Posts Tagged ‘genesis’

Garden of Eden

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 18

Fred Mayers

Genesis II, v. 8 to 14.

-v.8: “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.

v.9: “And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” (English A.V.)

The very words of the title of this chapter, “Garden of Eden.” act upon us like a magic spell. In a moment we are children again, and imagination transports us to a happy, wonderful land, which in a far back time- (the writer is an old man, now)-we loved to hear about, to picture to ourselves, and-yes!-to live and play in. We saw Adam and Eve as two loving and delightful human beings, young, innocent and happy, just fresh from the hands of the loving God Who made them. More angelic than human they seemed; God had created them so pure and perfect that clothes were as blissfully unnecessary to them as to children dancing about the sands or splashing in the tiny wavelets on a bright summer day at the seaside. We never dreamed of Eden as anything else than “sunshine-land.” No winter ever came there to make anyone -shiver, no mist or fog, no thunder or lightning, no east wind from Siberian plains, no tornadoes or angry seas were ever thought of in Eden. They were things that would feel them-selves ashamed and quite out of place in angel company. They could only feel “at home in some world where they could find things of their own natures living in the hearts and thoughts of men and women ;-and Eden was only for angels-and children. And, though no “rains descended” or “floods came” there, there were countless laughing, sparkling, babbling streams to play by, and to make the trees and fields happy. There was no night there, nor was anyone ever tired; and the warm sun never browned the trees or scorched up the grass, which was always green and soft as a glorious silken velvet carpet stuffed with flower jewels. Even the wonderful jewelled carpet of the Maharajah of Baroda, the whole surface of which was of emeralds, diamonds, rubies, topazes, etc., could not compare with Eden.

The flower trees always blossomed; the fruit trees were always laden, and the fruit was never “out of reach.” Then there were “living” creatures” as well. The great shaggy lions browsed contentedly among the cattle and sheep in the meadows and let us mount and ride them-like Una. The faun and the rabbit had not learned to be timid and run away. The little lizards swarmed in the sunniest spots. The Scorpion made us laugh at his acrobatic contortions ; the pretty ringed or spotted snakes, or the king cobra (as in Arnold’s charming little poem) nestled up to the children to be fondled and played with; they had no poison fangs in Eden, and they never hissed in anger. Great butterflies and dragon-flies, more brilliant than any rainbow, danced around us, or alighted on our fingers. Everything was happy in that Golden Paradise, which we children created in our vivid young imaginative souls, as we listened to the simple Genesis narrative. Truly, we had only listened, thus far, to one small part of the narrative. There were clouds over the picture later, and tears in our souls, as we heard how that Paradise was “lost.” We grieved for what had been-but never could be again. So, even while we were listening to the story we were passing swiftly from the happy innocence of early childhood to the disillusionments, the sorrows, the uneasy consciences of mature life. The story was giving the condensed essence of human history, the history both of every individual human being, and of humanity universally, throughout the ages. From the very nature of the case the child’s interest centres in the ‘dream” picture evoked by the first verses of the narrative. and the man’s in the disillusionment that follows. The “Eden” which delights the child’s mind – even if it is purely imaginary -is but a mocking mirage to the man who has eaten much of the “fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”-This is the fruit of no mystic “tree” to the grown man; it is just the hard facts of life-and the consciousness of sin.-He has, really, no need to analyse or dissect the story; he knows that he lives it-every man knows.

But is the story just a fabulous presentation of something that can give a swiftly-passing happiness to a child, and long regret to man? We will see. We will take the story, step by step, just as we have it, without seeking to forestall any portion. On the results we arrive at, by the time we have worked our way through the whole story, will probably depend the whole attitude of our souls to the God of the Hebrew and the Christian revelations.

In the first place. let us see just exactly what the original text tells us about the “garden” itself. The first part of verse 8, in the English Version, says that “Ihoah Elohim planted a garden eastward in Eden. The words which are in heavier type need to be studied in some detail to get at the deeper meaning they convey. The word translated “planted” is, in the original, “itta.” The root of the word is “ta” or “taw.” We may mention in passing that when attempting to give in English letters in approximate sound of the Hebrew, it is not possible to use the same equivalents in every case. The sounds vary-as they do in English. In the case of the Hebrew letter “ayin,” there is no equivalent in European languages. It is just a very soft guttural sound. It may sometimes be sounded like a soft “A” or “ah”; sometimes it is silent, or coalesces in an adjoining letter. When it begins a word or syllable the Greeks represented it by a guttural “G,” and the Latin and English translators followed their example, as in “Gaza” or “Gomorrah.” The nearest equivalent that suggests itself to the present writer is the “w” in our word “whole” (as it is usually pronounced); so sometimes he indicates its sound by “wh.” In any case, the “w” sound is practically inaudible. Considered hieroglyphically, the letter “ayin” is known as the material” sign.” It always suggests something of a more or less “material” nature or application. If this is kept in mind it will help us greatly in interpreting a large number of Hebrew words. To return to the root “tah.” This root, composed of the sign “teth,” which denotes “persistence,” preservation,” “tenacity.” etc. and the “ayin” which, as we have just said, conveys the idea of something “material,” therefore has the meaning of something “persisting” or “enduring in a material sense.” When it is used in a metaphorical way, it denotes “obstinacy” or “hardness of character.” When the root is extended or “generalised” by affixing the final “M,” it comes to mean “experience,” “sensation,” “habit” (good or bad), “custom,” etc. Therefore, the basic idea of the word “ittah” is to give something a more or less permanent, material form; to “set out” or “appoint.”

The next word, “garden,” is “gan.” All scholars are agreed that this word means an “enclosure,” so we need not discuss it so fully. The Samaritan Bible, which was the earliest of all translations from the original, translated it by “paradise,” a word which in Samaritan dialect means literally a “protective enclosure.” (“Pardesh” or “Fardesh.”) Note also, in Gaelic: “Pharaish.” The word at once suggested the walled gardens of Persia, (the name “Persia” is close akin to “Paradise.” The “P” is soft, “ph” or “F.” “Fars.” The “Parsees” are the “Farsi,”) and they in their turn with their formal lay-out, their water channels, flower beds and tree borders, in which wealthy Persians and their women-folk passed their luxurious existence, went far to build up the “Paradise” idea which became universally synonymous with the “Garden of Eden.” But the real basic idea of the word “gan” is that of an “enclosure”; some-thing, the bounds of which were marked out; something well-ordered; a “sphere of activity” in a material sense.

The root “gan” happens to be one that has survived with its original significance to our own times in several languages. For instance, we have it-in the sense of an “envelope” or “protection” in the English word “gown”; in the French “gaine”; in the Italian “gonna”; and, perhaps most significantly of all in the word “organ”-an “organ” being an organised local medium in and through which any of our faculties act. Even in its use as the name of a musical instrument, there is the same idea of a “means of expression.”

In our present text the “gan” denotes some sphere or environment in which Adam was to work; a “sphere of activity” in the “material” sense, i.e., a state of existence in time and space. Until Adam was “placed” in that “garden,” he existed only in spiritual realms. This will become clear beyond all doubts as we proceed.

The word translated “eastward”- “m’kedem,” seems to have been misunderstood entirely by the translators. Quite literally is simply means: “from before,” but apparently they thought the word “before” must apply to the position of the garden. Delitzsch, in his commentary, shows clearly enough that he knew the proper meaning of the word, but he still attempts to find an. excuse for the use of the word “eastward”-though it is certainly a most unsatisfactory one. The word really refers not to place but to time. Moses, like the Egyptian priests who were his early teachers, conceived “Eternity” from two points of view: (a) the eternity past, that measureless duration which was before measurable time existed; and (b) the eternity that will still be if time should end. There is, of course, but one Eternity, but we look back into it, and forward into it, from that ever-moving, and ever-measureless moment we call the present. What we look back to he calls “kedem.” What we look forward to he calls “wholam.” That M’kedem it is from which “Eden”-the sensible transitory sphere was extracted.

We now come to the word “aden.” The root “ad” denotes any period with limits. The word “whod” (note the initial “ayin” lately mentioned) means “still”; “until”; “the present time”; “the temporal”; what is sensible and transitory. The final “N,” added to the root, gives the meaning of “something which is given an existence of its own.” The whole expression “be-aden,” ,therefore means “in the sensible transitory sphere of activity.’

In that sphere of existence God “places the adam” He had formed. This last part of the verse presents no difficulty of interpretation. We have all that we need for a clear understanding of the true underlying meaning of the text. It is only necessary to keep in mind what has previously been explained, and note the close logical following on of each step in the narrative. When Adam is placed in Eden his activities in “time and space” commence. But, note carefully: adam is still a spiritual being, “formed” of the spiritual elements of the “adamah.” His physical body of “flesh and blood” has to be “evolved” by long processes that Science can tell us more about than the Bible thinks it necessary to. As we proceed we shall see, more and more, that what the Bible is really concerned with is man, and the mutual relationships between man and God.

Verse 9. The spiritual nature of what is recorded in this verse is so obvious, even in the literal, outward, surface translation of the English A.V., that it is difficult to conceive how anyone could possibly read into it the idea of a merely material garden and earthly trees. True, there are countless earthly trees that are “pleasant to the sight” and “good for food,” but what earthly tree ever existed on which “lives,” or the “knowledge of good and evil” grew?

It would have been impossible so to materialise and distort the meaning of the whole narrative had it not been for the unfortunate confusion of “ground”- “adamah,” with “earth” – “aretz”; the failure to see that the one was a spiritual term and the other material, and that they were used as contrasts and complementaries of one another. It was not in the “earth” that the trees of Eden grew. Spiritual trees, and spiritual qualities can only grow in spiritual soil. What the verse tells us perfectly plainly is that in the spiritual elements of man’s nature grows everything that can give him true pleasure, or that can provide for his spiritual sustenance and growth. More than that, it tells us that, in the very inmost of his spiritual activities, there was growing the “substance of lives”-the very reality of eternal life,-there was also the tree of the knowledge of good and evil – of which we shall hear more soon.

Most of the words in this verse have already been explained in previous chapters, but there is one word which needs some explanation. It is the word which has been translated “tree” in this place. It is “whetz.” In other places this word is given quite different meanings; for instance, as well as “tree” or “wood,” we find it has the meanings of “substance” and “counsel,” and in one case it refers to the “mortal remains” of a dead person. The explanation of this variety, of course, lies in the fact that the real meaning of the word is wide enough to cover all the different applications of it. “Whetz” (etz) denotes any organic or growing substance-whether material or spiritual This definition, if we consider it a little, will be seen to cover the various meanings given to the word. We have only to decide just how it applies in the present case. It is quite obvious that it cannot denote physical trees here; they do not grow in spirit realms. But there are such things as spiritual “trees”: Thought, Wisdom, Character, Disposition, etc. All those things are organic growths in our spiritual natures, and they form the individuality of our spirits. They are, truly, “trees” in the “garden” of human life – the life lived in the realm of time and space. Although “Adam” had been placed in this temporal sphere, as we have already said, he remained a spiritual being; his activities and his inner life were entirely spiritual, therefore he was still immortal.

Before closing this chapter we must add a note on the “tree of knowledge of good and evil.” The word “knowledge” is “d-ath.” It is based on the word “iad,” “hand,” conveying the idea of touching, handling, etc. By the addition of “ayin,” it becomes “iadah,” to know, perceive, feel, became aware of, etc. “Da-ath,” denotes knowledge obtained by actual personal, first-hand experience. One may, for instance, tell a child that “fire burns.” That statement in itself is not “knowledge” for the child; but if he puts it to the test and gets burned, he then has “knowledge” of the fact. That is the kind of knowledge that is envisaged in the present case.

The word “tob,” “good,” was explained in an earlier chapter. The root of the word applies to all ideas of conservation, inner integrity, healthiness, fruitfulness, anything which resists corruption (either in a literal or figurative sense). It also conveys a certain idea of permanence. When we were told that God considered His creative scheme “very good,” all the above ideas were suggested in the word.

The word “evil” is “rah.” This is the first mention of evil in the Bible. In this place, we will merely deal with the meaning of the word itself. Hieroglyphically it denotes any movement away from the spiritual and towards the material. The word is used for any physical or moral evil, for malignity, misfortune, vice, perversity, disorder, or anything bad.

The associated word “raa’h” (which has the same relation to “rah” as “adamah” has to “Adam”), denotes worldly care, trouble, annoyance, affliction, and from these significations by a process of association of ideas (not unknown in own language), it became applied to those who become caretakers of anything, or those who take upon themselves the care, or the cares and troubles of others. In this curious was it comes about that we actually find the word “evil” also used m the quite contradictory sense of a shepherd, a pastor, a helpful comrade. a “good Samaritan.” Incidentally, this throws an unexpected light on the verse: “HE was made sin for us, who know no sin.” The whole phrase: “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” means (as we can see from the above notes): the growing and spreading (tree-like) of actual, personal, experimental, knowledge of what is good and what is evil. The importance of the phrase lies in the fact that it is impossible for anyone to obtain that personal experience, that first-hand knowledge of good except by doing good or of evil except by doing evil. There will be more to say on this subject later.

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 19

The Fourfold River

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 19

Fred Mayers

Genesis II, v. 10 to 14.

v. 10: “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

v. 11: “And the name of the first is Pishon; that is it which encompasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

v. 12: “and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

v. 13: “And the name of the second river is Gihon; the same is it that encompasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

v. 14: “And the name of the third liver is Riddekel; that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria, and the fourth river is Euphrates.” (English A.V.)

At this point the narrative appears to “change the subject” rather abruptly, but as we proceed we shall see that there is really no break at all in the story, and that it is logically necessary that this section should be inserted just in this place.

If “Eden” were, as most commentators assume, a geographical district “in” which the “garden” was planted, this 10th verse certainly reads very strangely. It says: “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden”-the garden which we had been told had been planted in Eden! This is one of the many little difficulties which commentators, whose researches go no deeper than the skin of the narrative, have no explanations to offer for, and therefore pass over in prudent silence. If, however, we turn back to what was said about Eden in Chapter XVIII, we shall see that the question of place-position does not arise at all; we are dealing with a state of existence, a sphere of activity, in the finite realm of time and space. It is out of this state of existence that the so-called “river” proceeds; and the whole meaning of these four verses will appear, step by step, if we examine closely some of the principal words in them.

We will take first the word “river,” “nahar. The root of this word is “har.” This root is composed of the sign of “life,” “h,” and the sign of “movement,” “r”; it denotes quite simply a movement of the life force. The word “harah” means to bring forth life; pregnancy; and similar ideas. The prefix “n” denotes any particular thing. The word “nahar” means anything that moves along like a stream, a river, or a current, but it also includes the idea of something that carries life where it goes. So this river of Eden was a great stream of life-force. The word “to water”- “hishekah” was explained in the notes on verse 6. It means to make anything fertile or productive, or able to sustain life.

The “garden” or “enclosure” was the special sphere or environment in which humanity-i.e., “Adam -was to receive physical form, and to develop and, finally, to make human nature divine, in accordance with the creative purpose of God. What was that “special sphere or environment”? The answer is not far to seek. Astronomy tells us that (as far as we have any means of knowing) the earth, and the earth alone, of all the starry occupants of space, is physically suitable, or possible, as a dwelling for beings-living beings-having physical bodies such as those of men and women. The earth, through countless ages, had to be specially prepared and developed for that purpose. It had to become capable of providing sustenance for all physical life-forms; and in it these life-forms had to be evolved. All of this long preparation was the work of the spiritual stream of life-force ever flowing through and from the universe of time and space.

That stream, we are told, was in the first place ONE great general flow of life-force moving the whole material universe, but when it enters upon the special sphere of existence designed for the location of humanity, it is broken up and becomes four new “starting points” of separate streams of life-force-or of different types of life-force. The word which we have just rendered as “starting points” is, in the original, “reshim.” We explained the meaning of this word in our notes on the very first word of Genesis :- “b’reshith.” It means head, beginning, first, leader, chief, principal, etc. In Genesis I, v. 1, it denoted the principle underlying all creation. It does not mean a “branch”-as it would need to do, if the narrative, which we are considering, meant that the river of Eden simply branched off into four streams. The idea of the text is something quite different from that. It means that the stream of life-force became, so to speak. decomposed; certain elements or qualities in it were separated to follow independent courses, just as when white light passing through a glass prism is decomposed, and becomes the several coloured lights of the spectrum. The single stream, in our text, becomes four streams of differentiated forms of the original life-force. The narrative gives special symbolic names to three of these streams. Commentators have made desperate – we might say “pathetic”-attempts to identify these three “names” (to which they take the liberty of adding a fourth) with the names or characteristics of any rivers that exist. or ever have existed on the face of the earth. All such attempts have utterly failed. Delitzsch confirms that fact, if he fails to do anything else, in his Commentary. So we shall have to see what an examination of the names, and of what is told us about the respective streams, has to reveal to us.

Genesis II, v. 11 (English A.V.) says: “And the name of the first is Pishon : that is it which encompasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.” The root of the word “Pishon” is “ish.” This root conveys the idea of “reality,” of substantiality, or something that “IS.” Used in its simple form it corresponds exactly to the English word “is” “was,” “were,” according to the pronoun accompanying it. To this root “ish” is prefixed the sign “ph” or “f,” which denotes outward expression, speech, etc. That combination makes “phish” which means “to cause anything to become numerous, “to spread,” “to flourish,” “to open out” physically. Then the affix “on,” as we have shown before, augments or extends the meaning of the word to the fullest extent possible. It is quite obvious that this word Pishon (or Phishon) is a word specially “coined” by the writer of “Genesis” to express the idea he had in mind as, except when quoted, it is never found in use in any way in the language.

The symbolic name Pishon denotes some force which permeates all space. and the activity of which brings to outward, physical expression that which was created in idea, and given form in the spiritual realm only in the first case. Thus it denotes the means by which the physical plane of existence, and everything in the physical universe comes into being. Without Pishon, man could never have had an existence in a physical “flesh and blood” body – or a physical environment in which to become “fruitful and multiply.” The verse goes on to tell us that Pishon “encompasseth the whole land of Havilah.” The word translated “encompasseth” is “sobab.” One might translate this word by several different English words: surround”; “encompass”; “enclose”; “include”; “comprise.” They are all correct, and there is not much difference in their meaning but there is a little difference which makes one word more suitable than another in certain cases. The translators of the Bible chose the word “encompass” because they had started with the idea that they were dealing with an ordinary river running round a certain country. As soon as we get at the real meaning of the words: “land of Havilah,” we shall see that “includes” or “comprises” would have been more appropriate.

The word “land is aretz.” It means “land,” “earth,” “country,” “soil,” etc., in ordinary use. The deeper meaning of the word has been fully explained in earlier chapters, as the most material – the most outward expression of anything. In this verse it is applied to human activity, and the most “outward” of all human activity is physical activity in the physical realm, in ordinary life, in everyday work and occupations. This is quite clear from the meaning of “havilah.” This word is based on the root “hal,” “hol,” or “heel,” which relates to the idea of effort, tension, energy, virtual work, trial, physical activity, etc. The final “ah” in the word serves exactly the same purpose as the final “ah” in “adamah” and other words we have already discussed. Just as “adamah” represents the spiritual element from which “adam” is “formed,” so “havilah” denotes the conditions and means of activity in the physical realm. The word “havil” would cover all human activity, all outward expression, on the “earth” plane; all that demands effort, struggle. etc. II we, therefore, study with a little care these meanings of the words of the text, we can scarcely fail to see how completely one agrees with another and how logically they combine in support of the interpretation we are giving of the text.

But, to continue; the verse adds the statement that havilah was the “place of gold,” “sham-ha-tzahab.” “Sham ha-tzahab” would be more correctly translated by “there was the gold.” The word “place” is misleading. It really means that in the work accomplished was the “gold.” This is a very interesting little phrase. We pointed out in our notes to verse 4 that the author stated at the beginning of this narrative that it was symbolic”; so we know what to expect to find this phrase to be. Etymologically the word “tzahab” means “light’s reflection.” Gold has been very aptly described as “metallic sunshine.” It has also always been regarded as an emblem of what is good or valuable. There we have two suggestions as to the symbolism of the word here, and we have seen from the meaning of the word “havilah,” that it is applied here specially to human activity, to daily labour, to “the trivial round, the common task,” etc. We have also seen that “Light” and “Intelligence” are practically synonyms in the Bible. Is it not true that a man’s work is a very faithful “reflection” of his intelligence? In fact, what a man does, is a reflection of the whole man. Just as God is made manifest through His work, so is -man through his. And is not work-honest, faithful, true work, the very “gold” of life to man himself? The next verse goes on to state very definitely that it is : “the ‘gold’ of that land was good!” Of course the work of “Adam” in Eden was good! Although his activities were in the physical realm, the adam himself was still a spiritual being; he had not yet “fallen” and God had created him “good.”

There is some doubt as to whether verse 12 really formed part of the original text or not. It may have been a comment added by a scribe at some time. The style and language are not quite like those of the Mosaic writer. The words “beddolah” and “aeben ha-shoham,” for instance, are suggestive of the terms used by some of the Hermetic writers, and later, by some of the alchemists. The word “beddolah means a “mysterious dividing,” and “aeben ha-shoham” means, literally, “stone of universal sublimation.” No satisfactory explanation of their hidden meaning has yet been given, as far as the present writer is aware.

Verse 13. “And the name of the second river is Gichon.” Pishon, as we have seen, had to do with substances and realities – things and conditions. Gichon is concerned with types of activity-motive force, etc. It is that which determines any movement, change or activity in the material realm and material conditions. The root of the word “Gihon” is “gah” or “gach,” which denotes impulsion, inclination, or compulsion. The insertion of the “i” gives the word a “causative” signification; and the affix “on” makes it of general or universal application. The whole word denotes “force” of a mechanical, chemical. unreasoning, impulsive or instinctive nature, according to the medium in which it acts.

The remainder of the verse (in the English Version) tells us that Gihon “encompasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.” The Hebrew says. literally, “the whole earth cush.” In “Cush.” “ch,” is the assimilation sign equivalent to our words “as” or “like,” and the root “ish” denotes “fire” or “force.” “The whole earth cush” means the whole sphere of human work or effort. There is not the slightest justification whatever for identifying “cush” with Ethiopia, except that Ethiopia was sometimes called Cush. It is exactly on a par with identifying a country in Asia Minor with the bird we had for our Christmas dinner, just because they both happen to be called “Turkey.” In the next place there is no known river anywhere called Gihon; and there is no river which surrounds, or ever did surround “the whole land of Ethiopia.” As a matter of fact the word “cush” presents no difficulty, if we take it as it is, instead of making ridiculous attempts to identify it with something it is not It quite simply means “fiery, impulsive,” “forceful.” The passage just tells us that the realm of Gihon included all activities arising from passion, impulse, and blind inclination in any field.

Verse 14. “And the name of the third river is Hiddekel; that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria, and the fourth river is Euphrates.”

So reads the English A.V. The only word in the first part which we need specially to study, is the symbolic name Hiddekel. Before we deal with that, we may point out the formula with which verses 11, 13 and 14 begin :-

Verse 11: “And the name of the first,” etc.

Verse 13: “And the name of the second,” etc. Verse 14: “And the name of the third,” etc.

But when the narrative reaches the fourth stream it says nothing about any name. It simply says: “the fourth is phrath.” We will explain that word later. What we wish to notice here is the significance of the deliberate omission to mention any name. It leads one at once to suspect that the author of the -narrative (perhaps by subconscious inspiration) actually anticipated the very mistake which his interpreters did make-when they jumped to the conclusion that the last two words of the verse were a fourth “name.” It must be admitted that there was some excuse for the mistake, as the two words are: “houa phrath” which, read as one word, does sound very like “Euphrates.” Not only that, they may actually have been the -derivation of the word “Euphrates.” But surely, the translators knew well enough that that same word “houa” came in each of the other three cases also-and in those cases they gave it its proper meaning. The word is simply ‘the third person, masculine, singular pronoun: “he,” “it,” or “that one.” The word “phrath” is an abstraction of the word “phrah,” which means to propagate, to generate, to be fruitful. “Phrath” really means the power to propagate, generate, or be fruitful.*

This is an interesting example of the simple, graphic way in which Hebrew can say, with a couple of words, what we need a complete phrase to translate into English. It is also a reason why no absolutely “word-for-word” translation is ever possible.

As regards the word “phrath,” it may be interesting to mention that, in Semitic languages, the essential significance of words always lies in the consonants. The vowels vary considerably from one language to another, and also to serve various grammatical purposes; they do not alter the root meanings of words. The consonants in “phrath” are “ph” or “f”; “r”; and

‘th” or ‘t.” Curiously enough, the English words “fruit” and “fertile” have exactly the same consonants, and the same basic meaning as the Hebrew. Even such a word as “forth,” which has the same consonants in the same order, but which at first appears to differ entirely in meaning, can easily be traced back to the same old root meaning, as to bring “forth” is closely connected with the idea of something produced, the outcome, or fruit of something.

But, as we have been examining the ending of the verse first, we must return to the first part of the verse and examine the name “Hiddekel,” and what is told us about that.

The name “Hiddekel” is composed of the roots “had” and “dak,” with the affix “1.” The idea conveyed by the root “hd” is that of any spiritual emanation. For instance, the word “hod” means “glory, splendour. harmony, majesty,” and similar ideas. With the “0” changed to “i,” it would denote the cause of those things. The second root, “dk,” expresses the idea of dividing or breaking up something very small, drawing something out very finely. reducing to powder. etc. As an adjective it denotes something thin or impalpable. and used in a more abstract way it means to analyse or to go into details, etc. The affix “1,” like the “on” which ends the word Pishon and Gihon, is an extensive sign ; but while the affix “on” broadens or intensifies the meaning of a word, the “1” extends the action of the forces indicated by the word. It is clear that the force called “Hiddekel” is something of a higher or more spiritual nature than Pishon or Gihon. Pishon had to do with forming or developing physical substances; Gihon had to do with organisms, and activities more or less mechanical, instinctive, and impersonal. Hiddekel is a force that acts in the human sphere, and can only be exercised through the human functions. It is the “force” produced by human thought, human reason, human desire, human will.

About “Hiddekel” the verse goes on to tell us (English A.V.): “This it is (‘houa’) that goeth toward the east of Assyria.” The word there translated “toward the east” is exactly the same word, “kedem,” which we discussed when dealing with verse 8, and it misinterprets the meaning of the original in exactly the same way. In this case it has the affix “th” which has the same abstracting effect that it had in the word “phrath”. The word has nothing to do with the “east” or any other direction. but with something that “precedes” or “goes before.” It denotes, perfectly clearly. something that is a preliminary, or a necessary antecedent to something else, and that “something else” in this case is called “Ashur.” This word means to make happy; to bless; to guide aright; to bring about harmony, right relationships, good order, satisfaction, etc. It is the first word of the first Psalm. There it is translated “Blessed is.” (Quite literally, as the word is plural, it means “The blessings of.” etc. To be “blessed” is just to have the things mentioned above. The word “ashur” has been applied to Assyria-as an adjective, just as the term “Land of the Free” used to be applied to England; but in this verse it is certainly not used as the name of any country.

We can see now what the whole verse means. “Blessedness,” in whatever form we conceive of it, can only result from the activities of the higher and purely human qualities, and they alone can go on to realise the final aim of creation :-the multiplication of beings in the likeness of God.

Much more could have been said about the “Garden of Eden.” It is a subject rather for a whole book than for a chapter or two. We hope, however, that enough has been said to show something of the real nature of the narrative, and to convince the reader that, far from being a mere childish myth, it has something of real importance to give. and that it is a necessary portion of the whole Genesis story, and quite logically is in its proper place, just where it is.

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 20

The First Red Light

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 20

Fred Mayers

Genesis II, v. 15 to 17,

v. 15:“And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it’

v.16: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

v. 17:“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (English R.V.)

Verse 15. “And the Lord Good ‘took’ the man.”

The ordinary Hebrew word for “took” is “la-kach,” which means “to take hold of”; “to take possession”; “to take away”; “to capture”; “to spoil or loot,” etc.

In the present case, the author omits the “extensive” sign, “1,” which gives the word the suggestion of putting out the hand to grasp something, and writes simply “ikach.” This reduces the word to the original root, “kach,” This root denotes a “tending” or “being borne towards something”; of “becoming” something, or “being made a part of something.” The word means that God gave to the Spiritual man, “Adam,” an “inclination,” a “tendency,” or a “desire” towards activity in the special sphere which had been prepared for him in the “sensible” realm of time and space.

“And put him into the garden.” The word “put” here, is not the ordinary word “isham,” “he placed,” but “innach.” The root “nach” (see Chapter XV, “Sabbath”), signifies “rest” or “repose,” not necessarily in the sense of resting in sleep, or lying down when one is tired. It has that meaning; but it also may denote the reposeful, satisfied feeling one has when a musical melody -naturally ends on its key-note; or when a picture or other “work of art” leaves one with the feeling that it is quite “satisfactory,” harmonious, free from discord or restlessness. It denotes also the feeling that comes when a period of unsettlement or unrest has passed; or the feeling of being “at home.” The word in this verse means that God, having made the “garden” agreeable and attractive to “Adam,” “settled” him down in it happily; it also means that the “garden” was to be the permanent “home” for Adam. The verse goes on to say that Adam was put into the garden “to dress it and keep it.” In spite of the “Century Bible’s” comment on the narrative, that “in paradise man was to be spared the labour of ploughing, sowing, reaping, threshing, etc., Adam was not put into the garden to lead an idle existence, by any means. He could find satisfaction and enjoyment there, but he was to find it in work, not in “il dolce far niente.” The word translated “dress” is just simply the ordinary word for “to work” or “to labour.” The same word used as a noun, means a “servant” or a “workman.” Adam was to labour” in the garden to till it, to improve its productiveness, to make it an ordered” garden, and to “beautify” it. Some of these meanings, as well as the meanings of “watching over,” “tending with care,” “guarding,” and “preserving,” are also included in the word “shamerah,” translated “to keep.”

All the above has a general application to the purpose and work of “our present” humanity in the world; but we must not lose sight of the fact that “Adam” was still a spiritual universal being, and the “garden” which the writer of Genesis was concerned with, was a spiritual garden. although it was “set out” in the “sphere of time and space.” If we refer back to what was said in our notes to Genesis I, v. 28 (page 92), we shall have no difficulty in understanding what is meant by Adam’s work in the “Garden.” It was the activity of the spiritual force (lacking in materialistic presentations of the idea of “Evolution”) which was the real cause of the upward progressive movement in the development of life forms on earth. And if we recall what was said in our last chapter about the “fourfold stream” of formative forces, we shall see that, concurrently with the spiritual work of “Adam,” those forces were at work producing -the physical forms corresponding to, and necessary for, the final expression on the physical plane of that work,

verse 16 . “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying. .

The word translated “commanded” is the only word in the sentence which we have not, at some point in our previous chapters, discussed and explained. It happens to be an out-

· standing example of the way in which Hebrew words take on quite unexpected meanings when we correctly understand their roots. The word is “itzaw.” The “yod” is merely the pro-nominal prefix, “he.” “tzo” is a simple root word meaning “to point out,” “to mark” or “indicate” something for a purpose; to “prescribe”; to “guide”; to “advise,” etc. If the “vav” were definitely used as a consonant, as it is, for example, in the word “tzahvah,” then the word would mean commanded,” “gave an order”; but the confext shows that that meaning is not intended here. The word is followed by the phrase: “thou mayest eat freely.” Obviously “command” and

mayest” are incompatible. A “command” leaves no choice, it is positive and arbitrary, but “thou mayest” denotes a matter of choice. If “itzo” meant “command” it should have been followed by “thou must.” We therefore consider that the meaning of the word here is, clearly, that God gives guidance, advice, or a forewarning.” This small detail is really of much more importance than may at first appear, as many quite incorrect deductions have been drawn from the word “command.” We shall see when we get a little farther on, that, for a supremely important reason, God never, under any circumstances, prevents any human being from exercising freedom of choice in his activities – even when they are wrong and evil. God did not give an arbitrary command” to “Adam” that he should not “eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” but, knowing perfectly well what “eating” meant, He gave Adam an advance warning. He put up the “red light.” God knew that Adam would be certain to “eat of the tree,” but did not wish him to do so without a warning of the total change that would be brought about in his being, as the result. If it had been possible for Him to save Adam from himself, without destroying His final purpose in creation, He would have done so. If Adam brought suffering and endless trouble upon himself, God Himself also suffered. It was He Himself who was afflicted in all the afflictions of mankind. But let us continue our examination of the narrative. The verse goes on to say, “of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.” The expression “freely eat” is expressed in Hebrew idiom by “eating, thou mayest eat.” All the words in that sentence have already been to some extent discussed, so it is only necessary to recall the results.

In the first place, the word translated “tree” – “etz,” has a much wider meaning than merely “tree.” It denotes the material or spiritual “substance” of anything.

The word translated “every” – “chol,” also means “all”; it contains all ideas of “entirety,” “completeness,” etc. “Every tree” means the “whole essence” of all that grew naturally in the spiritual garden.

We have also shown that the word “to eat,” “achol,” is built on that same root, “col.” It means “to feed upon”; “to nourish oneself”; “to sustain or extend our strength and powers,” and in that sense to make ourselves more “complete.” The word describes the process of “consuming”; “assimilating”; “taking into ourselves” anything on which we live and grow, either physically, mentally or spiritually. So to “eat of the tree” is to assimilate; to take into ourselves the substance or essence of anything. Every natural growth of the garden of life we can “freely eat” – it is valuable experience by which our souls grow. It is all good. The attempt to gain know-ledge of good and evil, alone constitutes a danger to man,-and it is a fatal danger.

Verse 17. “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

The meaning of the original might he rendered more literally, perhaps, in this way: “except from the tree of knowledge of good and evil . . . Eat thou not of any of that tree, because, in the day of thy eating of any of it, dying thou wilt die.”

The Hebrew idea of “knowledge,” as we have said before, was that it was something acquired personally, and made our own by actual experience. Anything that we are told by another-that is not first hand: and that has not been experienced by us, is not “knowledge” to us. We acknowledge that that idea is correct in our legal axiom that “hearsay is not evidence.” Now, if we apply that idea of “knowledge” to matters of “right and wrong,” “good and evil,” it is at once evident that we can only get “knowledge” of what is good by doing good and experiencing the effects of so doing; and also of evil by doing evil and experiencing the effect of that,-and then comparing the results. It is only b the comparison of the results that we can judge what is g and what is evil for ourselves. That means having experience of both good and evil. By the time we have that experience the evil is one, and, once done, cannot be undone. The harmony of our existence, the “rightness” and “perfection” of our lives is destroyed, and the unity of man with the Divine Will and Eternal’ Life” is broken. Something has come in to separate God and man. What is that “something”? It may be a paradox, but the answer is that the very thing which makes it possible for man to become the “Likeness of God” is also the very same thing which makes it possible for him to destroy that “Likeness.”

It is always our safest course, in these studies, to avoid going ahead of the original text. The reader may have noticed that throughout this chapter we have not made use of the word “sin.” Thus far the Bible has not used the word; we have to go some distance yet before we find “sin” mentioned, and then it is mentioned, not as existing but as potential, in the phrase: “sin lieth at the door.” This means that an “error can open the door to “sin” (Gen. IV, v. 7). The word we find used throughout this chapter is “evil,” and that word is used for the first time when the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” is mentioned. The significance of that is, of course, that there is a difference of idea involved in the word “sin.” Not all that is “evil” or “wrong-doing” is sin. Sin” involves the idea of moral responsibility and “guilt.” It is “knowledge” that makes a breach of what is divinely right into a “sin.” (See John IX, v. 41: “If ye were blind ye should have no sin; but now ye say, We see: therefore your sin remaineth.”) Trespasses” may arise involuntarily or from ignorance; “sin” is conscious, wilful, wrong-doing.

But anything that breaks the perfect working of God’s good ordering of the universe, whether it’ arises from error, miscalculation, absent-mindedness, etc.,- or whether it arises from wilful wrong-doing, is always followed inevitably by certain direct, evil consequences. These consequences are exactly related to what is done, not to the cause or motive of the deed. To illustrate what we mean :-As a little child, the present writer was often cautioned to “keep away from the fire, or he would be burned.” Normally, he obeyed the injunction quite carefully,- but one day he was playing “blind man’s buff” with some playmates, and while blindfolded, accidentally tripped on something and fell against the fire. The fact that the fall was quite accidental did not prevent him from getting badly burnt. The burning was not a “punishment” for a misdeed. (If it had been it would have been grossly unjust.) It was simply the inevitable result of contacting the fire.

Now, “Adam” had been put into an environment in which he could find everything he needed for his sustenance, for the development of the “human” qualities which he, thus far, possessed, and for his enjoyment. He was still a spiritual. universal being; and he was still in unity with the Divine Will. His activities simply reflected that Divine Will, therefore the question of what was “good” or “evil” did not arise, and did not concern him in any way. The Will of God was “The Good” in itself, and the only standard of good. So long as he remained in that “Unity of Spirit,” Adam could not sin or go astray.” But, if he should ever desire to take over the direction of his own life, and decide for himself what was good or’ evil, the result would be’ disastrous.

What the result would be, the writer of Genesis describes symbolically as “dying thou wilt die.” The words are “moth tamoth.” The root of the words, “moth,” denotes a change from one state of being to another. (It is the same natural “root” which we have in our words “motor,” “motive,” “mutable,” etc.) It is ordinarily used for the “change” from life in the physical body to some other state, which we call “death.” It does not refer to the death of the physical body here because “Adam” was still a spiritual being; he had not yet received physical bodies. He was still a Unity: the not-yet incarnated spirit of “humanity” in general. The words in themselves do not involve the idea of the “ending” of life, or “annihilation,” but rather the idea of passing into an “alternative” or “complementary”* state of being; some “opposite” state. Adam, as a spiritual being was immortal”; his essence was eternal. If he separated himself from the divine “Unity,” that involved his passing out of Eternal conditions, and becoming transmuted into a “mortal” state of being.

Many of the questions that arise from this section of the narrative can be cleared up when we get a little farther on with it. What we wish to make clear at the present point is that these verses (15 to 17) do not contain any arbitrary “command” imposed upon Adam; still less anything in the nature of a “threat,” and most certainly nothing in the way of a “trap” by which the “obedience” of Adam would be put to the test. Such a suggestion as that-though, unfortunately, it has been very generally adopted, is utterly repulsive to any decent-minded man, and a libel on the character of God. The farther we go with these studies the more we shall discover that there is nothing which God ever does that does not spring from Eternal Love towards man. Every step He takes proves to be a step -towards “blessedness” for man. Everything He does, is done -with complete knowledge of all things-from the beginning to the end. It was Omniscience that pronounced His creation: “good to the utmost.”

Before closing this chapter we may refer to the words: ‘in the day that thou eatest thereof,” etc. Those words have been a serious stumbling block to “literalists” because they were obliged to read all that follows in the same literal way, and they found themselves “up against” the disturbing fact that, in the only way they could read the story, Adam did not die in the day he ate the “fruit”-nor for several hundred years! We do not think the words will present any difficulty to those who -have followed our analysis of the text. The narrative, as it began by explaining, is the “symbolic” story of all humanity, of every man and woman. There is no one of us who has not eaten of the same tree and died the same “death.” The “day,” -as we saw in the chapter on the “Sabbath,” is the “day” which includes the whole history of human error-but also ends in human salvation.

We use the word “complimentary” in the same sense as when we speak of “red” as the “complementary” of green,” or “orange” of “blue.” The only possible “complementary” of a colour must be another colour of exactly the opposite colour nature. The same applies to states of being.

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 21

The Loneliness of Adam

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 21

Fred Mayers

Genesis II, v. 18

“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should he alone. I will make him an help meet for him.” (English R.V.)

Even without going below the surface of the literal English translation, there is much of great interest and importance to be gathered from this verse. As far as literal translations can go, the first part of the verse is a good rendering of the original, and does not contain any of that distortion of meaning which we have often found in verses which the translators have tried to bring into agreement with some preconceived ideas of their own. The statement is quite a simple one, and at first sight it appears to be a detached one, not clearly connected with what has preceded,- and what immediately follows it. We shall, however, soon see that that is really not the case at all. It is, as we have found everything else to be, quite logically connected with its context; and it is just in its proper place.

Whenever God is revealed as “saying” anything, that is “expressing” anything-either to another or to Himself-it is always something which He either wills or knows. In this case He expresses something that He “knew.” As we said in Chapter XX, and elsewhere, the Hebrew idea of “knowledge” was what was known at first hand, from one’s own experience; so it is perfectly clear that when He said that it was “not good” for the “Adam” to be “alone,” He was revealing the fact that He Himself knew from experience what “loneliness” was. We know that the deepest and most intense of human feelings are often revealed, not in any deliberate statement or set words, but in some unpremeditated, unstudied, spontaneous, or casual word, or the tone in which a word is uttered. So it is with what God “says” here. “Not good!”-Were ever two simple words so full of meaning as these must have been for God? No created being who ever existed could ever have experienced such infinite loneliness as the Creator Himself had experienced. He had “inhabited Eternity” when nothing existed but Himself. Is it any mere flight of fancy, then, to conceive the idea that the “loneliness” of God was the primal cause of the whole creative -scheme?

When we review the complete story of creation, in Genesis, and note how,- step by step, everything leads up. logic ally and directly to one filial purpose; and when we find that that purpose was to produce beings in whom the “likeness” of the Creator would be reflected; beings with whom He could commune; does not the suggestion begin to grow into a probability-or something more? The idea receives further confirmation when we notice that the Creator is not only concerned with banishing His own loneliness, but that He is continually making provision that no sentient beings in His creation, from the lowest to the highest, should suffer loneliness. We find that the very earliest “life forms” that He created, were created in “swarms,,-’ and that to all the varied species of living beings he says: “Be fruitful and multiply.” So, when “Adam” comes to earth, he comes not to an empty world, but to- one that was teeming with living creatures. It is true that they were not of his own “kind.” but at least the were living, sentient beings,- and they could be to him the “little brothers and sisters” that they were to St. Francis of Assisi. No man is utterly lonely if he has a dog for a companion.

So much, in passing, for the “loneliness” that the literal translation of the text is limited to the consideration of, but when we work our way deeper into the old text, we find some-thing more. The original word, translated: “alone,” is “l’baddo.” The first and last letters are really separate words in themselves. The first “I” is the “directive” participle, which we have had to deal with several times before. It signifies here: “according to” or “in a state of.” The final letter, “0,- “ is the possessive pronoun “his’,- or “its.” The root word is “Bd,” or rather, “bdd,” as the “d’,- has the point called “Dagesh” in it, which makes the letter double. The real starting point -in the construction of the word “badd” is the root “ad”; the “A,” as we know, is the sign of “potentiality,” “origin,” “be-ginning,” etc. The “D” is the sign of “divisional abundance”; -anything that becomes numerous by sub-division, etc. The two signs combined, “AD,” denote the “potentiality of division or abundance”; “relative unity;’,- etc. The root “dd” suggests all ideas of “abundance,” “division,- “ “propagation,” “influence,” etc. When this root is verbalised, as in “DOD,” it means to act by “sympathy” or “affinity”; “to attract or be attracted”-to “please”; to “love”; something “mutually satisfying,” etc. As a noun, “d-d” (or “dod”) means a “friend” or a “lover,” or “friendship” or “love.” For instance, this root is the base of the name “David,” which means “Beloved.,-’ Having now the letters “AD-D,” the “B” is prefixed. This is the “internal” sign, and gives to the word the idea of something -which is “inside,” “inward,” “contained,” or “enclosed,” etc. Putting these ideas together we see that the meaning of “l’baddo” is that Adam was in a state in which all his “potentialities” or capabilities of propagation, self-expression, multiplication. all the “abundance” of his being,- including social intercourse and love, just lay latent within him,- because he was still solely a spiritual, universal being. As long as he remained in the state of spiritual “Unity” of being, he was precluded from being “Fruitful” and “Multiplying,” or of being in any full sense, “himself.’,- He was “formed” of Divine elements or qualities, but his activities were limited to passively reflecting the Divine “Will.”

That is, he was still a being acting according to instinct, in the same way as the creatures -of the Animal Kingdom. The higher faculties of his nature, the qualities that raised him to a higher state of being than the animals,- and that gave him power over the sub-human Kingdoms, were unable to develop beyond the animal stage. He could act as the evolving life force in the animal realm, but not yet commence to evolve himself in the “human” realm. He had to be given powers for self-realisation. So the verse goes on to tell us that God judged it “not good” that Adam should continue to be in the “loneliness” of his own spiritual being. God, therefore, decided to do for Adam what He, through Elohim, had done to escape from His own loneliness: “I will make him a help meet for him.” Let us see what this “help” was to be. The word translated a “help is “ezer.” Hieroglyphically,- the sign “ayin” = anything “real; the sign ‘zain” denotes purpose ; aim; intention; and the sign “resh” denotes any direct movement or activity, so the word conveys the idea of something which will realise “purpose” or “intention” in one’s activities. That means something which would enable Adam to determine his own actions. In a general way, also,- “ezer” means some “auxiliary force”; some “added faculty”; “help”; “support”; “corroboration,” etc. There is nothing in the word to suggest that God makes any separate “being” to be a “companion” to Adam. It denotes a development of some faculty he already possesses to give it new powers.

We shall also see soon that it was to be something that-would be the first step towards sex differentiation. We were told in Gen. I, v. 27, that Adam was created male and female, but in the spiritual realm, the male and female elements are “fused” in one being. (“In heaven they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels.” etc., Mark XII, v. 25.) As long as Adam remained in his spiritual unity he included male and female, but the separation of sex is a necessity for reproduction and multiplication in the physical realm; and to bring about that separation, certain changes had first to be effected in the spiritual realm.

The word translated “meet” is “be-negid-o.” “Meet” merely means, in a general way, “suitable”; but by a curious coincidence (which it is just possible that the translators noticed and thought might make the word specially appropriate), when “meet” is used as a verb: “to meet,” it happens to have some meanings which, at least slightly, resemble the meaning of the Hebrew word. Both words. in one sense, mean “suitable,” but the Hebrew word means “suitable’,- in a very definite, special sense. The word “negid” is a combination of the roots “NO” and “GD.” The first of these two roots is applied to any “reflected light,” such as a reflection in a mirror. It also means “putting something in sight”; “making something visible.” In Isaiah XIII,- v. 10. for instance, “NGH” is translated “to shine” (“the moon shall not cause her light to shine”), i.e., “shall not reflect light.” Again in the word “NHG,” we have the meaning of “leading” anyone; making anyone “willing” to do something; of “inducing” or “suggesting” ideas, of “receiving an impulse” or an “opinion.” The root “NO” also conveys the idea of “becoming” the “channel” or “medium” by which anything is realised. The second root, “GD,- “ means to be the “means” of “increasing” or “multiplying.” “Gad” means “good fortune,- “ “prosperity,” increase”; “Gadol” means “great,” “strong,” etc. “Migdol” means “being strengthened.” “fortified,” “a tower,” or “a fortified town.” Thus we can see that the word “negid” contains quite a lot of ideas. In the first place it indicates that the “help” provided for Adam is something which is a reflection of Adam’s being, or his ideas, or his desires. Secondly, it is something by which Adam’s ideas or wishes can be realised and made fruitful. It is a “help” or “auxiliary faculty” by which Adam is able to carry out his own -ideas. Lastly it is a “help” by which something in the spiritual being of Adam is so acted upon that it divides into two complementaries-one of a masculine and the other of a feminine -nature.

We said in one of our early chapters that every “divine principle” was universal; that is, that it would be found working on every plane of manifestation. The “principle” we are at present concerned with is that of Self-Expression.

We saw in the first place that “Ihoah”-the “Eternal” (“God the Father” in Christian terms) found His “Self-Expression,” that is, was “manifested” in “Elohim” (The “Word”). Then “Adam” was created to become the “Likeness,” that is, the outward expression of “Elohim.” Lastly “Adam,” the “spiritual ideal humanity” has to find outward expression in physical, “flesh-and-blood” human beings, and by means of the promised “help” he is to be prepared for entrance into the state of physical human existence.

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 22

Search for Helpmeet

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 22

Fred Mayers

Genesis v. 19 and 20.

v.19: “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air’; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

v. 20: “And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air’, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found an help meet for him.,-’ (English R.V.)

Most of the words in this verse have already been examined and explained in previous chapters. Some of them may require further clarification, but the chief difficulty of interpreting the verse lies in the extreme conciseness of its composition. It seems to economise in words to the point of leaving us to do a lot of “guessing.”

We give here an attempt to represent its actual wording in the original,- as closely as we can, word for word. Wherever we are obliged to use more than one word to represent one word of the original we will indicate that by small capital letters :–

“And HE CAUSED To FORM Ihoah Elohim from the Adamah all-life of the field (Nature) and the deity all-flying the heavens and He approached to-the Adam for seeing how (or, what)-he will give character to it-AND-ALL which HE CHARACTERlSED- To it-THE ADAM soul living that ITS (OR His) NAME.”

The reader will notice in that rendering the apparent gaps and uncertainties which constitute the difficulty we referred to. For instance, in each case where we have translated “chol” by “all” the word may mean equally: “the WHOLE” or “ every,” or “each,” and there is nothing apparently to show us which word would be most correct. The translators-of the English Version recognised this difficulty. They could see nothing to do but say “them” in some cases and “it” in others-for the same thing. Then, in the word: “the heavens,-’,- which the English Version translates by “the air,” the word “the” might equally be- rendered “of the” or “of.” If we choose “of,” the word would seem to mean “heavenly” instead of “the heavens”; and that translation is not by-any means an absurd or impossible- one. Again, the word approached,” or “brought nearer gives no specific indication of what it is applied to.

153 However, these difficulties are not insuperable. We have a number of signposts on the way to a satisfactory solution of the problem, in the work we have already done. We have acquired the deeper Biblical meaning of a fairly extensive vocabulary of Genesis words. – We have seen that the whole narrative, so far, has been unfolding, in a surprisingly connected and logical manner, a Cosmogony that can hold its own against all other systems that we have any acquaintance with, and-in very important and highly significant ways-go beyond them. We can continue to work from the known to the unknown. For every word in the verse that we can clear up the meaning of, we not only remove its own special difficulty, but narrow down cumulatively the difficulties of the remaining parts of the verse.

In the first place we must never for a moment lose sight of the difference between “Creation” and “Formation.” “Creation” was a Divine mental conception; it was concerned with the “being.” the “essence,” the spiritual “substance,” the “beginning.” the “end” and the “purpose” of everything. “Formation” is concerned with the “activities” and the “processes” by which the “dream” becomes “reality.’,- “Creation” was the conception of:

“A fire-mist and a planet,

A crystal and a cell,

A jelly-fish and a saurian,

And caves where the cave-men dwell”:

but those things (with all the countless, unmentioned things that came in between) did not spring into existence independently,-each complete and perfect. On the contrary. We know from clear and indisputable evidence that they were progressively developed through immeasurably long periods. from the simplest embryonic forms to the infinite variety and complexity of the universe that exists around us to-day. “Formation” was the activity of the forces that produced all the developments and all progression. Then we saw in our second chapter that “Elohim” was the sum of all the powers and qualities that had been latent from Eternity in the “Unknown” Absolute “God,” flowing out into manifestation in Creation. Going a step further we found that those same powers and qualities, outwardly reflected in Creation, constituted the “Adamah” or spiritual “ground” from which “Adam” or the universal spiritual “man” was “formed.” It is clear, therefore, that the “Adam” stands in the same relation to “Elohim” in the sphere of “formation” as Elohim stands in relation to “Ihoah” (The Eternal One) in the highest spiritual sphere.

That explains all that has been told us about “Adam” being given dominion in” every kind of living creature, and in the whole earth”; it explains what we mean by “Adam” being the spiritual activity in “Evolution.” Progress from stage to stage in Evolution could not possibly be produced by the created things themselves. For instance,- once the creative idea of a “worm” has been “realised,” the worm has no power to become anything than it is. What it was millions of years ago it is to-day. If in the course of ages, new “forms” of life appear, finally resulting in a “butterfly,” those developments are the work of something higher than the worm-something with the power of continual self-transcendence, and therefore capable of producing ever new and higher “forms” in all below itself. The only “something” in the universe which possesses that power of “self-transcendence” is the “Adam”-the human spirit.

This brings us directly to the subject of the verse which we are considering; but before we go farther with that, it will perhaps be wise to make a digression, to forestall and remove any possible misconception with respect to the phrase used above: continual self-transcendence.”

If “Adam,” himself formed from the spiritual powers and qualities of Elohim, differed from everything else in Creation by the possession of the faculty of continual self-transcendence, that is. that there was no limit to his power to take into himself ever more and more of the divine powers and qualities, and so become ever more fully and perfectly the manifestation of the “Likeness” of God, it has been argued that the logical consequence must be that “Adam” must finally become a “God” himself. That contention is not so logical as it may at first appear; and a little careful consideration will show that the -idea is quite untenable. It is quite impossible to think of two or more “Infinite and Eternal” Beings. Nothing that has ever -been “created and made” could be “infinite,” otherwise, it must include the Creator, which is a contradiction in terms. Neither can a created thing be “Eternal” because it had a “beginning” and is “mutable.” There can only – be ONE Infinite and Eternal: “Listen, Israel, Ihoah (the Eternal) our God* is Ihoah (Eternal)-Unity-One” (Deut VI, v. 4). Between “Infinity” and “finiteness” there is a gulf which can never be bridged. Man can never be God ; but he can attain to union with Him, -a true union of heart and soul and Love, through,, which he can find “Peace” and “Salvation” and “Blessedness.

*Literally: “our Eloah”-the singular of “Elohim.”

There is another reason why “man” can never become “God.” It is that “Adam” is not complete in the “oneness” of his spiritual being (see Chapter XXI). He is complete only in his multiplicity, in the countless millions of individual men and women, every one with a soul that is to be a manifestation in some respects of the “Likeness” of God. No two of these millions of individuals are quite alike or equal in body, mind or spirit, or in their particular capabilities of assimilating the infinite varieties of knowledge, the qualities and the active forces, that are comprised in the “fullness of God.” They vary from the “mind-dark” idiot to the greatest genius, or the most inspired “illumine,” They may possess ability in certain particular directions, and utterly lack ability in others. The man or woman does not live who can excel in every way. Therefore, no individual can ever attain “The perfection that is God” by any possibility; and as “Humanity” is but the sum of its individuals, and every one of its individual members is imperfect, humanity en-masse can never be “perfect.” No mirror ever reflected an image without some diminution of the perfect brilliance of the unreflected object-and surely no image has ever been so dimmed and distorted by reflection as has been the “image of God” in the minds of men.

But let us now return to our text. We are only at the beginning yet of what the narrative has to reveal to us about “Man.”

In the “Creation” story all living creatures, whether of the seas, the earth, or the air, were said to be produced from the “waters” or the “earth.” In this “Formation” narrative only two classes of creatures are mentioned, from which we infer that they alone have any direct connection with this part of the narrative. These two classes: the “beasts of the field” and “fowl of the heavens,” Ihoah Elohim is said to “form,” not from the “waters” or “the earth,” but from the “Adamah”-the “spiritual ground” or element of which “Adam” is formed. That makes it quite clear, at least, that the subject of the passage is spiritual and concerned with certain activities affecting both the creatures and Adam.

Let us examine one or two words in detail before going farther. First the word “iahbeh,” translated “He brought.” The root, “ba,” conveys any ideas of progression; graduated advance; of coming: of passage from place to place, or from state to state; locomotion, and so on.

The verb “boa” means the act of coming; forthcoming; to arrive: to become; to proceed; to go forward; advance; to enter, etc. It appears to be used in the text in the “causative,-’ form.

The next word we need to examine carefully is the word “ikra,” which is translated by “he called.” The word appeared twice in – the first chapter of Genesis (v. 5 and v. 10), where it was also translated “called.” It has, however, many significations, much more directly springing from its root meaning than “called.” The root “KR” (“car”) contains the ideas of what is incisive; penetrating; ingrained; engraved; any character; letter or writing; inscription; memorial; carving. It acquires the meaning of “call” from to “cry out,” to scream ;* to call anyone’s attention; to hail anyone; to designate; to name anyone; to evoke, convocate. (Sometimes it means an incision; to dig; a ditch; an abyss.) If we study these various significations it is quite easy to see that they all have a similar connecting idea. That idea is not “calling anything by a name,” but of giving something the distinguishing qualities or characters which are the reason why anything gets a particular name : and it is something of that meaning which it undoubtedly has in this 19thth verse. Verse 18 told us that God declared His intention to make for Adam a help’’ in reflection of himself,” i.e., as a means of self-expression. It is difficult to see any relevance in following that up by anything so childish as bringing all the animals and birds in procession before Adam, just to see what he would “call” them, so that whatever he called them would be their names. What had the naming of an animal to do with “making a help-meet” for Adam? Obviously, in any such sense as the English translation suggests, nothing! It has not even the “moral” of an Aesop’s or La Fontaine “fable.” We must look much deeper for the real meaning of the verse.

Why are only two classes of living creatures mentioned here? Delitzsch, after pointing out that if the narrative was concerned with the creation of animal life in general, fishes,-reptiles, etc., would have been included, goes on to say: “The animal creation appears here under a peculiar point of view, which the narrator certainly did not regard as its motive in general. It is the first step towards the creation of woman.” That sentence comes a long way towards the truth, but strangely enough, Delitzsch quite failed to see how animals of any kind could be “the first step towards the creation of woman,” or how it affected the interpretation of the remainder of the verse. He also omits to notice that, from beginning to end, the narrative never uses the word “creation in connection with “woman.” As a matter of fact he never realised that “creation” and “formation” were anything but one and the same thing, although he and his fellow-workers built up an immense amount of very learned, imaginative, literature on the assumptions that the words were synonymous, and that, in any case, the writer or writers of Genesis could not have been sufficiently philosophically-minded to make fine distinctions in the use of words, and that they were merely hashing up ancient fairy tales for the Hebrew people. We hope that we have already shown sufficiently that the lack of “philosophical-mindedness” was certainly not in the Mosaic writer.

However, we think we are now are in a position to make the meaning of the verse fairly clear. In the first place, the reason why two classes of living creatures only are mentioned here is simply because of what they represented symbolically. They were the correspondences of two essential constituents of human nature. The “beasts of the field” were representative of the instinctive “animal” and emotional nature in man, and the ‘fowl of the air” (or, as the text says literally, “of the heavens”) were representative of the reasoning or thought faculties of man-faculties which were not “earth-bound,” but capable of soaring from earth to spiritual regions. The writer of the narrative uses the “animals” and “birds” and “Adam’s” relations with them, in the manner of a parable, through which he could explain something which it was not easy to make intelligible otherwise.

The verse tells us that “Ihoah Elohim “formed” from the “Adamah” (that is, the spiritual foundation of the “human” being) all the “birds of heaven” and all the “beasts of the field.” The writer was not speaking either of their “Creation,” or of their being “made” as physical beings. He was speaking only of their “formation,” that is of the particular characteristics imparted to them: of the various instinctive qualities, passions, feelings, impulses, etc., “formed” or developed in the different species of the animals, and of similar representative particularities in the flight and ways of birds. He was,, in other words, dealing with the shaping and characterisation of the animal and bird “soul-life,

and to all that those things corresponded with in human nature. Now, we have said many times that this formative process in subhuman kingdoms of Nature was work assigned to the “Adam”: the “dominion” he was given “in” the lower Kingdoms constituted him the “living force” in all the processes of “Evolution.” Here it is stated that “Ihoah Elohim” does the formative work! At first sight, this seems to be in contradiction to our previous statements. We shall soon see, however, that the verse immediately proceeds to harmonise the two statements. It is perfectly correct in saying “Ihoah Elohim formed,” etc., but it also makes it clear that the “Adam” was the agency that Ihoah Elohim employed. Adam was the working force, but, as we have all along been careful to say, he was not yet possessed of any independent Will; his activities merely reflected the Will of Ihoah Elohim. The animal “souls” were “formed” by being brought into contact with the “Adam” to see what characteristics he was able to develop in them. That is precisely the meaning of “mah-ikra” in this verse.

There is another little point in this connection, which explains the apparent confusion, which we pointed out, in the use of “them” and “it” in the English Version: All the “animal” and “bird” “souls” are said to be brought into contact with the “Adam”; that necessitated the word “them” when referring to them; but the work of the Adam was necessarily different for every species, each species received different qualities according to its nature, so when the separate species are referred to, each one is called “it.” The phrase then is: “to see what characteristics he would give to it.” And whatever the characteristics were-whether they were the particular qualities that make the lion a “lion,” the lamb a “lamb,” the eagle an “eagle” or the nightingale a “nightingale,” those were the distinguishing characteristics by which each species was recognisable-that is, its “name.” appellation the Hebrew acceptation, a “name” As we have said before, in it is that which makes anything knowable, distinguishable, remarkable-the outstanding qualities of anything.

This brings us to verse 20

“And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him.”

Having arrived at the meanings of the words used in verse 19, we are relieved of further trouble in that respect with this verse. The only word in verse 20 which we have not met before is matza,”- “found,” and the meaning of this is not in any way in question.

The way in which verse 20 is worded gives further confirmation of what we said about verse 19. The original conveys a somewhat different meaning from the English Version. It says in effect: “And the Adam produced in all the various species the distinguishing qualities which called forth their names. There is a little modification in verse 20 of the animal types that Adam had given “character” to. Verse 19 spoke of “beasts of the field” and “birds of the air”; verse 20 says: “all cattle” (i.e., domestic animals) and “birds of the air” (heavens? and then adds that Adam’s activities had extended to ill “beasts of the field” in general. (The word “field” should really be understood as “Nature” generally.) The probable meaning of the change is that the highest types of animals, those that are fitted to be most useful to man, and to be in the closest relations with him, were considered to be of chief importance in the search for a suitable “help” for Adam, although he had had his part to play in the “characterisation” of all species.

‘The reader will notice how, even in English, the words expressing the meanings of the root, “KR,” contain the same root themselves. (Note the sound rather than the letters): character; inscription; carve; cry; scream.

The verse ends with the statement: “yet for “Adam” was not found any “help” “in reflection of him.” There is no difficulty whatever in interpreting the narrative, in the light of what we have already learned. The “Adam,” as we have said so often, was the active spiritual force that produces all evolutionary developments. He was, himself, “formed” from the spiritual qualities and powers that constituted the “Being” of Elohim. He was given a “being” of his own; and, as that “being,” he was still in his universal “Unity.” Although “Adam” was the first being to be formed from the “Adamah,” he was the last to be given physical” expression in bodies of “flesh and blood,” though which he could become “fruitful and multiply.” The most primitive of all “living creatures” were the first to be given existence in physical form, and all the higher life forms followed progressively. Spiritually, Adam pre-existed all other life forms, and his activities gave to each “soul of life” the special forms, characteristics, and capabilities that distinguished it, just as far and as fast as its physical evolution permitted. Beyond what the physical form of any species was capable of expressing, be could not go; but he could provide the spiritual prototypes for the production of new species of higher forms up to the limits of what we call the “Animal Kingdom.’

He was aware that all the creatures below him had one thing that he still lacked, and that was “sex differentiation,” by means of which they possessed the power of propagating and multiplying their like. He was aware also that in every species of living creatures, the male and female elements were in exact correspondence with each other, in nature. But none of them corresponded at all to his nature. He was aware of qualities, 160-faculties, and potentialities within himself, that differentiated him from all lower beings so essentially that they constituted -him an entirely new Life Kingdom-a Kingdom as different from the “animal kingdom” as that was from the “vegetable kingdom.” He could only form a “human kingdom.” His “help,” therefore, must needs be of his own human nature. It was necessary for God to bring about sex differentiation from some element of Adam’s own being.

·This is fully confirmed by all scientific evidence.

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 23

This Shall be Called Aisha

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 23

Fred Mayers

Genesis III, v. 21 to 23.

v.21: “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh thereof;

v.22: “And the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.

v.23: “And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” (English R.V.)

As a preliminary to the understanding of this strange little symbolic passage, it is absolutely necessary not to lose sight of the essential fact that “Adam” was still entirely a spiritual being. He had not yet entered the physical state of existence. He had not yet reached the stage of an individual intelligent being. In his spiritual being there was, as yet, no differentiation of his spiritual “elements” such as would correspond to, or form a stepping stone to the sex separation-which would be a necessity for his existence on the physical plane in which he would become incarnate as the “human race, as individual human beings of “flesh and blood.” In the passages relating to the work of “Adam” in the animal realm we were given, in broad, suggestive outline, the story of the gradual evolution of such a type of physical “body” as “human” beings could eventually inhabit.

Up to the present, however, the story is dealing with the formation of the “essential being” of “man,” that is, of all that separates “humanity” from the lower kingdoms of the created universe, and raises man above them. “Man” is to be a being differing from all other beings in the fact that he is to be able, although a created, finite being, to become the “reflection” or “likeness” of God Himself, capable of conscious intercourse with God, and capable of loving communion with Him.

He is to share in the very nature of God. This does not, of course, mean that man can ever become “God.”

Man, neither as an individual nor as a race, can ever cross the gulf that divides the finite from the Infinite ; and necessarily, what, in God, is infinite, eternal, changeless, and perfectly “good,” must in man be subject to mutation and imperfection.

The unique significance of man lies in the fact that to every individual human being God can say: “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a son,” and He can say that to nothing in the universe except man. The “key” to the whole creation narrative clearly appears to be that the heart of God craved for beings in His own “likeness,- “ to love and be loved by. To produce a race of such beings, God was obliged to share with them His own nature, and to endow them with powers not possessed by any other creatures. What those powers were, the sequel will show. We have had 1”hints” already, notably in the fact that “Adam” could not find his completion in the animal realm. The most he could do, within the limits of that kingdom of Nature, was to evolve “potential” human bodies, with bodily faculties, and an impersonal “soul of life” that was purely instinctive, involuntary, unreasoning, and therefore un-free, lacking personal initiative, moral responsibility, and the possibility of spiritual progress,- i.e., the power of self-transcendence.

If we keep these facts in mind, we shall see at once the utter absurdity of thinking that the verses we are considering in this chapter were ever intended to be taken in a literal sense. -An examination of the Hebrew text will show us that it contains much more than the surface story suggests. But at the same time we shall become aware that there is a curious and unexpected appropriateness in the use of the seemingly crude and almost fantastic story of the “rib” taken from a physical body (which Adam did not possess) to symbolise the deeper truth beneath.-

We shall also see that the very incoherences which are so obvious in the English Version, are of such a nature as to make clear to us that the translators were, to some extent at least, quite aware of many things in the ancient text, that they were not in a position to explain. We will call attention to these points as we come to them.

Following our usual course, we will examine the principal and most significant words in the original text. Firstly, the word translated “a deep sleep- “thareddemah. The word is built on the two roots, “RD” and “DM.” The significance of the root “rad” can easily be grasped. as we use it in its original sense ourselves in such words as: “radiate,” “radius,” “radical,”“Radium,” and so on. It denotes any force or influence proceeding from a centre of activity. The Hebrew word “radah” means to “rule,” to “govern,” to “subdue” (to control from a -centre). The same root used as a “passive” verb means “to be insensible,” “to be fast asleep,” “to lose one’s consciousness and control of outward things.” The root “dam” has been fully explained in earlier chapters, when dealing with the meaning of the words “blood” and likeness.” It denotes “similarity,” “identity,” “homogeneity,” “kinship.”

The addition of the prefix “th,” and the affix “H” increases the energy of the word considerably. The whole word, therefore, denotes something much deeper than ordinary sleep. It describes a state of trance or deep, hypnotic sleep in which the patient not only becomes unconscious but for the time being loses his very “self-hood,” and becomes subject to, and entirely controlled by, the will of another.

The next words we need to study are the words translated “one of his ribs”- “achath metz-alothaio.” The word “achath” has a double meaning: it may signify “one” as a number, or it may signify “unity” as a quality, i.e., the undivided or unbroken unity,- completeness, or integrity of anything: and that is the sense in which it is used here. The word “tzaloth” is the plural of “tzalaw,” the ordinary word for “rib.” Its root meaning is: something which “envelops,- covers, enwraps, encloses, protects, involves,” How the word applies to a spiritual being and its symbolic appropriateness we shall see shortly.

The phrase: “and closed up the flesh thereof,” has been invariably misinterpreted by commentators. Led astray by taking the story in a purely literal sense, as describing the removal of a physical rib from a physical body, they naturally assumed that this phrase must mean the filling up of the “gap where the “rib” had been. But the Hebrew text, however literally one may render it, cannot be given that meaning. The word translated “thereof” refers-not to any supposed “gap,” but to the “rib” itself. The other words in the sentence confirm this. The word translated “closed up”- “issegor,” means rather “closed in,” “enclosed.” What was done to the “rib” was exactly what was done to the “dry bones” in the Valley of Ezekiel’s dream-(and those “dry bones,” by the way, we were told, were “the whole house of Israel”-in other words, they were quite symbolic “bones.”) The point is that, just as the “bones” of the dream were given human forms and life again so the “rib” was built up into complete “human” form and given “Life.” The “form” given to it was, however, not a physical form but a spiritual one “reflecting” the spiritual form of Adam. The word translated “flesh,” “bashar,” really means the “outward form,” or the “visible substance” of anything. It is only in vulgar usage that it has the meaning suggested by “flesh.” It is really something much more general and spiritual. In fact, the same word in Arabic (which is closely, akin to Hebrew) becomes practically a synonym for “beauty. The word must also have had something of that meaning in – Hebrew,- to account for the fanciful Hebrew allegorical story of Adam “falling in love” with Aisha “at first sight.”

What the whole phrase clearly denotes is that God, having taken a certain element from the being of Adam, gave it a special quality and life. Previously it had merely lain dormant. God made it active-active enough to bring into activity the whole being of Adam; to be his “help-meet,” This means of self-expression to the utmost extent; of making that “Self” fully the Likeness of God-(or the very opposite).

Verse 22 goes on to tell us that God having developed the “rib” “Into Aisha (“l’aisha”), restored it to the Adam”-made it a part of him again. That, obviously, will not fit in with the materialistic interpretation of the story.

Verse 23 then goes on to tell us what “the Adam”-(it is. as usual, “the” Adam)-becomes conscious of as he “awakens,” -in possession of his new faculty. The verse makes the Adam speak to himself- (just as in old fables and stories, animals are made to speak). This is what it says (translated quite literally): “And the Adam said: ‘this’ is actually substance of my sub stance and form of my form. To this he,, gave (the name) ‘Aisha,’ because from Aish ‘this’ was taken.

The reader will notice at once on reading that translation, -the curious way in which the word “this” (zoth) appears in each case where the English Version reads “she.” The Hebrew text does not say “she,” “hoa”-it deliberately substitutes the “impersonal” pronoun “this.” That should have been a sufficient indication to any open-minded translator that no bodily “woman” was referred to.

The word ‘which the English Version translates by “now,” “ha phaam,- “ we have rendered above by “actually.” There is not much to choose between the two words, the difference is very slight; but if we accept the English rendering “now,,-’ it rather suggests a little contradiction to what was said in verse 21. If we put any emphasis on the “now” (as, par ex. in “whereas I was blind, ‘now’ I see”) it appears to state that the “rib” had only become part of the substance of the Adam after it was taken from him. The Hebrew word avoids that vague contradiction, it means “actually” or “really.”

There is another word in verse 23 that we should make some reference to. It is the word translated “bone” in the English Bible: “etzem.” It is not new to us. We explained the word “etz” in connection with the passages in which it was translated “tree” in the English Version. We then said that it denoted “substance” in general, especially any “organic” substance, and that it applied both to physical and spiritual things. (For instance,- in Psalm I it is translated by “counsel.”) “Etzem” is exactly the same word extended by the final “M,” the “universal” sign. This gives the word,- in the present case, the meaning of “general spiritual substance.” “Adam” says “This is spiritual substance. of the very substance of my whole spiritual being.”

Now we come to the two words “aish” and “aisha,” which the R.V. translates by, “man” and “woman.” This is the first time the word “Aish’ appears. Hitherto the word “man” has always been “Adam” in the Hebrew. Why this change of name? Why does verse 22 say: “taken out of Adam,” and verse 23 make Adam say: “Taken out of Aish”? The English Bible translates both names by “man,” without any indication that they are different in the Hebrew. There are other words also in Hebrew denoting “man” regarded in particular ways, which the R.V. does not distinguish from one another in any way, or offer any explanation of. That, of course, causes much confusion of ideas and makes it impossible for anyone without some knowledge of Hebrew to arrive at the real meaning of the original. The writer of Genesis never uses any word, or makes any change in a word or a name, without very definite purpose.

We should know sufficiently well by now that the name “Adam” denotes “man” in a universal, spiritual sense : “that which is human”; “that which distinguishes ‘man’ from any other creatures.” “Adam” was not “a” man; nor “men and women “en masse,” but the “human essence.” His purpose was to bring into the universe the “likeness of God,” to make finite beings “reflections” of “Divine” qualities.* His work began in the very earliest manifestations of sentient life. Then the state arrived when he could go no farther without transcending the limits of the “animal” state. To do that he needed a “help”)-a “faculty” he had hitherto lacked.

We have now come to the point where that “faculty” has been provided for him, though we have not yet been told (except so far as we can gather from the symbolic narrative) what that “faculty” actually was. It is “Adam” himself who describes it as “Aisha,” and adds that he does so because it was “taken out of “Aish.” * The moment he finds himself in possession of the new faculty he realises that he himself is a new kind of being to what he was before. He now sees himself as an independent intelligent being. which he calls “Aish,” and he knows that his new “help” has been produced from his own “intelligent being.”

*Note the passage in Goethe’s “Faust” about “weaving” for finite beings, “the living garments of Divinity.” That expression is really an excellent rendering of the spiritual significance of “ribs.”

Now let us study, somewhat in detail, this word “Aish.” The simple root “ai” denotes merely any “desire,- “ “inclination,” -any way in which a being or individual seeks some “self” expression, or reveals itself. The root “ash” denotes “potential activity, power,” “force,” “directed energy.” “Aish” denotes all activity in which one’s individuality is expressed. It is the manifestation of one’s “intelligent being.” This “intelligent being” it is that gives man any real “Self” to express, and makes him capable of conceiving ideas of his own; but to bring about the realisation of the ideas one creates, something more than creative intelligence is required. That “something” -is the driving power of WILL, and WILL was what God “built up” into a living, active force from its elemental germ, that had till then been lying dormant in the being of Adam. Now we can see the meaning of the name “Aisha.” To the name “Aish,” one sign letter has been added, and one removed. The sign added is “h’ ‘-the sign of “Life,” or of movement towards some purpose or end. It has been referred to and explained many times in ether chapters. “Aisha” is that which gives life and realising power to “Aish.” In the Hebrew text the name transliterated “Aish” is spelt A-I-S-H, and pronounced “Aish,” but that transliterated “Aisha” is spelt A-SH-H, without the “i,” although the i sound is retained in pronunciation. It was omitted from the written word for hieroglyphic purposes. Had it been retained, the word “Aisha” would have been simply a feminine of “Aish,” and would have denoted that “Aisha” was a separate “intelligent being,” or “female intelligence”; but the omission of the “i” showed that “Aisha” was not a separate being but a faculty of the being of Adam.

As a sidelight on the value of much of the so-called “Higher Criticism,” we may mention that Delitzsch and others question the correctness of the statement put into the mouth of Adam, that the name “Aisha” was derived from “Aish.” Delitzsch says naively : “Adam did not speak Hebrew and therefore could not be competent to say what the word was derived from.” It does not appear to have occurred to him that Adam did not write Genesis, and that the man who did, not only spoke and wrote the language, but did more, perhaps, than any other man to make it a great literary language. We therefore think it at least a justifiable assumption that he was quite as competent to state the derivation of any word he used as even a learned XIXth Century AD German professor. Delitzsch’s counter-suggestion that “Aisha” was derived from “neshim” (which means ‘wives or women” in a physical sense). as any careful reader of this chanter will see. makes no sense at all, and merely shows that he had no idea at all of the meaning of the whole story.

‘When we once realise that Aisha was the “faculty of Willing” we can see how precisely correct every word used in the old text was. Will is not an intelligent being In itself. What we “will” is not the creation of Will. Our “intelligent being,” it is. that creates our thoughts, ideas, conceptions, desires, etc., but it requires Will to bring them to fruition. Dante tells us that, in spiritual realms, “Will and Power are one.” Previous to the provision of “Aisha,” Adam was not an “independent” intelligent being; he had no Will of his own; he could only do what the Divine Will which controlled him, permitted. of course, in that state he could do no wrong- “ sin” was an impossibility to him; but so also was all creative power, all moral effort and all spiritual progress. He could get no nearer to being the “likeness” of God than an animal can, and could not realise God’s idea of “man.” Therefore, God could only make the “man” he longed for and needed by giving Adam “Will-power,- “ and “Freedom”;-Freedom even to rebel against the “high powers in Heaven,” but without which he could never attain the “likeness” of God.

The very first attribute of the Divinity which Genesis reveals to us was His Will :- “Let there be,” or “there shall Be,” or better still, the simple imperative “Be.” Adam, to become the “likeness” of God must have Will as a starting point, also for his self-expression.

We close here our study of Genesis Chapter II. Verses 24 and 25 in all probability were no part of the original book. They come at the end of a chapter, where there would very likely have been a blank in the original manuscript. They have every appearance of being a comment added by a later writer.

They are quite different in style and idea from those of the Mosaic writer, and the more closely one looks into them, the more apparent it is that they could not have formed part of the narrative. It would be quite easy to show that the ‘writer, whoever he may have been, did not really understand the meaning of the text, or he would have seen that his comment-good as it may be in itself-was irrelevant. It was just one of those “practical applications” that any preacher might deduce from a text; not part of the text itself.

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 24

Na-Hash the Serpent

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 24

Fred Mayers

Genesis III, v. 1.

– “Now the Serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made,” (English R.V.)

“Na-hash.” A careful examination of this word would provide us with a great amount of information respecting the real nature and construction of the Hebrew language, information of a kind of which only occasional scraps are obtainable from any of the academical text books, and information which, if it had not been withheld by those who possessed it, might have prevented most of the misunderstanding of the language, and the mistranslations resulting from that misunderstanding. No doubt, there were very good reasons why Providence permitted the withholding of the information in earlier periods of human mental development: there are some things in the -verses we are at present considering, which even to-day, the present writer does not think it wise to explain openly. He gives the reader the means of discovering the full truth for himself,- and leaves it at that. There is every reason to believe, however, that the time has now arrived when the information should be in the possession of all whose duty it is to expound the Bible to mankind.

Rather fuller technical particulars than usual will be helpful here, especially to readers who already have some knowledge of Hebrew, but we will endeavour so to present them that anyone of ordinary intelligence with a little patience and thought will -be able to grasp their meaning and importance. We have already made many references to these matters in our previous chapters. but their importance to all Bible students is sufficient excuse for any repetitions.

The basis of the Hebrew language is the “sound” and the sign” values attaching to the alphabetic letters. These are most carefully selected and logically graded in certain relationships with one another. The change of any letter in a –Hebrew word is quite sufficient to indicate the nature of the change intended in the meaning of it. (This statement needs some qualification in the case of later Hebrew writers who had -lost the knowledge of the “sign” values of the letters, and who often exchanged letters for one another, and “vowel pointing” for letters, so long as the word retained approximately its traditional pronunciation. When that is done the hieroglyphic significance of the language is destroyed. We are, however, not concerned with those writers, but with the writer of Genesis, and he, in any case, well knew the hieroglyphic content of every word he used.) The following examples will serve our purpose :-

1) “aleph,” our “a.” This is the simplest of all linguistic sounds, a mere audible breathing. It appears to be a basic, original “vowel” of all languages. It “symbolises” the beginning, or the potentiality of anything. In Hebrew grammar it stands for the first person singular when it is prefixed to a verb.

(2) “he” (“hai.”) This letter is the same as our aspirated “H.” It adds emphasis, force, life, to any sound it is attached to; therefore, it is used as the symbol of “Life.”

(3) “cheth.” We do not use the sound of this letter in English, but it is common in Scotland (a legacy from Gaelic) in such words as “loch,” and also in German as in “ich,” “nicht.” It sounds like a strongly aspirated “H” with a faint suggestion of the “K” sound in it. It seems to be half-way between the pure vowel sound “H” and a fully pronounced “K.” It signifies “Life” combined with “effort” of some kind to express itself outwardly. It is “life” showing itself in “activity.” work,” “striving” of some kind.

(4) “ayin.” The sound of this letter is also not found in English or in any ‘Western language. It seems to be neither a distinct vowel nor a consonant-just a deep, soft, guttural sound that does not pass one’s lips. It approaches most nearly to the “a” sound, but it is an “a” that is born in the throat and never finds utterance. In use it generally coalesces with another letter, merely giving the other letter a somewhat guttural sound. One could not imagine. this sound being the symbol of any form of “life” or “activity,” and quite appropriately it is used only to symbolise what is “material,- “ physical,- “ “low-down,” “degraded, etc.

The reader will notice that in the above four letters or signs there is a clearly perceptible correspondence between the nature of the sounds themselves and the significations attached to the letters. This “correspondence” gives us a valuable clue to the nature of the Hebrew language-and possibly to all very primitive languages.

We may also mention two or three “consonants” before leaving this subject. There are two letters which are “Signs” of two kinds of movement :-

(i) “Resh.” The pronunciation of this letter is similar to our English “R.” This is the “sign” of direct, forward or straightforward rectilinear movement (in either a literal or figurative sense)-simply motion or mutation to or from any place or state. We have made many references to the meaning of this sign in previous chapters, so need say no more.

-(ii) “Shin” or “sin.” This letter has two distinct sounds. If it is pointed with a dot over it, on the right, it sounds as “sh.” In this case it is the sign of “relative movement,” i.e., movement which is controlled or kept in certain relationships with some point or point-such as the elliptical or rather egg-shaped orbit of a planet; a spiral, etc. If the letter is pointed with the dot on the left, it is sounded as “S,” practically the same as the -letter “samech. This letter “samech” (“S” as in Sam) the hieroglyph of which was originally a serpent with its tail in its mouth, represented a “circle” (a line with no beginning or ending) a “cycle,” a “globe,” a “sphere of activity,” “eternity,” an “environment,” and similar ideas. The “Sin” symbolised -similar ideas in movement, such as the circular movement of a fly-wheel on its axis, or any “enclosing” movement. There arc, of course, many forms of movement which combine both direct and relative movement. For instance, there is that of the “screw,” in which the screw advances as it turns; or that of a “pendulum,” or the “tides,” relative and alternating to and fro; there are also “wave” movements. A very typical example of the combination of “sh” and “r” is the ordinary Hebrew word for “snake” or “serpent”: “sheretz.” In that word “Sh” (relative, in this case “sinuous” movement) is followed by “R” (“direct” movement) and the “determinative” sign “tz,” thus denoting that the sinuous movement produced the progressive direct movement which is distinctive of all snake-like creatures. The word also shows clearly that the serpent (in Hebrew) got its name from its “movements.” (We mentioned in an earlier chapter that the Mosaic writer classified all living creatures according to their type of movement.)

In every case when we speak of “movement” we intend the – – word to mean, not only movement in time or space, but equally mental or spiritual movements of a “corresponding” nature.

We will just make a reference to one more letter :- “nun,” our “N.” This letter in Hebrew is symbolic of “produced being,” i.e., of anything which is given a definite existence; a being; a personality; an individuality, etc. “N” is also the distinguishing sign of “passive” verbs, i.e., of something done to -the “subject,” not by it.

We selected the above sign-letters for special notice because they provide us with the information we need in order to understand correctly the meaning of the word “Na-hash,” and that is the one word in the whole of Genesis, that it is most important that we-should understand correctly.

We shall find that Na-hash was a “serpent” exceedingly insidious and subtle,-but not a serpent in the sense that old theologies led people to understand. It was no creeping reptile of the earth, but something inherent in every human being. If the writer of Genesis had been concerned with a reptile, he could have used the ordinary name for one mentioned above. There would have been no need for him to have created a new and carefully-thought-out “hieroglyphic” name.

The “serpent,” however, as a religious symbol had been in use thousands of years before the time of Moses, as there is abundant evidence to prove. It was actually an object of worship in ages when it was only too easy for any symbol to become idolised. But in very ancient times-(times which, in the evolution of mankind, corresponded to the state of “Adam” before the change was wrought in his being which was described in our previous chapter)-it was not a symbol of “evil.” It was the symbol of what Genesis describes as the “formative” activities of “Ihoah Elohim.” It was frequently pictured as a serpent with seven heads. A study of very ancient symbology reveals, as one might expect, ideas often differing considerably from those of the Hebrew writer; but at the same time they often reveal an astounding grasp of great cosmic facts. The writer of Genesis views “Creation” as a six-fold manifestation of the Divinity. The ancient Naacal “seers” conceived it as the operation of the seven great “planetary” principles. The serpent was their symbol of the Universal “Living One,” and the seven heads represented the seven principles through which the Cosmic Life found expression. The only essential difference between the ancients and the Mosaic writer was that the ancients-(like most moderns described as “Creation,-’ what Genesis calls “formation.” The Mosaic writer went farther back-to the spiritual origins of all the “formative” processes that have produced the Universe, and so he has given us the only truly scientific “Cosmogony” that the world has ever received.

But “Na-hash” was something quite unconnected with the Creation ; we are not told that it was ever “created,” “formed,” or “made” like other things. All that was created was described as “good” or “good to the utmost.” Na-hash simply appears on the scene, and the story is silent as to “how” or “whence.” All we are told is that is was “subtle” beyond anything in the whole range of animated creatures. It was,- in fact,- not any “creature” or “being” but an “activity.” Let us see what the name “Na-hash” means in the light of the notes given earlier in this chapter. The root of the word is “hash” or “chash.” We explained that “cheth” denoted “life” seeking some outlet; some means of expressing itself; some unrestrained, instinctive impulse to activity of some kind.

The “sh” being the sign of “relative” movement (relationship), relates this “impulse” to self-expression, to the inmost being of Adam. It forms the focus or central point of his being, toward which it seeks to draw everything: it denotes activity centred in “self’ and working for the “Self.”

The “n” prefixed to the root gives the word an application to something “individualised.” We saw in our previous chapter that the provision of “Aisha” for Adam brought about a consciousness of himself as an “intelligent being” (Aish). He -realised his own “individuality.” (It was still a spiritual, not -a physical being.)

“Na-hash,” then, is the activity of the very basic element of human personality- “Selfhood.” It does not act as a “moral” -force. It has no “bias” either to what is morally “good” or to what is morally “evil.”

In all sentient creatures, as we know, there is what we call the “instinct of self-preservation.” This was necessary, not only to ‘work for the preservation of the life of each separate creature, but also for the continuation of the species. In the human kingdom, every human being is a “species” in himself, -i.e., an individual Soul. So when the “human” soul was developed, this same “instinct” continued to work, in an intensified and more individualised way. In the animal it is a quite impersonal force ; in man it becomes very personal indeed. It forms as it were a vortex, like a whirlpool which draws into itself all it can grasp. It is a “passion ever seeking satisfaction of some kind. It is the potential root of self-love, self-seeking, selfishness; a blind, unconscious force.

Science tells us how “spontaneous combustion” may arise from the heat and gases in moist vegetable matter, and so cause –a destructive fire. Genesis tells us how, in a similar spontaneous way, passion. cupidity, envy, covetousness, and all they lead to,- arise in the human heart from the workings-the insidious, subtle, “serpent-like” workings-of something that -m itself is absolutely necessary for the preservation of the individuality,” and without which, man could never become a “moral being” or the “likeness” of God. When “Adam” be comes aware of his “Selfhood,” he also becomes aware that ideas, impulses, emotions and desires arise in the workings of his own mind and feelings. He knows that · they are “his own,” a part of himself.

This inner life is very attractive to him; it “fascinates” him; it appears to him as a thing of beauty, something to love and cherish. How could it appear otherwise to him? He him-self was the work of God! Every faculty he possessed was a gift of God! He had never known anything evil or sinful, because hitherto the “Will” of God had always guided and controlled all his activities! Now God had given him “Aisha,” “WILL” of his own to exercise. As God was the giver, “Aisha” must be a “good” gift! God had made him “good”; so naturally, the ideas and desires that arose in him must be “good!” Evil fruit could not grow on a good tree!

We put the matter in that way merely to suggest to the reader what we ourselves, were we in the position that the Adam was at this point of the story, might have thought. We do not for a moment suggest that Adam either thought things out in that way, or could have done so. As a matter of fact, he would have been as void of thought on the subject as a baby is of high philosophy. He was “conscious” of his possession, his new faculty, but until he exercised it-and only to the extent that he exercised it could he have any “experience” of it,- or any idea whatever of its possibilities, either for good or evil. All that he had “experienced” was the result of God’s Will in action-he could learn nothing from that about the nature of “evil.” God had pronounced all that He had done as “good,” but until Adam learnt from experience what “evil” was, be knew nothing of any moral distinctions. The mature ‘‘man ,, of the XXth century AD is the inheritor of a thousand ages of unconscious and conscious thought and experience; “Adam” was himself the “zero” point of human development. He was just where every baby born into the world is, morally and intellectually. at the moment if is born. Every baby is “human spirit” coming into physical manifestation; it is not void of “Will” and “Idea,” even from its first hour on earth; it has-though unconsciously-an “idea” of its need for food, and it has the “Will” to get it instinct tells it how to get it. And note this carefully :-that first baby impulse was for “something for Self.” Thus “Na-hash” begins its work very early indeed in every human “Will” and continues it in an ever-widening sphere of life-until the “evil” potentialities inherent in it become known through their results and become abhorrent to the soul; then they are crushed by the same “Will” grown “wise” through sad experience.

Do we call the baby a “sinner” when it clutches its mother’s breast with its tiny fingers? Or when it is a little older and we may have occasion to say: “Baby must not touch the tea-pot, it will burn him,” but baby thinks he would like to do so-and does,- do we accuse him of wilful “disobedience” to a Divine “command,” of “rebellion against the high powers in Heaven?” That is what unimaginative theologies have said of Adam.

What we wish to make perfectly clear is that in the whole of this Genesis story there is nothing that is not perfectly “natural”; and that it is all repeated in the life of every’ human being-also that it was all quite foreseen by God and necessary to His purpose. What is perfectly “natural” cannot be “evil” or “sinful”; if it were, no responsibility whatever could attach to man for the “sin of the world.”

What man is “by nature” God made him; and God said He had made man “good.” Yet we know that “evil” and “sin” do exist: experience tells us of “evil,” and “conscience” tells us -of “sin.” What we forget is that neither “Adam” nor we ourselves began our existence with “experience” or “conscience.” “Conscience,” indeed, only manifests its existence after we have done wrong: it is the awakening of “moral perception” through “experience” of “evil.” We could not perceive anything as evil or sinful were not our inmost nature “good” and spiritually perceptive of anything that was contradictory to that “goodness.” What is not “good” is unnatural. The awakening of conscience is the birth of our moral and spiritual life in our physical-plane existence. It is the first step in the “realisation” of the “Likeness” of God in our earthly lives.

“Na-hash” contained all the possibilities of evil as well as good, but it was a necessity, and the basis of moral being. Evil and Sin have come from some of its workings and have been the tragedy of mankind: how much more have they been the tragedy of the Heart of God!

Yet “Na-hash,” as we have said, was in itself neither evil nor good. It was really a force working to protect and further everything that seemed to be in the interests of the “Self.” It just worked in and for the “Self.” When Adam was in the state of a universal spirit the activities of Na-hash” did not appear: but when Adam enters the physical state of being they appear at once and are centred in the physical personality, because being of a concentrative nature they are necessarily “materialistic.”

There is one word in this verse which we have omitted to explain. It is the word translated “subtle” in our English Bible: “a-room,” It is a word which brings up some very interesting points, but as it is very closely connected with the word in verse 10 translated “naked,- “ we will deal with it when explaining that verse.

There are, however, a few little matters of interest that we may mention while we are discussing the “Serpent”:-There are many references to the “serpent” in the Bible and in every case there is something mysterious in what is related. For instance, in Isaiah VI, verse 2, we have the familiar passage beginning: “Above Him stood the Seraphim, each one had six wings . . . .” Then in Isaiah XIV, verse 29, we read: “Rejoice not Philistia-all of thee, because the rod that smote thee is broken ; for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a basilisk (an adder), and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.” Again, in Numbers XXI, verse 6, we read: “And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit them”-followed by instructions to Moses to make a “fiery serpent” and put it on a standard that the people might see it and be healed; and how Moses made a “serpent of brass.”

It may surprise those who know and read only the English Bible to learn that the “six-winged Seraphim,” “Seraphim m’ophphim,” the “seraphs” who sing “Holy! Holy! Holy!”, the Seraph who took the live coal from the Altar and touched the lips of Isaiah with it to “cleanse” them, the “fiery flying serpent” of Isaiah XIV, verse 29, the “fiery serpents” of Numbers XXI, and the symbolic “serpent” of brass”* made by Moses-all are given the same name, “Seraphim.” This curious identification of “high angels” with “fiery serpents,” gives us something to think about. But these do not exhaust the different uses that the “serpent” symbol has been put to.

In the “Airjana Vaega,” a scripture of the Ancient Zoroastrian religion-by far the purest and most spiritual of all the very ancient religions that we know anything about, and which ante-dates Genesis, by how many centuries or millennia no one can say-there is another “serpent” story. It tells us that the “serpent Dahaka” was the creature by which “Ahriman” destroyed the “first created land” of “Ormuzd.” “Dahaka,” we are told, had “three heads, three jaws, six eyes, and a thousand senses.” “Ormuzd” and “Ahriman” have been very crudely and incorrectly taken as equivalent to the old conceptions of “God” and “Satan” in Hebrew and Christian thought. They have also been considered as dual “Gods”: “Ormuzd” as the God of Light and Goodness, and “Ahriman” as the God of Darkness and Evil-eternally antagonistic to one another, and each seeking supremacy. That is quite a false idea. Zoroastrianism was purely monotheistic. It taught that the Creator, “Ahura Mazda,” was “One” Eternal Spirit. Ormuzd and Ahriman were two universal principles, polar opposites in their working and purpose, but both proceeding from the One Supreme God.

*In II Kings XVIII, verse 4, the “brazen serpent” made by Moses,- and which became an idol, is called “ne’hashtan.” The word “Na-hash” is also the word for ‘copper, or “brass” (also sometimes for “divination” or “magic,” which clearly shows the symbolic nature of the name.

Ormuzd represented the principle that works towards the spiritual, and Ahriman that which works towards the material. God needed both of them for His purposes. We hope that our -earlier chapters will have shown that the material, physical universe was as necessary to God as the Spiritual world for the realisation of His cherished dream of “Mankind,” although the physical universe is “temporal,” a thing of time and space, while the Spiritual is eternal. For the material universe to be brought into existence at all, it was, obviously, necessary for a time at least, that the “Ahriman” forces should be permitted to overcome the “Ormuzd”-spiritual forces-which would otherwise have prevented all materialisation of any kind in any sphere. When the material universe has been formed, and “Adam” becomes physical “men and women,” both the forces remain at work: Ormuzd ever seeks to draw men towards the spiritual, while Ahriman seeks to hold him to the earth and the earthly. Both are continually necessary and they work in every plane of human life, physical, mental and moral. Ormuzd works for the ideal, Ahriman for the practical. Neither is good alone would make men utterly impracticable, other worldly” visionaries; Ahriman alone would make men utterly materialistic, hard and soulless. Working, however, in true balance with one another they produce sane beings, healthy in mind, body and soul. “Dahaka” was the Ahrimanic force which, in producing the physical universe, put an end to the sojourn of man in the spiritual “Eden” of Ormuzd.

It is not difficult to see how this ancient story harmonises -with the Genesis narrative; but the true counterpart to the “Serpent Dahaka” in Genesis is not “Na-hash” but “Cain.” We cannot, however, deal with the story of “Cain and Abel” here.

There is just one thing in which all the “Serpent” legends agree; that is, in every case the “Serpent” is a symbol of an inward “Life Principle,” which works in an infinite variety of ways, sometimes creatively, sometimes destructively.

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 25

The Serpent at Work

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 25

Fred Mayers

Genesis III, v. 1 to 6.

v. 1: “Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made, And he- said unto the woman, Yea, bath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden.

v.2: “And the woman said unto the serpent: Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;

v.3: “But of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not cat of it’ neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

v. 4: “And the serpent said to the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

v.5: “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall he opened and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

v.6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and she gave also to her husband with her and he did eat,” (English R.V.)

We need not waste any time discussing the “literalness” of the word “said,” or the dialogue between “Na-hash” and “Aisha,” We might just as well discuss whether “Brer Rabbit” ever really conversed with “Brer Fox” as related in the delightful old “Uncle Remus” stories. We understand stories of that kind perfectly well, and accept them for what they are. Such stories, when they are genuinely of ancient origin, can give us valuable light on the workings of thought in primitive men, and the way in which the old story-tellers succeeded in conveying valuable lessons to the minds of very simple folk.

If we approach the Genesis stories in the same way as we should approach similar stories in non-Biblical literature,- we shall soon see that “Bible Truth” does not consist in the “literalness” of the narratives in which it is presented, but in the very real and important facts of life which are revealed to us through them.

As we have so often stated, the Genesis story is the story of humanity as a whole, and also of every individual human being ever born into the world. The more we study it, the more certainly we shall see that we are reading about ourselves and about universal human experience.

Undoubtedly, the most terrible fact of all life and history, the most undeniable and universally acknowledged of all facts, is the presence of “sin” and “evil” in the world. We instinctively want to know how they could have originated in a universe which God had “created” good. The answer which is almost invariably given is that “something went wrong with God’s plans,” because some very clever and powerful “Evil Spirit” tempted man to disobey a command of God, and thus brought a Divine curse upon “Adam” and all his descendants; a curse which could only be removed by man’s co-operation in carrying out a new plan designed to replace the plan which had proved a failure.

This “new plan.” Theology calls the “plan of Salvation.” -The acceptance of this plan by an act of Faith is to restore man to the state of goodness and blessedness in which he was first made, and to restore also his immortal nature which had been destroyed by sin.

That may be taken as a rough outline of ordinary theological thought. The ideas involved in it have been so ingrained in our minds by long centuries of teaching that they are currently accepted, without question, by millions who fail to see that the whole conception is hopelessly in contradiction to other basic theological teachings.

Let us try to free our minds from pre-conceptions and consider the matter quite impartially. In the first place, Theology, quite correctly and logically, states that the eternal God, in order to be God at all, must be omniscient and omnipotent : He must know the “End” from the “Beginning.” The End is the End He Himself purposes. Being omniscient and omnipotent, and His purposes decided in advance, it is obvious that His plans and His working out of them could not admit of the possibility of failure. Neither could there be any outside “Power” to interfere with them. If He is “God” at all, He must be God alone. The idea of two Gods is an impossible one. Therefore, the Eternal One can have no co-existing rival to oppose Him, and be ever working to bring His plans into confusion and failure. Neither is- it conceivable that any creature created arid made by Him could be powerful enough to upset His plans, or bring about anything which He had not foreseen. Therefore, it is clear that whatever is or has been must have been foreseen and provided for. Nothing could happen except what was permitted for a purpose and for a necessary purpose. Obviously, therefore, there must be some factor or factors of the problem that Theology has failed to grasp. or has in some way misunderstood.

Readers who have followed our exposition carefully will have noticed the importance which we have attached, all through, to two particular matters. The first is the almost universal confusion by commentators of Genesis, of the idea of “Creation” with that of “making,” “forming,” or “realising.” That is the basic error which has led to most of their other misconceptions. The second is the principle which, as we have seen, underlies the whole process of “realising” the Creative idea; it is the principle of gradual “evolution”; of developing everything from the infinitely simple to the infinitely complex. from “chaos” to a perfectly ordered and organised Universe; from blankest ignorance to the highest forms of knowledge; from the complete absence of any “moral” qualities to their highest development. The “plan” which was created was perfect from its conception. The “realisation” has been the work of countless ages, and has still far to go. It has been in progress ever since the foundations of the Universe were laid in the infinite “void”; it will continue until the heavens and the earth have fulfilled their purpose and passed away, and “man,” en masse, ‘ and individually, has, reached his appointed goal the manifold “Likeness of God.

If we keep those things constantly in mind, they will be a perennial counterpoise to all the temptations to pessimism that afflict us in these days. “When ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be not troubled . . . . the end is not yet.” This story of the “Fall” will also take on a very different aspect from the one we have been accustomed to see it in.

Let us now return to our text and see where we stand at present-

(1) “Adam,” as we have seen, was the universal soul of humanity: a spiritual being. We have seen that he had gone through many phases of development. He had first found expression in infinite varieties of “animal souls” and in the evolution of their bodily forms. Then we see that he has to leave the “animal” realm and go on to the unfolding of higher qualities to constitute the “human” kingdom in which he will finally evolve to perfect manhood-the manhood of Christ.

(2) “Aish” is “Adam” considered as an “intelligent being.” a thinking, reasoning being.

(3) “Aisha” is the volitive faculty of Adam, his “Will” enabling him to express himself in his own way. Our English Bible translates “Aisha” by “woman.” That is not altogether wrong. In our Chapter XXII “The search for a helpmeet” we mentioned, incidentally, that one requirement was that the helpmeet should be a “stepping-stone” to “Adam’s” sex-differentiation in the physical realm of being. This is a convenient place to show how “Aisha” fulfilled that requirement,,, and how “she” becomes associated with the idea of “woman.

II we think over all the qualities and faculties that constitute the being of “Adam”-(they are all to be found in ourselves)-we shall find that the only two which directly correspond with the differences of the sexes are “Aish” and “Aisha”:- “Intelligence” and “Will.” All others are equally common to both sexes. “Intellect” and “Will” are universally recognised as Masculine and Feminine attributes respectively. That does not mean, however, that “Intelligence” is by any means the sole prerogative of man, or “Will” solely of woman. It is a law in nature that every being should share something with every other being. There must be some basis to justify the statement that “we are all members one of another.” If man possessed some quality that was entirely absent from woman, or woman some quality entirely lacking in man, mutual understanding between men and women would be impossible. We can only understand anything which we experience ourselves. For that reason there is in every man something of the woman nature, and in every woman, something of the man.

Taking humanity as a whole, however, “Intellect” is more prominent in men and “Will” in women, and we feel instinctively that this is as it should be. We feel that an “effeminate” man or a mannish” woman is contrary to the will of Nature. We naturally look to man for “thinking,” “creating.” “pioneering,” and so on, and to woman for “intuition,” “emotion,” “sympathy,” and so on, although we know that the respective spheres of each sex are often invaded by the other (and oft-times with conspicuous success).

(4) “Na-hash” is the activity of the “Self” principle. Its motive of activity is self-love. It is a centre of attraction, seeking to draw into itself all that the “self” desires. It is neither good nor evil in a moral sense. It is an impulse to preserve the self; to extend its reach and increase its powers and to bring to it all the satisfaction or pleasure it can. It is really a blind force.

-(2) “Aish” is the thinking principle which dictates the direction of the “Na-hash” activity. It is easy to see how this blind force may become very evil in its activities by leading to “selfishness,” “covetousness,” “envy,” “greed,” “injustice,” and all the evils that can arise from self-centred activity. It tends to separate man from man, and the human Will from the Divine Will. The only possible corrective to the evil potentialities of “Na-hash” must come from “Aish” and from the reflection of the thought of “Aish” in “Aisha”-the “Will.”

When “Aish” finds from “experience” (i.e., the eating of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil)-that this self-centred activity does not turn out as expected, that it defeats its own purpose and brings trouble, disappointment and disillusion, it begins to acquire a little “wisdom” which it brings to control the work of Na-hash. That is the beginning of moral action.

“Adam,” “Aish,” “Aisha” and “Na-hash” are the “dramatis persona” of the drama played out in Eden. They are not four, but one. “Adam” includes the others. So also does each one of us.

With this introduction we may try to see the meaning of the story. We will translate it a little more freely than the English Version to make it more intelligible: verse 1 “And he (Na-hash) said to the Aisha (Will): ‘did Elohim really say that you should not eat of every tree of the garden?”

We said in an earlier chapter that the word to “eat,” “achol,” had a double signification: to “consume” and to “consummate.” It means-both in a literal and a figurative sense-to take something into ourselves and make it part of ourselves, either for our substance or satisfaction, or for our completion or perfecting in some way.

We said also that the word “tree,” “etz,” denoted “substance” in general-both material and spiritual-especially organic substance, i.e., that which grows and develops. The “garden,” “gan,” we saw, was an enclosure, a sphere of activity in the realm of “time and space” into which Adam was put to work in his spiritual being. As for the “tree of knowledge of good and evil,” its very name tells us perfectly clearly what it is. It is the experience acquired in finding out for ourselves by the process o “trial and error” what is “good” and what is “evil.” When we have found out what “evil” is ; it is too late to undo the evil done in the process or to avoid the consequences.

While all the activities of “Adam” were directed by the Divine Will he could not go astray, or do wrong; but when he becomes conscious of having a Will of his own (in complete ignorance of his ignorance) he imagines his own Will to be as infallible as the Will that had hitherto guided him.

God had supremely important reasons for giving Adam a Will of his own and freedom to use it, and having done so He would have defeated his own purposes entirely by any interference with Adam’s freedom. All He could do was to “advise” and point out danger. The one thing God could not do was to “compel” Adam to do right. Adam was quite aware of the advice and warning which he had received in his “conscience”-(verse 2): “And the Aisha said to the Na-hash, From the fruits of the growth of the garden we may eat: (verse 3) but from the fruits of the ‘tree’ which is the inmost of the garden, Elohim said: Eat not any of it and do not touch it, lest ye certainly die.” But he wondered-Why! How was it possible that “knowledge” (experience) could be evil? Elohim knew everything and all Elohim did was always “good”!

Then doubts began to arise in Adam: Did Elohim really mean what He said? Had He, perhaps, some motive of His own behind the advice? Did He wish to keep Adam in a state of ignorance? Was He possibly “jealous” of Adam knowing too much? So, Adam might have wondered and dreamed.

Then Na-hash becomes active. The ideas floating about vaguely in the mind of Adam (Aish), become “desires” for the prohibited thing; the “desires” become uncontrollable, the power of “Aisha” is captured and the thing is “Willed.” The whole action moves in a circle, all within the being of “Adam.”

There is one very significant word in this third verse: the word translated “touch,” “thiggehoo.” (The initial “th” and the final “oo” form the pronoun “ye”). The verb is “gou” which really means “to breathe out,” to “expire,” “to cause one’s soul to pass into another existence,” “to enter into anything heart and soul.” It is something much beyond mere “touching” or “contacting.”

This word makes quite clear what it was that Elohim was warning Adam about. Adam, as we know, was put into the material realm to work in it, but he was to retain his spiritual nature; he was not to “materialise” himself in soul and spirit. He was not to breathe out his soul into the material substance of the “garden.”

Verse 4: “And the Na-hash said to the Aisha, Not, dying, shall ye utterly die.”

Verse 5: “but Elohim knows that in the day ye eat (of the “tree”), then your eyes will be opened and ye will be as Elohim, knowing good and evil.” It is quite clear from those verses that all that passes in the inner thoughts of Adam is taken in, so to speak, by the Na-hash principle to use for the purposes of the “Self.” The “Will,” Aisha, is captured by the suggestion in the words: “Ye shall be as Elohim.” It seemed to be so true and such an excellent justification for doing what the Na-hash in Adam desired. Was it not the very thing Elohim wanted all along that Adam should became “as” Himself- “in His own likeness”?

The statement made by Na-hash contradicting the words of Elohim: “Dying ye shall die indeed” shows how, when “Aish” (the intelligent part of (Adam) begins to “doubt” or feel uncertainty about the warning, the Na-hash principle turns the doubt into complete unbelief. Aish wishes the words might not be true; Na-hash declares they are not true. The words “dying ye shall die” in Hebrew,- “moth temuthun,” are very suggestive. The first word “moth” is the ordinary word for “dying, a passing from one state to another.” The second word has much more extensive meaning; it means “to die utterly” to the life he had hitherto enjoyed; to pass from the state of an immortal spirit into a mortal existence. Adam cannot comprehend such a change, hence his doubts. He believes that “knowledge” will “open his eyes. So far, he was right; but he little thought what they would be opened to!

Verse 6: “And the Aisha considered how good the ‘tree,-(the material realm) was for gaining experience ; how delightful the ‘garden’ was to look upon ; how desirable it was as a means of increasing intelligence, for building up knowledge and full understanding of things; and she took of the fruit of it, and ‘ate’ of it; and she gave also to Aish with her, and he ate.”

It will be noticed that the “temptation” is threefold: (1)

The “tree was good for food” – a suggestion that would appeal only to the lowest “animal” nature in Adam. (2) It was a “delight to the eyes”-a suggestion appealing to a “human’ quality, the aesthetic sense. (3) It was “to be desired to make one wise -a suggestion that appeals to the highest faculties of man-his spiritual nature. It was this that “beguiled the “Will” of Adam, because it appeared to be so “good.”

The word “l’hashecchil,” which is translated in the English Version “to make one wise,” we have paraphrased at more length above, in order to make its meaning clearer.

The verb “sh’col” means “to go on towards perfection,” “towards the full achievement of anything.” It is built on the root “chol,” which we have referred to several times before as denoting “completion”; “perfection”; “all”; “every.”

The only other word in the verse needing any explanation is the word “imme-ha,” “with her.” It is curious, because in the English it suggests the idea of a “companion,” “another being”: in the Hebrew it does not. It denotes only something in intimate connection with her-something in the same being. The meaning of the whole sentence is quite plain :-Adam

having in Na-hash “desired,” in Aisha “Willed” to enter into material experience, now, in Aish (his “Intelligent being”). “approves” what is done.

Man is always able (or at least always tries) to find some mental backing for what he does (especially if his conscience is not quite easy on the matter). If he cannot find any genuine justification-well!-he puts, up with self-deception. Sometimes, however, “Conscience mocks his futile efforts. Something hidden away deep down in human nature makes it impossible for man to silence,- or explain away, the voice of Conscience. That “something” is a surviving remnant of the original goodness of man. The doctrine of “original sin” is not to be found in Genesis.

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 26

The Opening of the Eyes

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 26

Fred Mayers

Genesis III, v. 7 and 8.

v.7: “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together and made themselves aprons.

v. 8: “And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.” (English Revised Version.)

The first sentence of verse 7 does not contain any difficulty, pass on to the words: “and they knew that they were

The word “knew,” as we have explained before, always refers to knowledge acquired by first-hand experience, something that they had experienced within themselves. What that “something” was in the present case, was that they were “naked.” Translators and commentators have almost invariably taken that word in a very literal manner indeed, and in consequence of having done that, they have been obliged to distort the whole meaning of the rest of the verse beyond recognition.

In our chapter on “Na-hash” we postponed the explanation of the word (Gen. III, v. 1) translated “subtle”: “the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field.” That word gives us a suggestion that in a cunning, insidious ,evil way, Na-hash was very ‘wise,” yet we went on to describe it as a “blind, self-centred impulse.” We can now explain why we did that. The word in the Hebrew is “aroom.”* The root of the word is “ar.” This root denotes some blind, unreasoning impulse; a craving, a self-centred “hunger,” or “desire.” It also denotes “deprivation of light-or intelligence ; nakedness”-either in a literal or figurative sense; an “absolute lack” of something; a “desolation”; a “barren, bare place,” etc. Any Hebrew lexicon will supply ample confirmation of these meanings attaching to the root. In the word “aroom,” the root is extended by the “general” or “universal” sign (final “M”); so that “aroom” is a “blind inclination” or a “self-centred passion.” It is a new development of the “instinct” of “self-preservation”: a centralising of the new “Self-hood” (Ego) and Freedom of Will given to “Adam” to distinguish the “human” race. It is quite distinct from man’s Intellect or Will. It may be said to “reflect” the ideas formed by “Aish” (man as intellectual being) and to pass them on to “Aisha” (the Will) as “Desires.” It has no “light” or “intelligence” of its own, it is simply as we have described it, a “blind” inclination, a force, or a “passion of the Ego.

*The “a” in this case represents “ayin,” the “material sign.”

There is no application of the word “aroom” which could in any way suggest any kind of “wisdom.” It is not quite clear how the “wisdom” of serpents became quasi-proverbial. In Matthew X, v. 16: “Be ye therefore ‘wise as serpents,” the Greek word has the meaning of “sagacious,” “discreet,” “cautious.”

But what most concerns us here is that the word which was applied to “Na-hash” is exactly the same word as that which is translated “naked” when applied to Adam and Aisha when their eyes were opened to their ignorance and absolute -lack of intelligence. Even Delitzsch, who will- always give a materialistic meaning to a word, where it is possible, is obliged to admit here that, by the opening of their eyes, Adam and his Aisha became “aware that their inward light was extinct.” They were “naked” indeed, but it was something much more important than nakedness of body that was in question. When man first entered the state of life in physical bodies he would have no more idea of clothes than any other animal, for as far as his physical body is concerned he is an animal. It was the nakedness of his “human” qualities that he became aware of. He had been given faculties for the development of Thought, Reason and Will, yet immediately he acts on his own initiative he discovers that he has absolutely nothing in himself to replace the Omniscient Wisdom of Elohim, which had hitherto guided all his activities.

He acted on his own “impulse” and found that it was “blind” and “without intelligence.” As a “man” he was at the “zero”-point of human development. He had qualities far higher than any possessed by the animal world, but he had everything to learn in the use of them. As man he was far more helpless than the animals. “Instinct” provided them with everything they needed. Man, in order to be man, had to replace instinct by thought and reason, and he was a baby” in knowledge. An animal knows all it needs to know from the moment it is born. Man has to learn by long and often painful experience; “wisdom” is always learnt through suffering.

Let us keep in mind that the narrative is not the story of an “incident” that happened in a particular place and on a particular day to the first “pair” of human beings. It is the story of the age-long,- slow development of all “human” qualities.

The exercise of “free-will” in any human beings always begins in a state of blind ignorance and, therefore, complete lack of responsibility. (Cf. Acts XVII, v. 30: “the times of this ignorance God winked at.”)

It is absurd to build upon the narrative a theory which implies that “Adam,” in his first act as an individual, committed the one great original “Sin” that brought a “curse” upon his descendants for ever afterwards, and even upon the very earth on which they lived and toiled. The more closely we study the story the more plainly we shall see what a sadly wrong interpretation has been put upon it. It is really a perfectly natural account of what takes place in all men-and of what must necessarily have taken place in Adam.

It is quite true that there was a definite disobedience to a Divine “Command” – or “instruction” but . . .! We wonder if our readers happen to have come across an old legend of Buddha. It is many, many years since the present writer heard it, but it was somewhat to the following effect: – Buddha was one day asked by one of his disciples if there was anything in the world strong enough to oppose or disobey his Divine Will. He replied at once: “Yes! a baby. I will prove it to you.” Just then, a baby, carried by a woman m the crowd, began to cry. Buddha commanded it to stop crying, but the baby went on crying. Buddha repeated the command several times, each time in a louder voice, and the baby cried louder. Then Buddha, as if angry, shouted the command. Baby was frightened and screamed at the top of his voice. Then Buddha, turning to his disciple, said: “You see, I cannot make a baby do my Will. Baby is stronger than Buddha.”

That was a case of “disobedience” to a Divine command. But, did Buddha, or would any rational being, call it “sin”? It was merely a perfectly natural occurrence. And exactly similar was the case of “Adam.

The makers of our theologies, starting from the primal error of confusing “creation” with “realisation,” and assuming that “Adam” was not only “created” good, but that the creative plan was instantly, simultaneously realised; that “Adam,” in the full perfection of manhood – a fully self-conscious being, with highly-developed intelligence and flawless moral qualities, was put into a perfectly ordered world, in a perfectly formed human physical body; and then that the whole of this ideal perfection collapsed in a moment when Adam was “tempted” by a suggestion from some mysterious, subhuman enemy of God, who, having gained the co-operation of Adam, was successful in destroying the perfection of the Divine plan and bringing sin into the world and all our woe.”

That may be “theology,” but it is absolutely contradictory to the teachings of Genesis, and also to the abundant evidences of the real state of primitive man, which God has left for our investigation. The outstanding features of Genesis are the universal completeness of the plan that it unfolds from “Alpha” to “Omega,” and the sound common sense and logic apparent at every step of the narrative. The manner of the telling of the story is poetical and dramatic in the highest degree, but it is none the less scientific” also, and strictly in harmony with all that scientific research can substantiate. It carries internal evidence of its Divine inspiration in every detail, which becomes cumulatively convincing.

The real facts of the so-called “Fall” of man were that, in his earliest appearance in physical form, he was without any developed intelligence or any moral qualities and, therefore, without self-consciousness or moral responsibility.

God knew perfectly well what would happen. That was clear from the “symbolic telling” of Adam in advance what his entrance into the physical world would mean, and how the gaining of experience of “good” and “evil” involved necessarily and inevitably the passing out of his immortal spiritual state into a mortal transitory existence.

We have not to imagine that God “told” Adam this in human language: He rather “buried” the truth in the sleeping conscience” of Adam. He gave no arbitrary “command” but an inward, subconscious intuition. It was absolutely necessary to the realisation of “creation” that Adam should enter the physical state, become “fruitful and multiply” that he might become “many” in the likeness of God. For the same reason he had to develop the principle of “individualism” (a legitimate function of Na-hash).

Individual “free-will” was also necessary to his becoming a moral being God knew that in the development of every “human” quality, errors, misjudgements, deviations from what His Will and Omniscience would approve were bound to occur continually, and in countless Ways they could grow, as man’s self-consciousness and responsibility developed, into actual “sin.”

He knew also that every error and every sin alike would produce evil “consequences,” direct and indirect,- bringing pain, suffering, divisions, disharmony, strife, injustice and a thousand ills. These ills are always perfectly relevant consequences of the acts that produce them, not arbitrary “punishments” or “penalties” imposed on the wrongdoer. They serve two purposes: they gradually teach man “wisdom,” and they act as deterrents to wrongdoing. Ultimately, sin is self-destructive. “Evil shall slay the wicked.”

But God knew something more than all that:- He knew that the sufferings and sorrows of His creatures were the crucifixion of His own soul. They called forth in Him not “wrath” and “vengeance’ ‘-(those who know anything of the Divine Nature can never couple those hateful words with God) – but infinite pity and loving helpfulness. That is what we find in this story, and nothing else.

Let us go on a little farther with the narrative.

Verse 7: “ And they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”

If the translators had not missed the meaning of the word “naked” they could not possibly have produced such a ridiculous travesty of the original as they have here. There is really nothing in the original about “figs” or “leaves,” or “sewing” or “aprons.” We will take the sentence word by word.

“They sewed”: Hebrew, “va-ithepherou.” This is the reflexive form of the verb “pharoth.” “to produce,” “to bring forth,” to give birth to.” The root of the word is “ph-r,” which denotes “fertility” or “productiveness.” as, for instance, in “phari,” “fruits.” It is impossible to justify the word “sewed” as a translation, even in a figurative sense.

“Fig-leaves: Hebrew, “aleh thaeneh.” “Aleh” cannot mean “leaves” because it is a singular word-(one could not speak of sewing one leaf together). It means a ‘covering,” a “shade,” “awning,- “ “protection overshadowing.” It may be of the leaves of a tree in the sense that they “cover up the bare trunk and branches and give the tree its seasonal “dress.” But there is no tree in question in this verse-and if there had been, it could hardly have been a fig tree. One commentator says rather naively: “Some kind of fig no longer ascertainable is meant by the fig tree of Paradise!”

The word “thanah” translated “fig” is just the word “ahnah” with the reciprocal or mutual sign “th” prefixed. “Ahnah” denotes “suffering.” In all the Semitic languages it is an expression of pain,- trouble, sighing, sobbing, etc. The prefix “th” gives the word the meaning of “mutual sorrow,” “sadness shared by others.” When the word “anah” becomes a verb, “ahnoh,” it means “to be plunged into sorrow,” and with the prefix “th” to “share or communicate some deep sorrow or trouble.”

Finally, there is the word translated “aprons”: “ha-goroth.” This is a very seldom used word, and where it is found, the translations are quite obviously guesses. In this case the translators wanted something that would fit in plausibly with “sewing together fig leaves.” One suggests “aprons,” another “loin clothes,” another “pilgrims coats,” etc. The expression “la-hem” “for themselves” does not help much to get at the meaning. The only real basis for interpreting the word is in the meaning of cognate or allied words. The singular form of “goroth: is “gahath,” and that word means “strife,” “contention,” “difference or of opinion, parting, etc. The meaning is emphasised by the prefix “H.” Another closely allied word is the proper name “Hagar” which means a “fugitive” or an outcast on account of some “contention.” That is the purport of the word.

In any case the general meaning of the whole verse is clear now:- When the eyes of “Adam” and his “Aisha” were opened they realised their ignorance and lack of guiding intelligence, and that knowledge covered them with mutual grief and confusion; they feel that they have cast themselves out from God, and know not what to do or -where to go.

Verse 8: “And (or “then”) they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day.”

It was really unnecessary for the translators of this passage to make it quite so “anthropomorphic.”

Voices do not “walk about,” and we can hardly think of the Omnipresent Spirit God in quite such a human role as strolling in a garden in the cool evening. However, the idea the writer wished to convey is perfectly simple to understand, and is certainly expressed in a very dramatic way. The only wanderer” in the “garden” was Adam himself, disillusioned, ignorant and lost. He is conscious of having made a breach between himself and God, and is afraid to meet Him.

God was not changed in any way; He was the same God He had always been; but He had taken on quite a different aspect in the mind of Adam. “The pure in heart shall see God,” said Jesus. That meant that the pure in heart see God aright; see Him as He really is-infinitely good and loving.

*In this connection one might refer to the meaning of the root “g-r” in modern European words as, for example, in the French word “egare” – to wander-go astray – err’.

What the impure in heart think they see of Him is always a distortion of the Truth.

Like the poor crystal-gazer in Rossetti’s ballad, upon whose crystal was engraved the warning: “None see here but the pure alone,” they can only “see the truth by contraries.” Verse 8 continued: “and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord amongst the trees of the garden.”

We wish to note here the expression: “amongst the trees.” The word “etz” (tree) is singular,- not plural, and one cannot say ‘amongst the tree.” “Etz,” however, as we have explained before, means much more than “tree,” it means “organic substance in general”; and “be-thoch” more correctly means “within.” Adam and his Aisha think to hide themselves within physical substance. In the purely spirit state there is always interpenetration of spirit and spirit. so that in that state Adam was always conscious of his connection with God; but when he enters the physical state, “breathes out his soul” into it, he loses his consciousness of the presence of God, and childishly thinks God loses consciousness of him. It is just – then that the voice of God is heard penetrating to the recesses of the “garden.” If Adam had lost consciousness of God, God had not lost consciousness of him. There was no escaping from the ever-present One. The one thing that never occurred to Adam as he sought to flee from God was that he was fleeing from Infinite Love and Pity. not from anger or vengeance. God was coming to him in his darkest hour to help him.

We would like to point out the deep poetic suggestiveness in the words translated “the cool of the day.” The Hebrew says: “l’rouch ha-iom.” We have mentioned before that the root “rch” denotes something “drawn out,” “extended.” Literally the word “rouch” means “breath,” wind, spirit; but applied to the evening of the day it seems to suggest another meaning. That suggestion is that the sun has set, night and darkness are “falling fast.” Between daylight and dark there is a short (very short in Bible lands)- “extension” of the day- “twilight” (so that “rouch ha-iom” is just the Twilight). Night was a new experience to Adam. As long as the Divine Light shone within him he knew nothing of darkness. Now that he has discovered that he is “void of light of his own,” something closes in upon him-blackness, like the falling shadow of Death.1

(1) “Autour de moi tombaient les ombres de l’enfer:’-Tannhauser.

Had he not been warned of death? He was like children who instinctively hate and fear darkness. And that was the moment God chose to call to him-not to increase his fear-quite the contrary of that; it was to let him know that he was not alone, and not forsaken. He had had his first lesson in the school where “wisdom” is learned. It was a painful lesson, but “wisdom” is born out of suffering. 2

(2) “The only language the deafened mind of man cares to understand is suffering.” (A message from Arunachala.) Paul Brunton.

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 27

Adam and Eves Sentence

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 27

F. J. Mayers

Genesis III, v.9: “And the Lord God called unto the man and said unto him, Where art thou?”

As the darkness of night falls upon the soul of Adam, he becomes conscious that the voice of God is calling him. He had not thought of calling on God; his soul was dumb in the darkness. What does God say? Just one little word- “aicha.” It is a little word that says, and asks everything necessary. How much one little Divine word can convey! And how much the meaning of it depends on the way in which it is uttered! This is a word that scarcely lends itself to translation. It just simply means: “?”

Nothing could be simpler, yet it expresses “good will,” “deep, personal, questioning interest”-and there was in it just that which made it possible for Adam to find his voice, and make his confession.

Verse 10: “And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself.”

The word “and I was afraid” is “va-aira.” It is a composite of two roots, “ir,” which denotes ideas of “respect”; “fear”; “reverence”; “veneration”; and “ra,” which suggests “fixing one’s eyes on anything”; “regarding”: “considering”; “seeing,” etc. The word here means that Adam was “overawed” by God’s presence and his realisation of what he himself had become.

“Because I was naked”- “chi-eirom anochi.” He had realised that he was ignorant and blind. The word “anochi” is the full form of the personal pronoun “I.” It is only used in cases were we should strongly emphasise the “I.” He realised the utter contrast between himself and the “All-Wise” Elohim. (We explained the word “naked” as “denuded of light or intelligence” in our last chapter.)

Verse II: “And He said: who told thee thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?”

Literally, “who ‘taught’ you that you were so denuded? Did the knowledge come from eating of the tree which I warned you to avoid?”

Verse 12: “And the man said: The woman thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat.”

That was really quite a frank and correct confession; we have already explained that the expression “to be with me” is equivalent in the original to “be an actual part of myself.” Adam was quite aware that “Aisha was in reality himself, his own Will. So there is no justification for the charge usually brought against him of “meanness” and “disloyalty”; that he, as “husband.” “blames” his “wife” for what he himself has done. We are not dealing here with a “husband” and a “wife.” The story, however, does read as if Adam attributes some responsibility to God, for having given him the power to Will and act “on his own. It may not have been in Adam’s mind to make that suggestion, but in any case what he said was very natural” (just like a saying of a child)-and it was literally correct. Adam did not yet understand why God gave him “Aisha” nor the necessity for doing so. Neither could he have understood; so God gave no reply. He knew how often He would be misjudged and misunderstood in a similar way. It was but the beginning of His sufferings.

The whole story,- of course, is an analysis, given in dramatised form of all those processes which take place in the human mind, heart and Will, and which lead to evil and sin, -although they arise from good and necessary elements of our being.

Verse 13: “And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me and I did eat”

The only word in this verse which needs explanation is the word “beguiled,” “hishiani.” It is the word “shoa” which denotes “disorder of thought” or a “mental blank.” It is used here as a verb in the “causative” or “excitative” form. The root is “sha,” which symbolises anything of a “delirious” or “frenzied” nature; a “whirl” of thought or emotion. That definition is obviously more in harmony with the facts related than the interpretation of some commentators that “Nahash” “deceived” Aisha by a “falsehood.” The insidious “desire” or “lust”-(using the word in its original meaning, in old English,-which had no particular reference to sexual sensuality)-of Na-hash for the “knowledge” and “experience,” which appeared “good” to the “Intelligent being” of Adam (the “Aish), takes hold, as it were of Aisha (the Will) and brings “disorder” into her thought; she is “carried away” by it and “Wills” what Na-hash desires. We must keep in mind that they were spiritual or mental processes that were taking place, and there-fore “Will” and the “Power” to carry out what was “willed” were still “One.” To “will” was to “effectuate.” This is important in view of what follows later.

Verse 14: “And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Be-cause thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all cattle and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly thou shalt go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.”

The word translated “cursed” is “aroor.” That is the root “arr” verbalised. When we find the “r” doubled in a root, it denotes some activity which becomes evil by “excess”; “something carried too far”; a “self-undoing.” For instance: a joke carried too far, becomes anything but a joke; it becomes something that breaks all reasonable bounds, and so becomes “hateful”; “unpleasant”; “deprecated”; “resented.”

We have a strong echo of the meaning of the root in our old word “arrant.” Also in words such as “horror,” “abhorrent,” “corrupt,” we have the same original idea. But however “hateful,” “objectionable,” “abhorrent” the thing may be, we cannot help feeling that the word “cursed” is not exactly the right word to use here. “Cursing” is utterly contrary to the nature of God. He Who taught men to “Bless and curse not” was by no means likely to be the “Father of Curses” Himself, and to give mankind its first object lesson in a devilish art. The word as we understand it now gives the idea of “wishing evil” to someone, of “praying down vengeance” on someone.

The essence of a “curse” is “vengeance”: the rendering of “evil for evil”; it is an angry desire for “retaliation”; the calling on some super-natural power to bring some evil fate on someone whom for some reason we hate, or with whom we are indignant. It would be blasphemous to attribute any of those things to God. Vengeful retaliation brings the avenger down to the moral (or immoral) level of the criminal. The old law of “An eye for an eye” was only tolerable for a very low state of human development; and even then it did aim at a strict equality between the crime and the punishment; it was at least better than the cruel “vengeance” which will take twenty eyes for one if it has the power. (As par ex. “Lidice.”) No; we cannot consider “cursed” quite the right word here. What God really says to “Na-hash is: “Because thou hast done this, thou hast become abhorrent beyond anything to be found in the whole range of animal natures. You have dragged the essence of humanity down below the level of the beasts. An animal never seeks more than the necessities of its life and such simple comfort and shelter as it can find. It never seeks to usurp the control and guidance of its “group soul.” You have led man so to use the higher qualities I have given him as to seek to be independent of My Will and guidance; and in So doing you have caused him to quit his spiritual state and bury his soul in the ‘substance’ of the earthly. You have chosen the earthly, now you will grovel in it. You will ‘feed” upon earthly exhalations and the illusions of the material realm all the days of your life.

“Na-hash,” as we have tried to explain, was a “concentrative” activity. We may compare it to the. physical force of “gravitation” by which any mass of matter, according to its size and weight, attracts towards itself other masses with a force proportionate to their relative size, weight and distance.

To the concentrative forces of the Universe we owe the formation of the material (mineral) kingdom of Nature. By successive concentrations and modifications we get a graduated gamut of states: spirit, heat, ether, air, vapour, liquid, and solids, in which “concentration” reaches its limits. Na-hash, among the elements of Adam’s spiritual being, was the one which, by its “concentrative” nature, had a special inclination towards the material, physical state. When physical bodies were formed for the habitations of men, it was Na-hash that drew the spiritual elements of Man into those physical bodies, ever more and more deeply, until the “consciousness of every human being became centred in its physical “I.”

It is in the physical body that Man first becomes aware of his separate individuality. And it was an essential part of the Divine plan that man should acquire that individuality. Even in purely spiritual conditions Na-hash tends to form an individual nucleus or centre of attraction, which draws into itself all that the soul needs to gather from the infinite realms of spirit. (See Chapter IX.)

Working in those realms it is of infinite value to man. For instance, when we “recall” some past experience, it is really “Na-hash that draws the ‘substance’ of the memory out from the infinite spiritual reservoir in which all that has been, spiritually exists.

Had “wise old” Omar Khayyam knows more and been wiser than he was, he would not have written the bitter, flippant lines:

“Oh Thou who Man of baser Earth didst make

And who with Eden didst devise the snake For all the Sin wherewith the Face of Man

Is blacken’d, Man’s forgiveness give – and take.”

The expression : “On thy belly thou shalt go” is a purely figurative description of grovelling, crawling-. earthly inclinations. The word ‘gechon.’’ translated ‘‘belly,’’ -actually means to be ‘bent”; “bowed down”; “inclined earthwards.” The word translated “go,” “thalech,” has been mistakenly derived from the word “haloch,” “to come and go,” to “walk about.” It really comes from the radical word “loch,” which means to act in a “low-down” manner.

The expression “Dust thou shalt eat” is also figurative; it resembles our expression: “to lick the dust.” Adam had been “formed” of the “dust” of the “Adamah”-the spiritual elements. Na-hash, having brought Adam out of the spiritual state (and being himself but an activity of Adam), can now only “feed” on earthly elements.

Verse 15: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel”

In this verse God explains what He intends to bring about: a mutual “antipathy” between Na-hash and Aisha, which will prevent co-operation between them. Without the “Will” of Aisha, the “desires” of Na-hash will be unrealisable.

The word “seed,” “zera,” represents “potential fruitfulness” The idea is that the desires which Na-hash produces are “seeds” which by the opposing will of Aisha will be rendered sterile.

There is a profound perception revealed in this verse of the way in which the inner unity of man becomes disrupted when evil enters. It is the beginning of that sense of frustration which seems to have become universal in human nature.

“The things I would, those I do not; and the things I would not, those I do.” This feeling of frustration runs through the whole of man’s being; his intelligence, his emotions, his purposes, and his “Will,” all become disordered and incapable of working in harmony. The result is continual discontent, disappointment and disillusionment: “Man never is, but always to be blessed.”

The last part of the verse contains some words we shall need to examine carefully. In the expression “It shall bruise thy head,” the word “it,” “hoa,” refers to the “seed” of Aisha. The present writer is fully aware of the generally accepted interpretation of this passage as the “first Messianic prophecy,” and he may say without hesitation that he believes that interpretation to be quite true, and that it will be fully confirmed if we proceed far enough. But it would be going too far ahead of our text if we were to discuss that subject here. We wish to follow the Genesis narrative step by step, exactly in the order in which everything is told. At present we are dealing with the organisation of the inner being of universal and individual man, and with the origins of the great mysteries of human life.

As regards the word “bruise,” “ishouph,” there has been much discussion. The best translation we can give of it is: “to compress” or “crush.” The word “head,” “resh,” was discussed at length in notes to Gen. I, v. 1, where it is the basis of the first word, “Bereshith.” We showed that “resh” covers a wider field of meaning than just “head” or “beginning.” It denotes the “starting principle” of anything. That is its meaning here. What the passage says, it that the “seed” (the willing” of Aisha) shall ultimately compress or “crush down” the very “principle” of the Na-hash activity. In other words, it will overcome the “source” of all self-centredness, of covetousness, greed, selfishness, and all the ills and wrongs that spring from self-love and selfish desires. Na-hash (in its evil expression) shall be ultimately crushed by the same “Will” that it had in the first case “beguiled.” But Aisha’s conquest will not be easy or painless. There will be long and bitter experiences of failures, difficulties, disappointments and many days of “despair,” even, before “Will” finally overcomes the urge of the “Self” Principle. It was necessary that God should give man free-will and an individual “ego,” but man has to learn that so long as separate Wills are each seeking their own desires, conflict- “war”-must inevitably continue to exist in every department of human activity. The quest for happiness, satisfaction, peace of soul, harmony of life, and peace and goodwill in all human relationships can never succeed until man comes to recognise the absolute necessity of a Will, infinitely greater and wiser than all human wills, and decides of his own free-will to submit his personal will to the Divine Will. Everyone individually can do that, and in so doing, solve his own life-problem. The moment that any man can say in complete sincerity: “Not my Will but Thine be done. Rule Thou in me,” the self-inflicted curse of the ages falls away from him, and he finds at last true “freedom” and “peace.” The “salvation” of the world will not come about in any mass movement; it will come by the reunion of individual Wills with God. The surrender of the personal Will must be entirely voluntary. If God used compulsion He would be taking away the very faculty by which man becomes a responsible moral being.

“And thou shalt bruise his heel” Some translations use the word “bite” in this place, instead of “bruise.” The English Version uses “bruise” in both cases as being more consistent -with the fact that the Hebrew text uses the same word in each case. Why either “bruise” or “bite” should be associated with a “serpent” is not obvious. We will keep to our translation “crush down” or “repress.” But let us see what the word “heel” means. We do not as a rule associate “heels” or toes or any other part of the body with the “Will.” Neither do we associate heels with a serpent! The Hebrew word is “akeb.” Here are a few of the different meanings of the word given in dictionaries :- “Heel”; “impression of heel”; “footstep”; “track”; “spoor”; “traces”; “in consequence of”; “for the sake of’; “the consequence or fruit of any action”; “because”; “for that purpose”; “fraud”; “deceit,” and so on. With so many different interpretations (according to various contexts), why choose “heel”? One thing we know is that the word is clearly intended to be an antithesis to “resh,” and “resh,” as we showed, is the “starting principle” of anything. Obviously, the antithesis of a “starting principle” must be the resulting “consequences.” If we accept that meaning it throws light at once on the whole matter. “Aisha,” having set human Will in action, contrary to the Divine Will, had separated man from his unity with the spiritual realm. Yet Aisha is not evil in nature. When she realises her error, it is too late to undo the direct consequences of it; but her disillusionment causes antipathy between her and Na-hash, and that “represses” in her any “following-up” of the fault. This interpretation is confirmed by what follows:

Verse 16: “Unto the woman He said, I will ‘greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

The English translation continued, of course, to be dictated by the idea in the translators’ minds that “Aisha” was a woman. But as we are prepared for that, we shall find this verse contains very little difficulty.

The first impression we get from reading the verse is that God inflicts a heavy arbitrary punishment on Aisha. We hope to show that that is quite a misunderstanding. The idea that God “takes vengeance” for all breaches of His “Law” or opposition to His Will is contrary to the truth. His purpose is always to “cure,” to “save,” not to punish.

“He hath not dealt with us after our sins; or rewarded us according to our iniquities. For as the heavens are high above the earth, so great is His mercy (loving kindness) toward them that fear (reverence) Him. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from Him. Like as a father pitieth his children so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him. For He knoweth our frame and remembereth that we are dust.” Psalm 103, v. 10-14.

We might add the lines of Tennyson:

“All the windy ways of men Are but dust that rises up,

And is lightly laid again.”

We are quite aware of the many passages in the Bible in which God is said to “take vengeance”; to punish; to bring plagues, calamities, or destruction, on people or nations for their sin. It was the universal habit of thought in olden days to attribute all such “visitations” directly to God-they were expressions of His “anger.” It was that habit of thought that accounted for so much being attributed to God that was utterly contrary to His nature, and that even shocks our poor and imperfect ideas of justice and goodness.

The minds of ancient peoples did not distinguish between arbitrarily imposed “punishment” and consequences directly arising out of wrong-doing and reacting on the wrong-doer. They are indeed “punishments” to the wrong-doer, but be inflicts them on himself. They come through the workings of natural “laws,” admittedly, but they are direct, relevant results of his own deed, and are not arbitrarily imposed by God.

Ancient peoples also failed to see the difference between

“error” and “sin.” They saw an evil deed just as a fact, without being able to “place” it in its true moral perspective. We have gradually come to see that the “sinfulness” of a deed depends entirely on the, more or less, “responsibility” of the doer, i.e., on the more or less completeness of his “self-consciousness,” the extent of his “rationality” and his “knowledge” of what he does and what its results will be. The reason why the ancients failed to see that “sin” depends on “responsibility” is simply that they had not developed rational self-consciousness themselves; and only in proportion to that development can man come to understand what “responsibility” really is.

Verse 16 (continued). The word “itzebonech,” translated “thy sorrow” (English R.V.) is the word “etzeb” extended and made more general in meaning by the affix “on.” It is a -contraction of the two roots “etz” and “tzb.” The first is familiar as meaning “tree” or “organic substance,”‘‘ etc. The second denotes anything in the way of “obstacles,” “difficulty,” opposition,” “prevention.” Combined in “etzeb,” the meaning is : “physical obstacles”; “difficulties of all kinds”; “anxieties,” and so on, in realising one’s “conceptions,” “ideas,” “desires” and “purposes.’

So long as “Will” was exercised only in the spiritual realm it was free and efficient. Whatever was willed” was, “ipso facto,” realised.

In Spirit everyone is “free.” We can think, feel, create mentally, anything we wish, and no earthly power can prevent us. But when we try to realise our conceptions in the physical realm, and have to adapt ourselves to physical conditions, we are at once hedged about with obstacles and difficulties of a thousand kinds, and many of our conceptions prove to be -absolutely impossible of realisation. That is exactly what God explains to Aisha, that “she” will inevitably find in physical conditions “she” could be no longer “free,” and her powers would be greatly curtailed.

The word “heronach” (“thy conception”) is extended in the same way as “etzeb” by the “on.” It extends the idea of “conception” to apply in any sense, either physical, mental, or spiritual; and as it is connected in this place with “Aisha,” the “Will,” the “conceptions” referred to would not be “children,” but “intentions,” “purposes,” etc. In fact, the words “theledi banim,” translated “bring forth children” quite agree with that. The first word means to “generate,” “produce,” “give birth to,” “realise,” etc. It is a very common word, used without any regard to sex, and by no means limited to a woman S function. The ‘word “banim” also denotes any “productions” of mind, body or Will ; any “ideas,” “purposes,” “children,” “intentions,” even “buildings.” The great French writer and poet, Lamartine, in his autobiography, says in reference to certain mental experiences: “J’etais malade d’un poeme que je ne pouvais pas enfanter” (I was ill with a poem I could not give birth to). That use of the expression is exactly identical with its meaning in this verse.

“Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” The word here translated “thy desire” is “te shoukathech.” It means “thy inclination,” “leaning,” “tendency,” “attachment,” etc. The idea in the word is similar to what we mean when we say that water will find its own level. Water will run through any ups and downs of piping until it reaches its starting level. In a similar way, Aisha ‘is, of her own inclination, to be carried by a natural tendency towards Aish; her activity will be determined by his intelligence and his ideas in future, not by Na-hash to whom she is now antipathetic. There is no shadow of suggestion of “domination’ or compulsion” by Adam, so there is nothing whatever in the text to countenance the idea that “inferiority” of woman to man, or anything in the way of “enslavement” to him, was “part of her punishment.” That is “just another of the many absurdities credited to the writer of Genesis which are not to be found in Genesis at all”-as Dr. Campbell Morgan once remarked.

Now let us see what God is made to say to Adam :-

Verses 17 to 19: “And unto Adam He said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying: Thou shalt not eat of it: Cursed is the ground for thy sake: in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat of the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, until thou return unto the ground; for out of it was thou taken; for dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return.” (English R.V.)

In verse 6 it was “Aish” who listened to “Aisha,” and it was “Aish” who ate of the “tree” with her. Here it is “Adam” who listens to his Aisha, thus confirming what we have said a bout the actors in the drama being elements of the being of A dam. “Aish,” the “Intelligent being” of Adam, was Adam.

It was the intelligent faculty of Adam that listened to the volitive faculty, and the volitive faculty that was “beguiled” the desire element. There was also a further reason for dropping the name “Aish” here and reverting to “Adam”; that was that when the intelligent reasoning part of our being is turned aside, so to speak, by a Will that has also been turned aside by surrendering to the suggestions of an unreasoning desire, it obviously loses its “intelligent” character. “Wishful thinking” is the opposite of sound intelligent thinking.

Adam, in his heart, coveted the “knowledge of good and evil”-not from any evil or rebellious motive at all-but just because he thought knowledge must be a good thing, desirable to make him “wise,” and, therefore, nearer to the “‘likeness of Elohim.” This “coveting” of knowledge led him to subordinate intelligence and reason to desire, and so brought chaos and disorder into his inmost being. That is exactly .the meaning of the “ground” being “cursed” through him.

Ail the misunderstanding of this passage has been caused by the mistake, which we have pointed out again and again of confusing the two words, “ground”- “Adamah,” and “earth”

– “aretz.” It is the Adamah-the spiritual elements which compose the “human” principle-the very elements which separate man” from the animal realm of beings-that Adam has brought into disorder and made the means of bringing about trouble of a kind that no animal can produce. No animal can “sin” because it possesses no moral qualities. That power to know “good” and “evil” belongs to man alone, so that man is able to become either saint or sinner: the very power that can make him the one can make him the other.

He begins to exercise his human qualities while in a state of complete ignorance and, obviously, can only acquire the knowledge of himself and of the latent potentialities of his being through experience. Without actual experience he could not know what good and evil are; and in the getting of experience. is it any wonder that he continually errs? The disorder he brings into the workings of his inner being can only result in what the narrative poetically expresses as “producing thorns and thistles,” wild, uncultivated, disordered growths in his life. One evil breeds another incessantly, and so man finds himself in an increasingly bitter struggle against evils of his own making. That is a perfectly true picture of the course of human life in the gaining of “experience.” But it is no “curse” laid upon man by God, neither is it an arbitrarily imposed “punishment” for his misdeeds.* It is nothing more nor less than the direct and inevitable results of blind and irresponsible error. In the narrative, God states the position clearly and dispassionately. There is not a word of anger or blame in anything He says. He shows Adam that his upward path will be full of difficulties, but He at once begins to provide him with the means of overcoming those difficulties. All that on a casual reading sounds like punitive measures, proves, on closer examination to be remedial and helpful, intended to lead man to happiness and to strengthen him with Hope. The disturbance and disordering of the Adamah results in human development becoming a matter of anxiety and labour. But the first thing God says is that,, in spite of “thorns and thistles” (of the mind and soul), “Adam” shall “eat” of the green herb -the grass of the field. That was exactly the food provided by Nature for the higher animals (taking the words quite in a literal sense); and in their limited animal existences – it suffices for their needs; they flourish on it happily enough.

What more peaceful or pleasant sight can we wish for than to watch the cattle leisurely browsing in a meadow or quietly “chewing the cud” as they take their “siesta”? t Just as He “gives” the “cattle on a thousand hills” their “meat in due season,” so God promises to provide for the simple material needs of man. But it means more than that. Adam’s trouble was “human” trouble, trouble of the mind and spirit, ignorance of the way to use his higher faculties aright. He was no longer an “animal,” but he was yet very far from being fully human,” so God promises to continue to him, while his human elements are developing, the “instinctive” guidance by which the lives of animals are ordered. God will guide him until he is able to “stand on his feet” as a “man and rule his own life.

“Neither is anything whatever said of any so-called “Curse” on the material earth, the soil from which man gets his material food. It was the spiritual elements of man that were “disordered.” But we may point out here a striking phenomenon of the correspondence between spiritual and physical movements. It is that any changes taking place in the spiritual world-either for good or evil, always closely coincide with corresponding changes in physical Nature.

This recalls the story of Nebuchadnezzar: how pride turned his head, he lost his reason and was turned out into the field to “eat grass” like the oxen until reason re-awakened in him, and seeing the folly of his pride in setting himself up above the “most High,” becomes man again. One suspects a very close connection between the inner meaning of that story and this Genesis narrative.

So it came about that humanity, in its very earliest stages of development, was almost entirely instinctive, and that its-:’rational, self-conscious qualities have been the slow growth of ages. God guided man at first directly through the subconscious mind.

Now the narrative reveals a second stage of development -which is distinctly above the animal stage:- “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat ‘bread.” The mention of bread here is surprising, especially if we come to the narrative with the idea that it is dealing with a historical incident in the life of the “first man.” As the “first” man he would not have the work of any other man around him, all he could learn by observation was what animals did and how they lived, and what the earth around him produced-and that did not include “bread.” One can imagine that he would have replied to God with the question: “What is bread?” To have explained to any “first man -on earth” what “bread” was, would have been as impossible as to discuss, on a scientific level, “Relativity,” or “Fission of the

4 Atom” with a Patagonian native or a bushman.

Bread is, in an important respect, very different from the “grass of the field” which Nature provides freely. It is something that man has a large part to play in the production of; it is something he has to work for. It is essentially “human” -food- the very symbol of human food-whether for the body or the soul. “Man” is on the upward path when he commences to get “human” food from the “earth” by his labour. Does it look like a “punishment” inflicted by an angry God when He starts mankind off in the industry of Agriculture?*

The present writer does not know the history’ of the English word “farm,” but there is a curiously Hebrew suggestiveness in it. If the reader will refer to our chapter on the “Fourfold River of Eden,” he will see what was said about “phrath.” Note the consonants. Our “F” is the equivalent of the Hebrew “ph.” “Ph-r,” we said, was a root denoting “fertility” or fruitfulness.” The “M” is the “Universal” sign. So if “farm” is traceable to Hebrew roots, “to farm” is the science of universal fruitfulness.

Of all the various types of work that man can be occupied in, surely no other so combines everything necessary and good for the bodily, mental and spiritual development of the race as Agriculture? It is healthy work, and work that keeps man close to Nature and to God. Its very nature makes him continually conscious of his dependence, not only on his own work, but also on the Power that makes his work ultimately fruitful. Man cannot provide “rain and sunshine in due season,” and so could not of his own powers make one single grain to grow and multiply. It is work in which one is always looking forward. It is disciplinary; it has to be done in “faith,” and it lives on Hope. Summed up in this symbology, “Agriculture” is the whole range of human culture to the end of time.

But this was not all that God had to say for the helping and cheering of so-called “fallen” man. He goes on to say that earth life, with all its labour, discipline, troubles, sorrows, and ultimately growing “wisdom,” is not an “end” in itself, but merely a prelude to life that is “Life” indeed.’

And yet this last, best word of God to “Adam” is one that, through the general misunderstanding of Genesis, we have been taught to read as if it were a funeral dirge, closely akin to Dante’s “Lasciate ogni sperariza, voi che entrate.”-(“Abandon every hope, ye who enter.”)

The words were: “till thou return to the ‘ground,’ for out of it wast thou taken : for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.”

The whole meaning of these words is destroyed when we read into them a sentence of “death.” They are the very opposite of that. The cause of the misreading is again the same old error of taking “Adamah” as a synonym of “earth,” which we have continually been pointing out. Man was not taken from the “earth”; he was “formed from the Adamah,” the spiritual element. He left his native element when he entered the physical state (although in doing that he was in reality carrying out an entirely necessary part of God’s plan). “Return,” “restoration,” “re-establishment” “. . . . a speedy return to his native land, if so be he desires and deserves it” (some readers will doubtless be familiar with that quotation) would have no meaning, at all unless they applied to the spiritual native state of “MAN.

The word “dust,” “aphar,” as we have said before, does not refer to “dust of the earth,” but to refined spiritual elements. The whole sentence really means: “for of finer elements than earth is thy being, and unto that being thou shalt return.” Note the positive assurance of those last words “thou shalt return.”

They are a message of final conquest-self-conquest, the attainment of true “Manhood.”

To do real justice to this Genesis narrative is a task far beyond the competency of the present writer. He can do no more than sketchily indicate the barest skeleton of the ideas he finds in it, and hope that others of much greater learning, general knowledge and literary ability will deal with the subject more efficiently. They would certainly be doing good work for mankind and the Church on earth by so doing.

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 28