Chapter II. The Creation of the Earth and Man

Man’s Dominion

“Let them have dominion.”

The garden being prepared in Eden, the Lord placed the man there whom He had formed. It was there the “deep sleep” came over him, and he first beheld his bride. They were now settled in Paradise; and, protected by its enclosure from the intrusion of the inferior creatures, they passed their days in blissful tranquillity; innocent of transgression, and in peaceful harmony with God and the creatures He had made. Adam dressed the garden and kept it. This was his occupation. Though as yet sinless, it was no part of his enjoyments to be idle. To eat bread in the sweat of the face is sorrowful; but to work without toil is an element of health and cheerfulness; and is doubtless the rule of life to all the intelligences of the universe of God. p. 63 But he was not simply an inhabitant of the Paradise, placed there “to dress and keep it.” The work before him was to begin the replenishing, and subjugation of the earth. For in the blessing pronounced upon them, God said, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” The material was all before him. The earth was to be peopled; and the culture of the garden, as the model of improvement, to be extended as his posterity spread themselves over its surface.

This command to “replenish the earth” strengthens my previous conclusion, that the earth had been inhabited at some period anterior to the creation of the six days; and that its population had been all swept away by a catastrophe similar to the Noachic flood. That “replenish” means to fill the earth again, is manifest from the use of the word in the blessing pronounced upon Noah. As it is written, “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth’” There is no room for dispute here. Every one must admit that it signifies to fill again; for, having been filled by Adam, all his posterity, except eight persons, were swept away by the deluge; and Noah and his sons were to supply their place, or refill it, as at this day. I see. therefore, no good reason why the same word should not be similarly interpreted in both cases; which I have concluded to do.^a

Man’s conquests in a sinless state were to be over rocks, mountains, seas, and rivers, by which he might subdue them to his own convenience and enjoyment; and, perhaps, had he continued innocent of transgression until his mission was accomplished; that is, until by his fruitfulness he had filled the earth again with people, and had subdued it from its natural wildness to a paradisaic state—his nature would have been exalted to an equality with the Elohim: and the earth, without any violent changes, have become his dwelling place for ever. But, the Creator foreseeing that man would transgress, laid the foundation of the earth upon such principles as would afterwards accommodate it to his altered circumstances. Had He foreseen a result different from what has actually come to pass, He would, doubtless, have framed or constituted it with reference to that result. But, while He did not necessitate man’s transgression, His plan was to constitute a natural world with reference to it as its basis; and then, on the other hand, without necessitating man’s obedience, to constitute a spiritual, or incorruptible, order of things upon the earth, having an intelligent and voluntary conformity to His precepts, as the foundation upon which it should be built. This, then, is the present order of things. Man is replenishing the earth and subduing it. He is reducing it from its natural wildness. Subduing land and sea to the convenience of nations; p. 64 and subjugating, likewise, the wild creatures of his own species to law and order, and exterminating the untameable;—he is preparing the world for an advance to a more exalted,, yet not perfect, state, which the Man from heaven shall introduce, and establish; not, however, upon the destruction of nature and society,,but upon the improvement of the first, and the regeneration of the last; which shall continue for a thousand years, as the intermediate state between the present purely animal and natural, and the final purely spiritual, or incorruptible, and unchangeable constitution of the globe.

In carrying his mission into effect, it was necessary that the animal man should have dominion. He was too feeble to execute it without assistance; and there was no source from which he could receive voluntary aid. It was needful, therefore, that he should receive power by which he could compel the co-operation he required. For this reason, as well as for his own defence against the inconvenient familiarity of the inferior creatures with their lord, God gave him dominion over them all. “Have dominion,” said He, “over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” This was the charter of man’s sovereignty over flesh and blood. Himself the king, and all living creatures the subjects of his dominion. As to his own species, however, he was permitted to be neither a law to himself, nor to his fellows.

The right of man to exercise lordship over his fellow-man beyond the circle of his own family, was not granted to him “by the grace of God.” God’s grace only conferred upon him what I have already stated. Even his domestic sovereignty was to cease, when the time came for one to leave father and mother. After this separation, all paternal rule ended, and the only bondage which continued was the yoke of affection. Man rules in his family by the grace of God, which says, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord; for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with a promise; that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long in the land.” This obedience is founded on the fitness of things; but even this is not enjoined absolutely. It is only “parents in the Lord,” who have a divine right to expect unqualified obedience from the Christian children of their household. If parents not in the Lord, require their children to do contrary to, or to abstain from doing, His will, obedience should be firmly, but affectionately, refused. This would probably produce trouble and division in the family, if the parent were an uncultivated man of the flesh, or a bigot. In that case, he would behave like a tyrant, and endeavour to coerce them to obey him, rather than their conviction of the truth; whose nature it is to divide between flesh and spirit, sinners and saints, and to create a man’s foes out of the members of his own household.^a But such p. 65 children should remember that “it is better to obey God than man”;^a and that he that loves parents more than Jesus, is not worthy of him. Better leave the paternal roof as an outcast, than to dishonour him by preferring their laws to his.

If man’s domestic sovereignty be thus qualified and limited by the grace of God, shall we say that He conferred on man “a divine right” to govern his species in its spiritual and civil concerns? To found kingdoms and empires, and to invent religions as a means of imparting durability to their thrones? What God permits and regulates is one thing; and what He appoints is another. He permits thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, to exist; He regulates them, setting over them the basest of men,^b if such answer His intentions best; prevents them circumventing His purposes; and commands His saints to “be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves punishment. For the magistrates are not a terror to good deeds, but to the evil. * * * Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is a servant of God unto that which is good for thee.”^c

God did not commission man to set up these powers. All He required of him was to obey whatsoever He chose to appoint. But, when man became a rebel, his rebellious spirit was transmitted to his posterity; and, refusing to be governed by the grace of God, they founded dominions of their own, upon principles which were utterly subversive of the government of God upon the earth. He could as easily have quashed their treasonable proceedings as He stopped the building of Babel; but in His wisdom He chose rather to give them scope, and to subject their usurpations to such regulations as would in the end promote His own glory and their confusion. Therefore it is that Paul says every power is of God; and the powers that be are ordained of Him. This is matter of great consolation and rejoicing to His saints; for, though the tyrants may propose, it is God only that disposes events. The saints who understand the word will keep aloof from politics. None are more interested in them than they; but they will mix themselves up neither with one party nor another; for God regulates them all: therefore to be found in any such strife would be to contend in some way or other against Him. The servant of the Lord must not strive, except “for the faith once delivered to the saints.” For this he is commanded to “contend earnestly,”^d because such a contention is to “fight the good fight of faith,” and to “lay hold on eternal life.”

In the beginning, then, God reserved to Himself the right of dominion over the human race. He gave it not to Adam, nor to p. 66 his posterity; but claimed the undivided sovereignty over all man’s concerns for Himself by right of creation; and for him whom He might ordain as His representative upon earth. All the kingdoms that have, or do exist, with the exception of the Commonwealth of Israel, are based upon the usurpation of the rights of God, and of His Son Jesus Christ; nor is there a king or queen, pope or emperor, among the Gentiles, who reigns “by the grace of God.” They reign by the same grace, or favour, by which sin reigns over the nations. They have no favour in the eyes of God. He bears with them for a time: and makes use of them as His sword to maintain order among the lawless; until His gracious purposes in favour of His saints shall be manifested, according to the arrangement of the times He has disposed. Then “will his saints be joyful in glory; and the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand: to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the Lord.”^a

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

“Out of the ground made the Lord God to grow the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil.”

These are the most remarkable trees that have ever appeared in the vegetable kingdom. They were “pleasant to the sight, and good for food.” This, however, is all that is said about their nature and appearance. They would seem to have been the only trees of their kind; for, if they had been common, Eve’s desire to taste the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, and their inclination to eat of that of the Tree of Life, could have been gratified by eating of other similar trees. What the fruits were we cannot tell; nor is it important to know. Supposition says, that the Tree of Knowledge was an apple tree; but testimony makes no deposition on the subject; therefore we can believe nothing in the case.

These trees, however, are interesting to us, not on account of their natural characteristics, but because of the interdict which rested upon them. Adam and Eve were permitted to take freely of all the other trees in the garden, “but of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil,” said the Lord God, “thou shalt not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”^b Naturally, it was as good for food as any other tree; but, as soon as the Lord God laid His interdict upon it, its fruit became death to the eater; not instant death, however, for their eyes were to be opened,^c and they were to become as the p. 67 gods, or Elohim, being acquainted with good and evil even as they.^a The final consequence of eating of this tree being death, it may be styled the Tree of Death in contradistinction to the Tree of Life. Decay of body, and consequent termination of life, ending in corruption, or mortality, was the attribute which this fatal tree was prepared to bestow upon the individual who should presume to touch it.

In the sentence “Thou shalt surely die,” death is mentioned in the Bible for the first time. But Adam lived several centuries after he had eaten of the tree, which has proved a difficulty in the definition of the death there indicated, hitherto insuperable upon the principles of the creeds. Creed theology paraphrases the sentence thus—“In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die figuratively, thine immortal soul becoming liable to the pains of hell for ever; and thy body shall die literally afterwards.” But, it is very evident to one unspoiled by the philosophy of the creeds, that this interpretation is not contained in the text. The obscurity which creates the difficulty does not lie in the words spoken, but in the English version of them. The phrase “in the day” is supposed to mean that on the very day itself upon which Adam transgressed, he was to die in some sense. But this is not the use of the phrase even in the English of the same chapter. For in the fourth verse of the second chapter, it is written, “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew.” This, we know, was the work of six days; so that “in the day” is expressive of that period. But in the text before us, the same phrase represents a much longer period, for Adam did not die until he was 930 years old; therefore, the day in which he died did not terminate till then.

But it may be objected that the day in the text must be limited to the day of the eating; because it says, “in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die:” and as he was not eating of it 930 years, but only partook of it once on a certain natural day, it cannot mean that long period. But I am not prepared to admit that the physical action of eating is the only eating indicated in the text. Adam fed upon the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge all the time from his eating of the natural fruit until he died. The natural fruit in its effect was figurative of the fruit of transgressing the interdict, which said, “Thou shalt not eat of it.” The figurative fruit was of a mixed character. It was “good,” or pleasant to the flesh; but “evil” in its consequences. “By the law,” says the apostle, “is the knowledge of sin;” for “sin is the transgression of law.”^b Sin is pleasant to the flesh; because the deeds forbidden are natural to it. It is that “good” fruit which the animal man delights to eat. The flesh, the eyes, and life, have p. 68 all their desires, or lusts, which, when gratified, constitute the chiefest good that men under their dominion seek after.

But God has forbidden indulgence in these lusts. He says, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.”^a And again, “The friendship of the world is enmity with God. Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God:”^b and, “If ye live after the flesh ye shall die.”^c This language is unmistakable. To indulge, then, in the lawless pleasures, which “sinful flesh” terms “good,” is to “bring forth sin,”^d or to bear fruit unto death; because “the wages of sin is death.”^e “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to the flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption.”^f All “the ills that flesh is heir to” make up the “evil,” which has come upon man as the result of transgressing the law of God, which said to Adam, “Thou shalt not eat thereof.” The fruit of his eating was the gratification of his flesh in the lusts thereof, and the subjection of himself and posterity to the “evil” of eating of the cursed ground in sorrow all the days of their lives.^g

All the posterity of Adam, when they attain the age of puberty, and their eyes are in the opening crisis, begin to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil. Previous to that natural change, they are in their innocency. But, thenceforth, the world, as a serpent-entwined fruit tree, stands before the mind, enticing it to take and eat, and enjoy the good things it affords. To speculate upon the lawfulness of compliance is partly to give consent. There must be no reasoning upon the harmlessness of conforming to the world. Its enticements without, and the sympathizing instincts of the flesh within, must be instantly suppressed; for, to hold a parley with its lusts, is dangerous. When one is seduced by “the deceitfulness of sin,” “he is drawn away of his own lusts, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin when it is finished, bringeth forth death:”^h in other words, he plucks the forbidden fruit, and dies, if not forgiven.

Furthermore, the sentence “Thou shalt surely die,” is proof that the phrase “in the day” relates to a longer period than the day of the natural eating. This was not a sentence to be consummated in a moment, as when a man is shot or guillotined. It required time; for the death threatened was the result, or finishing, of a certain process; which is very clearly indicated in the original Hebrew. In this language the phrase is muth temuth, p. 69 which literally rendered is, DYING THOU SHALT DIE.^a The sentence, then, as a whole reads thus—“In the day of thy eating from it dying thou shalt die.” From this reading, it is evident, that Adam was to be subjected to a process, but not to an endless process; but to one which should commence with the transgression, and end with his extinction. The process is expressed by muth, dying; and the last stage of the process by temuth, thou SHALT DIE.

This view is fully sustained by the paraphrase found in the following words:—“Cursed is the ground for thy sake: in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread TILL thou return into the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.”^b The context of this informs us, that Adam having transgressed, had been summoned to trial and judgment for the offence. The Lord God interrogated him, saying, “Hast thou eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” Adam confessed his guilt, which was sufficiently manifest before by his timidity, and shame at his nakedness. The offence being proved, the Judge then proceeded to pass sentence upon the transgressors. This He did in the order of transgression; first upon the Serpent; then upon Eve; and lastly upon Adam, in the words of the text. In these, the ground is cursed, and the man sentenced to a life of sorrowful labour, and to a resolution into his original and parent dust. The terms in which the last particular of his sentence is expressed, are explanatory of the penalty annexed to the law. “Thou shalt return into the ground,” and, “Unto dust shalt thou return,” are phrases equivalent to “dying thou shalt die.” Hence, the divine interpretation of the sentence, “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” is “In the day of thy eating all the days of thy life of sorrow, returning thou shalt return into the dust of the ground whence thou wast taken.” Thus, “dying,” in the meaning of the text, is to be the subject of a sorrowful, painful, and laborious existence, which wears a man out, and brings him down to the brink of the grave; and, by “die,” is signified the end, or last stage, of corporeal existence, which is marked by a ceasing to breathe, and decomposition into dust. Thus, man’s life from the womb to the grave is a dying existence; and, so long as he retains his form, as in the case of Jesus in the sepulchre, he is existent in death; for what is termed being is corporeal existence in life and death. The end of our being is the end of that process by which we are resolved into dust—we cease to be. This was Adam’s state, if we may so speak, before he was created. He had no being. And at this non-existence he arrived after a lapse of 930 years from his formation; and thus were practically illusp. 70trated the penalty of the law and the sentence of the Judge. For from the day of his transgression, he began his pilgrimage to the grave, at which he surely arrived. He made his couch in the dust, and saw corruption; and with its mother earth commingled all that was known as Adam, the federal head, and chief father of mankind.

Tree of Life

“Eat and live for ever.”

This was planted “in the midst of the garden.” It was also a fruit-bearing tree. It would seem to have been as accessible as the Tree of Knowledge; for after the man had eaten of this, he was driven out of the garden that he might not touch that likewise. Its fruit, however, was of a quality entirely opposite to that of which they had eaten. Both trees bore good fruit; but that of the Tree of Life had the quality of perpetuating the living existence of the eater for ever. This appears from the testimony of Moses, who reports that after the transgressors had received judgment, “the Lord God said, Behold the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Tree of Life, and eat and live for ever: therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground whence he was taken.”^a From this, we learn that the Lord God had instituted this tree to give life, and that Adam was aware of what would result from eating of its fruit. It is probable that, had he been obedient to the law of the Tree of Knowledge, he would have been permitted to eat of the Tree of Life, after he had fulfilled his destiny as an animal man; and, instead of dying away into dust, have been “changed in the twinkling of an eye,” as Enoch was; and as they are to be who shall be ready for the Lord at his coming. But of this we can say nothing certain, because nothing is testified on the subject; and beyond the testimony our faith cannot go, though opinion and credulity may.

If, then, Adam had eaten of the Tree of Life, he would have been changed from a living soul into a soul capable of living for ever: and not only capable, but it would seem, that being immortal, the Lord God would have permitted him to remain so. For, we are not to suppose, that, if a thing become capable of undecaying existence, therefore its creator cannot destroy it; consequently, if Adam as a sinner had eaten of the Tree of Life, his immortality would have been only permitted, and not necessitated contrary to the power of the Lord God.

To have permitted Adam and Eve to become deathless and to remain so, in a state of good and evil such as the world experiences, would have been a disproportionate and unmerciful punishp. 71ment. It would have been to populate the earth with deathless sinners; and to convert it into the abode of deathless giants in crime; in other words, the earth would have become, what creed theologians describe “hell” to be in their imagination. The good work of the sixth day would then have proved a terrible mishap, instead of the nucleus of a glorious manifestation of divine wisdom and power. But a world of undying sinners in a state of good and evil, was not according to the divine plan. This required first the sanctification of sinners; then their probation; and afterwards, their exaltation, or humiliation, according to their works. Therefore, lest Adam should invert this order, and “put on immortality” before he should be morally renewed, or purified from sin, and the moral likeness of God be formed in him again; the Lord God expelled him from the dangerous vicinity of the Tree of Life. He drove him forth that he should not then become incorruptible and deathless.

The first intimation of immortality for man is contained in the text before us. But, in this instance it eluded his grasp. He was expelled “lest he should eat, and live for ever.” It was because immortality belonged to this tree; or rather, was communicable by or through it to the eater, that it was styled etz ha-chayim, that is, the Tree of the Lives; for that is its name when literally rendered. The phrase “of the lives” is particularly appropriate; for it was the tree of endless life both to Adam and Eve, if permitted to eat of it. If the world enticing to sin, be fitly represented by the serpent-entwined tree, imparting death to its victim, Christ, who “has overcome the world,”^a as the giver of life to his people, is well set forth by the other tree in the midst of the garden; which was a beautiful emblem of the incarnated power and wisdom^b of the Deity, planted as the Tree of Life in the future Paradise of God.^c

Man in His Novitiate

“God made man upright.”

When the work of the six days was completed, the Lord God reviewed all that He had made, and pronounced it “very good.” This quality pertained to everything terrestrial. The beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, reptiles, and man, were all “very good”; and all made up a natural system of things, or world, as perfect as the nature of things required. Its excellency, however, had relation solely to its physical quality. Man, though “very good,” was so only as a piece of divine workmanship. He was made different from what he afterwards became. Being made in the image, after the likeness of the Elohim, he was “made upright.” He had no conscience of evil; for he did not know what it was. He was p. 72 neither virtuous, nor vicious; holy, nor unholy; but in his beginning simply innocent of good or evil deeds. Being without a history, he was without character. This had to be developed; and could only be formed for good or evil, by his own independent action under the divine law. In short, when Adam and Eve came forth from the hand of their potter, they were morally in a similar condition to a new-born babe; excepting that a babe is born under the constitution of sin, and involuntarily subjected to “vanity;”^a while they first beheld the light in a state of things where evil had as yet no place. They were created in the stature of a perfect man and woman; but with their sexual feelings undeveloped; in ignorance, and without experience.

The interval between their formation and the transgression was the period of their novitiate. The Spirit of God had made them; and during this time, “the inspiration of the Almighty was giving them understanding.”^b In this way, knowledge was imparted to them. It became power, and enabled them to meet all the demands of their situation. Thus, they were “taught of God,” and became the depositories of those arts and sciences, in which they afterwards instructed their sons and daughters, to enable them to till the ground, tend the flocks and herds, provide the conveniences of life, and subdue the earth.

Guided by the precepts of the Lord God, his conscience continued good, and his heart courageous. “They were naked, both the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”^c They were no more abashed than children in their nudity; for, though adults in stature, yet, being in the infancy of nature, they stood before the Elohim and in the face of one another, without embarrassment. This fact was not accidentally recorded. As we shall see hereafter, it is a clue, as it were, given to enable us to understand the nature of the transgression.

While in the state of good unmixed with evil, were Adam and Eve mortal or immortal? This is a question which presents itself to many who study the Mosaic account of the origin of things. It is an interesting question, and worthy of all attention. Some hastily reply, they were mortal; that is, if they had not sinned they would nevertheless have died. It is probable they would after a long time, if no further change had been operated upon their nature. But the Tree of Life seems to have been provided, for the purpose of this change being effected, through the eating of its fruit, if they had proved themselves worthy of the favour. The animal nature will sooner or later dissolve. It was not constituted so as to continue in life for ever, independent of any further modification. We may admit, therefore, the corruptibility, and consequent mortality, of their nature, without saying that they were mortal. The inherent tendency of their nature to death would have been arrested; and they would have been changed as Enoch and Elijah were; and p. 73 as they of whom Paul says, “We shall not all die.” The “we” here indicated possess an animal, and therefore corruptible nature; and, if not “changed,” would surely die: but inasmuch as they are to “be changed in the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet,” though corruptible, they are not mortal. In this sense, therefore, I say, that in their novitiate, Adam and his betrothed had a nature capable of corruption, but were not subject to death, or mortal. The penalty was “dying thou shalt die;” that is, “You shall not be permitted to eat of the Tree of Life in arrest of dissolution; but the inherent tendency of your animal nature shall take its course, and return you to the dust whence you originally came.” Mortality was in disobedience as the wages of sin, and not a necessity.

But, if they were not mortal in their novitiate, it is also true that they were not immortal. To say that immortals were expelled from the garden of Eden, that they might not live for ever by eating of the tree, is absurd. The truth is in few words, man was created with a nature endued with certain susceptibilities. He was capable of death; and capable of endless life; but, whether he should merge into mortality; or, by a physical change be clothed with immortality, was predicated on his choosing to do good or evil. Capacity must not be confounded with impletion. A vessel may be capable of holding a pint of fluid; but it does not therefore follow that there is a pint in it, or any at all. In the Paradise of Eden, mortality and immortality were set before the man and his companion. They were external to them. They were to avoid the former, and seek after the latter, by obedience to the law of God. They were capable of being filled with either; but with which depended upon their actions: for immortality is the end of holiness,^a without which no man can see the Lord.

We meet with no traces in the Mosaic history of ceremonial observances, or religious worship, pertaining to the novitiate. To rest one day in seven; believe that the Lord God would perform His word if they transgressed; and to abstain from touching the Tree of Knowledge, was all their gracious benefactor required. There was no “religion” in the garden of Eden—no sacrifices, or offerings; for sin was as yet a stranger there. Their tenure of the Paradise was predicated upon their abstinence from sin; so that it could be forfeited only by transgression of the law of the Lord.