Binary Reasoning Informs Christian Morality and Ethics

 

Alice C. Linsley

Thank you, Bishop Hewett and the reverend fathers who invited me to speak at this beautiful and historic All Saints Episcopal Church in Wynnewood, Pennsylvania.

I will try to keep my remarks brief. What a speaker really needs is a conclusion and I hope to get there before you stop listening.

The late Colorado oil magnate, Raymond Duncan, once said, "If the speaker won't boil it down, the audience must sweat it out."

For the most part my remarks will be directed to the choir, as they say, so feel free at any time to shout “Amen!” or “Hallelujah!”, in a seemly Anglican manner, of course.

A few of you may be aware that I lived in this area for 16 years. I lived for 5 years in Malvern in a small Mennonite community. The women of the community taught how to grow and preserve vegetables, how to sew, smoke hams, and repair a broken lawn mower using parts from their supplies of cannibalized machines. A strong bond of affection developed between us, and the year before I left to go to seminary, the women asked me to lead a one-day retreat at their church on the book of Ruth.

During those years my family and I worshipped at the Church of the Good Samaritan in Paoli. The rector at that time was the Rev. Daniel Kilmer Sullivan, a Canadian by birth and a good priest. As demonstrated by Fr. Rix, Canada has produced some very fine clergy!

Fr. Dan’s assistant was the Rev. Dr. Henry Lawrence Thompson III who became the Dean of Trinity School for Ministry in Ambridge.

Looking back, I recognize that Fr. Sullivan was under pressure from the Diocese to put forward a woman for ordination from his parish. After a year of discernment, I met with Bishop Lyman Ogilby with whom I established immediate report when he learned that I had spent part of my childhood in the Philippines. Bishop Ogilby had been a missionary bishop in the Philippines when it was still a U.S. territory.

While I lived in this area, I saw radical developments in the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania. In 1974, eleven women were irregularly admitted to the priesthood, including several lesbians. The late Louie Crew was promoting gay activism and in that same year he founded the first chapter of Integrity. In 1977, Bishop Paul Moore of New York ordained the lesbian Ellen Marie Barrett, who had served as Integrity's first co-president.

In 1983, I began my seminary studies at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Mount Airy. While there, I studied Anglican Polity under the Rev. Dr. Jeffrey Steenson who Pope Benedict XVI appointed as the first Ordinary of the Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter on January 1, 2012. Dr. Steenson was the first person to challenge me on the question of women and the priesthood.

I did my internship at All Hallows, Wyncote, and I served as a deacon for 9 months at Trinity Episcopal Church in Swarthmore. Then I served as the Chaplain at the Church Farm Church in Exton, Pennsylvania.

During those years I was having many significant dreams which I recorded in journals. One dream proved to be prophetic. In the dream, I was vested and standing in the procession of priests. We were preparing to process into the church. Suddenly, off to my right there appeared a gleaming white pearl and I knew that it was the “Pearl of Great Price”. The only way I could take hold of it was to leave the procession of priests and turn my back on my bishop. That is what I did on the Sunday of Gene Robinson’s consecration.

I left the Episcopal priesthood, turning my back on Bishop Stacy Sauls to take hold of something or rather Someone of infinitely greater value; the Son of God, who came into the world to save sinners like me. And to Him I offer my joyful praise and adoration. I can do no other.

I recount this personal history as a backdrop to the doubts that began to form in my mind about women and the priesthood. I was ordained to the priesthood by Allen Bartlett in June 1988. There was a disquieting smirk on his face when I turned to give the final blessing.

Honestly, I sometimes wonder if he would have approved this Bible-believing traditionist for ordination if it had been up to him. I did not aspire to break the glass ceiling like Barbara Harris, the first African American female bishop, or to defy the Church's teaching on marriage like the lesbian bishop Mary Glasspool, or to distinguish myself by breaking from my religious roots, as did Bishop Geralyn Wolfe, a convert from Judaism.

My doubts about women’s ordination launched me into a ten-year study of that dangerous innovation. In my investigation I drew on my background in anthropology, philosophy, and linguistics. I noted that no women served as priests among the biblical Hebrew. Likewise, men did not serve as midwives. This suggested that men and women have distinct types of blood work: the priests in the place of blood sacrifice where women were forbidden to enter, and the woman in the birthing chamber where men were forbidden to enter. Two types of blood work in two distinct places and the two were always maintained apart. I pondered that a great deal.

Among the biblical Hebrew who delivered to us the authoritative moral law, male and female are distinct physiologically, anatomically, emotionally, and in the work they were created to perform. This seems obvious even to those who minimize the distinction between males and females. Some realities cannot be denied.

Consider the recent news about University of Pittsburgh professor Gabby Yearwood. When he was asked by swimmer Riley Gaines if an archeologist can differentiate between two sets of 100-year bones as male and female, Professor Yearwood answered “no” to which the entire audience laughed. Yearwood responded, "I'm not sure why I'm being laughed at! I'm the expert... I have a Ph.D.!" Those college students recognize that someone can get a Ph.D. in anthropology and still be ignorant of basic facts about the difference between males and females. Forensic medicine has been identifying the sex of older human remains since the 16th century, and today we have the advantage of genetic testing as well.

Pondering the two distinct types of blood work took me deeper into consideration of the binary reasoning of the biblical Hebrew. That reasoning is based on empirical observation of the hierarchies in the order of creation. These hierarchies are expressed in a small number of binary sets: Creator-creature, life-death, heaven-earth, male-female, and sun-moon. The Apostle Paul uses this binary reasoning in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 when he contrasts the Creator and the creature, the sun and the moon, and the perishable and the imperishable.

The spiritual rot we are experiencing in some parts of our Anglican world is due to rejection of the authority of Scripture and the binary reasoning of the Bible. We have too few bishops like Bishop Hewett who will defend the Faith and uphold godly practices.

Too few Anglican priests proclaim our catholic Faith; many because they do not understand it, some because they do not believe it. Our divisions are the fruit of theological waffling by generations of leaders who have heeded the noise of our culture rather than the voice of the Spirit of God.

Many of our parishes do not focus on the study of Scripture. One is more likely to find a group studying a contemporary devotional or a popular spiritual self-help book. I hope each of your parishes makes the study of Scripture a high priority.

Do not neglect women’s Bible studies because wives have a profound influence on their husbands. Wives need to study the Bible so that they may recognize God’s truth and help to form their children in that truth. Your parish will prosper when the women become rooted in sound teaching and in the wisdom of God.

It is evident that when the Scriptures are neglected, people go astray, and wolves at the door gain access to the flock. The wolves seek to eviscerate the Gospel because they hate the Lord of Life.

We must remain vigilant against ideologies that promote rebellion against God’s order, and we must teach our children to recognize expressions of that rebellion such as radical feminism, gay activism, and Godless political ideologies. Rebellion is evident in the slogan of the 2019 American Socialist Party Convention that met in Chicago.

We must impress upon our children that the Christian Faith and the authority of Scripture remain unchanged and are unchangeable. Anglicans have not been as protective of the Faith as we should have been. Our confession is Christ crucified, risen, and coming again. Until His arrival, we make disciples, strengthen one another, and receive Him in the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist.

The kerygma and the Nicene Creed express Anglican dogma, and the Bible informs and shapes our doctrine and practice. We require nothing to be believed that is not attested by these our authorities. That is why we reject innovations, be they from Rome, the Episcopal Church, or the Church of England. That is why we refute falsehoods, be they ideological or theological.

The Church receives its Tradition concerning Jesus Messiah from the early Hebrew through the Apostles. That sacred Tradition builds a hedge around the observable order of creation. What the Creator has established is to be guarded. Life is greater than death. Thus, the Hebrew were never to boil a baby goat in its mother's milk (forbidden three places in Scripture). This blurs the distinction between life and death because the mother’s milk is to sustain the life of the offspring.

There is a binary distinction between humans and non-human animals. Bestiality is forbidden as it blurs the distinction between humans and animals.

Homosex is forbidden because it blurs the distinction between male and female, a binary set established by God in the beginning and by which humanity is to survive extinction.

The hedge extended even to the sowing of seed and to textiles. They were not to sow two types of seed in the same field or weave cloth of two different types of fiber.

To us moderns, such prohibitions sound strange because we have blurred the binary distinctions. In fact, some have rejected binary reasoning entirely though it is the logical outcome of empirical observations of the order of creation.

The spilling of human semen (onanism) was regarded as an unrighteous act because this violates the divinely established order in creation. The seed that should fall to the earth is the seed of the plants with roots in the earth. The seed of man should fall on his own type (the womb), from which man comes forth.

In 191 A.D., Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted.” (The Instruction of Children)

The prohibition against onanism reflects the ancient wisdom that was informed by observation of immutable (fixed) patterns in nature. It is based on reality, not imagined entities or moral relativism. Dr. David C. Innes of King’s College in New York City, recently wrote, “Living in reality also means living in principled awareness of who is in charge of all things and thus living in recognition of what is true.”

You may be wondering how this relates to the binary reasoning that informs Christian ethics and morality. Consider what Bishop Hewett wrote in his homily for the First Sunday after the Epiphany:

Ethics is man’s study about what is good and right and true. Morality is God’s revelation to man about what is good and right and true. Ethics come from man and morality comes from God. God reveals the moral law to Moses on Mt. Sinai. The Law comes from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost. The moral Law is the straight edge against which everything must be measured.

 

I am reminded of something C.S. Lewis wrote in his book Reflections on the Psalms. He wrote, “Some give morality a wholly new meaning which we cannot accept, some deny its possibility. Perhaps we shall all learn, sharply enough, to value the clean air and ‘sweet reasonableness’ of the Christian ethics which in a more Christian age we might have taken for granted.”

We daily encounter a general contempt for Christianity. May it teach us to value the sweetness and solidity of the moral path God has laid before us.

As Christ’s followers, we understand that Christian ethics cannot be separated from the moral law established by divine authority. The Scriptures and our catholic Faith inform us as to what is good and right and true. When we drift away from these authorities, we become complacent about the Gospel. Complacency leads to decadence, and decadence leads to corruption.

Attempts to revise Christianity come from those who reject divine authority. Rejection of divine authority expresses itself in the invention of identities that have no basis in the observable order of creation. A boy can declare himself a girl and his delusion must be accepted by school authorities, or they will face a lawsuit. Rather than affirm what is wholesome, the headlines promote the anomalous as normal. Such delusion is the product of senseless and darkened minds as Paul attests in the second chapter of Romans.

Anglicans are to meet the rejection of God’s authority in a reasoned and compassionate way. We must seek, as God does, to reason together using the authority of Scripture. We cannot claim Scripture as a primary authority if we reject the binary reasoning of the Bible.

This evening we will examine that binary reasoning in greater detail so that we may be understand how it informs our Christian morality and ethics, and that we may be better prepared to defend the Faith against seemingly overwhelming attacks.

 

What is “binary reasoning”?

 
The biblical Hebrew were very concrete thinkers. Their perceptions of God were based on their empirical observations of the order in Creation. They noticed that trees only reproduce trees, and birds only reproduce birds. The Book of Genesis speaks of how each reproduces according to its “kind”. They observed that humans only reproduce humans and that humans come in two sexes: male and female. They noticed that the loss of blood brings death and they logically associated blood with life.

In the Bible we find binary sets, that is sets of two entities that appear to be opposite yet complementary. The four basic sets for the biblical writers are:

Creator-Creature

Life-Death

Male-Female

Sun-Moon

Note that one of the entities of the set is greater than or superior to its opposite. The creature is dependent upon the infinitely greater Creator for all things. The Creator is greater than the creature. That is the very definition of God which even an atheist must admit. It is the greater that stoops to save the weaker. The Almighty condescends out of His compassion. "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich." (2 Cor. 8:9)

Life, or immortality, or the imperishable is superior to death, decay, and extinction. Anyone who has lost a loved one knows that life is greater than death. It can be argued based on 100,000 years of burial in red ocher, a symbolic blood covering, that humans hope to escape mortality. We yearn for the immortal nature for which we were first created. God told the Israelites to choose life rather than death. Life comes through loving obedience. Death comes through disobedience and spiritual rebellion.

The male of our species is larger and stronger than the female. The sun’s brightness surpasses the brightness of the moon.

Note the consistent logic here: Without the Creator there would be no creature. Eve comes after Adam as she is taken from his side. Without the sun, there would be no refulgent light from the moon.

The binary sets present hierarchies, and in our society the term “hierarchy”, like the term “binary”, has become a bad word.

The entities of the binary sets are not equal in function, strength, or glory. The binary reasoning of the biblical writers is diametrically opposed to the dualism of Eastern religions that arose in the Axial Age (900-200 B.C.). There is no Ying-Yan in the Bible because the sets observed by the biblical writers are not equal.

The binary sets of the Bible are not arbitrary and subjective. They are based on empirical observation and experience. The biblical binary sets are not subjective. The opposites of tall and short do not constitute a binary set because those descriptions are subjective. Were I standing next to a Watusi warrior I would appear short. However, were I standing next to a Pygmy, I would appear tall.

On the other hand, it is universally evident that males are anatomically larger and stronger than females. The larger and stronger is to protect the smaller and weaker.

When we come to the sun and moon, we recognize what is stated in Genesis, chapter 1: God created two great lights in the heavens. The sun is the greater light, and the moon is the lesser light that rules the night. Indeed, the moon does not shine at all. It reflects the light of the sun.

For the biblical Hebrew ultimate authority rests with the High God whose symbol was the sun. In Genesis 1:16, the sun is said to be the greater light that rules the day. The word “rule” speaks of what is above all and over all. That makes the sun a fitting symbol for the highest and ultimate authority.

Let us be clear that the Hebrew did not worship a Sun God. That is evident in Psalm 19 where we are told that God has set a tent for the sun which comes forth as a bridegroom from his chamber and rejoices to run his circuit.

Among archaic populations, the sun was perceived as inseminating the earth. One can imagine how this perception developed as people observed particles of light or sunbeams filtered through the forest canopy. The meteoritic iron found on the earth's surface was worn by chiefs and rulers because it represented power from on high. King Tut's dagger had a gold sheath and a tip made of meteoritic iron.

This binary reasoning poses ultimate authority with the God who is a king, not a queen. In his book on Women and the Priesthood (p. 240), the late Fr. Thomas Hopko wrote, "In his actions in and toward the world of his creation, the one God and Father reveals himself primarily and essentially in a 'masculine' way."

In the sun-moon set, the sun is regarded as having masculine qualities and the moon as having female qualities. This was expressed in the appearance of the king and queen. The king appeared with sun-darkened skin and his queen appeared with whitened skin.

In the Ancient Near East, the sun-moon binary set was expressed in the way royal couples presented themselves in public. The king appeared with skin darkened by the sun and the powdered queen appeared pale as the moon. The sun-moon binary set among the early Hebrew is often a reference for a royal couple. Joseph speaks of his father and mother as the sun and the moon (Gen. 37:9). This attests the high social rank of his Hebrew parents.

Two Wives Establish a Kingdom

 
It was common for high-ranking Hebrew rulers to have two wives. One was usually a half-sister as was Sarah to Abraham. The second wife was usually a cousin, as was Keturah to Abraham. Abraham’s father had two wives. The Hebrew priest Elkanah had two wives: Peninnah and Hannah. Other Hebrew rulers with two wives include Lamech, Jacob, Amram, Moses, Jesse, and Joash.

In 1 Chronicles 4:5, we read that "Ashur, the father of Tekoa, had two wives, Helah and Naarah."

In 1 Chronicles 4:17-18, we read that Mered had two wives and one was "Pharaoh’s daughter Bithiah, whom Mered had married."

The two wives in the Song of Solomon represent the two horizons or dusk and dawn. One of Solomon’s wives is described as having sun-darkened skin ("dark as the tents of Kedar") and the other is described as having skin as pale as the moon (S. of S. 6:10). For the rulers of the Ancient Near East, the two wives represent a claim to a vast territory that extends from horizon to horizon. 

The two wives’ settlements were at the extreme boundaries of the ruler’s territory. Abraham's north-south territorial boundaries were marked by the separate settlement of his two wives. Sarah resided in Hebron and his cousin wife Keturah resided in Beersheba to the south.

Consider the story of Lamech’s two wives in Genesis, chapter 4. Their names, Adah and Tzillah, are derived from the words for dawn and dusk.

This narrative suggests that Lamech ruled over a vast territory. The sun-moon binary set and the east-west solar arc are used in the Bible to speak of the authority and sovereignty of divinely appointed Hebrew rulers. They expected a woman of their ruler-priest caste to conceive the Son of God by divine overshadowing, just as happened with the Virgin Mary (Lk. 1:35).

The Virgin Mary was a descendant of the early Hebrew ruler-priests. Even the Talmud recognizes that. Sanhedrin 106a says Jesus' mother was a whore: “She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters.”

The divine appointment of the Theotokos is an example of the binary balance of authority among the biblical Hebrew.


Binary Balance of Authority and Narrative Representation

The social structure of the biblical Hebrew reflects that binary balance. It was neither matriarchal nor patriarchal. It was characterized by a balance of authority between males and females that is extraordinary in any age.

Binary balance is expressed in many features of the Hebrew social structure. There were male rulers and female rulers; male prophets and female prophets. Both males and females could inherit property and wealth. Consider the distinct duties and responsibilities of the mother's house (Ru. 1) versus the father's house (Gen. 38:11). Some Hebrew names honor a male ancestor and some honor a female ancestor.

In the Hebrew double unilineal descent pattern, both the patrilineage and the matrilineage are recognized and honored, but in different ways.

There is binary balance in the biblical narratives also. The blood symbolism of the Passover associated with Moses has a parallel in the blood symbolism of the scarlet cord associated with Rahab. Consider the two occasions when death passed over. Moses' people were saved when they put the blood of the lamb on the doors. Rahab's household was saved when she hung a scarlet cord from her window.

The abusive behavior of drunken Noah toward his sons has a parallel in the abusive behavior of drunken Lot toward his daughters. Their behavior causes trouble for their children. Noah curses his son and/or grandson. Lot impregnates his daughters.

Consider the gender distinction expressed between the oak and the palm. The male prophet at Mamre sat under a firm and upright oak, representing the masculine principle. Deborah sat under a date nut palm, representing the feminine principle.

In the stories of the Moreh’s oak and Deborah’s palm, we also find directional distinctions of a binary nature. The Moreh’s oak is located on an east-west axis between Ai and Bethel. Deborah’s palm is located on a north-south axis between Bethel and Ramah.

There is binary balance in the New Testament narratives also. At the presentation of Jesus in the Temple His identity as Messiah is affirmed by the priest Simeon and by the prophetess Anna. Jesus restored the widow of Nain's deceased son to his mother (Lk. 7:11-17). Jesus restored Jairus' deceased daughter to her father (Mk. 5:21-43).

The binary reasoning of the Bible involves recognition of fixed sets and the distinction between the entities in the set. In his commentary on the book of Genesis, Leon Kass notes, “Opposition is the key to the discovery of the distinction between error and truth.” (The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, p. 238.)

In the Johannine writings the Church and the world are a binary set comprised of unequal entities. Because the Church belongs to the One who has overcome the world, the Church is the stronger entity of the set. 1 John 4:4 reminds us that, “He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.”

Consider the implications of that reality. Persecution does not defeat the Church. Censorship does not silence the Church. His resurrection power is invincibly at work in us.

Now with a clearer understanding of the binary reasoning of the biblical writers, we may take up the implications for Christian morality.



Family life

Speaking of family life, the Anglican Divine Jeremy Taylor says that marriage is the seminary of the church which “daily brings forth sons and daughters unto God…Marriage is the mother of the world, and preserves kingdoms, and fills cities, and churches, and heaven itself!"

The Church opposes homosexuality and adultery equally because they destabilize families and societies. These have destabilized many local churches as well.

Gregory of Nyssa minimized the distinction between males and females, believing that we were created to become sexless angelic beings. However, most of the Church Fathers held the institution of marriage in high esteem and encouraged it for the procreation of children to be brought up in the Faith.

St. John Chrysostom observed a binary hierarchy in both family and church. He wrote, “Were there is equal authority, there never is peace. A household cannot be a democracy, ruled by everyone, but the authority must necessarily rest in one person. The same is true for the Church: when men are led by the Spirit of Christ, then there is peace. There were five thousand men in the Jerusalem church, and they were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they were subject to one another; this surely is an illustration of wisdom and godly fear. Notice, however, that Paul explains love in detail, comparing it to Christ’s love for the church and our love for our own flesh.”


Church life

Paul’s chain of command in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 reflects the biblical hierarchies. He explains, “the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” He also says that the head of the Church is Christ (Col. 1:18). Paul is not imposing hierarchy upon the Church. Rather, he wants the Church to reflect the divine order of creation.

Homosexuality, transvestism, and gender and species confusion oppose the order of creation and deny divine authority. The Triune God has a purpose for each person. Rebellion against His purpose brings gradual loss of the divine image. Therefore, those who oppose His authority are to be pitied and we are to humbly pray for them.


Christian Ethics

How does the binary reasoning of the Bible inform Christian ethics? Remember that biblical binary sets are comprised of two entities that are not equal. The Church and the world are not equal in power and glory. As we are joined by grace to the glory of the Almighty through our baptism, we become part of the stronger entity, the Church.

The weak of the world need our voices to defend them, our hands to help them, and our witness to give them hope.

In reference to abortion, we are to defend the defenseless and advocate for the unborn.

In reference to euthanasia, we seek to maintain space for God to work to the natural end.

In reference to the poor who Jesus declared the “least among us”, we are to provide their basic needs, encourage them, and treat them with dignity.

In reference to the sick whose weakness makes them vulnerable, we are to visit, offer prayer, anoint with oil, and encourage.

In reference to prisoners who can be set free by the Gospel, we are to visit, lead Bible studies, proclaim salvation, and encourage through counsel and prayer.

In reference to orphans and widows, we are to be their family, and the local parish is to be their home and a place of protection.

I conclusion, the binary reasoning of the Bible presents us with a clear picture of the Creator’s immutable authority to which the humble bow and against which the arrogant rail. The lawlessness and spiritual rebellion of our day is not a new development. The Apostles Paul, Peter, and John offer us appropriate warnings.

Writing in the second century, Irenaeus said we are to avoid heretics, “while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . .. What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?”

In 372, Bishop Basil of Caesarea wrote, “The teachings of the fathers are despised, the apostolic traditions are ignored, and the churches are filled with the inventions of innovators. The shepherds have been driven out, and in their place, they bring in ravening wolves to tear apart the flock of Christ.” (Epistula 9:2)

We should not be surprised that there is a crisis of authority in Anglicanism. Nor should we be discouraged that the world considers us weak. God exchanges our weakness for strength. We are regarded as foolish, but our wisdom is of God.

We hold fast the faith proclaimed by the Apostles and we uphold the authority of Scripture. When discouraged, we remember our Lord’s assurance: “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Mt. 16:18)

He is the Lord of Life who was with God in the beginning. In him was life, and that life is the light of the world (Jn. 1:4). He said, “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” (Jn. 16:33)

 
Related reading: "What Does it Mean to Be Contrary to Nature?" by Dr. David Bradshaw; BIBLICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: Orthodoxy Requires Binary Reasoning; Derrida and Biblical Anthropology

Ethics and Ancient Cosmology

Golden Horus of Nekhen, the son of God
His totem was the Falcon.




Alice C. Linsley

Cosmology is the study of the structure and dynamics of the universe. It involves our most fundamental experience and observation of earth and the heavens and the relationship of physical bodies.

Perhaps the best book on this subject was written by a Roman Catholic priest, Paul J. Glenn, Professor of Philosophy in the College of St. Charles Borromeo, Columbus, Ohio.The book is titled "Cosmology: A Class Manual in the Philosophy of Boldily Being." Glenn defines cosmology as philosophical physics to distinguish it from metaphysics, the philosophical science of non-material real being (p. 5).

The cosmology of the Bible is connected to archaic priests who observed the heavens and especially to their veneration of the Sun as the emblem of the Creator. Since they regarded the Sun as superior to its counterpart, the Moon, biblical cosmology necessarily involves recognition of the binary distinctions observed in the order of creation: Sun-Moon, Male-Female, East-West, North-South, and Heaven-Earth. Ancient peoples believed that the structure and dynamics of the cosmos speak of the Creator’s eternal power and divine nature.

Canopic jars

The Apostle Paul alludes to this in Romans 1:20. Here he insists that the eternal nature and divine power of God are expressed in the fixed order of creation. Therefore, seeing that the pattern is observable by all people at all times, none are excused on the basis of ignorance. There is here an assumption that the fixed celestial patterns are superior to the things that can change or be corrupted. This reflects a very ancient belief: "as in heaven, so on earth" and that belief is expressed in the Lord's Prayer that God's "will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

The Horite Hebrew believed that Horus established the cosmic boundaries and guarded the cardinal points. He set the East from the West and the North from the South and he commanded the wind and waves. Horus also established the "kinds" or essences of all the creatures (Gen. 1:21). The genetic boundaries beyond which a creature cannot develop (evolve) are even termed "horotely."

Horus controlled and guarded as the "Son" of the Creator. His four appearances or manifestations were as a man, a jackal, a falcon, and a baboon. These are found on the four canopic jars (shown above) that held the organs of the dead Nilotic rulers. The jars were set to guard the body at the north, east, south and west.

The oldest known site of Horite Hebrew worship is found at the twin cities of Nekhen and Nekheb. Nekhen is called the Falcon City as the falcon was one of the animal totems of Horus, the son of Re. Votive offerings at the Nekhen temple were ten times larger than the normal mace heads and bowls found elsewhere, suggesting that this was a very prestigious shrine. Horite priests placed invocations to Horus at the summit of the fortress as the sun rose.

The Horite Hebrew spread their heliocentric cosmology throughout the ancient Afro-Asiatic Dominion. The Sun was the emblem of the Creator (Ra, Ani) and the Son of the Creator (Horus, Enki). Each morning the priests greeted the rising of the Sun with prayers and praises.

The Sun and its daily east-west journey are a key feature of Horite Hebrew cosmology. The Sun rises in the East as a young lamb and sets in the West as a ram in mature strength. This supplies a clue to the meaning of the story of Abraham and Isaac on Mt. Moriah. Isaac asked where is the lamb for the sacrifice? Abraham answered that the Lord God would provide his own sacrifice. The sacrificed animal was a ram and the symbol of the son of God. The ram also spoke of the West, the cardinal point associated with the future, so that, the provision was associated with a future event.

The binary distinctions impressed upon the ancient biblical Hebrew the reality of their limitations. They had no power to make the Sun follow a different course or to move the polar star. These spoke to them of a greater Power who had established these luminaries as dark reflections of a greater Light.

The Horite Hebrew ruler-priests were conscious of boundaries all around them. Many words related to boundaries are derived from the name Horus: horizon, hour, horotely, horologion, Harmattan, horoscope, etc.

Aristotle links essence to boundaries (horos, horismos) or to definition. He says, “a definition is an account (logos) that signifies an essence” (Topics 102a3).


Related reading:  Tracing Origins Using Comparative Cosmologies; Seven Planets, Seven Bowls; Plato's Debt to Ancient Egypt; Why Nekhen is Anthropologically Significant; What Abraham Discovered on Mt. Moriah

Snail Study Establishes Britian's Past

In a long-term study of amino acid binary sets, scientists have been able to establish a three million year timeline of the geological, climate and biological history of the British Isles.  They have done this using fossilised snails.

Read the report here.

Ancient Moral Codes

Alice C. Linsley


The most ancient moral codes have many features in common. They appeal to the authority of the deity who was recognized by the ruler, and they view the ruler as the deity's earthly representative. Another common feature is a concern for purity among the priestly caste as they were regarded as the mediators between the deity and the ruler and his people. Often the rulers themselves were priests, as in the case of Horite ruler-priests. When it came to ritual purity, especially to cleanse from blood guilt, ruler-priests turned to other priests for rituals of absolution. An example of this is found in the account of Abraham returning from battle and receiving the priestly ministrations of Melchizedek.

Most of what we know about ancient moral codes comes from archaeological and anthropological research. These fields, along with linguistics and biblical studies, have contributed enormously to our understanding of ethics among ancient peoples. What follows is a brief overview of some of those findings.

Babylonian clay tablets dating to the 3rd century BC reveal business laws and moral codes of considerable sophistication. Moral codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi, did not spring into existence suddenly. They represent centuries of social development in the area of moral law and social controls.

One of the world's earliest law codes is the Reforms of Urukagina, Sumeria (2500-2350 BC). It is written on this clay stele in Sumerian cuneiform.

However, the Law of Tehut dates to about 500 years earlier. That code is associated with King Menes (2930-2900 BC) who administered justice and issued edicts which were designed to improve food production and distribution, guard the rights of ruling families, improve education and enhance knowledge of the natural world through geometry and astronomy. 

The moral law associated with Moses developed out of an early moral law associated with Menes who united the peoples of the Nile. Menes is shown as the first in the procession of ancient lawgivers in the South Wall Frieze of the United States Supreme Court. The Law of Tehut is attributed to him. Menes and the kings after him bore the Horus name as their divine protector. The wisdom and skill of the Horite ruler-priests was later acknowledged by the Egyptian historian Manetho (3rd century BC) and the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC).

The closest ancient text to the Ten Commandments is the Code of Ani, a negatively worded moral code that dates to c. 2500 B.C. It has 42 confessions and appears to have a chiastic structure. The text is Akkadian, and the authority of the code is derived from the Father God Anu/Anum, whose divine son was called Enki, meaning "Lord over the Earth."

Another ancient law code is the code of Ur-Nammu from the reign of King Shulgi (2095-2047 BC). It originally held 57 laws which covered family and inheritance law, rights of slaves and laborers, and agricultural and commercial tariffs. This code prescribes compensation for wrongs, as in this example: "If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out one-half a mina of silver." (Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 28, Sep/Oct 2002, p. 30.) This type of retributive justice was typical of ancient law codes.

The Code of Hammurabi dates to around 1750 years ago. Hammurabi was an Amorite (Semite) who became King of Babylon about the time that Abraham left his father’s house in Harran and settled in the land of Canaan. The ancient capital of Babylon was about 55 miles south of modern Baghdad and it was large city of the Fertile Crescent. Although the city states of the Fertile Crescent shared many common ideas and practices, these cities were not unified under a single ruler. Instead, they were governed by independent rulers who were related by marriage. Marriage was a way to form political alliances and because rulers tended to marry within their kin and tribal groups, marriage also contributed to the preservation of the people’s cultural heritage.

The Code of Hammurabi was engraved on a stele more than 7 feet high. At the top of this stele of dark stone appears an image of King Hammurabi standing reverently before the seated Shamash, the god of justice. Shamash is dictating the law to his earthly representative. The Code of Hammurabi closes with this statement: “The righteous laws which Hammurabi, the wise king, has established . . .” Similarly, Leviticus closes with this: “These are the commandments which YHWH commanded Moses for the children of Israel.”

Ancient moral codes have a religious quality because religion and government were never separate in the ancient world. Among ancient populations religious laws governed every aspect of the community’s life. Religion and the rule of kings and priests contributed to social stability. Those who violated the law of kings faced punishment. The violation of religious taboos required repentance, sacrificial offerings, and cleansing from the priests. Serious violations (taboos) could result in banishment or execution. Adultery and homosexual relations were regarded as especially serious. These are mentioned in the Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Moral Code of Ani. 

Those who broke a taboo by using something they are not to use or touch or by speaking words that they are not to speak, were punished by imprisonment, or publicly shamed, or banished. Muttering incantations against the king or blaspheming the throne was a serious offense. The Code of Ani specifically mentions this: "I have not worked witchcraft against the King."

An example of a taboo among the ancient Israelites was boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Deuteronomy. 14:21). This was taboo because it violated the binary opposition of life-giving and life-taking that characterized the ancient Afro-Asiatic worldview. This same worldview meant that the blood spilled in hunting, war, and animal sacrifice could not in any way be confused with or even physically near to blood shed my women in their monthly cycle or in birthing. The two bloods represent the binary oppositions of life-taking and life-giving. To bring them together or to confuse them was a very serious matter as it blurred the boundary between life and death.

Ancient laws such as those found in Leviticus, Deuteronomy and in the ancient Vedic writings, are also practical. We find instructions for how lepers are to be isolated from the community and restored after they are verifiably healed. Many laws govern family relations, forbidding incest and adultery, and setting guidelines for proper marriage partners, especially for rulers. Others direct the proper treatment of slaves, foreigners, widows and orphans.

Moral codes also addressed usury. In the Hurrian Song of Debt Release, the High God tells his followers to release the people of Ebla from their debt.

"If you take a debt release in Ebla, I will exalt your weapons. Your weapons will begin to conquer your enemies. Your plowed land will prosper in glory. But if you do not make a debt release for Ebla, the city of the throne, in the space of seven days, I will come upon you. I will destroy Ebla, the city of the throne. I will make it like a city that never existed. I will break the surrounding wall of Ebla's city like a cup. I will knock flat the surrounding wall of the upper city like a garbage dump..."

The study of ancient moral codes should be done with careful consideration of the cultural context in which those codes developed. It is important to compare apples with apples, not apples with oranges.  In this overview, we have considered only the most ancient moral codes, which were essentially religious in nature. They are found in association with Afro-Asiatic populations. The main religious offices among these people were kings and royal priests. They were the early law makers whose authority was perceived to be derived from the High God. That is why many ancient kings, such as Sargon, claimed to have been miraculously conceived and posed as "sons" of the High God.

Ancient law texts suggest that the early kings had absolute power but were expected to govern according to sacred law codes. The law codes protected royal authority and also the status of royal officials and priests. The ritual and purity concerns of the priests are evident in the early codes. 

Related Reading: The Afro-Asiatic Conception of Purity; The Six Cities of Refuge; On Blood and the Impulse to Immortality; Ethics and Binary Oppositions; The Nilotic Substrata of Genesis 1; Menes: Fact and Fiction; The Moral Code of Ani, Moral Obligation

Ethics and Binary Oppositions

Alice C. Linsley

Ancient peoples were great observers of nature. They recognized that seasons run in a cycle, the Sun appears to move from east to west, and people bring forth people, not plants or other animals. They observed the heavens and nature because they believed that these provided clues to the Creator's nature and how they should order their lives.

The ancient cosmologies we have considered deploy related binary oppositions; are concerned about fertility and blood, and indicate belief in the power of ritual to order what has become disordered. The oppositions also suggest the existence of real time and metaphysical boundaries that are to be observed.  Those boundaries observed by the ancients are largely ignored or denied in the West today.  Thus the controversial issues of our time touch on life and death: abortion and euthanasia; on gender distinctions: homosex and feminism; and on the relativity of moral good. Disasters have nothing to do with the Creator. They are the work of Nature, an impersonal and non-judgmental mechanism.  Disorder for us is a law of physics, not the result of violating boundaries or changing "the celestial pattern" (Mircea Eliade).

However, in the ancient world when disasters came or life became disordered, the priest, prophet or shaman was consulted by the trial council to determine the cause of the disorder. In ancient Canaan (Palestine), the prophet is called the “moreh” and unlike the priesthood, included females. The morehs lived near wells or rivers and sat under trees. Abraham consulted the moreh at the oak in Mamre between Ai and Bethel (an east-west axis), and Deborah was consulted at her palm tree between Bethel and Ramah (a north-south axis). Notice that the morehs resided at the sacred center between two towns.

In finding the sacred center, the rising Sun was of foremost importance. The 4 cardinal poles: east-west and north-south were also reference points. Abraham’s people determined true north from the pole star and also because, as metal workers, they had discovered the magnetic polarity of iron filings.

The binary opposites of east-west and north-south provide direction. If we are lost, we can determine north by using a compass. Knowing north helps us to determine the direction of south. Lacking a compass, we can watch where the Sun rises to determine east. Knowing east, we can determine the direction of west. The binary oppositions help us to find our way in real time and in ethical deliberations.

Because the Sun rises in the east, the ancients faced east in prayer and built their shrines, temples and pyramids facing east. This is what it means to be “oriented.” To face the opposite direction would be to turn away from the ascending God, and to become disoriented. In Christianity, this tradition is observed in the placement of altars against the east wall, with the priest celebrating facing the east with his back to the congregation.

The morehs, priests and shamans were trained to read the binary structure of reality. Their wisdom was based on observation of universal patterns in nature. Today we tend to think of their wisdom as superstition, but their powers of observation were such that they prepared the foundation for astronomy, navigation, botany, zoology, linguistics, geometry, philosophy and metallurgy. We are not able to escape the essentially religious principles they passed down to us because these are fundamental functions of the world, and human progress depends on them. This is what Mircea Eliade understood and why he wrote, “the man who has made his choice in favor of a profane life never succeeds in completely doing away with religious behavior.” (The Sacred and the Profane, p. 23)


Related reading:  Understanding Binary Distinctions; Binary Sets and Gender Distinctions; Blood and Binary Distinctions; Does the Binary Feature Signal Greater Complexity?

The Loss of Wisdom

Alice C. Linsley

"As in the Heavens, so on Earth": that is something that tribal peoples understand, but it is lost wisdom to the empirically-minded West. There is still the Christian prayer that God’s will “be done on earth as it is in heaven", which represents the ancient concern that the celestial pattern, which was regarded as perfect and eternal, should be replicated on earth. In the Judeo-Christian view, Heaven is the archetype for ideal life on earth.

Plato conceived of archetypes as the pattern of real things. He didn't invent this idea. He borrowed it from the ancient Egyptians, who asserted that the pattern is the real thing and the earthly shadow, but a reflection. In this view, the material world resembles, participates in and aspires to the transcendent Forms. To understand the ancient world, we must begin from this assumption, which is contrary to the prevailing materialism of western society.

The Romanian social anthropologist, Mircea Eliade (1907-1986) observed that for archaic man, “real” objects and events are those that imitate, repeat or are patterned upon a celestial archetype. Since the pattern that was to be followed was found in the heavens, ancient civilizations had skilled observers of the heavens. These were usually priests, shamans or sages. There was considerable pressure for these men to make accurate calculations. Those who failed to predict the date of celestial events might be executed, as happened to the Chinese astronomers who failed to predict the solar eclipse of 2134 B.C.

The need for accuracy in observing the heavens led to the development of sidereal astronomy. The sidereal day is the time required for the earth’s rotation to be synchronized with fixed stars. It is about four minutes shorter than the solar day. Solar time is the measurement of time according to the earth’s rotation around the sun, whereas sidereal time is the measurement relative to a distant star. It is used to predict when a star will be overhead and it works because the stars and constellations move relative to one another in a clock like fashion. Sidereal astronomy was the beginning of the science of astronomy. Unlike popular astrology, which is based on culturally-determined symbolism, sidereal astronomy is based on the actual observed location of stars and constellations.

Ancient astronomers observed that the positions of the stars and constellations relative to one another reveal a fixed pattern of movement and fixed boundaries. This suggested that there is also a fixed pattern and fixed boundaries on earth. Observation of patterns on earth points to a binary order in creation. The binary order is evident in binary opposites: heaven-earth, male-female, night-day, Sun-Moon, life-death and good-evil. Between the two there appears to be a boundary. The earliest ethical considerations were concerned with honoring the boundaries between Creator-creature, male-female, life-death and good-evil.

In western societies, the pattern seen by the ancients is rarely discerned and the boundaries are for the most part ignored or denied. Thus the controversial issues touch on life and death: abortion and euthanasia; on gender distinctions: homosex and feminism; and on the relativity of moral good.

Another Attack on Human Uniqueness

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Obama Wants NASA to Build Muslim Self-Esteem

Alice C. Linsley

As a student of history I'm aware of the enormous contributions that Arabs have made in the fields of science, math, astronomy, philosophy, metallurgy, horticulture, music, arts, architecture, navigation, geography, cartography, medicine, lliterature and binary thought. When London was a dirty disease-ridden slum, Granada was a fragrant garden city with gas-lit streets, water delivery to individual homes, and highly trained fire brigades. The same was true for Cordoba, a center of Arab learning which boasted one of Europe's finest libraries. I make sure my Spanish students learn about Arab contributions to civilization, but unfortunately, most Americans are ignorant of these contributions. Many don't care.

So I'm sympathetic to President Obama's desire that Muslims feel proud of their accomplishments. I just don't think that NASA is the proper vehicle for accomplishing this. It would be more effective to require that this information be taught in American classrooms. The problem isn't Muslim lack of self-esteem.  The problem is the West's blindness to the contributions of Africa and Arabia. I encounter it all the time in academia and in my research on Genesis.

Anyway, here's the story.  See what you think.

The former head of NASA on Tuesday described as "deeply flawed" the idea that the space exploration agency's priority should be outreach to Muslim countries, after current Administrator Charles Bolden made that assertion in an interview last month.

"NASA ... represents the best of America. Its purpose is not to inspire Muslims or any other cultural entity," Michael Griffin, who served as NASA administrator during the latter half of the Bush administration, told FoxNews.com.

Bolden created a firestorm after telling Al Jazeera last month that President Obama told him before he took the job that he wanted him to do three things: inspire children to learn math and science, expand international relationships and "perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering."

Officials from the White House and NASA on Tuesday stood by Bolden's statement that part of his mission is to improve relations with Muslim countries -- though NASA backed off the claim that such international diplomacy is Bolden's "foremost" responsibility.

"If by doing great things, people are inspired, well then that's wonderful," Griffin said. "If you get it in the wrong order ... it becomes an empty shell."

Griffin added: "That is exactly what is in danger of happening."

He also said that while welcome, Muslim-nation cooperation is not vital for U.S. advancements in space exploration.

"There is no technology they have that we need," Griffin said. (Read more here.)

Griffin's statement is an example of western blindness and our infatuation with technology.  It may be true that Muslim nations have no technology to contribute to space exploration right now, but they have brain power!  America desperately needs brain power.

The Truth of Human Exceptionalism

Our society rests upon the unspoken acceptance of a number of truths, like the rule of law, the authority of reason, or solidarity with our neighbours. One of these is so obvious that it used to need no defenders: human exceptionalism, the notion that humans are special and unique amongst living things. But today, animal rights activists are holding a big question mark over this hitherto undisputed truth.

Radical animal rights activists deny that there is anything special about human beings. Their campaign to grant animals rights is ultimately a campaign to revise Shakespeare’s assessment – “in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals” -- and disrobe him of any unique significance.

That is the argument of this important book. Wesley J. Smith distinguishes between animal welfare and the animal rights movement. The humane treatment of animals is something all of us should support. But animal rights is a worrying development. What looks like a noble and worthwhile crusade is at bottom really an anti-human ideology. It is in fact “a belief system, an ideology, even a quasi religion, which both implicitly and explicitly seeks to create a moral equivalence between the value of human lives and those of animals,” says Smith.

Smith is an American writer on bioethics and biotechnology with a dozen books to his credit. He is deeply suspicious of scientism, the belief that science has all the answers to our dilemmas, but he is not a knee-jerk opponent of progress. Rather, he is a humanist champion of "human exceptionalism". He has a keen interest in animal rights, as this is ground zero in the battle to defend the uniqueness of the human species.

The animal liberation movement is often extremist, utopian, and open to the use of violence. For those who are still trying to figure out the quirky title of the book, it has been taken from a 1986 quote from the head of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Ingrid Newkirk. All four are mammals – end of story.

The true believers in the animal liberation movement are not gentle dog lovers or cat owners. They are fanatics who are capable of harassing, vandalising and destroying anything they consider to be abusive to animals. Indeed, Smith warns us of what sort of world we would live in if these radicals had their way: “Medical research would be materially impeded. There would be no more fishing fleets, cattle ranches, leather shoes, steak barbecues, animal parks, bomb-sniffing or Seeing Eye dogs, wool coats, fish farms, horseback riding, pet stores... Millions of people would be thrown out of work, our enjoyment of life would be substantially diminished. Our welfare and prosperity reduced.” Indeed, all domestication of animals would be taboo. There goes the family pet.

And there goes human uniqueness and dignity. All in the name of a fanatical ideology which will even resort to threats of murder to achieve its aims. This book carefully documents the ideology, the tactics and the fanaticism of this growing movement.

Read the full text here.

Understanding Binary Distinctions

Alice C. Linsley


The Philosophy 301 class has been studying ethical concerns of the ancient world. In this first lesson we read about a way of viewing the world that involves binary opposites such as male-female, day-night, raw-cooked [1], life-death, good-evil, heaven-earth, etc. There is little doubt that ancient peoples, especially the biblical Hebrew, thought of the world in these terms, having observed these binary opposites in nature.

The social structure of the biblical Hebrew reflects binary reasoning based on acute observation of the order of creation. This realistic view of the world recognizes hierarchies expressed in these binary sets: Creator-creature; Heaven-earth; Ruler-subject; and Male-female. One of the entities in the set is superior to the other. The ruler’s power and authority are greater than the subject’s. Males are anatomically larger and stronger than females.

This binary thinking sets the worldview of the biblical Hebrew apart from the dualism that characterizes most religions that emerged later in the Axial Age. In dualism the entities of the binary set are regarded as equal. Dualism posits two equally powerful and antagonistic forces at work in the world. Imagine holding a compass that simultaneously points in all directions. Dualism tends toward ethical neutralization of good and evil and can lead people into occult decision-making practices.

In the Hebrew binary reasoning, one of the entities of the set is recognized as superior to the other in visible ways. The superior entity points the way. The greatest of all is the Creator, and the hierarchies evident in the order of creation point to the Creator’s eternal nature and divine power (Rom. 1:20).

This thinking approaches truth as concrete and tangible. The binary logic moves beyond “either-or” to “both-and” while maintaining distinctions between the entities of the set. As the binary code yields the greater complexity of computer technology, so the binary reasoning of the biblical Hebrew contributes to the complexity of their social structure and wisdom.

Speaking of the diversity of human populations (Genesis 10), Leon Kass writes, “Opposition is the key to the discovery of the distinction between error and truth, appearance and reality, convention and nature – between that which appears to be and that which truly is.” (The Beginning of Wisdom, p. 238)

While the male is larger and stronger, and therefore more able to protect, the male and the female together define humanity, not as either-or, but as both-and. From their union comes more of their kind, both male and female children.

 
Ancient peoples were observers of the binary patterns in nature. They noted the east-west arc of the Sun. They noticed that people bring forth people, not plants or other animals. The recognized from observation that there are fixed stars and constellations. They noted the ubiquitous bilateralism among earth's creatures.

We turn right or we turn left. If we are lost, we can use a compass to determine the direction of north. Knowing north, we recognize its opposite, south. Knowing east, we can determine the direction of west. This binary reasoning helps us to avoid disorientation.

In a survey of distinct linguistic or culture regions in west central Africa Wyatt MacGaffey has made a case for a macro tradition that "is simultaneously political, economic, and religious, and consists of institutions as well as mere ideas" (p. 17). This tradition involves cosmologies that deploy a series of complementary oppositions, concern for fertility and the power of ritual to order what has become disordered. 

The tradition extends to southern India, probably carried there by the ancient Sudanese (Sudra). This is why we find among the Dravidians "not only the complementary opposition of purity and impurity but also the importance of the principle of reproduction." [2] The Sudanese view of the complementarity of gender roles assigns firm structure to males and softness and fluidity to females. The Sudanese are largely Nubian. Their genetic marker indicates that they migrated north from southern Africa. [3]

Let 's consider some examples from the Bible, a record of the beliefs of ancient Afroasiatic peoples.

The western Afroasiatics (Afro-Arabians who lived in Sudan, Egypt and Palestine) venerated the Sun as the Deity's emblem/chariot.  Because the Sun rises in the east, they faced the east in prayer and built their shrines, temples and pyramids facing east. This is what it means to be rightly “oriented.”  To face the opposite direction would be to turn your back on the ascending God. This is why the altars in the older churches were against the east wall and the priest celebrated facing east with his back to the congregation.

Now we can understand why the western Afroasiatics thought the Chaldeans and Babylonians were confused because they venerated the Moon. Since the Moon merely reflects the Sun's light, it is a lesser entity. Why would we want to venerate a lesser entity?  Abraham's father was accused of being an idol worshiper (Joshua 24:2) because he lived in the region of Ur and Haran where people worshipped Sin, the moon god.

Another example involves the distinction between heat and cool.  Abraham was visited “in the heat of the day” by God in 3 Persons (Gen. 18:1). Compare this to the binary opposite of “in the cool of the day”, the time of God’s visitation to Adam and Eve in Paradise (Gen. 3:8). Why are the two accounts posed as hot and cool encounters with God? Because in the first God has come to punish the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and in the second God has come to enjoy fellowship with the Man and the Woman.

Bible verses which forbid sowing 2 types of seed in the same field, weaving 2 types of fabric in the same garment, and boiling a baby goat in its mother's milk - speak of the necessity of not blurring the distinctions God has created in nature. The last is especially troublesome because the offspring is consumed in the life-giving mother's milk.

The prohibition against mixing types, be they fibers, seeds or blood, is like the prohibition against confusing the holy with the unholy, or blurring the distinction between life and death, such as happens when a baby goat is boiled in its mother's milk (forbidden 3 places in Scripture). That is why each seed is to go to its own kind. As plants are born from the earth, so the seeds of plants return to the earth. As the man is born from the woman, so the seed/semen of man is to return to woman. The spilling of seed called 'onanism' was regarded as an evil deed, a violation of the order of creation and therefore an affront to the Creator. So obviously was homosex.

Bloods were never permitted to mix or even to be present in the same space. For example, men were not permitted in the birthing hut. Women (and many men also) were not permitted where animals were sacrificed. This is why women were never priests and why in church tradition they waited 40 days to return to church, following the ancient custom requiring purification after shedding blood.

Ancient peoples recognized a fixed order in creation. The male is larger and generally stronger than the female. The male is equipped for war and hunting while the female is equipped for cultivation and childbirth. This leads us to the distinction between the blood shed by men and the blood shed by women. Male "blood work" was expressed in hunting, war, execution of lawbreakers, and in animal sacrifice by the rulers, priests or prophets.

The blood work of women is supplementary to the blood work of men. Women sacrifice blood in first marital intercourse. They bleed in their monthly cycle and in childbirth. The blood shed by women represents life and is distinct yet supplementary to the blood shed by men.

To understand the biblical worldview we must grasp the supplementary nature of the binary opposites. Male and females are supplementary (to use Jacques Derrida's term). Supplementary means that meaning is derived from the relationship of the opposites. According to the brilliant English philosopher, Elizabeth Anscombe, I recognize hateful acts as evil because I have experience of loving acts and know them to be good. The reverse is also true. The male-female relationship has meaning because of the supplementary nature of male-female. 
 
In November 1982, Anthropologist Janice Boddy's fascinating essay on Pharaonic circumcision appeared in American Ethnologist. The essay was titled "Womb as Oasis: The symbolic context of Pharaonic circumcision in rural Northern Sudan" (Vol.9, pgs. 682-698). Here Boddy sets forth her research on Pharaonic circumcision among the Sudanese. Among the Sudanese the practice of female circumcision parallels the circumcision of males and emphasizes the binary distinction (and therefore the supplementary nature) between females and males.

Boddy explains: "In this society women do not achieve social recognition by becoming like men, but by becoming less like men physically, sexually, and socially. Male as well as female circumcision rites stress this complementarity. Through their own operation, performed at roughly the same age as when girls are circumcised (between five and ten years), boys become less like women: while the female reproductive organs are covered, that of the male is uncovered. Circumcision, then, accomplishes the social definition of a child's sex by removing physical characteristics deemed appropriate to his or her opposite: the clitoris and other external genitalia, in the case of females, the prepuce of the penis, in the case of males" (Boddy, pg. 688).

Among Abraham's people it was taboo to allow distinct entities to become confused. This is why both men and women were circumcised, a custom that continues in many parts of Africa. Male circumcision is seen as an enhancement of maleness and the complement to the circumcised male could only be a circumcised female.

Today to speak about female circumcision is to stir the anger of feminists who call it "genital mutiliation." To speak about the binary distinctions inevitably draws fire from gay activists. To suggest that the binary opposites are important for the very survival of humanity is to invite ridicule. Yet, this is how the ancients made sense of their world and their thinking informs us even today through the Bible, Law, Moral Codes, and Ethics.


Related reading: Levi-Strauss and Derrida on Binary Oppositions; Ethics and Binary Oppositions; The Binary Aspect of the Biblical Worldview; Ethics and Ancient Cosmology; The Importance of Binary Distinctions; Binary Sets in the Ancient World; Circumcision and Binary Distinctions; Blood and Binary Distinctions


NOTES

1. The title of Claude Lévi-Strauss' study of the mythology of tribal groups in Brazil is titled The Raw and the Cooked. Here he explores the binary features of primitive cosmology and narrative.

2. B. Pfaffenberger, Caste in Tamil Culture: the religious foundations of Sudra domination in Tamil Sri Lanka, reviewed in JSTOR, Dec. 1983, pp. 805-806.

3. mtDNA analysis in ancient Nubians supports the existence of gene flow between sub-Sahara and North Africa in the Nile valley. Read the Abstract of Lucotte's study here. to read Lucotte's study go here.


For the Lesson Two Discussion Topic, go here.