represented new life and the hope of resurrection among the Horite Hebrew devotees of God Father and God Son. The land of the blessed dead was described as the "field of malachite."

Green stones were associated with Horus or HR in ancient Egyptian, meaning Most High One. The Book of the Dead speaks of how the deceased will become a falcon "whose wings are of green stone" (chapter 77). The Eye of Horus amulet was made of green stone. The Pyramid Texts (ca. 2400 BC) speak of Horus as the "Lord of the green stone" (Utterance 301).

The oldest known site of Horite Hebrew worship is Nekhen on the Nile (4000 BC). It was at a high elevation (mound) to protect it from the annual floods. The Horite Hebrew were very familiar with floods.

The flood that Noah experienced in Central Africa (ca. 4000 BC) was remembered by his children Ham, Shem, and Japheth, and their descendants: Cush, Nimrod, Peleg, Terah, Abraham (ca. 2100 BC).... long before the time of Moses (ca. 1500 BC).

All these men are members of the same Horite Hebrew ruler-priest caste, as has been demonstrated by analysis of their distinctive kinship pattern. That's science!

This suggests that all the narratives in Genesis 1-12 come from the same people group, and that these details are part of a received tradition extending back at least 6000 years.

After 40 years of methodical research, God-dropped hints, the right people crossing my path at the right moment, countless pages of reading and note taking, 13 years of blogging, public speaking, etc... I have scratched the surface of what the Bible has to tell us about Jesus Messiah, the Son of God, whose expectant ancestors were justified because they believed in Him before the Incarnation. His identity was confirmed by His resurrection which they had hoped to see.

Related reading: The Substance of Abraham's Faith; Where Judaism and Christianity Part Ways; Abraham's Faith Lives in Christianity; Early Resurrection Texts; Judaism is Not the Faith of Abraham; Righteous Rulers and the Resurrection

Received Tradition vs Special Revelation

Alice C. Linsley

Religious belief is conditioned by the faith tradition which we receive from our parents, grandparents and, if we believe Jung’s theory of the collective unconscious, from our archaic ancestors. If Jung is right, those who embrace atheism must experience an inner struggle against the affirmations of God's Presence that their ancestors experienced.

I'm thinking of the Logical Positivists, who drawing on Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, were concerned exclusively with “atomic” facts that can be verified using strict logic and mathematical analysis. They rejected all truth claims that could not be reduced to atomic facts, and pushed aside ethics as a waste of intellectual energy. Most Logical Positivists were atheists, and sadly, many ended their own lives.

Ironically, the Messianic Faith has much more in common with prehistoric practices that are labeled "pagan." This may be an expression of the collective unconscious, since the farther back in history we go, the more likely we are to find common ancestors. Those ancestors received a religious tradition that involved hope of life after death and animal sacrifice.

The Häme region of Finland is known for its pagan history. It is reported that after being baptized by Catholic missionaries, some of the people there later repented of their baptism and washed it off in a lake where the shamans sacrificed animals. One wonders if the Catholic priests failed in their catechesis to point out that baptism into Jesus Messiah involves both water and blood, the two substances recognized as purifying agents by pagans.

Paul writes that we who are baptized into Christ "have been brought near in the blood of Christ” (Ephesians 2:13). We enter with boldness into the Most Holy Place "by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is His body..." (Hebrews 10:19, 20)

The Finnish writer, Jaakko Olkinuora, reports: "In western Finland, the Catholic Church was very strong before the Reformation, as was Lutheranism afterwards. Our region, however, still has its native pagan place names and stories about spirits and demons of the lakes. When I was a child my mother had a book of Finnish stories collected from the old people. They were all pagan: demons of the lake, demons of the forest. My father has two Finnish names, Seppo and Tapio, both names of Finnish gods." (Road to Emmaus, Vol. IX, No. 4, p. 33)

The familial tradition is so strong that elements of paganism continue for generations long after families convert to Christianity.

Americans are notorious consumers of religion and quickly embrace innovations.Yet we too are influenced by familial traditions. When asked about our church affiliation, especially if we are complacent about religion, we may say that we are Baptist, or Presbyterian, or Lutheran simply because our parents were. Or, we may say we are agnostics in reaction to religious parents whose devotion we reject. Either way, familial tradition exercises no small influence on our lives.

It seems that the tradition of our biological ancestors may predispose us to certain avenues and not to others. My family on both sides are mostly English and Scots. The religious milieu that I embrace is high-church Anglicanism, of a sort that someone raised in the Baptist Church or a Greek Orthodox family would not find comfortable.

We are not inclined to worship God in the same way. Nor are we inclined to agree on every point of theology. Nevertheless, there is an overarching Tradition upon which all who follow Jesus Messiah agree: that God has self-revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who came into the world to save sinners. This is the unique claim of Christianity. To it we must add that this Tradition is received, not invented. The Messianic Faith has roots deep in the religious yearnings of archaic populations.

Traditional societies which revere the wisdom of the ancestors do not produce synthetic religions such as we find in Western societies. Synthetic religions are inventions that center on an individual's claim to special revelation. Consider the examples of L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith. Scientology and the Mormons have cobbled together fantastic histories and seductive notions to establish new familial traditions that do not develop organically from the great religions of the world.

If we go back far in time, we find two religious traditions: one involving priests and the other involving shamans. While priests and shamans serve similar functions as mediators in their communities, they represent different and opposing worldviews. Underlying shamanism is the belief that powerful spirits cause imbalance and disharmony in the world. The shaman’s role is to determine which spirits are at work and to find ways to appease the spirits. This may or may not involve blood sacrifice.

Underlying the priesthood is belief in a God whose Spirit never lies. In this view, the world is held in balance by a Supreme Creator, and it is human actions that cause disharmony. The ancient laws governing priestly ceremonies, sacrifices, and ritual purity clarify the role of the priest as one who offers sacrifice according to sacred law. These laws are part of a received tradition preserved through the Habiru (Hebrew) priestly lines which extend deep into antiquity.

The Habiru looked for a Righteous Ruler who would overcome death and lead His people to immortality, and they did not look in vain. As Jesus told the religious leaders in Jerusalem, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." (John 8:56)

In the Anglican Way, Article XI reminds us: “Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.” Indeed, the Fathers looked for the fulfillment of an expectation that their great grandfathers yearned to see fulfilled. They did not put their hope in a special revelation separated from the received Tradition.

Related reading: The Religious Impulse Among Archaic Populations; The Ra-Horus-Hathor Narrative; Righteous Rulers and the Resurrection; The Priesthood is About the Blood

Blood and Gender Distinctions

Alice C. Linsley

I'm a traditionalist. My position takes as its basis the tradition of the priesthood which the Church received from Abraham's Horite Hebrew people. This older understanding of the priesthood clarifies why "woman priest" is an ontological impossibility. Ignoring the origins of the priesthood weakens the traditionalist defense of the male priesthood. Traditionalists tend to go back only to the first and second centuries of Christianity, overlooking thousands of years of salvation history and significant anthropological and archaeological information.

Anthropological studies have shown that the origins of the priesthood predate Abraham. The oldest known order of priests to worship one supreme Creator were the Horite priests of Nekhen along the Nile (3000 B.C.). The ruler-priest Melchizedek was not the first of his kind. Priests were a caste in the ancient world, and as such practiced endogamy, that is, they married only within their priestly lines. Archaeological discoveries reveal that there was an order of priests dedicated to the Creator and his Son (Ra and Horus) as early as 3000 B.C. These are called "Horites" and they are Abraham's ancestors. This fact is recognized by Abraham's descendants who refer to their ancestors as "Horim."

The Horite Hebrew ruler-priests held a binary worldview (versus a dualistic worldview). They were great observers of the patterns in nature and noted certain fixed binary sets: male-female, day-night and east-west. These priests kept records of celestial events and natural phenomena because they believed that God has made his divine nature and eternal power known in the order of creation (Romans 1:20). When we ignore or confuse such binary distinctions we have a distorted view of the fullness of Christ.

The ancient priests (Habiru/Abru = Hebrew) regarded blood as the substance of life. This why the first man is called Adam in the Bible. Adam is a reference to blood. Ha-dam means "the Blood" and specified human beings among archaic peoples. Leviticus 17:11: “The life is in the Blood.”

There is an etymological connection between the words Adam, Edom and the Hausa word Odum. These words pertain to red, the color of blood. Edom was the home of an especially prestigious line of ruler-priests. Some were identified as having a red skin tone. These Horite Hebrew rulers are listed in Genesis 36. Jesus Christ's ancestry is Horite. Hebrew.

Blood is the complex and somewhat mysterious transport system that allows communication and coordination between different parts of the human body. It nourishes organs and muscles. Without it, life as we know it could not exist. It is natural to associate blood with the beginning of life and the renewal of life. For Saint Paul the Blood of Jesus speaks of the fullness of life in God. The blood of sacrificed animals prefigured the Blood of Jesus, but could never serve as a substitute. In Chapter 156 from the Book of the Dead (translated by R. Faulkner), the blood of the divine one provides protection.

For St. Paul, the benefits of the “blood of Jesus” are manifested as the pleroma, the fullness of all things in heaven and on earth, both invisible and visible. The Gnostics used the term to describe the metaphysical unity of all things, but Paul uses the term to speak about how all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ in bodily form (Col. 2:9).

Paul refers to the Blood of Jesus no less than twelve times in his writings. Because God makes peace with us through the blood of the cross, he urges “Take every care to preserve the unity of the Spirit by the peace that binds you together” (Eph. 4:3).

The Bible does not say that women can be priests because the very notion would have been unthinkable to the ancients. They held to the binary distinctions that reveal “woman priest” as an ontological impossibility. The idea of women sacrificing animals in the Temple would have been a great affront to the Creator. He created women to bring forth life, not to take it.

This idea that men and women have distinct blood work is a foreign concept to moderns. Today women fight in combat, hunt and abort their unborn. However, in the ancient world men and women had distinct roles when it came to blood work. These roles were not to be confused. Nor was it proper for the blood shed by males and females to be present in the same place. That is why women were not permitted at the altar of blood sacrifice and men were not permitted inside birthing chambers.

Abraham's Hebrew people made a distinction also between the blood work of men in killing and the blood work of women in birthing. The two bloods represent the binary opposites of life and death. The blood shed in war, hunting and animal sacrifice fell to warriors, hunters and priests. The blood shed in first intercourse, the monthly cycle and in childbirth fell to wives and midwives. The two bloods were never to mix or even to be present in the same space. Women did not participate in war, the hunt, and in ritual sacrifices, and they were isolated during menses. Likewise, men were not present at the circumcision of females (Pharaonic circumcision, not female genital mutilation) or in the birthing hut.

The distinction between the blood work of females and the blood work of males is ultimately about the distinction between life and death. This is why the Habiru (Hebrew) were commanded never to boil a baby goat it its mother’s milk. The mother's milk symbolizes life. Killing the new life in the substance of life blurs the distinction between life and death.

Historically, after childbirth women and their newborn infants were received into the church with great solemnity and joy. This was the Church’s way to recognize the woman and welcome the child. This liturgical moment, called "churching," affirmed the blood work of child bearing. This practice was observed in the Church for centuries, but began to disappear as feminist influences increased in the Church. Today, instead of welcoming the newborn and affirming the labor of the mother, Episcopal Church seminary dean, Katharine Ragsdale, leads her listeners in this chant:

“Let me hear you say it:

Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.”

The innovation of women priests has caused great confusion and division in the Church. This has spread throughout the whole Anglican Communion. This innovation is contrary to the received tradition whereby the blood work of women and the blood work of men is distinct and never confused (an anthropological observation). A female standing as a priest at the altar is as confusing as a male intending to represent the Virgin Mary.

Regardless of how one views the priest at altar - in persona christi, in persona ecclesiae, an icon of Christ, the divinely appointed mediator in the pattern of the Mediator, etc., this is not a matter of secondary importance. No synod or jurisdiction has authority to change the received tradition concerning Jesus Christ and his blood shed for the salvation of the world.

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

Related reading:  Blood and Binary Distinctions; Water and Blood; What Constitutes Being?; Why Women Were Never Priests; God as Male Priest; Binary Sets in the Ancient World; The Origin of Animal Sacrifice; What is Holy Tradition?; Circumcision and Gender Distinctions; Are Feminists Correct About the Church?

Why I'm Not a Protestant

Alice C. Linsley

I was raised a Protestant in the Baptist Church and over many years I found my way to catholicity. My first encounter with Anglicanism was at St. Luke’s Anglican Mission in Isfahan, Iran. Being a Christian in that country was a serious matter. Persecution of the Iranian parishioners was common and the expatriate community was aware of their hardships.

The fervency of commitment and the humility of the English missioner priest left a lasting impression on me. When I joined the Anglican Church, I believed that I was entering into the fullness of the “one holy catholic and apostolic faith.” In retrospect, I believe that I had merely entered a liturgical form of Protestantism.  

Years later, the crisis of authority in the Anglican Communion has confirmed my suspicion. The crisis clearly involves Anglo-Catholics as well, so inclinations to Rome do not constitute the kind of catholicity that makes for unity in faith and practice.

Clergy seeking refuge from the Anglican crisis through the Personal Ordinariate are likely to be disappointed. They may be able to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Roman Catholic Church, but the crisis of authority will follow them. It seems inherent in the Anglican Tradition that they hope to take with them.

As an Anglican I was never persuaded by the Protestant view of Scripture and Tradition. It simply is not possible to separate the two in the way that Protestants do. The Protestant disposition to set aside Tradition makes it easier to embrace modernist innovations such as same-sex ceremonies and women priests. The Episcopal Church exemplifies this, as well as the loss of theological sagacity.

The Protestant flavor of Anglicanism is more than a reaction to Rome and more than a product of historical events. Among some Anglicans it is the heritage of revivalism. Certainly, this is the case among many East African Anglicans and among low church Evangelicals.

Among others, it is often a preference motivated by denominational pride. Some Anglicans prefer the Articles of Religion above the writings of the Church Fathers. I regard the 39 Articles as a significant historical document that reflects a specific period of Anglican theology development, but not as an Anglican confession, the way the Book of Concord is for Lutherans. 

I remember being asked to teach an adult class on the Articles of Religion because the priest considered this an essential feature of Anglican identity, but when I asked about teaching all the historical documents, I was told that Chalcedon Doctrine on the Two Natures of Christ and the Creed of Athanasius were too difficult for the laity to grasp. I was never very interested in making better Anglicans. In my view, the best Anglicans are thoroughly catholic. I think of figures such as Dorothy Sayers, C.S. Lewis, and Evelyn Underhill.

In my experience, thoughtful Protestants gravitate to catholicity because they sense that ultimately Protestantism lacks authority. It is removed from the fullness of holy Tradition concerning the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and the ecumenical councils of the Church.  

St. John of Damascus wrote, "I beseech the people of God, the holy nation, to hold fast to the tradition of the Church... for the gradual erosion of what has been handed down to us will bring down the whole fabric in ruins."  St. John's warning has found fulfillment within Protestantism, especially in America where tradition is not valued.

What I experienced and learned as a "Priest"

Serving as a "priest" revealed to me the theological and hermeneutical weaknesses of Protestantism. I grasped intuitively that the full sacramental life of the Church had been lost by Protestants. I had yet to figure out how my being a priestess added to the confusion. That would come after years of research into the etiology of the priesthood among Abraham's Hebrew ancestors.

As a priest I leaned toward the high church Anglo-Catholic wing but found no acceptance there. Instead, I was often confronted by harsh words, and even verbal abuse, especially from gay clergy of that persuasion. I recall a drunk Church of England cleric, who upon discovering my opposition to his homosexual agenda, launched into an embarrassing tirade at a dinner hosted by my Senior Warden and his gracious wife.

Ultimately, I am not a Protestant because Protestants are removed from catholicity, in the fullest sense of that term. They claim Scripture as a first and only authority (Sola Scriptura) but invent doctrines like Young Earth Creationism, Antinomianism, Pentecostalism, and the Rapture. They show evidence of being confused about the Gospel, the Trinity, and the two natures of Jesus Christ.

There is a rush to the Christmas and Easter seasons without periods of preparation. The Communion of Saints is a foreign concept, and the idea the justified living and the justified reposed are united in Christ and not separated by death is regarded as heretical.

The Incarnation is rarely spoken of, and the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is misunderstood and misrepresented as idolatry. This reveals how poorly most Protestants understand the Bible. In a true sense the Bible is Mary's story from Genesis to Revelation. She is alluded to in Genesis 3:15. She was anticipated among the widely dispersed Hebrew clans. She is identified in the New Testament accounts, and the Book of Revelation proclaims the supernatural preservation of Mary and her child Jesus.

Mary is the "Woman" who brings forth the “Seed” of God. Through His death and Resurrection, He crushes the serpent’s head and restores communion with God. Jesus claimed to be that Seed in John 12:24. The Bible and Holy Tradition are consistent in what they testify concerning the fulfillment of the first biblical prophecy in Genesis 3:15.

The "reformed and always reforming" tendency among Protestants leads to continual efforts to update worship, preaching styles, and congregational structures to make them relevant. This tendency expresses itself in contemporary praise music, largely passive audiences, a consumer mindset, and self-help sermons. There are few sacred mysteries such as can be experienced only through the full sacramental life of the Church.

Related reading: Another Response to "Why I'm Not a Protestant"; Why Women Were Never Priests; Adam Named the Animals; The Unintended Reformation; Ideologies Opposed to Holy Tradition; What is Holy Tradition?; What is a Priest?; Christianity Lacks Originality; Some Thoughts on Women Priests; Dr. Stanley Hauerwas, The End of American Protestantism

The Tragedy of James Pike

Alice C. Linsley


Has occult involvement by Anglicans contributed to the spiritual decay of the Episcopal Church? That question came up in response to "The Crisis of Authority in Anglicanism."

Many bishops have been lax in upholding the doctrine and discipline of the Church and this has turned Anglicanism into a schismatic brand of modernist Christianity. In this tragedy, the Episcopal Church bears a large portion of the shame, beginning at least as early as James Albert Pike.

Pike was charged with heresy three times, though the charges were dropped. Apparently, it was politics as usual in the Episcopal House of Bishops. In October 1966, he was formally censured by his fellow Bishops. This was the year his son James Jr. committed suicide.

Pike was never deposed by the House of Bishops though he rejected the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, and the doctrine of Hell.  He also supported the ordination of women and the acceptance of homosex. In December 1960, Pike had an essay published in Look in which he argued that the Church was no longer relevant for contemporary life.  He became a severe critic of the Church, her Tradition and the Bible.

Pike met the Christian apologist Elton Trueblood at a conference in Alaska and there was correspondance between the men in 1955. Trueblood taught Philosophy at Earlham College and mentions Pike's apostacy in his book The Company of the Committed.

James Albert Pike

Pike's Demise

In August 1969 Bishop James Pike and his third wife who he married in 1967, went to Israel to gather material for a book Pike was writing. The book was to present Pike's version of the origins of Christianity. On September 2nd they set out in a rented car for the wilderness where Jesus was tempted by the devil. After passing Herodion, Pike turned off on an unpaved track which he believed led north to Jericho. In fact, he was at the beginning of Wadi Mashash, leading east towards the Dead Sea. Soon the unpaved road ended where it had been washed out by flash floods. The Pikes tried to turn around, but the rear wheels of the car dropped into a deep rut. They couldn’t free the car and didn’t know how to use the jack. The Pikes abandoned the car after trying unsuccessfully to get it out of the rut. Then they walked for two hours until Bishop Pike was too exhausted to go on. They found a relatively flat rock under a bit of an overhang that gave them some shade. As the sun was setting, Diane Pike left her husband and continued walking. After some ten hours of climbing steep canyons in the moonlight, she stumbled onto the road being built between Ein Gedi and Ein Fashha. A security guard found her and she was taken to police authorities in Bethlehem. When they returned to the place where Diane had left her husband, they found the map that Diane had left with her husband but no clue as to where he had gone. Pike's Apostacy Pike was raised as a Roman Catholic and became an agnostic while attending the University of Santa Clara. After earning his Law degree, he worked in Washington D.C. After WWII, Pike and his second wife, Esther Yanovsky, joined the Episcopal Church.  He had met Esther while she was attending his law class at George Washington. He entered the Virginia Theological Seminary and then the Union Theological seminary. He was ordained in 1946, though he never renounced his agnosticism. In 1952 he became Dean of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City, where he used the pulpit to proclaim social reform. In 1958, following the death of Bishop Karl Morgan Block, Pike was consecrated the fifth Bishop of California.  Though he was originally from Oklahoma, Pike was never comfortable with the values of America's heartland.  He lived most of his adult life in the urban centers of the East and West and was clearly out of touch with the average Episcopalian. Pike's third marriage was to a woman about half his age.  He was 56 and she was 31. Diane Kennedy Pike was the executive director of a foundation that conducted research into life after death and paranormal experiences.  James and Diane collaborated on the book, "The Other Side: An Account of My Experience with Psychic Phenomena." The book tells of  Pike's dabbling in necromancy in an effort to establish contact with his son, James Jr., who committed suicide in a New York hotel in 1966. James Jr. was Pike's son by Esther Yanovsky. After three days of temperatures above 100 degrees, the hunt for Bishop Pike was called off. At a news conference, Mrs. Pike reported that the seer who had put her husband in contact with the spirit of his son had had a vision of him alive in a cave near the place Diane had left him. Off duty army scouts and local Beduoin searched for him, but his body was not found. On September 7th, James Pike's body was found. Pike was climbing a steep ascent in Wadi Mashash when he slipped and fell to his death.  He was buried in St. Peter's cemetery in Jaffa under a tamarisk tree.  Before his death in 1969, Pike announced that he and Diane were ending their affliation with the Episcopal Church and with all forms of organized religion.

Related reading: The Crisis of Authority in Anglicanism; The Modernist-Traditionalist Divide in Anglicanism; Impressions of the New American Anglicanism; Anglicanism and Spiritualism; Why Not Leave Anglicanism? A Followup by William G. Witt

Impressions of North American Anglicanism

Alice C. Linsley

Fr. J. Scott Newman's insightful comments on this article which originally appeared on March 31, 2011, were deleted at Kendall Harmon's blog, as were mine. Neo-Anglicans like Sarah Hey, in the words of Archbishop Haverland, are "the slow lane to modernist mush." They refuse to entertain comments at Stand Firm that question the dangerous innovation of women priests. 

The Episcopal bishops are schismatic and the denomination remains unrepentant from its involvement in Spiritualism. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the confused Rowan Williams, is ineffectual in leading the worldwide Anglican Communion. Anglicans face a crisis of authority that will either burn them up or ignite a great renewal.

Female bishops in the Anglican circus

It is a historical and anthropological observation that no woman ever served in the office of priest until 1944, at which time Florence Li Tim-Oi was ordained by Ronald Hall, Bishop of Victoria, Hong Kong, in response to the crisis among Anglicans in Communist China. She later stepped down from serving as a priest. Her circumstances were unusual and though her ordination is often cited as precedent, she set aside holy orders when her service was no longer needed. Her case illustrates how well the all-male priesthood was grasped even by those who rejected and opposed Christianity.

In 1976 the Episcopal Church broke the age-old tradition of the all-male priesthood by vote of General Convention. At that time the "irregular" ordinations of the "Philadelphia Eleven" and the "Washington Four" were made regular. The first woman ordained to the priesthood in the United States was Ellen Marie Barrett (January 1977). She was ordained by the Rt. Rev. Paul Moore, Jr., Bishop of New York. Ellen Barrett, a lesbian, had served as Integrity's first co-president. Other lesbians had been among the Philadelphia Eleven. In the United States, the ordination of women and gay and lesbian "rights" were intertwined from the beginning, so that today it is difficult to treat these as separate issues. Both have been framed as "equal rights" issues, revealing a profound misunderstanding of the nature and origin of the priesthood.

This misunderstanding contributes to the Anglican identity crisis. Yet it is not the main factor. This crisis comes as a result of many years of unsound teaching in the Episcopal Church, weak lay and ordained leadership and worldly bishops.

Despite what feminists, politically-correct academics, and rights activists might say, the ministry of priests in the Church developed organically from the Horite Hebrew (Habiru) priesthood of Abraham's people and was exclusively the work of a select group of men (a ruler-priest caste) whose devotion to the worship of the Creator involved, by today's standards, extreme asceticism and purity of life. The objection that there were women priestess in the Greco-Roman world is irrelevant as this is not the origin of the priesthood know by Jesus Christ and his followers.

Contrary to the position of the Roman Church, Horite Hebrew priests were married and enjoyed sexual relations with their wives. However they abstained from sex, shaved their bodies, fasted, and entered periods of intense prayer in preparation for their time of service at the temple or shrine.

In the ancient world Horite Hebrew priests were known for their purity, sobriety and devotion to the High God whose emblem was the Sun. Plutarch wrote that the “priests of the Sun at Heliopolis never carry wine into their temples, for they regard it as indecent for those who are devoted to the service of any god to indulge in the drinking of wine whilst they are under the immediate inspection of their Lord and King. The priests of the other deities are not so scrupulous in this respect, for they use it, though sparingly.”

The Horite Hebrew priests worshiped the Creator (Ra or Ani) and the Creator's Son (Horus or Enki) when other peoples were worshiping lesser deities. They anticipated the coming of the Seed of God (Gen. 3:15) and believed that He would be born of their ruler-priest bloodlines. That is why the lines of priests intermarried exclusively (endogamy) and why unchaste daughters of priests were burned alive (Lev. 21:9). Sexual impurity was not tolerated.

In the ancient world, only men born into the priestly caste could serve a priests and many of those never did. Some instead served as warriors, scribes, rulers and metal workers. There was never a question about having a "right" to this work. It was appointed to those who were born into this order, and this is the order from which Jesus Christ descended.

The Horite Hebrew marriage and ascendancy pattern remained unchanged from the Neolithic period of Genesis 4 and 5 (the lines of Cain and Seth) to the time of Joseph and Mary. The pattern can be traced through the Bible using the anthropological tool of kinship analysis, and it is an impossibility that this pattern could have been written back into the text at a late date.

There were priests among Jesus' first followers. Nicodemus and Joseph of AriMathea were members of the Sanhedrin and of the Hebrew ruler-priest caste. This was Jesus' ancestry through both Mary and Joseph. Horite priests expected a Righteous Ruler to defeat death and lead his people to immortality. This is why Horite priests took great precautions in the preparation of the bodies of dead kings. It is likely that Joseph of Hari-Mathea and Joseph, the husband of Mary, were both of the Pharisee persuasion.

Priests were dispersed throughout Palestine. Settlements often took their names from the priestly division that resided there. For example, Nazareth was the home of the eighteenth priestly division, Hapitsets (a word of Nilotic origin), so Nazareth is Happizzez in 1 Chronicles 24:15. Nazareth was the home of Joseph who married Jesus' mother. Mary was from Bethlehem. Her full name would have been "Miriam Daughter of Joachim, Son of Pntjr, Priest of Nathan of Bethlehem." From predynastic times among the Egyptian Horites, ntjr designated God or the king. Pntjr is Pa-Netjer, the name of Joachim’s mother. The Horite priests traced descent through both the mother and the father. A limestone stela (1539-1291 B.C.) bearing the names of Pekhty-nisu and his wife Pa-netjer is on exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum. The Ancient Egyptian word nisu (ruler) became nasi in Hebrew and applied to the High Priest who presided over the Sanhedrin.

Through Mary the promise of Genesis 3:15 came to be fulfilled. The Seed of the Woman crushed the serpent's head and death has been overcome. The ancient expectation of a divine royal son who would overcome death and lead his people to immortality was fulfilled.

The connection between Bethlehem and the Horites is alluded to in I Chronicles 4:4, which lists Hur/Hor as the "father of Bethlehem." To this day Jews call their ancestors Horim, which is Horite in English. The ancient Horite priests were devotees of Horus, the son of Ra, the creator. Horus' conception took place by divine overshadowing. He is the pattern by which Jesus would be recognized by Abraham's descendants as the Son of God. When the Virgin Mary asked how she was to have a child since she "knew" no man, "The angel answered her and said, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the holy child will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)

Anglican Orders

Anglican holy orders include bishop, priest and deacons. Some priests may also be monks. In the Eastern churches these are called "hieromonks" and all bishops in the Eastern Orthodox churches are taken from the ranks of celibate monks. This is one of the differences between Anglican orders and Eastern Orthodox orders. Anglican and Eastern Orthodox orders differ also from Roman Catholic orders on the matter of celibacy.

Prior to the ordination of women priests, Anglican orders were more highly regarded by the hierarchs of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches. There is no doubt that this innovation devalued Anglican orders in the view of those churches and continues to be an obstacle to healthy intercourse within catholic Christendom. The innovation reveals a profound confusion among Anglicans about the nature and origin of the priesthood as a sign of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, our great High Priest. The ordination of women priests also suggests infidelity to the received tradition of the Apostles and the early priests of the Church who understood the nature of the priesthood better than we do today.


Anglican Orders and the Horite Priesthood

None of the twelve Apostles served as ruler-priests, as far as we know. Originally only priests belonging to prominent families were members of the Sanhedrin (bet din). A "prominent" family was one whose lineages could be traced back to Horite ruler-priests of renown. These members of the Sanhedrin served under the presidency of the high priest much as priests today served under the presidency of their bishop. The high priest bore the title nasi (ruler, king, prince) and retained this even after the presidency was transferred to other hands. Similarly, in Anglican orders there is an understanding that a bishop remains a bishop even after he has stepped down from serving in that office.

The second in charge was a ruler-priest who was called ab bet din (father of the court). The role of the ab bet din appears to have been a combination of the roles of the Bishop's chaplain and the chancellor of the Diocese who serves as the chief legal consultant to the Bishop.

The third century Rabbi Johanan enumerates the qualifications of the members of the Sanhedrin as follows: they must be tall, of imposing appearance, of advanced age, and scholars. They were also required to be adept in the use of foreign languages.

The only followers of Jesus that are known to be members of the Sanhedrin were James the Just, Nicodemus, and Joseph (of Arimathea, sic.) According to Mark 15:43, Joseph was bouleutēs (honorable counselor), that is, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. He was "waiting for the kingdom of God." Joseph's correct designation is "Hari-Mathea" which means he was of the Horite line of Matthew. In other words, he was a Horite ruler-priest of a prominent lineage. Apparently, he had business and family connections in the British Isles. Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 260–340) may have been referring to this connection in Demonstratio Evangelica when he reports that some of Jesus' earliest disciples "have crossed the Ocean and reached the Isles of Britain." Since a qualification of membership in the Sanhedrin was facility of languages, Joseph would have been able to communicate with the people of Britain.

As a ruler-priest Joseph would have appointed men who were qualified to serve as priests in Britain. Being of advanced age, he would have been older than Jesus and the disciples. This suggests that the priesthood came to Britain very early and is older than generally supposed. It must be nearly as early as the episcopacy of Evodius of Antioch (53–69 A.D.) and the episcopacy of James the Just of Jerusalem (d. 69 A.D.), but would likely precede the episcopacy of Linus of Rome (67-79 A.D.). If Joseph is the ruler-priest who brought the Christian priesthood to England, as tradition holds, Anglicans should regard the ruler-priest pattern as an essential aspect of Anglicanism.

Further, the legend concerning Joseph of Ari-Mathea coming to Britain has basis in science. Horite priests were among the Ainu and genetic studies have confirmed that the Ainu dispersed widely across the ancient Afro-Asiatic Dominion. Some came to the British Isles and from there some migrated to Finland, Greenland, Labrador and Eastern Canada.

Anthropological studies have shown that the Ainu were among Abraham's Nilotic ancestors. Further, Genesis 41 confirms that Joseph, the son of Jacob, married the daughter of a priest of On (Heliopolis) and On has been identified as an Ainu shrine city.

If Joseph as ruler-priest, member of the Sanhedrin, and a kinsman of Jesus Christ brought the Christian priesthood to Britain, Anglicans should be especially careful to preserve the Horite pattern of the priesthood.

American Anglicanism: Another Form of Evangelicalism?

One impression is that considerable sections of the new American Anglicanism constitute another form of evangelicalism, which typically tilts toward cultural norms such as contemporary music, streamlined liturgies, leniency toward divorce and remarriage, and interpretation of Scripture through a mainly Protestant lens. For these people tradition is less important and therefore more easily set aside.

It must seem so to most African Anglicans, who like the Nigerians, tend to be evangelical and far more sacramental than is often realized. The Nigerian bishops are orthodox on questions of human sexuality. They are serious about being “Lambeth Quadralateral Evangelicals” and they hold to the mainstream catholic understanding of Church, sacraments, and the male priesthood. Now there’s a godly balance!

There is also an impression that this movement might be calcifying. This can happen when a group wraps itself in a protective cloak and breathes its own stale air. Might this be happening with Anglicanism in America?

Young clergy must be encouraged to pursue God's truth without agenda or ideological bias. Truth must always be pursued by Christ’s followers if we are to avoid becoming a stagnant community. Truth is embodied in the God-Man Jesus Christ, in the Holy Scripture, and in Church Tradition as that was delivered once and for all to the Apostles and to the Church.

Most women who are priests in ACNA serve honorably and with hearts for Christ and his people. However, having been one myself, and having looked into the question more deeply, I wonder if these women priests were even aware of the strength of the tradition which binds them from priestly ministry? I know I was not at the time of my ordination, nor for many years after. In those days I had no one to talk to about my doubts, least of all my bishop who already had suspicions about me being a "maverick priest" - as he put it - because I was not going along with his gay rights agenda.


Ignorance and Confusion about Church Tradition

Many of the new Anglican clergy are Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail and lack deep understanding of Anglicanism. Some have done all their formal training outside of the Anglican tradition. So it is that questions about the Virgin Mary as “the Woman” of Gen. 3:15 are sometimes dismissed as “Anglo-Catholic.” This actually happened at a conference! When did Anglican clergy become dismissive of the Incarnation and the Virgin Mary’s role in fulfilling God’s promise?

The new clergy of the Anglican realignment appear to have a shallow understanding of the relation of Scripture and Holy Tradition. This will pose an obstacle in conversation with Roman Catholics and Orthodox, Anglicanism two best friends in its continued struggle to uphold church discipline. A friend attended an 8-week seminar lead by a new Anglican priest who didn’t want to address questions. He only wanted to give the approved evangelical answers. My friend confided: “Holy Tradition and the Ancient Faith were summarily dismissed by an ad hominem. After years of listening to priests of varying quality, very few of them have as much to say as they think they do. I think they need to tread carefully and listen and learn, starting with the ancients, but they can't get their egos out of the way to recognize that.”

There is the problem of former Episcopalians who, like myself, never could find a high church orthodox parish. Here in Kentucky the choices are either the Episcopal churches (hopelessly revisionist) or “happy clappy” low church congregations. Bishop John Rodgers famously said "the real difference in the Church today isn't between those who are high-church and those who are low-church, but between those who believe Jesus' tomb is really empty and those who don't." That may be the most important difference, but it does not mean the difference between high church Anglican worship and evangelical Anglican worship does not matter. It matters because of the inextricable linkage of prayer and belief. It matters very much to me that there is not a single catholic Anglican parish in my state.

A friend expressed my sentiments well in these words: “What the Episcopal Church has become and what its replacement is just breaks my heart and challenges my soul.” He is a mature and intelligent person with a profound understanding of the nature of the priesthood. While exploring the priestly vocation, he looked into different divinity schools, but received a “severely negative reaction” when he expressed to his Anglican priest his preference for Harvard over Trinity School for Ministry. At Harvard the circle of discussion is wider, his career options less limited, and given the wide range of viewpoints, nobody thinks it strange that he should select Harvard over a seminary that trains women to be priests contrary to the tradition of the Church Fathers.

Another friend is helping her struggling AMIA parish through a clergy search process. She reports that the list of candidates is small and dismal. She wonders why her bishop won’t approve a retired ECUSA priest who already worships with them. He is theologically sound and experienced. Could it be that the ECUSA label is enough to block his approval? That happens when a church becomes so sensitive to past problems that it can’t embrace the newness of each day.

Anglicanism in America is at a critical place historically. It needs to find balance between Evangelicalism and Catholicism; and between Scripture and Holy Tradition. It needs to settle the issue of women’s ordination, which means struggling to understand the origins of the priesthood and to shape priestly ministry according to that divine ordinance. And it must restore the undivided Trinity as the central focus of worship.

Planting churches and inviting people to commit their lives to Jesus Christ is a very good thing, but a calcified church won’t hold people. They will want to move to a deeper understanding of the Son of God and the mystery of the Trinity. They will want to see Him in the sacraments and in the life of the Body. They will want clergy who aren’t afraid of Truth regardless of where it is found, and they will want to breathe fresh air.


Some Promising Signs

One promising sign is the cooperation between Trinity and Nashotah House. The Rev. Dr. Robert S. Munday in a VOL interview said: “One thing that gives our two schools a close affinity is that I was a faculty member and associate dean at Trinity for 15 years before coming to Nashotah House as Dean. Father Doug McGlynn, our Seminary Sub-Dean at Nashotah House, taught on Trinity's faculty as well. Fr. Arnold Klukas, our professor of Liturgy and Spirituality has taught at Trinity also. So we have lots of ties and friendships between the faculties of the two schools.

We have hosted Trinity's entire faculty for a visit at Nashotah House, and our faculty looks forward to reciprocating with a visit to Trinity in the future. There is a warm fellowship and collegiality between the members of both faculties, and we are often involved with the same mission agencies, speak at the same conferences, and cooperate in all sorts of ways.”

There are signs of sharing between evangelicals and the traditionally Anglo-Catholic dioceses of Fort Worth, San Joachin and Quincy, including a recent A.M.I.A. ordination by Bishop "Doc" Loomis in Peoria. When Bishop Alberto Morales of the Diocese of Quincy heard that AMIA wanted to start a church plant in his see city, he encouraged them. He recognizes that AMIA is culturally different to Anglo-Catholicism, and capable of reaching people for the Lord who might not be attracted to the more formal Anglican worship. Bishop Alberto generously offered St Andrew's Peoria, his largest Anglo-Catholic church for the ordination. Bishop "Doc" Loomis preached and presided at the ordination of his newest clergyman. Bishop Alberto celebrated a Pontifical Mass "the Quincy way" with smells and bells to delight the hearts of Anglo-Catholics. Bishop Alberto had intended simply to sit in quire, but his participation with Bishop Loomis set the tone for the kind of cooperation that will enable Anglicanism in America to further the cause of the Kingdom of God.


Related reading: Women Priests and the Anglican Church of North America; Consensus that Women Priests Must Be Addressed; Modernist-Traditionalist Divide in Anglicanism; God as Male Priest; What's Lost When Women Serve as Priests?; Why Women Were Never Priests; Ideologies Opposed to Holy Tradition

Holy Tradition on Formation vs Generation

Alice C. Lisnley


In conversations about Genesis and creation one must be mindful of the distinction between the original formation of Man and Woman and the generation of the human race. This distinction is necessary to understand the Bible's teaching on Christ's Incarnation by the Holy Spirit and the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15 through Mary, the Mother of God. St. John of Damascus compared the Mary with Eve, writing: Just as the latter was formed from Adam without connection, so also did the former bring forth the new Adam, who was brought forth in accordance with the laws of parturition and above the nature of generation. (On the Orthodox Faith, IV, 14)

Holy Tradition, which in the first order is the unchanging and immutable kergyma concerning Jesus Christ, teaches that all things came into being through Him; that Christ existed with the Father before the world was created. The Beloved Son is the first Man, even before He became Man at His Incarnation. If we think of the creation from the worldly perspective alone we will miss what matters.  All things are to be examined through the lens of the Promised Son for whom God has prepared a Kingdom "not of this world" that is populated by world-lings (imagine that!).  This is the doctrine of the Lord that astonishes (Acts 13).

St. John of Damascus, whose thought is representative of the teaching of all the early Fathers on the formation of man, also wrote: The earliest formation (of man) is called creation and not generation. For creation is the original formation at God's hands, while generation is the succession from each other made necessary by the sentence of death imposed on us on account of the transgression. (On the Orthodox Faith, II, 30)

The woman who Adam named Eve was formed by God also, as St. Cyril explained: Eve was begotten of Adam, and not conceived of a mother, but as it were brought forth of man alone. (Catechetical Lectures, XII, 29). She was formed by God from Man, not born of human flesh. Male and Female were at the beginning formed by God; Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam. This is why it is false to claim that humans are not special; that we are the product of evolutionary generation.

It is also falsely claimed (Aristotle being an advocate) that when humans die their decomposition represents a rebirth. This atomistic regeneration is the basis for many Hindu and Buddhist beliefs, but is not what the Bible teaches. According to the atomistic view, the first humans were produced by nature through spontaneous generation. Yet no examples of spontaneous generation of humans has ever been observed. The idea that matter, when subjected to the correct conditions, can produce human beings is a pagan idea and a popular alternative to what the Bible teaches. But is it supportable?

Holy Tradition is Family Tradition

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.” ― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy


Alice C. Linsley

As an Orthodox Christian I value Tradition, and as a biblical anthropologist I conceive of Tradition as a subject to be studied as objectively as possible. Such study is able to identify specific features and suggest an origin. This approach is likely to get me into trouble with my fellow Orthodox and so I ask them to forgive me if I offend. That is not my intention.

In Orthodoxy, Tradition is said to live in the Church as the continuous expression of the Spirit's guidance and revelation and is the basis for the Church's authority. For an anthropologist, this definition seems theoretical and raises more questions than it answers. What exactly is the substance of the revelation? Is it fixed or does it change?

Looking at Holy Tradition through the lens of anthropology one finds an unchanging tradition that was already well developed among Abraham's ancestors.  This is evidence that God has had witnesses to His divine nature and eternal power in every generation since Eden.

It also indicates that Holy Tradition is received, not invented, and that it has specific features that the followers of Jesus Christ would immediately recognize. These features include expectation of the appearing of the Son of God by a miraculous birth, His blood shed on a cross, His resurrection, and His oneness with the Father.

For an anthropologist, the Bible is a useful resource for understanding Holy Tradition because only here do we find a consistent and cogent account of the people who lived in expectation of the Son of God and taught their children to do so.  In other words, Holy Tradition is a family tradition. This is evident when one studies the genealogies and discovers that Abraham's ancestors and Abraham's descendants are a more homogeneous group than suggested by the different ethnic labels assigned to them.

Abraham and David are key figures in this unique family tradition. Strangely, the Bible does not identify their mothers. This should stir curiosity since, among Abraham's people, one's ethnicity or bloodline was traced through the mothers. Were we able to identify these two women, we could point to the core family around which Holy Tradition is built. That has been a pet project of mine these past 30 years.

The core of Christian Faith is found in kernel form in the Proto-Gospel of Abraham's Horite people. The origins of the faith of the Son or "Seed" of God came to Abraham, not as special revelation, but as a tradition received from his forefathers. The tradition is expressed in the first promise of Scripture: Genesis 3:15. Here we discover that the people who passed along the oldest material in Genesis believed that a woman of their ruler-priests lines would bring forth the Seed of the Creator and the Seed would crush the serpent's head.

The distinctive traits of Horite religion align remarkable well with the key features of catholic faith and practice:

Male priests
Sacrifice at altars
Expectation of the "Seed" of God, conceived by divine overshadowing of a Horite virgin
Expectation of the bodily resurrection of the Seed/Son

Article VII is one of the best of the Articles of Religion found in the Book of Common Prayer, especially this part: “Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.” Indeed.


Related reading:  Received Tradition: Pushing back the veil of time; Righteous Rulers and the Resurrection; The Horite Ancestry of Jesus Christ; Mary's Ruler-Priest Lineage; Is it Possible to Speak of the Proto-Gospel?; Did Abraham Believe Isaac to be Messiah?; Who Were the Horites?

We're in Big Trouble!

Alice C. Linsley


In a course I’ve been teaching on Women of the Bible students were asked to list the purposes of the Bible. Here is a compilation of the list:

• To communicate God’s message
• To understand the Ten Commandments
• To better understand our lives
• To better understand the mystery of God
• To give us faith in Jesus Christ
• To help us to live a good life
• To prepare us to enter Heaven
• To prepare us for death
• To understand the world
• To get a handle on Reality
• To comfort us in times of sorrow
• To provide guidance
• To aid evangelism
• To inspire
• To help us repent of our sins
• To explain where humans and life on Earth came from/started
• To tell us about our ancestors
• To tell us about Jesus’ ancestors

Many of the answers can be grouped under the heading moral guidance, but if the Bible’s purpose is moral guidance we would expect this aspect to be as obvious and precise as the great ethical teachings of the Vedas, or Buddhist teaching or Confucius’ writings.

Other answers reflect the belief that the Bible is an evangelistic tool to be used to save souls by calling people to repentance. This is a good use of the Bible, but such answers identify one use of the Bible as the Bible’s purpose. Was the Bible written for Christian evangelism? I think not. In fact, evangelistic use the Bible without a clear sense of its purpose confuses people.

It was interesting that some of the answers pose the Bible as an epistemological resource. I agree that the Bible helps us to understand the world, and I believe that the Bible presents a true view of reality, but I do not regard this as the Bible’s purpose, per se.

Some of these answers reflect what the students recognize as their teacher’s anthropological interest in origins and the ancestors of Jesus Christ. These are good answers, but not what I consider the purpose of the Bible. This surprised my students! They were sure that they were giving me the answers I wanted to hear.

Based on extensive study, I believe that the purpose of the Bible is to record what those who wrote the Bible considered important. This purpose never makes the list because Americans don’t value what people of the ancient world considered important.  We are despisers of tradition and most consider ancient wisdom irrelevant. We believe that we are the most knowledgeable people, living in the most enlightened age, when in fact we are babblers who chase after entertainment rather than enlightenment.

If I am correct about this, we are in big trouble! For as Cicero said: To know nothing of what happened before you were born is to remain forever a child. The Apostle Paul says the same, urging believers to grow up through apprehension of the Holy Tradition concerning the Son of God. It matters that Abraham’s people lived in expectation of the appearing of the Son of God and that they knew God's purpose in His coming. It means that we have not invented Christianity. It means that, when our dogmatic quarrels take us off course, we can find the way by attending to this Holy Tradition.

Holy Tradition: A Continuous Stream

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.” ― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy


Road to Emmaus: A Journal of Orthodox Faith and Culture has published an interview with me in which I reflect on my years as an Episcopal "priest" and the events that brought me to Orthodoxy. The interview is titled "Stepping into the Stream" (Winter 2010, #40) and details how my Genesis research has been instrumental in helping me to understand Holy Tradition, the male priesthood, and the biblical worldview.

Please consider a subscription to this excellent journal, or a one-time donation, to help with the work.

Genesis Has Strengthened My Faith

Recently I was asked what these 30+ years of research on Genesis have meant for my faith. That gave me pause, and I’ve been asking myself how the research has edified me as a Christian? I believe that I’m ready to answer this question.

First, I have been blessed to be so deep in God’s written Word. I meditate on it night and day. I often dream about what I'm studying. Sometimes the dreams are glorious and I am unable to describe them with words. Such dreams involve patterns and symbols of the ineffable. This must be how the rabbis and fathers of old came to understand what is not teachable by words.

Second, I have come to understand how the whole Bible rests upon the foundation of Genesis. This may seem obvious to most people who read the Bible, but for me the recognition involves tracing the threads that are interwoven from Genesis to Revelation and realizing that this unity is God’s work. He who creates all things has created a unique book. The author of our salvation has authored the greatest tome ever written.

There is also the discovery that this book testifies to Holy Tradition so that one must, by the witness of Scripture, conclude that Holy Tradition precedes the Holy Bible and is preserved for us in the pages of Scripture. This tells me that every generation has a witness to the Truth of God’s love, not only in creation as St. Paul attests, but also in the Tradition received through the passing generations of Abraham’s people. We who have been grafted into the Faith of Father Abraham are heirs of this Holy Tradition concerning the coming Christ. Were the Bible to be lost or taken from us, we would still have the Gospel. May God be praised!

Finally, I have come to the unshakeable persuasion that the Bible is truer than we can even conceive as empirically-minded moderns. Were we to allow it to speak for itself, not insisting on our interpretation, but accepting what it says, we would be led to see the truth and our view of reality would come into clear focus.

Some will regard what I’ve written as too intellectual and for that I make no apologies. That is my character and I trust that God has a place for intellectuals in the Kingdom. There is a notion within some circles that head knowledge blocks or interrupts the work of the heart. Orthodoxy is said to be “a religion of the heart, not of the head.” In humility, I ask why? Were not the Fathers men of intellect and good hearts? St. Paul was one of the greatest intellects of all history and yet he was also a man of great passion.

Doubtless some will use this emphasis on receiving Christ through the heart as an excuse to be lazy in their study of the Scriptures preserved supernaturally for our instruction and reproof. Beware! Faith comes by many avenues. Do not put limits on the work of the Spirit.

Witnesses to the Truth of Christianity

Alice C. Linsley

Some readers of Just Genesis have asked where can we find information about the origins of this unique faith we call Christianity? In answer, I believe that we must look at the tradition that Abraham "our father in the faith" received from his Nilo-Saharan ancestors. Note that I'm not saying that we should look into some special revelation that Abraham might have received.

The One to whom all true prophets bear witness

I've been having an interesting conversation with Scott L at The Prodigal Thought on this very subject. Scott takes the view that those in the time of Genesis "had some revelation, but that revelation was in seed form. It’s only as the revelation progresses in the OT writings that we get the idea that the Messiah would be the ‘Son’ of God." What about Genesis 3:15 which speaks about the divine Seed? Seed in this verse clearly refers to offspring.

Yet Scott believes what Jesus says in John 8:56 - "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." So my question is, if you believe what Jesus said, why do you doubt that Abraham had expectation of the appearing of the Son of God? It is a contradiction to say that you believe Jesus and then to discount what He says as anachronism.

Abraham’s people certainly did not have the perspective we have today, but they had the ancient expectation of the Son of God’s appearing in the flesh. This ancient expectation came from what God promised in Genesis 3:15 – the Protevangelion. In other words, God, in His immense faithfulness, has raised up witnesses to His Righteous Son in every generation. Just as an infant recognizes the parent and responds to that love, without intellectual knowledge, so humanity has had consciousness of the Father’s love for the Son, even before Jesus’ Incarnation. This is proof that the Son abides eternally with the Father and was with the Father “in the beginning” and that all things were made through Him.

Scott goes on to say: "So Abraham had some kind of revelation in his day. But I think it could possibly be a little too anachronistic to read a full theology of the ‘Son of God incarnate’ back into Gen 3:15 and Abraham’s understanding. Even those words in Gen 3:15 would not have registered as Messianic to Adam and Eve. They would have been thinking about one of their immediate sons or grandsons."

How very perceptive! My research on the kinship of Abraham’s people using the Genesis genealogical information shows that they DID believe it would be one of their sons. They traced bloodline through the mothers and made sure that the daughters of priests (such as Mary) only married priests or the sons of priests. The intermarriage between priestly lines (endogamy) is evident in analysis of the intermarriage between the rulers listed in Genesis 4 and Genesis 5.  The identical marriage and ascendancy pattern can be trace to Jesus Christ. The lines of Cain and Seth intermarried. The lines of Ham and Shem intermarried, and the lines of Joktan and Sheba intermarried. These are the ruler-priest ancestors of Abraham and it is from these priestly lines that Joseph and Mary are descended. Therefore we have no reason to doubt that Abraham believed that the Son of God would one day be born among his people. This is the heart of Holy Tradition received by Abraham and passed to the Church. St. Paul wrote that he was careful to pass alone without change that which he received.

Holy Tradition is attested by at least seven witnesses. They are:

The Witness of History

The Horite rulers of Edom are listed in Genesis 36.  Abraham's entire territory was within the region of Edom. Josephus calls the descendants of Abraham and Keturah "Horites." Quoting an ancient authority, he speaks of them as "conquerors of Egypt and founders of the Assyrian Empire." The Horites were devotees of Horus, who was called "Son of Ra" and the Horite metal workers venerated Horus' mother as their patroness.

The Witness of the Church Fathers

Justin Martyr: “There is not a single race of men…among whom prayers and thanksgivings are not offered in the name of Jesus the crucified…”

Irenaeus: “Such is the common faith and tradition of the Churches …In whom have all the nations believed, but in the Christ who is already come?”

Hippolytus: “The eye of reason is the Spirit; by it we discern spiritual things. If you have the Spirit, you will comprehend heavenly things, for like comprehends like.”

The Witness of The Three - I John 5:8

Three bear witness to the appearing of the Son of God: the Spirit, the water and the blood. These bear witness of earth: Anna the Prophetess (Spirit), John the Forerunner (water) and Simeon the Priest (blood).

The Witness of the Undivided Kingdom

Ruler-priests had two wives who lived in separate households yet belonged to and shared jointly in the same Kingdom. Likewise, the Kingdom of God consists of the Bride of Christ (New Covenant) and the Beloved of God (Old Covenant). Together these bear witness to the Truth: Jesus Christ, the only Begotten Son of the Father, came into the world to save sinners (such as me).

The Witness of Scripture

“These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.” I John 5:13

The Witness of the Church

“He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar because he has not believed the testimony God has given of His Son. This is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son of God has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” I John 5:10,11

The Witness of the Heavens

Psalm 19:1 says that the "heavens declare the glory of God." That has always been true and explains how tribal peoples, who observe the heavens more closely that modern people, often know more about God's nature than we do.

The greatest celestial witness is one which God set to go off in the heavens like an alarm clock. On December 24 A.D. 3, the king planet Jupiter completed a triple coronation of and aligned with the king star Regelus in the constellation of Leo to produce the brightest heavenly light ever seen. The ancients who expected the Son of God to be born recognized the sign and followed the Bethlehem Star to the Son of God. This event is confirmed by sophisticated astronomical software. For more information, visit http://www.bethlehemstar.com/

Conclusion

If all these bear witness to Jesus the Christ, we should not be timid in proclaiming the Gospel. We have received more than enough to argue our case for the truth of Christianity. We should not hold back, waffle or hedge. We should join our voices with the song of the stars, with the hymn of the saints, and with the chorus of heavenly hosts to acclaim Him as Lord over all, our eternal King.


Related reading: Red and Black Smiths; Righteous Rulers and the Resurrection; What is Holy Tradition?

Why Women Were Never Priests

The Tradition concerning the all-male priesthood is about the Blood. This is why a male may stand at the altar, but not a woman. The blood work of Jesus Christ is the work of the dying and rising God. The blood work of Mary is about giving life and humanity to the Son of God. The priesthood originated among archaic peoples who observed the binary distinction of male and female blood work.


Alice C. Linsley

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

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

Arch-heretic Schori

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


Priests or shamans?

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

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

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

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

The author of Hebrews tells us that Melchizedek points to Jesus as the true Priest: “This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil, where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 6:13-20)

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

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


What can we say about the Priesthood?

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

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

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

God planted eternity in our hearts so we innately know that Christ's Blood is not only redemptive, but also the source of our life. This is what St. Paul calls "the mystery of Christ". As his second missionary journey, Paul preached that, “in Him [Jesus Christ] we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:28) He also wrote: “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times, He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth. (Eph. 1:7-10)

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

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

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

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

Let me hear you say it:

Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.

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


The ontological impossibility of women priests

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

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

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

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

Because the Creator wants the distinction between life and death to be clear at all times to all peoples, He established this distinction between the “blood work” of women and men. This distinction between the two bloods is the basis for the priesthood, an office ontologically exclusive to males, since only men in the priestly lines could fill the office. This is a received tradition and a holy ordinance which no synod or jurisdiction has authority to change. The priesthood speaks of ancient holy tradition [8], not a creed, but rather the person of Jesus Christ.

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

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

St. Paul expresses it this way: “There is one Body, one Spirit, just as one hope is the goal of your calling by God. There is one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, and one God and father of all, over all, through all and within all.” (Eph. 4:4-5)

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


Related Reading: The Priesthood is About the Blood;  Female Shamans, Not Women Priests; Rethinking "Biblical Equality"; Women Priests by E.L. Mascall; Women Priests; God as Male Priest; Levi-Strauss and Derrida on Binary Oppositions; The Question of Women Priests Must Be Addressed; Women Priests: History and Theology by Patrick Henry Reardon; Water and Blood; Blood and Binary Distinctions


NOTES

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

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

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

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

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

6. Sophisticated mining operations in the Lebombo Mountains of southern Africa reveal that thousands of workers were extracting red ochre which was ground into powder and used in the burial of nobles in places as distant as Wales, Czechoslovakia and Australia. Anthropologists agree that this red powder symbolized blood and its use in burial represented hope for the renewal of life.

7. This has been discussed in many of the great monographs: Benedict's Patterns of Culture, Lévi-Strauss' The Raw and the Cooked, and Turnbull's The Forest People.

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