Posts Tagged ‘The Unknown God’

The Turning Point

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 8

Fred Mayers

Genesis 1, v.9 to 13.

In order to get a correct understanding of the narrative of the six Divine manifestations called “days.” we must never forget that “time” and chronological sequence, as we commonly think of them, do not enter into spiritual matters. We have merely a classification of processes that all work together, continually and simultaneously, throughout the whole Creation; and these processes were created in the Mind of God. They were mental conceptions of all that the realisation of His Divine purposes would involve. God saw everything that was to be. as a whole, from its beginnings to its end. The preliminary processes described in the first eight verses were all “Cosmic.” They had to do with the Universe in its entirety. But as the ultimate purpose of the Book related to man, from the 9th verse onwards, the narrative follows a course that leads specially and directly to man, in all the various elements of his being. Man had to be “realised” as a “physical” being, and in his physical body to find his full “individuality.” That meant that he must be given a physical environment, have a physical world to live and develop in. When the individualisation of Man was accomplished, he would no longer be a “Universal” being ; a “mass” humanity with one common Soul; he would become “many”; a countless number of separate individual personalities each with an “I,” each with body, mind, soul, and will of his own; each potentially a being in the likeness of God. So, from being a general idea in the Mind of God, man descends through a series of phases until he reaches the “Earth” stage. From that point of his development he becomes separate individuals, and commences the re-ascent from “Earth” to the “Heavens.” Let us keep this outline of the narrative in mind, as a guiding thread, to help us to understand the connection and signification of all that follows.

The section, verses 9 to 13, comprising the “third day.” describes very briefly indeed the steps for the making of a physical world in which human beings, incarnate in physical bodies, could dwell and develop the full status of “Men.” A long process-and still proceeding. It is followed, verses 14 to 19, by another section which concerns the realm of Creation outside the material sphere specially designed for man, yet having the greatest possible importance, both for the world and man. This section comprises the work of the fourth day.

Verses 20 to 23 return to developments following up the third day’s work. They describe the bringing into existence of living, animated beings from the “waters.” This was the work of the fifth day.

Into the sixth day’s work, verses 24 to 31, is compressed all the remaining “Sovereign work” of Creation. The subject matter of the first part of this section rather suggests that it might have been included in the third day’s work, but the inspired writer chose to limit the narrative of that “day” to the creation of non-sentient Nature, and to reserve the narrative of all sentient beings, from the lowest forms of organic, animal life to man, i.e., everything which has what the Hebrew text calls “nephesh chaiah”- “Soul of life” or “life soul,” for inclusion in the sixth day’s work.

In ancient times great symbolic importance was attached to numbers. The number “six” denoted “complete relationship” in anything. In geometry the same radius that produces any circle will divide that circle into six equal parts. Now the “circle” was always a symbol of what had no beginning or end, therefore, of Eternity. It also was the symbol of anything complete and perfect, a complete cycle or a complete work. The fact that the radius divided the circumference into six equal parts in perfect basic relationship to the whole circle. was obviously the reason for the complete creation being described as six manifestations of Divine Intelligence. It was the number of everything in “complete and perfect relationship.”

As an instance of the importance of the significance given to the number “six,” it may be mentioned that one of the old Kabbalist writers asserted that the Bible began with the number “six.” He pointed out that the first word “bereshith” (“In principle”) could equally be read as two words: “bara”- “shith.” “Bara” “He created” and “shith” = a “hexad.” It was literally quite true. But, of course, that interpretation could not be used for a “translation” of the text. It was purely a hieroglyphic suggestion.

v. 9. And God said: “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place and let the dry land appear and it was so.”

The reader will by now be familiar with the meaning of the “waters,” and will understand that the “waters” below the “heavens” were the potentialities of the material Universe; but the Mosaic writer is concerning himself here, more directly, with the Earth than with the greater Universe beyond it, in order to lead up to the “human” story.

These “material” potentialities were to tend to concentrate and become “one gathering.” That is a more literally correct translation of the word “makom” than “one place,” but the idea of “place” is also involved, as the material Universe and all its contents would have of necessity to ,occupy a definite place” within the Infinity of space. “Space as a measurable conception thus comes into the picture.

The word translated “be gathered together” is in the Hebrew “ikkavoo.” It means to have a “strong tendency” towards some place, or state, or purpose. The lower “waters” were those from which God purposed to produce the material universe; they fulfilled His will by “tending” constantly towards a more and more material state, until they finally reached the state of solid “earth.” But God, as Nature shows us, never works by sudden transformations or “jumps.” Invariably He works by gradual, steady, development. Every stage of His work comes in strictly logical sequence from what has preceded, and leads logically to what is to follow, and there is always an unbroken connection between them all, from the highest “heaven” to the lowest “earth”-and vice versa. The result is that there is, in every phase of creation, something of the essence of every other phase. We shall see the importance of this shortly.

The first “material” manifestation of “Spirit-Matter” is Ether, which, besides being a “state” in itself, contains potentially all the states below it, and also retains something of the states above. The lower potentialities of Ether consolidate as they “descend” into the “atmospheric” state. The Air, so rarefied in its higher strata that physical human life is impossible in it, grows ever more dense as it nears the earth. It becomes capable of condensing into moisture. Most of us must at some time have watched that process. The writer well remembers one brilliant summer day when he was walking up the Valley of the Isere. As he went along he noticed a tiny cloud, like a toy balloon, form in mid-air in the centre of the Valley. In a very few minutes that cloud grew until it filled and blotted out the whole valley and the rain came down in torrents. Thus the Air stage passes into water, first water in an invisible gaseous state, then as visible vapour: then as water. In the formative stages of the earth, the “waters” held the solid elements of earth in solution. These elements gradually consolidated into solid earth, and solid earth in its turn formed nesting places for the waters of the “seas,” and continents for the dwelling places of men.

The name “Seas,” “iamin, is exactly the same as the word for “waters” with “y” or “ee” prefixed, making the word mean: manifested,” or “visible waters.” This little point, in itself, is quite sufficient to “take the ground from under the feet?’ of anyone who ever thought that the word “waters,” with which we have had so much to do, referred to water in the ordinary literal meaning.

The word translated “dry land” is “iabasha,” which means literally: “the “dryness.” This “dryness” God calls “earth” (“aretz”); it is the stopping point of materialisation.

Thus, in a sentence (13 words only) Genesis says all it needs to say about the formation of earth-as conceived in the Mind of God. It really contains much more “natural science” than the “man-in-the-street” or the “tent dweller” of Mosaic times would have been capable of understanding.

v. 10. “And God saw that it was good,” i.e., He approved His Creative plan. All that He was Creating “in principle” was good. The principles, of which we have here explained the material workings, apply equally to the spiritual, moral, mental and outward life of man. If, in our thinking, we “keep our feet on firm earth”; if we reason logically from facts and not from fancies; if we understand correctly the actual text of the inspired written “word,” we are not likely to go far astray in interpreting the spiritual message. But if we have a distorted understanding of the Book behind our thinking, we can get anywhere.

“Earth” was necessary, or God would not have created it. His plan was that “man’s” ascent to the realisation of Divine “Likeness” should begin from the bottom. The creative conception of “Man” began in the Highest, but its realisation had to begin in “Earth.” As St. Paul put it: “First that which is natural, afterwards that which is spiritual.

That Theology which, misreading God’s approval of his ideal “man” as “very good,” and assuming that, therefore “man” was “made” perfect and complete, and put into the “Earth” sphere in a ready-made state of perfection, from which he soon “fell,” is contrary to all that is revealed to us of the workings of God, in Nature, and also contradictory to all that we can learn of prehistoric humanity. Ancient man was indeed “of the earth earthy.” His very dwellings were caves and dugouts. His temples were subterranean. He had progressed quite a long way by the time he became a “lake dweller” and could build huts on piles driven into the lake bed. If our reading of God’s word leads us to think that His creative plan proved a failure in the case of “man,’ ‘- (the very purpose to which the whole plan led), then our understanding is sadly at fault in some way. We must read again and read deeper. God’s plan cannot fail. What God undertakes He will accomplish. “Hath He spoken, and shall he not do it?”

v.11. And God said: “Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth, and it was so.”

Having reached the extreme limit of materialisation, the earth was to begin its re-ascent towards the spiritual state. There is no such thing as standing still in God’s work. It is always in process of becoming “realised” on the one hand, or of becoming re-spiritualised on the other.

In v. 11, we are told of the first step towards states “higher” than the mineral state of matter. This first step is the evolution of organic vegetable life, which in its earliest stages was scarcely distinguishable from the merely chemical action which produces rust on the surface of metals; just a “film” upon the surface of matter; but that film is of a substance that has qualities not possessed by anything in the mineral world. As a matter of fact, these “vegetative qualities”: growth, and propagation, could never have appeared at all in a purely mineral world, had it not been for the fact, mentioned above, that from the highest heaven to the lowest form of matter there was an unbroken continuity of the primal “Spirit-matter” element. On its downward course, the Spiritual element ever decreases and the material element increases, but even in the grossest matter some spirit remains; it can never be entirely annihilated. On its upward course, the same principle is at work in reverse. However exalted may be the thought of God, it always has in it the potentiality of being “realised.” In other words, it never ceases to be “practical.” (Religion is nothing if it cannot find expression in life.) Only insanity can produce a thought lacking any relationship with the “practical,” and with the truth of Nature. The writer is not unacquainted with what has been “achieved” by certain “ultra-modernists,” “surrealists,” “super-men and other Luciferian “phenomena,” in their so-called “Art” and “Poetry,” or their religious, political and other idealisms, which scorn the very idea of keeping even one foot firmly planted on anything so vulgar as “earth.” Surely, for such individuals “Earth” was a mistake altogether! But God did not create earth” without supremely important reasons for doing so. He did not, however, intend Earth to be the end of Creation by any means. It was to be, not the end, but the foundation course for the “realisation” of His Creative ideal. We need “Michael,” the Archangel Regent of the heavenly “hosts,” i.e., the Divine Forces of Life, thought, and conduct, to keep us in paths of order and sanity.

Life on the earth began in very humble forms in every department, vegetable, animal and human. In the Vegetable Kingdom it began with primitive organisms of a vegetative nature, and developed through one form after another: lichens, mosses, grasses, herbs, shrubs, timber trees, fruit trees, and so on. Always from the simple to the more complex, and to forms of ever higher utility and value to man. But the passage from any one stage to a higher one did not involve the dying out of the lower. It still retained its place in Nature, and its particular kind of usefulness. Every development led to still higher developments, so that the variety and usefulness of the plant world continually multiplied and extended. Verses 11 and 12 only mention three distinct types, but they are mentioned in such a way as to make clear the course Nature was to follow. They speak of “grass,” “seed-bearing herbs,” and “fruit-producing trees”; but the actual words used in the Hebrew text convey a much wider and more general idea than we get from the English translations.

The word in the English R.V.: “Let the earth put forth” is, in the original, “Thadeshae,” which means “to cause to vegetate,” and the word for “grass” is “deshae,” i.e., the same root word used as a noun. “Deshae” means “vegetation” in general, and especially the simpler, the more prolific and universal forms, such as the ‘green grass” and the common growths of the countryside. The Hebrew of “herb-yielding seed” is: “mazeriah Zerah,” which simply means “seed seeding” plants, which may include cereals. In speaking of “fruit trees” producing fruits, the text adds: “according to its own nature” (“l’minou”). It also adds of the fruit: that “which has seed within it.” Both remarks are ,significant spiritually. The first, “according to its own nature,’ emphasises the important fact that all “fruit-the fruit not only from the orchard trees, but the fruit of thoughts, words, and deeds also, are always of the nature of what they grow on. “Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?”

The second: “which has seed within it,” emphasises the further fact that not only does every “tree” produce fruit according to its own nature, but the “fruit” also contains seed which can multiply trees of exactly the same nature as the “tree” it came from itself. We cannot “eat,” i.e., “consume,” “import into ourselves,” any qualities, good or bad, which are not potentially multipliers of their own “kind.”

In giving above, the Hebrew of words in verses 11 and 12, the writer wished to point out once again to the reader the peculiar way in which noun and verb are consistently formed of the same “root.” This is a distinguishing feature of the Mosaic writer’s “style.” To use “wireless” phraseology, it is his signature tune”; it seems to say: “This is Moses writing.” Modern Bible critics could hardly fail to have been quite aware of the peculiarity, which can be found on every page, but it has been convenient to them to ignore it in their efforts to prove “Genesis” to be just a “compilation” from old writings by -several authors.

In verse 12, there are no new words to explain. It simply states that the will of God in the “vegetable kingdom” of Nature was seen by Him to be ‘‘good.’’

It is rather an interesting fact that the word “Nature,” which we use so constantly, and which means so much to us, never occurs in the Bible, nor any equivalent of it. The -ancients conceived only the idea that God was working directly in everything. They did not understand that He created -universal “laws” or “forces” to carry out His will.

Verse 13 closes the section with the usual formula: “There was evening and there was morning: a third day.”

The spiritual significance of the section is not far to seek. We can see at once that “earth” corresponds with the outward, everyday life, and conduct of man; that the grass represents the countless things which spring up out of the “daily round,”

the ‘‘common task,’’ providing us with experience; that the “seeding herbs” represent the thoughts which are planted like seeds in our souls by our experiences; that the fruit trees and fruit stand for the Higher thoughts which nourish our soul life. We can trace out all the suggestions and correspondences, each one for himself, in our lives and experiences.

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 9

Lights in the Firmament

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 9

Fred Mayers

Genesis I, v. 14 to 19.

“And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth’: and it was so. And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.”

All commentators appear to have interpreted this passage as simply descriptive of the creation of the sun, moon and stars. It is certainly extraordinary that they should all fall to see any significance in the fact that the Hebrew text carefully avoids using the word “Sun”- “Shemesh,” or “Moon”- “Iarech.” There would have been no object whatever in avoiding the use of those words if the writer had not been concerned with some-thing more than the material sun and moon. Instead, however, of using the ordinary names, he uses a much more abstract expression: “maoroth”- “light givers”; “foci of light”; or “sources of enlightenment.” He describes the “maoroth”-not exactly as “two” lights, but as a “duality” of light. The number is in the “dual” form. The “lights” are twin centres of one light. Clearly, the meaning of “maoroth” depends entirely on the meaning we attach to “light.” So much has already been said about this word, and of its interchangeability with “intelligence” throughout the creation narrative, that there is no need to repeat it. If then we accept it that the “light” in question is “intelligence” here, as it has been previously, we can see why the writer did not use the words “Shemesh” and “Iarech.” The physical sun and moon provide physical light; but we do not look to them for mental or spiritual enlightenment. It is none the less true, however, that on the physical plane the sun and moon, and the light we get from them, are outwardly “representative” of the spiritual sources of enlightenment with which the narrative is chiefly concerned. It does apply to the physical sun and moon also, but is interested in them, as we shall see as we proceed, because they were destined by the Creator to be means of imparting to men very important knowledge respecting His purposes.

The “maoroth,” therefore, are a dual source of “light” formed by Divine Intelligence within the Universal consciousness for three purposes: (a) to bring “day” out of the “night” of chaos; (b) to be for “symbolic signs”; and (c) to bring down from the higher realms the “light” of intelligence to earthly man. Man upon earth, is “formed” from above ; whatever is produced in him is first produced in the Universal consciousness. The ideal “man” created by God is, in the earliest stages of his formation, just as much a “chaos” as the Universe began by being. He had to be “made into man” by the same processes that transform chaos into an ordered Universe. Cosmically, the Divine Intelligence works in and through the ‘‘firmament,’’ i.e., the Consciousness plane of that “Spirit-Matter” which is the potential, unformed, Universe. The ‘‘Light’’ which Divine Intelligence forms in the spiritual firmament descends to the consciousness of earthly man. In the human constitution, the conscious “Ego”* has, as the organ of its intelligence, the Mind. There are really two minds, working separately and in quite different ways; yet the two are one in the act that they are both “mind,” and both the mind of one conscious “Ego.” It is a “duality” of mind, like the dual light in the firmament. The first mind, i.e., the “sub-conscious,” receives its impressions and impulses directly from spiritual sources. We do not control its activity. The second mind, i.e., the “conscious,” is closely linked up with the physical world. It receives its impressions through the brain, which in its turn receives them through the physical senses from the outside world. Over this mind we have a great power of control, though this control is not absolute, as we often discover. Control over it can be developed, however-as far as we can see-indefinitely. In undeveloped Egos it is very incoherent and imperfect in action; but in a really great “thinker” it can become wonderfully well-ordered and powerful. This mind is usually called the “conscious” mind. The term is not very happy. It denotes, how-ever, the mind which we now use in full waking consciousness in everyday life; it is the mind with which we think, analyse, reason, deduce, build up ideas, opinions, theories, and form judgements. We can consciously and deliberately give it a particular realm of activity. We can direct it into spiritual realms, thus obtaining “understanding” of what would other-wise only be “felt.” In that sphere it transmutes a religion of blind “faith” into one of intelligent spiritual understanding. If not consciously directed upward it can also become a merely intellectual and materialistic organ of “thought.” It is essentially the “day” mind; a conscious disperser of darkness in the thought-world. It is also the mind that consciously creates.

*By the “Ego” the writer wishes to denote the spiritual “centre” of every individual. It is the “I” which thinks, feels, cognizes, wills; and in which all life and experience centres.

The other mind is usually called the “subconscious” mind. Its chief characteristic is that it is tremendously receptive of impressions, but receives them quite indiscriminately, It never analyses them; it never reasons about them or selects them. Every impression that comes to it, if it reaches the brain, becomes transferred into a mental “picture.” It is the mind that gives us our dreams in “dream-sleep.” In deep sleep we do not “dream.” But that does not mean that the subconscious mind is inactive in deep sleep. On the contrary, there is evidence that it is then in its fullest activity. “Dream-sleep” is really a half-way stage of sleep; in it some brain consciousness is awake, and this permits the sub-conscious activity to merge into the day-consciousness sufficiently for the latter to retain some of the dream “pictures” and impressions-and these we are able to remember. When we recall these memories of our dreams, we are at once aware of their startlingly dramatic and emotional vividness, and also of their complete lack of “logical” sequence, or of any possibility of “reality.” Yet we know how powerful they are to affect us, and sometimes we are quite aware that they reveal, in a symbolic way, very definite spiritual experiences. If in our dreaming-(everyone must often have noticed this)-the idea should suddenly come into our minds: “Surely I am dreaming-these things are obviously impossible” -instantly the dreaming ceases and we are awake. No effort then to sleep again and continue the dream to “see the end of it’ can ever succeed. The moment that the day-consciousness awakens, the conscious mind takes possession of the brain and the subconscious activities are unable to “get through” to it. To our wide-awake day consciousness the remembered activities of the subconscious mind often appear to be merely fantastic, incoherent imaginings. But there is very much more in the matter than that. Wonderful as are the faculties of the conscious” mind, those of the subconscious mind are just as wonderful. They can do very much more than give us pleasant dreams or unpleasant “nightmares.” In the earliest stages of man’s development it was the only mind that was at work in him. It is also the only form of mind possessed by animals; in animals we call it “instinct’ ‘-and in spite of certain appearances to the contrary, animal mentality never rises above it. We often read of things done by animals which suggest reasoning powers-especially when they live in close contact with human beings-but close and accurate observation will give quite a different explanation of those actions. We cannot go farther into that question here, but a study of animal instinct will reveal to us many of the wonderful possibilities of the sub-conscious mind-and not only possibilities but also accomplishments. There are many things that animal instinct can do which no exercise of the human “conscious” mind will enable a man to do-or even to explain. Consider, for instance, the case of a carrier-pigeon who may have been taken hundreds of miles by land and sea in a closed box and then released. It circles round once or twice and then shoots off, unerringly, straight to its home. Many things that human beings have to learn by experience or long teaching, an animal knows from the moment it is born. No one needs to tell them what to eat or not to eat; they know, and left to themselves, make no mistake. Consider again, the well-known “clairvoyance of many animals. All these things can tell us a great deal about the subconscious mind, and help us to understand many of the faculties possessed by our ancient ancestors, which by the present dominance of the conscious mind we have, at least temporarily, lost. Still, we find certain people who exhibit the same “clairvoyant” capacity that was spoken of above. Their “clairvoyance” is almost always spontaneous and involuntary. The explanation in the case of human beings, is that these people are so constituted that they live at times in a state in which normal day consciousness is not fully active. They easily drop into a “brown study” or a semi-sleep in which the sub-conscious mind, which is always at work, although we are unconscious of it, is able to convey impressions and ideas to the brain, and through the brain to our normal consciousness. It is exactly the same process that enables us to remember a dream.

The great importance of all this lies in the fact that what the sub-conscious mind experiences are spiritual impressions received from an outside spiritual world; they are not received from our senses through the brain. Now, it is obvious that no impressions could be received from any non-existing source. All clairvoyance, therefore, is proof of the existence of a realm in which thought, feelings, ideas and memories exist spiritually and being spiritual, exist eternally. This universal spirit world is no figure of speech; it is the most solemn and wonderful reality of life, and when once we grasp the reality of it we have the key to the greatest mysteries. We are told: “For every idle word a man shall speak he shall give account.” That necessarily implies that everything leaves its record in some spiritual form; and so everything-good or evil-lives on spiritually. This is the Eternal “Book of Life.” We need not regard it specially as a record for the use of an Eternal “Judge” in some great “Judgement”; it exists for every man’s present use, benefit and progress. Little as we may be conscious of it, we are not only adding to this spirit world every moment of our lives, but we are also taking from it continually the very power by which the soul grows and is enriched. It is the foundation fact of memory; we could not “recall” anything if it did not exist spiritually. The thoughts of countless millions of thinkers of past ages all live in that spirit world; they did not die with, their creators. More than that, the spiritual “individualities of all who have “passed on” live still in that world, and each one is an individual “focus” of thought and life. Each one also by a law of spiritual attraction gathers round itself, so to speak, its own definite thought-world. One of the most wonderful of these processes by which thought works is that which we call the association of ideas.” Thoughts have a kind of life and activity of their own, they attract their like. Not only does one “memory” link itself on to others, in a way we are all perfectly familiar with; not only does one thought chain itself on to other thoughts already in our own minds, but the same law of association of ideas is also at work linking our thoughts with the vast, inexhaustible reservoir of thought in the spirit world through the medium of the subconscious mind. Therein lies the explanation of what we call “genius.” “Genius” is the faculty of drawing up from the cosmic thought-world ideas and powers which extend the capabilities of the normal conscious mind. One cannot by “thinking” produce those “inspired” flashes of thought which are the supreme beauty of great poetry and music, for instance. They are received by the subconscious mind from the spiritual world. We have perhaps the supreme example of the sub-conscious activity in the writings of the great prophets. The special peculiarities of the subconscious inspiration are revealed in the sudden appearance of some phrase or passage which is like the flashing out of a great spiritual light. Such a passage, in its context or out of it, is of eternal significance. No “thinking” can produce any-thing like it; we know it to be inspiration and nothing less.

What has been said is but a very small fragment of what might be said on the subject, but it is probably enough for our purpose of explaining the “duality of lights” which combine to produce human intelligence and to illuminate man’s earthly course.

The greater “light” is the fully conscious activity of the “thinking” mind. This is the last faculty to be developed in man, and when fully developed, it completes his human constitution.

The “lesser” light-the sub-conscious mind, is a link between the animal and man. Man, in his ascent to the human state of being, was at first in a state of darkness. The sub-conscious mind alone was developed in him. He could not “think for himself”; he followed the promptings of instinct. The sub-conscious mind was his light and guide in the “night.” Its greatness and its latent possibilities have, however, scarcely been realised in modern times.

As the activity of the greater “light” of reason and deductive thought commenced and developed in man the lesser “light” of instinct fell more and more into obscurity, it became -sub-conscious. Its powers, however, will in time re-awaken, not to dominate, but to work co-operately with Thought and Reason.

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 10

Lights for Signs

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 10

Fred Mayers

Genesis I, V. 14 to 19 (continued).

We have considered the “lights in the firmament” as the sources of human intelligence and of human mental and spiritual development. There is now another aspect in which we have to consider them; that is their purpose as “symbolic signs”- “othoth.” In this connection the Genesis narrative does quite certainly refer to the physical “sun, moon and stars.” In what sense are we to understand their purpose as “signs.” the word “aothoth”- “signs,” is in a sense a double word “aoth-oth.” It means “symbolic signs.” The basis of the word is the “present participle,” “aotha,” which means “to be coming” or “to come,” so that “aothoth” definitely means “symbolic signs of the future.” This is frankly admitted by most scholars. Even Fr. Delitzsch says the word might apply to “weather to come” or to “historical occurrences.” He mentions its use in Jer. X, 2; where he says it “clearly refers to ‘astrological prognosis,’ “ so, if the sun, moon and stars are definitely stated by the author of Genesis to have been created to be “symbolic signs of the future” in that sense, it opens up a very wide subject. Let us go a little farther: the word “seasons,” “moadim,” denotes “limits of time,” or “divisions of time”; “seasons”; “periods”; “intervals,” etc.; but the root of the word means “to predetermine” anything, either in time or space- “iad” = “to appoint,” “determine.”

So the real meaning of “moadim” is: “determined or appointed times” or “periods” of anything. The meaning of the word “day”, “iom,” has been explained fully already and need not be repeated here. The word “year,” “shanah,” denotes not only a “year” but any ‘‘regular recurrent period,’’ and also any ‘‘change’’ or vicissitude.” Then we have the word translated by “to rule,” “memesheleth.” The basic word is “meshol,” it means sometimes “to preside” “to be a judge,” “to rule,” but much more often it means “to be a model,” a “representative,” a “symbol” of anything; “to speak in allegories or parables,” to present a “similitude, or emblem, or figure of anything.” To go still a little farther into detail, the actual root of the word “meshol.” is “sho,” which denotes ideas of “parity,” “similitude,” “representation,” etc.

All this makes it quite clear that “memesheleth” actually means “symbolic representations of things to be.” One more word in the passage needs explanation; it is the word “stars”- “cocabbim.” The present writer happened to notice some years ago that the Arabic equivalent of this word, “kawkab,” was applied only to the “planets,” and a different word altogether was used for the fixed stars. He thought it probable that the word really denoted “planets” in Hebrew also, although in common use it was applied indiscriminately to all stars. This idea was confirmed later, as the basis of the word “cocabbim” is “cabab,” which means “to be rolled” or “to move around,”-which is exactly what the planets, viewed from the earth, appear to do in relation to the fixed stars. Then the root of the first syllable of “cocabbim” is “koch,” which denotes “forces” or “virtues.” The only inference possible, therefore, is that the word “cocabbim” not only originally denoted the planets, but “planets” conceived of in exactly the same way as they were in the ancient science of Astrology, that is, as spiritual influences and representatives of the unfolding divine purposes throughout the ages.

This statement will, no doubt, come as a surprise-perhaps even as a “shock” to many good Christians who have come to consider that ancient, and once universal science, as an old exploded superstition, to be classed with “witchcraft,” “sorcery,” “necromancy,” and all other such “cursed arts.” As for our 20th century scientists, they could not risk their professional reputations by even investigating the subject-still less testing it-so they laugh it out of court. There are exceptions, of course. The writer once had an interesting conversation on this subject with the late M. Camille Flammarion and found that that great astronomer was also a deep student of astrology and a firm believer in it (not, needless to say, the “Astrology” with which certain newspapers amuse their readers). Fortunately we are concerned with the subject here, only so far as it is needed to explain the Book of Genesis, although it enters, to a degree that very few people realise, into the whole Bible – both Old and New Testaments.

Whatever our opinions may be, it can be said that all the great religious systems have had an astrological basis, and were inseparably bound up with the science. Every one of them, in chronological order, corresponds with the characteristics of the Zodiacal signs followed in their reverse order (i.e., they follow the recession of the equinoctial point). If the traditional authorship of Genesis is correct, we know that Moses was learned in all the learning of the Egyptians,” we know also that his father-in-law was a priest of the Chaldean religion. That being so, he would have been as familiar with the old science as a pious Churchman with the “Book of Common Prayer,” and it is perfectly natural that it should have a place in his book. It is necessary, therefore, that we should have some knowledge of the general principles of the science, and especially of the attributes of the Zodiacal signs. The more deeply those signs and their traditional significances are studied, the more impossible it appears to consider them as a human invention. In the first place they are more ancient than the earliest records of human history; they can be traced in the earliest dawn of civilisation.

The most ancient legends of all peoples are based on astrology. Everywhere throughout the world the “Signs,” their symbols, and significance are found practically identical. There are some slight modifications of the symbols to adapt them to local conditions; for instance, the “Bull” becomes an “Elephant” in India; the “Crab” is sometimes a “Tortoise,” in Egypt it was sometimes replaced by the scarabeus, but it remained a “Crab” in the planispheres of the great temples of Denderah and Esme; the meanings of the signs were unchanged. The only change of any importance that ever appears to have been made was the substitution of the “Scorpion” for the “Eagle,” and that corresponded with one of the most important facts in the whole story of humanity, which can be more appropriately referred to later in this chapter.

How can we account for these signs and their traditional meanings. There is no conceivable way in which men in the earliest stages of civilisation could have obtained them from observation and experience. Uninterrupted observations over a complete Precessional Cycle, even if possible, would have been insufficient. And what could lead any primitive race of men even to imagine the possibility of any connection between the stars and their lives and destinies? Given the Zodiacal conception, its significance, and the key to “planetary” workings, by some form of “Revelation,” they would of course be able to observe its influences at work in human-and cosmic-affairs, but no human beings could ever have “invented” it. The only explanation of its origin which appears to be possible is that it was “revealed” to men in just exactly the same way as “prophecies” and all other spiritual mysteries, through the clairvoyant perceptive faculty of the sub-conscious mind at the period of its most complete activity. See Intuition – Using It

Before it is possible to show the correspondence of the Zodiacal Signs with human and world events it is necessary to give a brief description of them-as they have come down to us from immemorial times. Then we must show that God’s plan for “realising” His creative idea of “Man” is symbolised and summarised in the Signs. We can then see how what we know of man in past ages, and of the religious systems of those ages agrees with the Signs; and judge from that how they also prefigure the future.

Briefly then, a description of the signs in their order: They are arranged around the circle in three series of four, which correspond with what used to be called the “four elements” of the Universe : “Fire ; Air ; Water ; Earth.” “Fire” represents Spirit; power; force; will; energy; activity; impulse; causation, etc. “Air” represents intellect; thought; imagination ; reason, etc., i.e., the “human” qualities. “Water” represents the emotional qualities; feeling; sensation; moods; dispositions, etc. “Earth represents the practical ; the maternal; the “realised” outcome and expression of all life and activity; concrete results ; actual attainments.

There are three phases, or forms of expression of each “element.” These are called “cardinal”; “fixed”; and “mutable.” The “cardinal” activities-like the “cardinal points” of the compass-are the starting points, so to speak, of the activity or of the direction of the forces of each of the “elemental” groups. The “Fixed” signs represent qualities that have become fixed; habitual; permanent; definite. The “mutable” signs are those in which qualities or characteristics become less “hard and fast,” when they become “adaptable,” able to compromise or harmonise with others; they show more mutual accommodation, more of the “give and take,” or “hearing both sides” qualities; they are less “positive” and more “sweetly reasonable,” etc. 

The signs are as follows :-

(1) Aries, the Ram (or Lamb). This is the “Cardinal” “Fire” sign. It denotes the “outgoing” of new life, power, energy, impulse, activity. It is initiative, pioneering, etc. The sign is represented pictorially on the Celestial Globe, or in any traditional picture of the Zodiac as a young “Ram,” lying down with one foot bent under it, and its head turned backward, looking “as if it had been slain” as a sacrificial victim.

(2) Taurus, the Bull, is the “Fixed” “Earth” sign. It denotes bodily, mental or spiritual strength; also inherited qualities or possessions; practical, useful powers or gifts. Its essential characteristic is that of “Service.” Its pictograph shows the front view of a Bull. It is a steady-going, reliable, practical, rather conservative sign; slow to anger, but likely, if angered, to be a formidable adversary. (Rather “John Bull” ish, in a word.)

(3) Gemini, the Twins, is the “Mutable” “Air” sign. It is represented on the globe or in old planispheres as Twin human figures. Being an “Air” sign, it is active in the mental sphere. It denotes the twin minds of man, one or other always active in some way. It does not at all represent “fixed” ideas-but the opposite, a tendency to pass quickly from one thought to another. It likes movement, travel, intercourse, society; it is often restless, fanciful, changeable, rambling, but also often brilliant, witty, full of ideas-though seldom profound. Its symbol is a pair of pillars or obelisks. Its essence is mutuality, “relationship!”

(4) Cancer, the Crab, is the “Cardinal Water” sign. It is essentially connected with the emotional nature. The feelings are the sources of its activity; they are strong and deep; it is a feminine, “motherly” kind of sign; fruitful; very sensitive; kindly; considerate; fond of “possession,” not only of home children, friends, but in any kind of way. It loves to accumulate, to “collect.” It is unselfish-but clings tenaciously to what it loves. Its symbol is generally the Crab, but sometime it is figured as a Tortoise, and in Egypt sometimes as a Beetle holding some object in its claws. It is the sign of the Moon, which greatly affects emotions.

(5) Leo, the Lion, is the “Fixed” “Fire” sign. It is, so to speak, the heart of the Zodiac. In it all the activities of Aries have, been concentrated and given purpose; permanence, passion; and a certain nobility. It is the “Royal Sign” denoting .”Love,” the Ruler of Life. It is proudly “faithful” and scorns what is “weak,” “small-minded,” or mean. It is the sign of the “Sun”-the physical and also the Divine Sun. Its symbol is the majestic “Lion passant” of Heraldry. It was also the symbol depicted on the banners of the “Sons of Judah.”

(6) Virgo, the Virgin, is the “Mutable” “Earth” sign. In it the “earthy” qualities are being raised to a higher plane; spiritualised. It is represented in the Zodiac by a female figure holding some ears of corn in her hand. Sometimes she is beside a fall of Water. In many ancient planispheres she is shown with a child in her arms, exactly like the “Madonna and Child” of the Catholic Church. In the planisphere of the Temple of Denderah both forms are shown – one below the other. There are two clear meanings to the sign. In the first, Virgo is “Earth” producing by human labour the “corn” which is the necessary physical food of man. In the second she appears as the Mother of the Divine “Child” who was to be the “Bread of Life” to humanity: “The Divine,” born in earth conditions. In its outward activity “Virgo” is quiet, patient, practical, capably executive, refined, feminine (but not effeminate), pure minded. It is the least passional in an animal sense of all the signs. Its hieroglyph represents the “Serpent” symbol with the head struck off. Mental qualities are strong in the sign.

(7) Libra, the Scales, is the “Cardinal” “Air” sign. It denotes the kind of mental activity that ‘‘judges; weighs-up’’; “balances”; “harmonises”; “adjusts”; “pacifies,” etc. Its judgements are not the quick, intuitional decisions of “Aries; they are arrived at usually after certain vacillation, consideration and balancing up of ‘‘pros and cons’’; but when arrived at they are just and fair. Libra is not prone to “take sides” in a partisan manner, but aims at drawing a true line of justice between opposing opinions. It is the “reasoning” sign. Its essence is harmony or “repose” – using that word in the sense it is used when we speak of a satisfactory musical composition or any work of Art: “an attained satisfaction”- “peace.” It is figured in the Zodiac as a pair of Scales.

(8) Scorpio, the Scorpion, is the “Fixed” “Water” sign. Its hieroglyph is, like Virgo, the “Serpent” sign, but in this case the “sting” is very much in evidence. It represents emotions, feelings, etc. of a fixed, permanent nature. “Cancer” represented free and abundant emotional activity. In “Scorpio,” likes and dislikes are fixed and powerful for either good or evil. The sign may produce great saints or great sinners, but never weak characters. It gives a very strong Will. It “dominates” others so naturally and spontaneously that it is often scarcely conscious of the power it exercises. When not working consciously for good, it can be very cruel and malicious. If it “stings” it stings to kill. So it becomes in its lower working the symbol of “Death,” but, in its higher working, of “Resurrection” to a higher life. In its highest meaning it has been figured as an “Eagle” or Phoenix rising heavenwards, with its gaze fixed on the Divine Sun. In its lower meaning it is the “Sting of Death.” In the “Children of Israel” it is Dan (the Judge). Dan is “an adder in the path, he biteth the horse’s heel,” etc. (Sagittarius the centaur archer follows Scorpio.) It is a combination of power and passion for good or for evil.

(9) Sagittarius, the Archer, is the “Mutable” “Fire” sign-the last of the “fire” signs. In it the free, unrestrained activities of Aries which became “fixed” qualities in Leo, now become balanced and harmonised, and work toward high aims. It is represented in the Zodiac as a Centaur-like being, half man, half animal, turning to shoot an arrow at the “Scorpion.” It represents high ideals and philosophy; prophetic insight, and the power that overcomes sin and death. The animal nature is ruled and directed by the human spiritual nature.

(10) Capricorn, the Goat, is the “Cardinal” “Earth” sign. It is the sign of hard, long struggle, and finally, high attainment. It is symbolised by a compound creature, half goat, half fish-the front portion has the head and front legs of a goat, the hind portion a fish’s body and tail. The “Goat,” with only his front legs, is patiently and perseveringly struggling to climb a mountain, but is handicapped and hindered all the time by having to drag with him his Piscean after-part. It represents ambition; definite aims and purposes; patience and perseverance in overcoming difficulties; and final success-the attainment of its Zodiacal goal.

(11) Aquarius, the Water Pourer, is the “Fixed” “Air” sign. In this sign the mental qualities are being consolidated into “Intellect.” Ideas take definite permanent shape. The mind is “made up.” It is no longer searching uncertainly for some undefined truth. It has acquired something, and now “pours out” the wealth of its knowledge for the benefit of mankind. In world affairs it denotes an age of illumination, mental progress, scientific advance. In physical matters it denotes the “Conquest of the Air.” The ideograph of the sign is a man pouring water out of an urn. In some ancient Zodiac pictures, he is pouring the water into a fish’s mouth.

(12) Pisces, the Fishes, is the “Mutable” “Water” sign-and the last sign of the Zodiac. Its symbol represents two fishes tied together by the tails and trying to swim in opposite directions. It is the most mysterious of all the signs. It is generally considered an “unfortunate” sign; it is the sign of frustration, failure, even despair. Yet at the same time it is a sign which has, within it, the most glorious spiritual possibilities. It depends entirely on whether it is working on a high or a low plane of life. It may be the sign of “self-undoing”-of “self-destruction”; or it may be the sign of “self-surrender,” of attaining “self-awareness”; of voluntarily sacrificing one’s “self” to the salvation of one’s immortal spirit. The sign is, significantly enough, what is called a “double-bodied” sign like Gemini and Sagittarius. Gemini has its two “pillars” representing the double “mind” of man. Sagittarius is half man, half horse, representing the junction of animal and human passions. Pisces, being an Emotional sign represents conflicting emotions or desires. “The things I would not, those I do: and the things I would, those I do not.” “Who shall deliver me . . . . It is a sign that brings no satisfaction to anyone until- by Divine grace and strength-they can rise above their lower “self.” Then it tends strongly towards the spiritual. The inward purpose and aim of the sign is Love Universal. That can never be attained so long as our loving is on the plane of self-seeking. It can only be attained in self-giving.

The above notes give very sketchily and imperfectly the general characteristics of the Zodiacal “signs.” It is now necessary to give a few similar notes about the “planets.” These include for Astrological purposes the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune. The Two last named were known to the ancients, but had no part in their astrologic systems because up to a comparatively recent period they were inactive on the plane of human life.

The Sun is the centre arid source from which all the planets receive their powers. It expresses itself through the characteristics of whatever “Sign” it may be “passing through,” seen from the earth. Its own direct influence acts in and on the human spirit.

The Moon receives, gathers up and, in a sense, synthesises, the general combined influences of the other planets. It acts most directly on the emotional plane.

Mercury represents Universal “Mind.” It is chiefly active in “mental” matters. It has been called “The Messenger of the Gods.” It has no special mind characteristics of its own but it takes on the particular characteristics of any “Sign” it may be passing through-as far as they affect mental matters-and transmits them to the earth plane. Its most physical activities affect the nervous system and through that, the disposition. So we speak of a mercurial” temperament, “up and down” and changeable as the mercury in a barometer.

So very much is to be learned from the little hieroglyphs of Astrology, which are a kind of “alphabet” of the science, that at the risk of extending these notes more than intended, the writer feels that it would be useful to give some explanation of them. The Mercury symbol shows a semicircle over a circle, and the + under it. The + is the earth sign; its horizontal line denotes the present plane of human activity, the normal everyday level of life. The upward line represents the course of human evolution, beginning far down in chaos and darkness and passing upwards towards the light of the Spirit. The 0 is the sign of “Spirit.” In man it is the human spiritual individuality. The) or semicircle is the moon or soul sign, a cup or chalice, open to the heavens to receive the influences that pour into it from above-just as the physical moon receives the ligreflect. ht of the sun and reflects it to the earth. The moon has no light of itself -neither has the soul. Both receive and The Mercury sign is also given in the form of the “caduceus.” This shows the “rod” or “sceptre,” symbolising authority, rule, influence, around which are entwined two “serpents”-symbols of “wisdom” or “intelligence.” These two serpents represent the “conscious” and “subconscious” minds. The “orbit” of Mercury is near the sun. The “Sun” symbol represents any “centre” or focus of spiritual activity.

Venus is the representative of Love, Beauty, Harmony, in any sphere – either of spirit, thought, life, or physical being. Its hieroglyph represents the spiritual qualities dominating the material.

Mars represents outgoing energy, unrestricted activity either for good or evil. It is the sign of conflicting, warlike forces. In its hieroglyph the lower, earthly characteristics are shown above the spirit sign.

Jupiter is the representative of increase, expansion, growth, preservation. Acting in the mind it denotes “Wisdom”; in the “disposition” it shows as generosity, goodwill, etc. Its hieroglyph represents the soul forces (moon) rising above the material plane-but remaining in touch with it.

Saturn represents restraint, contraction, any defining, centralising, materialising influences. It is the most materialistic of the planets. Acting in the mind it produces narrow-mindedness-but at the same time very clear cut, definite ideas. Acting on the general disposition, it “hardens” and leads to self-centredness, selfishness, etc., but also to “cautiousness,” carefulness and other useful qualities. It is also-in a narrow-sighted way strictly just. The hieroglyph represents the material sign dominating the soul sign.

Uranus is, so to speak, Mercury on a “higher octave.” Its symbol represents spiritual force rising through the “Gemini” symbol of the twin minds. “Mind” in itself tends to grow only into “Intellectualism.” Uranus raises the level and extends the field of “thought” action. It gives, at its best, great “Genius” -and at its worst, “eccentricity.” It has much affinity with the Zodiacal sign “Aquarius,” and its action shows strongly in many of the most modern developments of Science and Art.

Neptune appears to influence most the “mystic side of mail; in deep, vague, feelings and ideas; extensions of consciousness, etc. Its hieroglyph, the “Trident,” represents the human spirit, mind, and emotions “fishing in the great waters.” It is at present little understood, and what its ultimate purpose in regard to human life and evolution may be, remains to be seen. One might mention as a very typical Neptunian personality-Madame Blavatsky. It certainly has much to do with the “mediumistic” faculty-a faculty which, in its present state of development, is more often dangerous than valuable. One can see the “Neptune” influence in the poetry of Coleridge in the “Ancient Mariner,” “Christabel,” “Kubla Khan,” etc.

The planets, in their continual movements through the ‘‘signs’’ exercise their own special qualities through the characteristics of the Sign they are in at any time. They are also continually changing their relative (angular) positions one to another. It is found that when they form “aspects” based on the sextile division of the circle (30º, 60º, 120º) they work harmoniously together; but that when at distances based on the + (45º – 90º) they are at “cross-purposes.” When they are together, in “conjunction,” agreement or disagreement depends on their special natures. When in opposition (180º), as the name indicates, they are antagonistic in their action. But what is of supreme importance to Astrology is that all their movements are measurable and can be calculated in advance, or for any period past or future, and therefore there is a permanent mathematical basis to all planetary workings. While the “Signs” give the permanent characteristics under which humanity and all its activities can be classed, the planets in their motions become the indicators of the “times and seasons” in which any particular influences are at work.

The above notes may perhaps suffice to give us enough understanding of astrology to enable us, in glancing over the past history of mankind and the various civilisations and religions that have marked the course of human development -to see for ourselves the main lines of “correspondence” of it all with the Zodiacal signs. We shall at least get an idea of what lies behind the Genesis statement: “They shall be for (symbolic) signs,”-for the future as for the past.

The “Old Testament” is the record of the Hebrew civilisation and religion. The Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt coincided the ending “Taurean” age, and passing of the point of the Zodiac which marks the “Spring equinox” (the commencement of the astronomic and astrologic year) from the sign Taurus to Aries. The era from the Exodus to the birth of Jesus Christ is the Aries or “Ram” age. One of the first things that Moses did after leading the Israelites out of Egypt was to change the official commencement of the year- (see Ex. XII, v. 2 and elsewhere)-to make it coincide with the entrance of the Sun into Aries. Aries (as already said) is a Cardinal sign, one of the signs that mark the appearance of some great new world movement. He then went on to introduce a complete new system of laws, a new form of Religion; and a new ceremonial presentation of Religion. While the Israelites had been in Egypt the Taurean age was still existing, and the “Bull” was the universal “God symbol” throughout most of the known world.

Moses introduced the “Ram” or “Lamb” (described as a male of the first year”) as the principal sacrificial emblem. The appearance” of great new movement does not necessarily mean its first beginnings; these may often be found far back in some other sign. In this case the “ram” as a religious symbol had been pre-figured in the story of Abraham’s offering on “Mount Moriah.” Abraham had “offered” Isaac as a sacrifice” and Isaac had freely accepted the role of victim, so as far as they were concerned the sacrifice was “spiritually” complete; but, as regards the fulfilment of the symbolic ceremony, Isaac was saved by Divine intervention, substituting a ram. This was obviously the basis of the Mosaic system of “sacrifices.” The “ram” had become a symbol of “human salvation,” and was also supremely appropriate for the “Aries” epoch of religion. Moses also appointed the bull or calf, and the dove as sacrificial victims. In Egypt the “Bull” was regarded as the outward visible representation of God; he was never a sacrificial victim, but sacrifices-usually of fruits or food-were paid -to him. Moses also changed the manner of the sacrifice. “Aries” was a “Fire” sign; so he introduced “burnt offerings.” Then again, “Aries” denoted “outgoing of new life, energy, movement. Moses again and again emphasised that to the Israelites: “See that ye remember that in the month Abib (Aries) ye came forth from the “land of bondage.” The “bull” in the Zodiac was symbolic of “servitude’ ‘-it bears the “yoke” in the service of man. The curious story of the Israelites, during the temporary absence of Moses, clamouring for “gods”-visible outward images-to “go before them,” and of Aaron producing for them the “golden calf,” was as if he had said to them: “Very well; if you must have your old gods, take this symbol of servitude instead of new, free life.” Again, the daily moving Tabernacle, instead of a temple, was clearly correspondent with the restless activity of Aries. One might go on for page after page pointing out the exact correspondences between the whole Mosaic system and what had been prefigured for thousands of years in the Zodiacal Sign, and in its “appointed time” become realised. As we follow the history of the Israelites farther and come to the times of their prophets, we find one after another looking towards the future and foretelling the age that should follow; speaking of Him “who shall come”; of an age when the symbolic “Ram” should be displaced by the One it prefigured: the “Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.” Daniel foretells-in strictly astrologic language-the very year in which the “hope and expectation” of the ages should appear. At length the Christ appears; the Arian age passes away and the Pisces epoch begins. Chaldean sages, reading in the same mystic Zodiacal signs of the times were expecting Him, and took their journey to Bethlehem to find Him. (See also “Book of Manilius.”) “Pisces” was a “Water” sign. Let us see how the Christian age corresponds with it. The first public act of Jesus was to go to John the Baptist to be “baptised” by him in the waters of Jordan. His first “miracle’ ‘-symbolic of His whole mission-was to turn “water” into wine. Water was the natural quencher of human thirst. Wine was something more; it had a spirituous quality; it had a reviving, elevating property ; it “maketh glad the heart (the very spirit) of man.” Throughout all the ages wine has been a symbol of spirit or of a spiritualising power. Its primal use was spiritual-but like so many ancient spiritual -symbols, the symbol became the “god” and in the perversion of its use the “spirit-filled” man became but a drunkard. (Refer to the account of “Pentecost.”) But the “wine” into which Jesus converted the water was not to be perverted in that way: “These men are not drunken as ye suppose. “. . . . this is that which was spoken of. I will pour out my Spirit,” etc. Then we read how Jesus chose His first disciples from fishermen. “Follow me and I will make you fishers of men.” How He talked to the woman of Samaria: “If thou hadst known who it is that saith unto thee ‘Give me to drink,’ thou wouldst have asked of Him, and He would have given thee ‘living water.” Again: “The water that I shall give him shall be in him a well (spring) of water, springing up into everlasting life.” “Water” and the “Spirit” runs through all His teaching like the “motif” of a musical symphony. “Water” was of all symbols the least liable to degradation, to idolatrous use, in any case, and it is always kept associated with Spirit: “Water” to symbolise cleansing from sin, and spirit to symbolise Life. It is very noticeable how much of the Gospels are taken up with “Water” and “fish” episodes: the “walking on the sea”; the miraculous “draughts of fishes”; the “feed g” of the multitude on “two small fishes,” etc. (The very hieroglyph of Pisces.) What a complete change all this is from the Aries symbology! There are no sacrificial victims-no “burnt-offerings.” We have no mention of the change of the New Year date-but we have a -change in the whole reckoning of time-BC to AD It is -interesting also to compare the list of the “twelve disciples” so far as our knowledge of them goes, with the twelve Zodiacal signs: “First Simon, who is called Peter.” Is not Peter, out and out, the very incarnation of the “Aries” qualities, the impetuous, fiery, “act-before-you-think” type; taking part in everything; and always first to act on any occasion ; yet with an “uncanny faculty for jumping in a flash to the apprehension of some truth the others had not grasped? Next, “and Andrew, his brother”; is not this strong, quiet, useful, practical disciple typically “Taurean”? Then “James and John”-are they not typically a “Gemini” pair? James, with his blunt, clear reason,” his sound common-sense, always showing the “day-consciousness mind”; and John, continually “dwelling in the Spirit,” always spiritually receptive and perceptive, like the working of the “subconscious mind.” Do they not recall the “two pillars” of Gemini? Follow the list through and it will be found that one and all correspond unmistakably with the twelve types of humanity figured in the Zodiac. Or again, consider the “Pisces” era in quite another way-as it relates to the course of world history. What is more noticeable than the fact that it has been a great “Water” age, during which man has conquered the oceans? From pole to pole, and the whole world round, not a sea is now uncharted and untravelled. It may be useful at this point to mention another Astrologic principle not yet referred to :-In describing the twelve signs we have pointed out, first, the “Elemental” division into three “Fire,” three “Air,” three “Water” and three “Earth” signs; then we referred to the three modes of activity: “Cardinal,” “Fixed,” and “Mutable,” and showed that the three signs belonging to each “element” were classed – one to each mode of activity. That is, one “Cardinal” Fire sign, one “Fixed” Fire, and one “Mutable” Fire sign, and so on with each “element.” Now this principle also works in a more detailed manner in every individual sign. Every “sign” has three phases of activity, i.e., m the first 100 of the sign; in the second 100 of the sign; in the third 100 of the sign. First, there is the free, straightforward “Cardinal” activity of the characteristics of the sign; then there is a phase in which the characteristics become “Fixed.” There is then no further development or progress, merely the conservation of what the first phase has produced; and thirdly there is a phase in which the special characteristics of the sign begin to weaken and to become modified by outside influences, till gradually, the distinctive character of the sign fades out or is merged into a new one. Space would not permit us to trace this principle in its working in all the “sign,” periods, but we may show how it has worked in the “Pisces age. In the first phase “Christianity” comes into existence as a new World movement of supreme significance and importance, a new expression of religion, a new spiritual Life. It is filled with an irresistible energy. It makes swift progress and the older religions dissolve away before it. They leave something of themselves behind, but as world forces they cease to have any importance. This “Cardinal” activity of the new religion goes ahead until, outwardly at least, it conquered the Roman world and civilisation, and became the “official” universal religion of the Western world, and Roman ecclesiasticism claimed not only spiritual but also temporal authority over the world. (As Dante expressed it: “mixing two governments that ill assort.”) Then commenced the “Fixed” phase; the “living” teachings of Christ were hardened into doctrinal dogmas; the spontaneous expressions of Christian life hardened into “fixed” ceremonies; the simple spiritual meeting together of Christians to eat a little bread and drink a little wine in remembrance” and “thankfulness” was developed into the elaborate sacerdotal service of the “Mass,” just as it has remained to this day. Rome even boasted of being the ‘‘eternal,’’ the ‘‘unchangeable,’’ the only authority,” the master of the souls of men. There was no further “progress” to be made; the “Church” was concerned only with the “conservation” of its acquired power and privileges. Ceremonial supplanted “life”; and naturally and inevitably, a period of spiritual stagnation was the result-as it always has been with every religion that settles down into its “fixed” phase. But the Sun still moves and the Zodiac still stands behind everything. Even Rome could not prevent the dawning of the “Mutable” phase; the old order had to change, giving place to a new one. God fulfils Himself in many ways; some new force awakens in the world. In the case we are considering the awakening force was that of human “self-consciousness,” of individual thought. There is one sphere of life in -which the most abject slave is always free; that is in his own thought-life. That is beyond the reach of any compulsion. A man can be compelled by physical force and threats to “repeat” any creed-but no power on earth can compel him to “believe” it, if he does not. Galileo could be compelled to sign a recantation of his “heresy” in stating that the world was “round,” but, as he added afterwards, “It is round all the same.” All attempts to rob man of that freedom are utterly futile; in the long run it is always “thought”-in its essential freedom-that comes out victor. Screwing down a safety-valve does not in the least reduce the expansive power of steam, it only increases it, and the greater the compression the sooner the explosion. -It was the working of that principle that brought about the Reformation of the XV and XVI centuries, and shifted the “centre” of the world’s religious life from Rome to the North and West. In what remains of the old Church there is very much indeed that is very wonderfully true and beautiful; but when, as an Institution, it seeks to hold back the circling heavens, it loses what it can never regain, and Spirit takes its own free course. What has been said above does not at all apply solely to the Roman Catholic Church it is invariably, in various degrees, the story of all religious movements and systems.

Pisces as a “Water” sign was also bound up with the emotions, and so we find that the Christian Church up to the Reformation-and even up to the XIXth century was essentially a matter of the emotions-the greater the emotion it aroused, the greater its power. With the Reformation, and the growth of individual thought, the Intellectual element commenced to enter religion, and that element has been and is still growing and developing as we enter on the “Aquarian” era, of which we must now say a little. “Aquarius,” as we have said, is an “Air” sign. It has to do with Mind and Intellect and the “outpouring” of knowledge and new phases of truth. It is not directly a religious sign. It brings no new great religious movement or cult, but it will do a great deal towards a new understanding of all past religions; it will unravel much that has been obscure, misunderstood, and mysterious in them. It will rediscover much old, forgotten truth, and the sources of old failures. It will deal with Religion, less as a matter of creed and dogma than as a universal unfolding and development of moral and spiritual qualities in mankind. In that way it will bring the world nearer to the essence of all religion. It may bring regrets to those whose souls are bound up with what they have loved in the past – old memories that are so unspeakably dear, and ever call to us from the deepest deeps of life. It is always so hard to fling away “Excalibur,” but the hand that brought “Excalibur” out of the deep for the use of man takes it back again only to re-temper and repolish it for other hands to wield-the hands of the new “Rex futuris.” Meanwhile, “Aquarius” has much to do with scientific developments. Since this chapter was written the newspapers have been much occupied with the new “atomic” bomb. It is certainly a striking “coincidence” that the basis of this new explosive should be a newly discovered element named “uranium”, after the planet Uranus. Uranus is the “ruling planet” of Aquarius. In this direction the Aquarius symbol is specially significant. The sign is very young yet, but already in the XXth century, we have been inundated with “wave” and “vibration’ theories-and their applications to many practical uses. The world little dreamed fifty years ago that invisible “waves” and “vibrations” could be transmitted and even directed through space for thousands of miles, picked up again at will, and transformed into sounds and pictures or printed messages; that rays of invisible light could be sent through solid, opaque objects to print photographic images for the use of the anatomist or surgeon. Then again, we have seen how the Piscean conquest of the “Water” element -is already-although the XXth century is not yet 50 years old-being swiftly followed by a similar conquest of the “Air.” Both for good and for evil, Tennyson’s vision in “Locksley Hall” has been more than realised already. What is more wonderful still: the conquest of already known fields of research and activity is already revealing the existence of hitherto unknown realms-the stratosphere, for instance-of which the possibilities are yet unguessable. All this corresponds exactly with the sign “Aquarius” as pictured in the Zodiac untold ages ago. -But having brought our brief sketch of mundial and Zodiacal correspondences from the time of Moses to the present day, preceding that of Moses. The era that ended when the work of Moses began was, as we already know, the “Bull” era. Throughout that age religious systems, and civilisations based on the “Bull” sign were widespread throughout Europe, Asia, and North Africa. Countless evidences of them still remain in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Western and Northern Europe. We know that the “Druids” of Britain and the Atlantic coasts of Europe were very generally called “Culdees.” That may be an indication that Chaldea was the main “source” of their cult, and there are other evidences leading to the same conclusion. In harmony with the “Fixed” nature of Taurus, we find that it was not a period marked by any great initiatory movements in thought or life; it was rather a period of conservation and consolidation-one might say: materialisation of the acquirements of the preceding age. We find a very distinct tendency to express older ideas in materialised symbolism, and it is not surprising, therefore, that “idolatry” (i.e., the worship of the symbol rather than the worship of what the symbol signified) reached a very gross stage during that period. We also find that in the Taurean era-in Egypt at least-slave labour was universal and apparently was borne with quiet, patient obedience-very decidedly “bovine” qualities. (The Hebrew name for Egypt, “Mizraim,” means, literally, “oppressions,” “bondage,,’ “servitude.”) Moral delinquency may not have been so specially marked then as it was later in some countries, but it was a period of very little idealism-merely heavy soul-less dullness. The Sun or God symbol in Egypt was “Apis,” and in Assyria, the ‘Winged Bull.” All these things are. obviously, closely connected with the sign “Taurus.”

Going back a stage farther, we come to the ‘‘Gemini era. This being an “Air”-and mental sign, we find it to be a period of much greater mental and intellectual activity than the Taurus age. It was probably, in Chaldea and Egypt, the highest point that their civilisations reached. In this age, “twin obelisks” representative of Gemini first appear at the entrance of the Egyptian temples, and their most wonderful monuments and achievements were produced. There is also evidence that it was a period in which many great migratory movements were taking place throughout the world – specially in the earliest portion of the period. In the Gemini era also the “history” of Egypt may be said to begin. No historical monuments or records of earlier eras are known.

Going back still a stage farther, therefore, we are in a “pre-historic” age. All the knowledge we have of it is what we can deduce from indirect evidences. We know that we must have arrived at the mysterious “Cancer” age.

“Cancer” was the great “Water” sign age of the past. Our only sources of knowledge of it are found in the “legends” to which it gave birth. These “legends” are found all the world over. They are more or less vague, and take on various imaginative forms, but in substance they differ very little. Their theme is always of a great world catastrophe; of the virtual blotting out of a great civilisation by a vast flood from which only remnants of the world’s more ancient inhabitants escaped. (The most exhaustive study of these legends and collateral evidence which the present writer knows of is the very interesting book by Dmitri Merejkowski, “The Secret of the West,” translated by John Cournos. It expounds no theory, and offers no judgement; it is content simply to gather information from every known source, and leaves readers to make their own deductions). Some of the legends describe the “flood” as being accompanied by a great submarine volcanic eruption, and say that the sea “boiled.” To that the present writer may add that, curiously enough, the Genesis “flood” story to some extent is confirmatory on that point, as the word which it uses for “flood” = “mabboul,” denotes a “swelling”; a “boiling-up”; “inflation”; “intumesence” of the “waters.” All this kind of evidence, as has already been said, is not “history” but it is very difficult to conceive how such a story could arise in pre-historic America from Peru to Canada, and also be found all over Europe, North Africa and Asia, including China, unless it had some substantial basis in fact. The legends of the “aborigines” of America, especially of Central and South America, all speak of their escape to westward from a land that formerly existed in some portion of the present Atlantic Ocean. There are also certain indications of escapes in the other direction, to the shores of Western Europe (it is quite possible that some of these “escapees” were the so-called “Iberians” who settled in Great Britain and Ireland long before the first Celtic immigrants came.) and Northwest Africa, and that some of those who escaped to Africa journeyed along the south coasts of the Mediterranean, some setting in Egypt, others, perhaps, going farther east. Something of the character of the pre-flood peoples may be judged from the character of the civilisations which those who escaped to the West established in Central and South America, and which remained there undisturbed until the Spanish discovery and invasion of the so-called “New World.” As regards Egypt, the fact that no records or inscriptions of any kind have been found there of earlier date than the Gemini age, strongly suggests that up to that time the people dwelling in Egypt were without a written language, and that the sudden appearance of such records at the beginning of the Gemini age must be attributed to the art of writing having been brought to them at that time by some much older and much more advanced people. This suggestion receives very strong support from one of the most astounding discoveries ever made by Archaeology. A French Archaeologist, Dr. A. le Plongeon excavating among the ruins of Yucatan, found a number of inscriptions on the walls of an ancient temple in Chichen Itzu. He had a good knowledge of the spoken Maya language, though none of the natives knew of it ever having been written. He noticed, however, that the hieroglyphic writing in the temple seemed to be remarkably similar to the earliest Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, and eventually deciphered all the inscriptions. The language proved to be very little different from the Maya language still spoken by the natives; and further, so closely resembled the ancient Egyptian language that about a third of –the words were identical. That discovery seems to the writer to go a long way towards solving the mystery of Egyptian origins. Also, the old civilisations found surviving in Central and South America, when those countries were re-discovered, -clearly carry us back to pre-flood times, i.e., beyond the “Cancer” era into the “Leo” age.

The old civilisation which the Spaniards found in Mexico when they went there has been profoundly studied by an Anglo-Spanish writer, Salvador da Madariaga who, in his historical books, and also in his historical-romance, “The Heart of Jade,” has given a wonderfully thought-provoking account of it. Particularly significant is the description of the great outstanding ceremony of their religion-the “Heart Sacrifice.” The essential point of the ceremony appears to be that “Quetzalcoatl” would accept only human hearts, and they must be “living.” Those demands were interpreted strictly literally. It was the duty of the priest, or priest officiating, by a single stroke of the sacrificial obsidian knife to tear open the breast of the victim, snatch the heart from it, and before it ceased its last beat, to fling it at the feet of the “god.” It does not require much spiritual perception to see at once that that ceremony could only be explained as a grossly materialised and degraded expression of a great spiritual truth. It is also evident that the truth was one strictly relevant to the sign “Leo”-the “Heart” sign of the Zodiac. We may also repeat what was said of Taurus that the “Fixed” signs, in early religious expression, very easily hardened and degenerated into gross “idolatry.”

The writer is perfectly well aware that, in this chapter, he is dealing with a subject that needs to be handled with care and judgement. It is like certain cinema films which are not licensed for universal exhibition. Therefore, while giving a brief outline of the basic principles of Astrology-sufficient to explain the Genesis narrative-he has avoided such details of its application as might lead anyone with a “little knowledge” to make a “dangerous” tool of it. The old mystery schools were marvellously wisely ordered, and their “laws” were based on very important principles. One of those “laws” was the so-called law of “secrecy. It is still often quite misunderstood. Its purpose was not at all to keep “knowledge” of the great mysteries of Nature, Science, and Life exclusively to certain narrow circles, communities, or “schools.” The law w as double: to reveal to no one anything which he was not prove d fit to receive and use aright; and also to withhold from no one any knowledge that he was qualified to receive. There was also another law: that for every step a would-be initiate took in the knowledge of the mysteries of nature and science, he should take four steps in the development of his moral and spiritual qualities and life. They realised that the more profound any branch of knowledge was-the more dangerous it became if a perverted use was made of it. The very greatest of God’s good and wise gifts to men become the greatest curses if turned to low or selfish ends. It is this fact that has throughout the ages compelled the adoption of certain safeguards against imparting some kinds of knowledge indiscriminately. Just as Science, which should be one of man’s greatest blessings, becomes one of his greatest terrors if turned to the invention of destructive weapons of war, so there are spiritual powers which may be made dangerous to human souls.

Only a deeply spiritual mind can truly understand and use Astrology aright. But used aright it is an inexhaustible source of knowledge-a “guide” to lead men into all Truth: to “the Love that moves the Sun and other stars.” (“L’amor che muove il sole ed altre stelle.” Dante- “Paradiso.”)

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 11

 

Creation – Day Five

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 11

Fred Mayers

THE “LIFE” PRINCIPLE-AND “GROUP SOULS.”

Genesis I, V. 20 to 23.

In our fourth chapter we discussed the meaning of the word “waters” as the “universal source from which everything that was to constitute the universe”* was to be drawn. We also saw that the creative ideas and purposes with which the first section of Genesis (I-Il, v. 3) deals, included not only what was to be finally realised, but also the various progressive stages of its realisation, and the general principles, underlying the whole “sovereign work” of Elohim, by which everything would be bound together into one vast unity.

We should be able to realise more completely the fact of that unity by considering carefully the implications of our preceding chapter (X, in which it was shown-at least in brief outline-that the whole Divine plan had been symbolically revealed from its beginnings. The whole stellar universe was shown to be so “set” (the word “yittan,” “set,” means “placed,” “preposed,” “purposed,” “established,” etc.) as to be a permanent “index” and “time-table” of the unfolding purposes of God, and of human events. In the “heavens” and upon earth we can see one Will at work. Whatever is willed in the heavens (where, as Dante says: “Will and power are One”) is ever being realised on every plane of existence. Everything begins in the Divine ONE, descends from Him, and will return to Him as the MANY in ONE.

Jacob, in his wonderful, revealing dream of a connecting “ladder” between the heavens and earth, saw “angels,’ i.e., the Active Divine forces, ascending and descending upon it. That “ladder,” had he but known it, was his own subconscious mind (see Chapter IX) -the “link” between the heavens and his personal consciousness. Through it he was perceiving a great spiritual fact which (in the way we have mentioned before) imprinted itself in his consciousness in the form of a visual picture. He realised the spiritual message of the dream sufficiently to grasp the fact that the very ground he lay on, and the very stone which served him as a pillow, were part of the “dwelling-place” of the Eternal One, and that he had been in communion with the Infinite. He realised at the same time the omnipresence of God and the fact that the heavens and the earth were linked together, and that there was continual inter-communication between them. The voice of the needs of earth rose heavenward; the power to supply those needs descended. But there were many stages to be passed through between the great creative dream in the mind of God and the laying of the foundations of the earth ;and there are as many on the upward path to reunion with Him. We have seen, so far, the plan for the foundation-laying and the early stages of the upbuilding. We have seen how the lowest plane of the universe-the entirely material, mineral plane, was to be made the foundation for kingdoms of “living” nature. We saw the link stage between the “non-living” and the “living” in vegetation-the plant world. (We use those words “non-living” and “living” in quite a free way and merely to suggest the apparent relations of the two planes – not in any strictly scientific way) There are infinite degrees of “life.” The plant world has “life” in so far as it has a power of growth, and of propagation of its species. The mineral world has no such power. The passage from the mineral plane to the “plant” plane is a passage from one world to another. The same is true when the animal” world is created; and again when the “human” stage is reached. Each plane has something new added to it in the next higher stage, and this “something new” is the essential characteristic of that stage. At the same time it will be seen that each plane of being includes within itself an infinite number of stages and branches of development. The “new” element in each, in its beginning is scarcely distinguishable enough to show any clearly definable point at which it first enters; and at its highest points of development each plane approaches very closely to exhibiting the qualities which distinguish the next higher plane. Yet there is always a most important and essential difference between plane and plane which science, so far, has no means of explaining. It is this continual stepping up from one state to another that the Genesis story emphasises all through.

*This conception, in various modifications, is found in all the ancient mythologies.

The section (Genesis I, v. 20 to 23) may be looked upon as -a further development of the creative idea from the stage depicted as “Day Three.” That “day” included the conception of the physical, material plane, the furthest point to be reached in the polarisation of “Spirit-Matter.” It also included the first upward link movement: vegetation-that which “lives” but without sensation or consciousness. The Bible makes a sharp distinction between that kind of “life” and life which has consciousness, sensation, and the power to move Animal Kingdom. The “animal” kingdom includes all animated beings below “man,” whether the are of the water, the air, or the earth. It is with the “life- forms” of this animal kingdom that we now deal. In verses 20 to 23 we see the “waters” called upon to produce, in infinite variety. “life-forms,” or what the Mosaic writer calls “nephesh chaiah”- “souls of life” or “living soul.” There are many words in the passage that require explanation to make their full meaning clear. We have mentioned several times the way in which the writer of Genesis continually associates noun and verb by using words built on the same root for each; par. ex. the earth was to “vegetate vegetation”; the plants to “seed seed”; fruit trees to “fruit fruit,” etc. We might in just the same way translate verse 20: “Let the “waters” “swarm swarms of “life soul.” That would be correct as far as it goes, but it would miss a great part of the meanings of the original words, which suggest, not only great numbers of these life forms, but also their nature; and especially their type of movement. The words are: “ishertzou sheretz.” The word “sheretz” is a compound of the root “shr,” which denotes ‘‘emission,’’ ‘‘liberation,’’ ‘‘swarm,’’ etc., and “rtz,” a root that suggests anything “undulating,” “vibratory,” “prolific,” “propagation by division,” etc. The word “sheretz” is commonly used of reptiles on account of their movements, but it is broad enough in meaning to cover many kinds of creatures. Delitzsch says “it can apply to any kind of animated beings which move about amongst each other in swarms.” The verb which accompanies the noun “sheretz” is “ishertzou,” which one can see instantly is the same word verbalised. It contains exactly the same ideas of abundance and of manner of movement, etc. It thus makes the “bringing forth” correspond precisely with what is brought forth. We mentioned in our first chapter that “nothing can be brought into existence except by a direct, sufficient, and strictly relevant cause.’ Surely, precision of wording in relating cause to effect could go no farther than the author of Genesis carries it by means of this expedient.

We can scarcely fail to notice, also, in this account of the origin of “life forms,” how completely it all agrees with the findings of modern science.

Another point that is worthy of special notice is that the writer has quite a system of his own in his classification of various animate beings: he classes them all, from infusoria to men, according to their mode of movement-wriggling, creeping, crawling, dragging, gliding, swimming, flying, walking on feet, or on feet and hands, and finally, the upright walk of man.

He evidently saw “life” with a very broad vision as something moving-and moving towards a goal. Therefore, he saw in every form of movement a suggestive “correspondence” with some phase of spiritual activity. And so may we.

The life souls which the “waters” were to “swarm swarms of are the “nephesh chaiah.” The word “nephesh” is a combination of three abbreviated roots: “nph,” “pha,” and “ash.” The root “nph” denotes inspiration, infusion, in-breathing, etc.; “pha” expresses reaction, expansion, effusion, out-breathing (in a very restricted sense it means voice, speech,” etc.); “ash” signifies life-force, energy (what was associated with the “Fire” element in Chapter X). The word “chaiah” means quite simply “life,” or “living.” It is quite clear from the analysis of the word “nephesh” that it describes the “soul” or “life centre” in all animated beings. But, as with other things with which we have been dealing, there are many grades of “soul.” There is as great a difference between the “worm soul and the “human” soul as between worm and human intelligence. It must also be pointed out that the text does not in any way either say or infer that every individual creature, every single fish or bird, every single worn’ or fly, whale or shrimp, fox or elephant, has an individual soul. The possession of an individual soul is reserved for human beings only. In the animal kingdom the “soul” is that of the genus or species it is a “group soul.” No animal thinks or acts except in accordance with the soul of its particular “kind.” Close observation of animals, -birds, fishes, insects, etc., will confirm the truth of that statement. Thus far verse 20 appears to have been concerned with creatures of the “water” element, but now it goes on to say that from the same source are also to be produced creatures of the “air” element to fly “above the earth,” in the open firmament of heaven. If what has already been said in reference to the “elements” and the “firmament” is borne in mind, no difficulty should arise in understanding the narrative. The “Air” creatures are described as “whuph whupheph.” (“wh” in this transliteration represents the Hebrew letter “ayin” a very soft sound not used in English) The word “whuph” denotes an easy, swift, gliding, floating, soaring movement. It is obviously an onomatopoetic word suggested by the sound of the swift flying movement of a bird. It is used to denote the “flying kind” of creature in general. The word “whupheph” is, as usual, merely a modification of the root word to describe the movements instead of the mover; it means “flying.” If we narrowed the significance of the words to a merely materialistic surface meaning, “flying fowl that fly” would suffice, but we should then lose their broader applications, as the English translation does. We have purposely chosen the broader interpretation in order that the reader may not for one moment lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with a spiritual book, and with spiritual activities that are “universal” in their expression. It is easy, if we deal only with their application on the physical plane, to forget their corresponding activities on other planes. The serpentine, up and down, insinuating, movements of the “sheretz” creatures, for instance, have their counterparts in the busy workings of human feelings and emotions. The “flying ,kind” of creatures have their counterparts in the swift and varied movements of human thoughts.

Passing on to verse 21, we find that God, having expressed His will for the production universally of the “life” element, created, as the English Authorised Version renders it- “great whales.” The “Revised Version” uses the expression: “great sea-monsters.” Both renderings are attempts to give a materialistic interpretation of the original, and both fail to give its true meaning. The Hebrew word is “tanninim.” The word is based on the root “NN.” The “n” is the sign of “individual existence” or “produced being.” When this letter is at the end of a word it denotes “augmentation” or “extension” of the significance of the word. The root “NN” denotes the “continuity of existence by generation” – one individual being producing others and forming a continual chain of individual beings of the same species. “Nun,” a verbal form of the root, denotes “abundant propagation.” “Nin” denotes any extension of lineage, family, or race. With the “th” (hard) prefixed, the word “TNN” gives the idea of extension or amplification-either of bodies, number, or volume. The “M” final completing the word “tanninim is simply the plural ending. There is, therefore, quite clearly, nothing in the word which makes it applicable any more especially to a fish than to any other creature of water, air or earth. What the word denotes is that God created the living souls for extensive groups or species of beings, so that they could become “fruitful, and multiply” after their own “kind,” through the individual creatures in their groups. A “species” or “genus”‘ as such, of course, could not multiply. Every distinct class, group type, or species had its “soul.” Within the limits of each group there was left room for free modification of detailed characteristics to make individuals

F adaptable to special conditions. For instance, the wild horse of the prairie may be developed either towards the type of the swift, elegant, Arab racer, or towards the type of the heavy wagon horse-but it can never be made into anything but a “horse.” It can never pass out of the “horse” species into that of the bull, bear, or tiger. It is the “life soul” that makes every species what it is-and keeps it such. Having thus “created’ the great types of life soul-from their beginning to their ending,, (“eth”) and every soul-of-life that moves, which the “waters swarmed forth after their kinds-the creeping kind and the flying kind-God considered it all and saw that it was good; and in verse 22 He passes a “blessing” upon them.

How many and varied are the interpretations which have been put upon the word “to bless.” D’Olivet, in this case, simply agrees with the common acceptance of the word as meaning “an extension of the hands in a paternal, benevolent way”- (an interpretation which would appear to have little meaning, for instance, in such a verse as “Bless the Lord, 0 my soul).” For once, Delitzsch seems to see a little farther; he says: “Here, where God blesses, or better, perhaps, pronounces a blessing, the wishing word is at the same time the imparting deed, the bestowal of generative power.” The Hebrew word is “barech.” The root “BR,” as in the word “bara” – “he created,” denotes any internal movement tending to express itself outwardly. The final letter of the word, “ch,” gives the suggestion of the hand shaping; forming; transferring some spiritual influence; or of imparting some creative “power.” It is like the work the potter does in moulding clay that it may fulfil some purpose he has in mind. The word is more than an expression of “goodwill,” and in any case it is obvious that no 4’blessing” given by God would be a mere word; it would be a word conveying some benefit or power. In this case, God wills the “souls-of-life’ to be “fruitful and multiply”-and, “seeing” that purpose to be “good,” he imparts to them the power to fulfil it.

So with the introduction of “life” into the universe, and the creation of the “group souls” ends the fifth “day.”

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 12

God Made the Beast of the Earth

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 12

Fred Mayers

Genesis I, V. 24 and 25.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The reader who has followed carefully what has been said thus far, will-we hope-have begun to realise something of the nature and order of the Creative “idea.”

Firstly we had the broad, simple statement that it included the “heavens” and the “earth.” Next, that all things that were to be, lay latent as mere “potentialities within potentialities” in the “vasty deep” of infinite and eternal “spirit-matter,” i.e., in the spiritual “waters” which held in solution, as it were, all the Divine purposes and their fulfilment. We saw that the first “manifestation” of God was the bringing into activity of Divine “intelligence”-the inward “Light” of the Spirit-as the first essential of all “Creation.” We saw how this Divine Intelligence made a “separation” within the “waters”-dividing “between the ‘waters’ and the ‘waters’ “-making, on one hand, “waters” which were to be raised, step by step, to form the F “Heavens,” “shamaim” = the “glorified waters,” and on the other hand, “waters” which should descend, stage by. stage, till they reached a state of final “condensation,” “concretion,” “realisation,” which is described as “aretz” “earth.” Then we saw how everything is first conceived and, as it were, “born” in the “heavens” of spirit for realisation on lower planes. We saw that this process insures a complete and perfect “correspondence” of all Divine activities with one another on every plane of being; a Divine Unity running throughout the whole Universe; the whole Universe reflecting the Thought and Will of God ;- and the very movements of the stars becoming reflected in the minds of men, in their souls, in their activities, and in their destinies. We also saw measurable “time” produced from measureless Eternity, and measurable “space” from measureless Infinity. We saw in broad outline the processes of the evolution of the physical earth, of vegetation, and of all the conditions necessary for the existence of “animated beings” -all mapped out and planned in the great spiritual “Conception” which is what we mean by “Creation.

Our last chapter dealt with the creation of the life principle and of the “group-souls” of all animated beings below the human plane.

It is interesting to see how every step in the story is obviously “leading up” to, and necessary to something which is to follow, and yet never becomes fully intelligible until a later stage of the story is reached. One sometimes feels that the writer is concealing the “denouement” of it all with the skill of a writer of modern detective fiction. Now and again he seems to step aside from what one would imagine would be the direct sequence of the story. We know that all Creation had to be produced from the primal “waters,” but once already (verse 11), and now again (verse 24) we see that the created “earth” is made to produce some phase of the plan. Verse 24, English Revised Version, reads: “Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and beast of the earth after its kind; and it was so.” In that translation, a casual reading might well give the impression that the “earth” was to “bring forth” what had already been brought forth; that the writer of the original was repeating unnecessarily and in a rather confusing way, much that had already been said. Modern critical commentators offer the explanation that the writer was -’collating” various fragments of different “creation stories,” some of which make living beings to originate in water, and others giving them an origin on earth, and so on. We need not trouble ourselves with any such “explanations.” Their only purpose-if they have any-is to discredit the inspiration of the Book. If we take the trouble to study it carefully and give a more adequate translation of the text for modern readers-(and a very moderate knowledge of the hieroglyphic basis of the original language will suffice for that) -we shall find that most -of the difficulties disappear.

Verse 24 really follows quite logically on what had immediately preceded, and carries the plan on for another stage. We have seen already that “living soul” which is the formative force, and essence of animated nature, was called forth from the spirit realms. Now we learn that the earth has a part to play in developing that “living soul” in accordance with the needs of life on the physical plane. The “souls-of-life” were not to exist only in super-physical realms. The physical plane of existence was also absolutely necessary for the working out of the Divine scheme, though the reason for this will not become fully intelligible until we reach a later stage of the story.

In the meantime we have just this statement that the earth had a part to play in developing the “animal Soul.” Perhaps we may be able to form an idea of what that means if we recall what was said in Chapter IX respecting animal “instinct,” and in Chapter XI about the “group souls.” We mentioned the fact that all animals act in accordance with the impulses they receive from their “group soul” and that they cannot pass outside the limits of their particular “kind or species. But observation of animals and their activities, over any considerable period of time, will show that continual development goes on in the group-soul that they are subject to, and that this development is brought about by changes in the conditions of their physical environment. A very simple illustrative example will explain this -The present writer’s recollections go back to the time when, in some districts, railways were still sufficient of a novelty for people to come out “to see the train go by.” To the animals in the fields in those days ‘the noisy rattle of the train, as it passed, was a source of alarm. It filled the animal “soul” with terror; horses, catfie and sheep would stampede to the farthest limits of their enclosures. A few years later one observed that only the young animals showed fear and ran away. Some of the older ones would come near the railway fence and watch the train with an air of wondering, mystified curiosity-and nothing more. What the noisy monster might be, they could not understand, but the animal “soul” was no longer fearful of it, as it had learned that the monster was harmless. Again, after a short period, one saw that even the young colts and calves were quite as undisturbed as their elders when a train roared past. With the advent of the automobile, the same thing happened again. How often in our early motoring days have we had to pull up, and even silence our engine, to allow a horse-drawn vehicle or some led animals to pass. Sometimes a horse would be visibly trembling with fear of the unknown thing on the road. Now, it is very seldom indeed that any animal shies at any passing car- even the most noisy and repulsive military machines.

Another example may be mentioned-the case of the Kruger Park animal sanctuary-in South Africa. There, where every animal is protected by law from any molestation, where no shooting or hunting is permitted, and every animal is perfectly free to roam about at its pleasure and live its natural life, human beings can safely walk or drive, or motor, or picnic. They are never attacked, though lions and other animals will wander across the roads and sometimes come to look at their visitors. The writer has a photograph in which a lion, a lioness and some cubs are shown quietly lying in a group, very interestedly watching an air plane that has landed near them. A superficial observer might imagine that these phenomena are explainable on the assumption that the animals “get used” to the new things or conditions; but that explanation is not quite correct and omits to take account of many important facts. To “get used” to anything means to have repeated individual experiences; to be able to retain them in memory and recall them, and to be able to deduce from them the appropriate lessons. To do that is possible to men but not to animals. As we have said before, the instinctive animal mind is not capable of deductive reasoning, and “memory” is a faculty of “soul.” An animal’s experiences are purely sense impressions which have no permanency in the physical being of the animal. But the animal “group soul” which is the common possession of the species-because it is “soul,” has memory, and can gather up into itself the experiences of the group; it can then do for the individual animals that it inhabits, what the individual human being, having an individual soul of his own, can do for himself. In this way, earth-life and conditions cause “reactions” in the animal soul-world, which develop it to meet the varying needs and circumstances of life in the physical plane.

But there is something more to say: When the “life-souls” were created we were told that a Divine “blessing” was given to them, and that they were ordained to “be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the ‘earth’ and the waters in the ‘seas.” (Not the primal universal “waters.”) To do that, a physical existence, in physical environments was a necessity. Spirit knows -no bounds or limits, its nature is universal. Therefore, “life soul” as long as it exists only in spiritual realms, cannot be fruitful or multiply. It is only when it becomes the in-dweller of beings with separate, independent, individual, bodies that it can be fruitful or multiply. The same exactly is true of Thought. “Thought” is spirit and, as Spirit, is always universal, and therefore cannot be multiplied; but any thought may be taken up by a mind here and there, or by millions of minds of individual thinkers. It is one and the same thought, -however many minds think it. Its multiplication and fruitfulness can only be in the minds that think it. We may say more on this subject when we come to consider the creation of man.

Before leaving verse 24 it is necessary to give an explanation of three words in the Hebrew original which the English translation does not adequately express. They are the words rendered by: “cattle” (“behemah”); “creeping thing” (“remesh”); and “beast of the earth” (“chaitho-aretz”). The word “behemah” is rather loosely translated in different places; sometimes by “cattle,” sometimes by “beasts of the earth,” sometimes by “wild beasts” of the woods, or earth, or field, etc. -For some extraordinary reason all the translators use a plural word to render it by. “Behemah” is singular. It has a plural: “Behemoth,” which is invariably rendered in the singular in English! Some commentators tell us it means “a hippopotamus.” Others tell us that the meaning of the word is unknown. (That is obvious from the general confusion respecting it!) Then again, although they translate “behemah” by “beast of the earth” they also translate “chaitho-aretz” by the same expression, although the two original words differ entirely. So under the circumstances we must do the best we can to discover its real meaning for ourselves.

The dictionary gives “B.H.M.” as “a root unused in Hebrew.” “Behem,” however, being a bisyllable word, cannot be correctly called a “root” at all. The real root is “H.M.” which is understood to mean noise or “multitude,” or the “noisy commotion of a crowd.” That meaning could easily and naturally arise from the sign values of the letters “H,” denoting “life,” ‘activity,” “energy,” “emphasis,” etc.; and “M” final, which we have before explained as denoting “plurality,” “universality,” “many,” etc. The “B” prefixed, as we know already, is the “internal” sign, equivalent to the English word “in.” Then to complete the word “behemah” we have the “H” final. This letter at the end of a word has several uses. Grammatically it is the sign of the feminine gender; for example, “ish” man; “ishah” = woman. It also means a “tendency,” a “direction,” “to,” “towards,” etc. Its use then is just the same as that of the affix “ward” or “wards” in some English words, as for instance: “Homeward the ploughman wends his weary way,” etc. Thus the word “behemah,” we can see, is a compound of four ideas :-

(1) “B” the idea of something “internal.”

(2) “H” = “life” or “activity.”

(3) “M” = something which is “general” or “universal”; and

(4) “H” final = “tendency” or “direction” in which or toward which, something works or moves.

When we read the word with these ideas in mind there appears to be no reason whatever why we should consider it the name of any animal or animals at all. It has obviously much more to do with “animation” than with “animals.” It is concerned with “life” itself in general and (in this particular verse) also with earth-life. We may, perhaps, make the verse more generally intelligible if we paraphrase it somewhat as follows.

“And Elohim said, the Earth shall bring forth, or develop soul-life after its own nature (i.e., the earth’s) ‘in the universal life movement,’ and an upward, progressing, earthly life, in accord with its own nature ; and it was so.

In case any reader should get an impression that the present writer, in concentrating his attention on the deeper meanings of the original text, undervalues or depreciates unduly the simple English version, he wishes to make it clear that his purpose is simply to show that that version is only adequate (and indeed was only intended) to give an outward, literal and material sense to the original. It does not always succeed in doing that. As a translation it is childlike, and quite uncritical in its simplicity, but so also-to all outward appearance, was the original. It had to be, in order to mean anything to the primitive-minded people to whom, in the first place, it was given. At -the same time there will always be found, between the simple version and the deeper meaning, some spiritual correspondence of ideas which prevents them from being contradictory or destructive, one or the other. The great significance of the whole matter is that the original Hebrew text is found to contain within itself both the most simple and the most profound. It is inconceivable that that could have been possible apart from Divine inspiration and control.

Coming now to verse 25, a casual reading again suggests unnecessary repetition. But here again we notice that one or two words are changed-and we shall find that these little changes grow in significance as we study them. The verse in the English Revised Version reads: “And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and -everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind, and God saw that it was good.”

We will give a few notes on the words of the verse. Firstly.- “and.” The “vav” as a conjunction is used in Hebrew in a much less precise way than “and” is used in English. This is only to be expected in a language that was actually in course of formation in and by the Book we are studying. (Just as the Italian language was in the poetry of Dante.) As a language grows older it acquires newer words and more precise forms of expression for subtleties of meaning, and composition becomes more lucid. Where the old Hebrew language is content with “and,” English idiom requires various different words in accordance with the nature of the relationship between the words or sentences to be conjoined, as for instance : “so,” “then,” “therefore,” “also,” or even “but.” Hebrew leaves that kind of differentiation to the intuition of the reader. “God” is “Elohim,” of course. In verse 24 we were told that the “earth” should “bring forth” soul-life after its kind. Here we are told that Elohim “makes” that “life of earth.” There is no contradiction in the two statements. It quite clearly means that “earth” was to be the medium through which Elohim works for carrying out certain parts of the Divine purposes.

– “beast of the earth.” This is again the word “chaith-h’aretz,” “life-of-the-earth” or “earth-life.” The translator of the English version could not get away from the idea that the text was dealing with specific “animals” and so the best he could do was to use the generic word “beast.”

– “cattle.” This is the word “behemah” again, which we explained as the universal life-movement within animated nature.

– “everything that creepeth” “cal-remesh” – literally ‘all movement or progress (upward).”

– “upon the ground.” Here we come to the most interesting -and important word in the verse: “ha-adamah.” This word is always rendered “ground” throughout the English Bible, thus distinguishing it clearly from the word “earth”; yet at the same time, no commentator-so far as the present writer is aware ever considers the two words as anything but merely synonyms of one another. This is a very serious mistake indeed. It could only arise from two causes: first, ignorance of the hieroglyphic basis of the Hebrew language, i.e., the sign value of the letters; and secondly, their inability to grasp the idea that the text could have anything but a purely materialistic significance. It is a mistake that makes it impossible for any ordinary reader to understand some of the most important passages-not only of Genesis-but also of many other parts of the Bible. Far from “adamah” being a synonym of “earth” or “soil,” it is always used of something which is being contrasted with “earth.” The word “aretz”- “earth” can be applied, quite correctly, to the physical earth, or td “land” (as distinct from water); or to a particular “land” (a country); or to the “soil” of the earth, etc., but he word “adamah” cannot be applied to anything of a physical nature at all. It has to do with an entirely spiritual conception. It is perfectly obvious, in the first place, that the word derives directly from the word “Adam.” The opposite idea, held by many commentators, that “adam” is derived from “adamah” is quite untenable; all compound words must be based on simple words, and all simple words must be based on monosyllabic roots, or be themselves a monosyllabic root. The word “adamah” is the word “adam” with the addition of the ‘H” final, which we explained in connection with the word “hehemah” as a “tendency” or a “movement towards something.” The word “adam” itself has the root “d-m,” which denotes “assimilation” or “likeness.” This same root “M” vocalised by the vowel “a,” is the Hebrew word for “blood”- “dam.” In Hebrew thought “blood” and “likeness” are always -associated ideas; “blood” was to the Hebrew mind the symbol of “kinship.” In Goethe’s “Faust,” Mephistopheles insists on his pact with Faust being signed with blood. “Blood,” he says ironically, “is a very peculiar fluid.” He was right, and his remark is worth consideration. The use of the plural word “bloods” in Hebrew was equivalent to saying in English: “of a different blood,” or a different “race,” “nature,” “kind,” etc. It inferred that their ideas and customs differed; and that they thought in different ways.

In the word “Adam” the sign a is prefixed to the root “D-M.” The “A” sign as has been explained before, denotes -the “starting point” of anything; “potentiality,” “cause,” etc., -so that etymologically the word means “potential likeness” or potential assimilation.” (If we read the word as a verb the a” would be the sign of the first person singular and the word would mean: “I assimilate” or “I become like” someone or something.) There will, of course, be more to say of this word when we are dealing with the creation of Adam. For the present it is sufficient to note that, whatever “Adam” may prove -to be, “Adamah” is something from which “Adam” is produced, or something which leads up to Adam.

We think it will be clear from the above notes that, between saying: “creeping”-or “moving on the earth” and “all that moveth the ground” (Adamah), there is a very important difference. The reader will notice that we have just omitted the word “upon,” which is in the English versions. That word is not in the original and there is no warrant for it. On the contrary, it destroys the real meaning of the Hebrew, which says: “All that moveth the Adamah,” i.e., everything which moveth “man”-wards.

God calls everything which does that: “good.” The word “adamah,” therefore, gives us the clue to the ultimate purpose of the creative scheme. Everything thus far planned was preparatory to, and leading up to, the Creation of “Adam.” The – “adamah” was the spiritual counterpart of “earth.” As the earth was created to be the “foundation” on which man would come into existence as a physical being, and in which his spiritual life and being – were to be developed, so the “adamah” was the spiritual “ground ,’ ‘-the forces and qualities out of which “Adam” (Humanity, or the Human Kingdom) was to be formed-and finally developed into the “likeness” of Elohim.

This will become clearer as we proceed.

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 13

Male and Female Created He Them

• Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 13

Fred Mayers

v. 26: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

v. 27: “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

v. 28: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them: Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

Thus far the “Creation” has comprised: –

1st. A spiritual universe the “Heavens”;

2nd. The material physical universe;

3rd. The “vegetable” kingdom, distinguished by life – forms endowed with power to “grow” and “propagate” their kind, but without conscious sensation.

4th. The “animal” kingdom, which includes all things endowed with “life – soul,” ie., life, with growth, propagation, power of movement, and conscious sensation. It included myriads of varieties of living creatures inhabited by the ‘group-souls” which gave them their forms and their generic characteristics, from the swarming creatures of the waters to the flying creatures of the air, and from the creeping worms of the earth, to the beasts of the forest or the wilds, and of domestic animals specially fit for service and association with a still higher type of being.

But so far, in all this wonderful and complex creative scheme, there was nothing, which in itself had any direct kinship with the Creator. It is true that in everything created there was “manifestation” of the power, the wisdom, and the “craftsmanship” of God, but there was nothing akin to Himself in nature and essence. The relation of everything thus far “created” to the Creator, was just that of the pot to the potter, or the picture to the artist, and no more. That did not satisfy the desires of the Heart of God. He wanted more – much more. He wanted beings capable of loving Him. He had partly given away His secret in the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Those words revealed something which He felt would be “good” for Himself, and to satisfy that desire of His heart, a final kingdom of beings. Hence the announcement in verse 26: “Let us make man.”

This was the first mention of man in the Bible. Now, what is this “man” to whom the inspired writer gives The appellation “Adam?”

The first curious thing we notice is that in one breath he is spoken of as a single being – “him” (or “it”) – and in the next breath he is referred to as a plurality, “them.” Then in verse 27 the word or name “Adam” is preceded by the definite article “the” (“the Adam”) as if Adam were some impersonal being. All this seems at first glance very confusing. So, without going farther or faster than the writer of Genesis goes in telling his story, let us see what light he has to give us. In the first place he tells us that Adam was to be made “in our image, after our likeness,” “Our,” as verse 27 explicitly states, refers to “Elohim.” We stated in Chapter II that “Elohim” is a plural name, and yet it is always treated as a “singular” one, and always used with a singular verb. In this verse, Elohim, in using the phrase “in our image,” etc., treats Himself as a plurality, but immediately afterwards we read that “Elohim created the Adam in “His” own image, in the image of Elohim created He him.” There, Elohim is a unity again. What is the explanation of this apparent confusion of terms? Our “higher” critics will, of course, pounce on it as another example of slipshod “collation.” There is really neither confusion nor contradiction in the passage. “Elohim,” as we saw in Chapter II, was the “manifesting God.” He was the latent powers and attributes of “Ain Soph,” the “unknown” Eternal God, coming into activity as the Creator, and in and through Creation making the Unknown known. He “manifests” the God that “no man hath seen at any time, nor can see.” Through Him we learn the power, the will and all the attributes of the Absolute “Eternal” Being, to be distinguished later by the name “Ihoah” = “The Eternal.” The divine attributes summed up in Elohim were many, hence the plural aspect of His being. In “The Chaldean Account of Creation” by George Smith, among the translations of the Babylonian tablets containing the story, there are many curious corroborations of some points in this chapter. For instance, one tablet begins: “When the ‘gods in their assembly’ had created,” etc. It is easy to see that the word “assembly” is equivalent to a “bringing together” into a unity, as Elohim does.

Another interesting point is that several of the tablets contain “glosses” stating that all the divine titles apply to the same deity. “Elohim” made them a united whole, hence His singular aspect. It was in the “image” of the manifold attributes of God that Adam was to be made.

Let us look now, into the actual meanings of the two words: “image” and “likeness.” Dr. Bennett in the “Century Bible” notes, tells us: “No distinction can be drawn here between ‘image’ and ‘likeness.’ They…. are a pair of synonyms setting forth one idea with special emphasis and some variety of language.” We have already had to deal with several cases of apparent repetition or redundancy; and in every case they have proved to involve some distinct differences. In any case, in the Hebrew Text, the words are very different from one another.

The word image is “Tzelem.” The root of the word is “tzl.” This root denotes something which extends outwards from its source to a distance, exactly as a shadow is cast from an object. It denotes an “image” only in the sense that a shadow gives an indication of the outline of the object that causes it. It also suggests something darkened or obscured. The word “tzelem” is commonly used for “shadow,” and that word might perhaps have been more appropriate in the English version. A little thought, however, will show us that that rendering could not be correct in a literal sense when applied to God or His attributes. “God is Spirit. Spirit casts no shadow, and “In Him is no darkness at all.”

It is true, however, that some ancient philosophies conceive of the created universe as the “shadow of God” (The Vision of Hermes, in the “Pymander,” for instance). They conceive of God as universal “Light.” and all creation everything outside of His own Being – as being, by contrast, “Shadow.” In that metaphorical sense, either the word “image” or “shadow” could be used. But what proceed outwards from God, universally, are His manifest attributes, qualities, thoughts, ideas, and Will. These are in a very real sense the “image” of God.

The Hebrew of the word “likeness” is “damoth.” It will be seen at once that this word has the same root as the words “adam” and “adamah.” “Dam” is also the word for “blood,” and we have seen already that “blood” in Hebrew thought was always associated with ideas of kinship, similarity, likeness in nature, consanguinity, etc. The ending of the word “damouth,” “oth,” is merely the feminine plural affix.

But in the Hebrew text the word “damoth” has also a prefix attached to it – and a further affix, so that the whole word is “chidamothnou.” The “chi” means “as,” “for,” or “because,” and the final affix “nou,” may mean either “us,” or “our.” So the whole word means “for likenesses of us.” Incidentally, construed hieroglyphically, the word “damouth” can be read equally as a verb. Then the word means that Adam was to be the likeness – maker. So Adam was to be akin to Elohim, a spiritual being in the Divine likeness. He was also to be active in all created soul – life as a progressive, uplifting force, raising soul-life from its earliest and most embryonic states, step by step, until finally, in human souls he could realise fully the Divine likeness. Adam was to make humanity “divine.” His final purpose and destiny – was to make individual human Souls children of God, in the “likeness” of their Father. Jesus, in His own way, stated the same thing (John XX, v. 17): “I go to my Father and your Father to my God and your God.” He was, as St. John says, the “express image” of God the Father; and, as St. Paul makes clear, the “Christ” was to be “formed in” His followers, making them also “sons” of God.

Let us return again for a moment to the name “Adam,” and note its hieroglyphic construction. “A” – as we know, denotes anything primal – the “First Cause”; potentiality – “God.” “D” is the sign of multiplication, abundance; final “M” is the sign of unlimited plurality. The name “Adam” therefore means “the ONE becoming many.” God, Who taught us through the word of Jesus, to address Him as “Our Father,” wanted what the very word Father involves, – what every father wants, – “children” in his own “likeness.” But as a spiritual being, Adam was only one. As we said in speaking of the group-souls,” a spiritual conception, a “species” or “genus,” cannot, as such, multiply. It can only multiply in the number of individuals comprised in it, and this multiplication can only take place on the physical plane. The full implications of that fact will become clearer in a later chapter. In the meantime. We have now, the explanation of “Adam” being both singular and plural, “him” and “them”; and both “male” and “female.” In his singular aspect he was the “human”, principle.” the “soul” or essence of “humanity.” Just as the group-souls” animated countless individual creatures in the animal kingdom, so Adam animates countless individuals in the “human” kingdom, and in those individuals he “multiplies.” As a spiritual unity Adam was sexless, but sex was a necessity of multiplication in the physical realm, – and in the physical realm alone. As Jesus explained to some of his questioners: in the spiritual world there is “neither marrying nor giving in marriage, for all are as the angels,” i.e., They are all of the same universal nature as the divine forces working throughout the Universe. He also told them at the same time: “Ye do err – not knowing the scriptures,” plainly intimating that the “scriptures,” if they had known them aright, confirmed just what we have been saying above, and what we have tried to make clear that the scriptures did say.

We must now explain more fully the meaning of the “dominion” given to Adam in the various “life-kingdoms” and in “the whole earth.” We use the word “in” advisedly. The Hebrew text does not use the word “over” which our English translation gives. It most distinctly says “in.” The translators with their preconceived notion of “Adam” as the first individual man of flesh and blood, were – very naturally – quite unable to see how a human being could be “in” the fish life of the sea, or the bird life of the air, or the animal life of the earth, or in the “whole earth” itself, so the only interpretation they could put on the word was that Adam was to be a kind of “Icing” of creation. He was – but in a way of which they had no conception. Let us try to clear up the mystery. What we have already said about “Adam” goes a long way toward giving us the solution.

“Man” as most thinking people recognise today, is a very complex being. In his constitution he has something of all the various kingdoms of Nature. His physical body belongs entirely to the material mineral realm. It is composed of physical and chemical elements common to the physical earth : – minerals, water, gases. It has no life in itself. While “living” it is vitalised and held together by a “life-body,” but directly its life-body” quits it, the physical body commences to dissolve, and the elements of which it was composed return to the earth from which they were taken. To the “life-body” the physical body owes its organisation and its powers of growth and propagation; and a life which is the same in nature as that of the vegetable kingdom. The third constituent of man is his life of sensation, feeling, desire, movement. By these qualities he shares the life of the animal kingdom. Then he has a “thought” being, a mental life that raises him above the animal stage, and higher, purely spiritual qualities, that can raise him beyond all physical realms, into life that is entirely spiritual. So man belongs to every plane of existence in the universe – every plane supplies some constituent of his being. Now, the important point we have to consider at the moment, is that something on every plane of being has to be prepared, developed, and organised specially for the making of every human being.

That is why “Adam” has to work in every plane, shaping and controlling the development of everything necessary to make man and then to make in man the image of God. To make “man,” “Adam” has to begin his activities at the very bottom of the ladder of life. What science calls “Evolution” is really a vast chain of phases of existence, beginning its upward course with the granite rock of earth, but ending (or perhaps more correctly, reaching a new “point de depart”), as countless beings in the “likeness of Elohim.” Science is perfectly well aware of this upward progressive movement. It tries to explain it by theories of “Natural selection” and “survival of the fittest.” But it conceives of these “theories” as mechanically acting forces of Nature. “Selection,” however, is really, inconceivable except as the activity of some intelligent being, of something living and thinking, and endowed with power to translate thought into effective activity. And what is “fittest” can be known only if one has some definite standard by which to judge. Science – at least materialistic science – ignores those considerations. The author of Genesis realises fully their importance, and his statements respecting the nature and purposes of “Adam” are, by far, the most truly scientific explanation of “Evolution” ever given to mankind.

There is really no difficulty in understanding the activity of “Adam” – the Human Spirit – in the various kingdoms of Nature. Let us just mention a few things by way of explanation. Firstly, the Adamic activity in the material earth itself. Does not “man” take from the earth its own substances, coal, ores, salt, oil, gems, etc., etc.? Does he not make direct use of these things as the earth provides them, and go infinitely farther than making direct use of them by transforming them in, literally, countless ways? What has he not transformed by-products of coal into? What has he not done with metal ores? and oil? Does he not alter the very composition of the soil of garden or field to make it more fruitful and prolific than nature made it? Does he not dam rivers and carry out irrigation works to make desert lands fruitful? The tale is endless. And everything is done on man’s account, and to further man’s insatiable desire for a “higher standard of life.” Nothing below the human level ever felt any need for anything that nature does not provide ready made. What animal ever thought of digging the soil or planting a tree? What animal ever thought of “higher standards of life”? The animal asks no more than enough food and adequate shelter. Everything beyond that is the work of “Adam,” and shows his “rule” and “dominion” in the earth. “Adam” is also the ‘wisdom hidden in the unconscious plant – always tending, more or less directly, to make the vegetable kingdom of increased service to man. Maeterlinck writes about “The intelligence of the flowers,” but really the intelligence that he writes about, in so fascinating a way, is not an attribute of something that has simply a deep, unconscious sleep life; it is something much higher in the “life” scale Than plants are that is the indwelling “ruler” of the plant life. Plants do many wise things, but the wisdom is not in the plants. The present writer loves to stroll through a wooded land in Autumn and note the fallen leaves lying face downwards on the ground under and around the trees. One day he asked himself the question: “Why face downwards?” At first he was puzzled, but gradually he began to understand, and see the “hidden wisdom”: – Throughout the spring and summer the leaves had had very important work to do. They fed the tree with sunlight and life, and spread themselves out with faces turned to the heavens for that purpose. While they were thus imbibing light and life from – the sun, the sun’s heat was causing the evaporation of moisture that had risen from the damp earth through the tree into the leaves. This drying process had the immediate effect, naturally, of increasing their ability to absorb more moisture, and so the upward flow of moisture through the tree was greatly increased and all the functions of the tree were strengthened. This continued until flowering and fruiting were completed. By this time the leaves. whose whole life is only for one short season, began to grow old and less absorbent; they became dry and brittle, so that the wind could easily detach them from the tree. Now, those leaves were badly needed just where they fell. All through the spring and summer the tree had been drawing nutriment from the soil which its roots occupied and impoverishing the soil to that extent. It was necessary in the tree – s interests, that the soil should be enriched again with organic matter that the leaves could supply. If the leaves fell, as they grew, they would have their most convex side downwards. That would mean that the lightest wind would scatter them to a distance; they would scud over the ground like little boats on water. But, if they fell the other way up, every little projection on the leaf would tend to catch in the soil and anchor them, more or less, where they fell. That is exactly what happens, with the result that the soil actually receives more nutriment than was taken from it, and grows richer, year after year, by what it receives from the decomposing leaves.

There is certainly “wisdom” in the planning of all these processes; it is not the wisdom of the plant, but of some living spiritual intelligence. Genesis attributes it to the “Adam.” One might go on indefinitely to speak of The part played by “human” intelligence in developing plants to increase Their food value, and in many other ways. One might speak of the wonderful flowers that are to be seen at Horticultural Hall shows, the ancestors of which were at one time just wild weeds; but enough has been said to suggest the idea we are trying to explain.

Just exactly the same kind of work is being done by human intelligence in the animal world. The facts are so we known to everybody that it is quite unnecessary to go into any further details. We only desire to make clear the deep wisdom and knowledge hidden away in The old Genesis story – a story which has suffered more from misrepresentation, and from the learned ignorance of commentators – than any book in the world.

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 14

The Sustenance of Life

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 14

Fred Mayers

The Sixth Day

Genesis I, v. 29 to 31.

v.29: “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb-yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat

v.30: “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth,

-wherein there is life . . . . every green herb for meat: and it was so.

v.31: “And God saw everything that He had made, and behold it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.” (English R.V.)

These verses. as we read them. appear to be quite simple and clear; yet. curiously enough, the more closely we consider them. the more difficulties and side-issues we find we have to deal with. It is not well to try to avoid or pass over either -difficulties or side issues ; they may prove to be both interesting and instructive in very unexpected ways. To deal with these difficulties and side issues will necessitate some “rambling”; but the rambling will be by no means aimless, and will serve to bring into harmony things which, only up to a certain point, have been dealt with in past chapters. –

In the first place, we notice that in these verses there is no mention whatever of the swarming life of the “waters in the seas.” If the writer of the narrative was really dealing literally with the question of material food for material living creatures in general, it seems strange that he should have nothing to say about the sustenance of such a large proportion of the world’s animated creatures. They had to live, just as much as men. animals, and birds.

“ Then the provision of “every herb yielding seed” and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed” for man; and every green herb for meat” for “every beast of the earth.” “every fowl of the air, and everything that creepeth upon the earth,” in itself raises a variety of questions. One would think that is must have occurred to the narrator that animals of the “lion” kind, for instance, would hardly appreciate the tender grass of the meadows as their daily diet. It might suit the cow, the sheep, or the rabbit. very well-but the lion! Surely his teeth were not designed for nibbling grass; nor was his disposition such as would incline him to sit down after dinner to “chew the cud” in dreamy inaction. And again: when he tells us that to man was given “every herb yielding seed,” and “every tree in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed,” and to animals and birds “every green herb” for “meat,” it naturally suggests the question whether “every” (the Hebrew word is “col,” a word which the greatest Hebraists tell us means “all,” without exception), includes the large number that are poisonous. Does he infer that, originally, all plants and fruits were edible and harmless? As far as the present writer is aware, there is no evidence existing to that effect. As far as we know. all species of plants have always had the same essential characteristics that they have now. Edible plants were always edible and poisonous plants always poisonous. We remember the story (II Kings IV. v. 40) of the gathering of some “wild gourds” and the consternation caused when they were eaten :”Oh, Man of God, there is death in the pot.” What looked somewhat like “gourds” or “melons” were probably “colocynths.” If we should suggest. as a reply, that God protected animals from poisonous foods by instinctive knowledge which He gave them, and that the same applied also to men in their primitive state, in which they too were guided by instinct, we only, raise the further question: “Why have used the word “every at all?”

The omission of any reference to creatures of the water rather tends to make us think about them all the more. It sets us thinking what they do live on; and that brings up questions we would like to have answered. The fact appears to be that the vast majority of them (and also many land creatures and birds) just feed upon other living creatures; the big and the strong on the smaller and weaker. That may be an explanation of the provision of such prodigious numbers of living creatures, especially in the lower forms of marine life; but it is not at all a pleasant thought.

Without being at all super-sensitive we cannot avoid being pained at the idea that countless small creatures must perish daily in order that others, in higher forms of life, may survive. Inevitably. we find ourselves asking: “Can it really be, that God, whose very nature we believe to be Love, and whose love extends from the very highest to the very lowest and meanest of all the creatures that He has created, can have so ordered the laws of Nature, as to make life for some dependent on the sacrifice of others?” Is there not something inherent in every awakened soul that makes us feel that the very idea of one life-form living on others is repulsive? Surely our poor little human souls cannot really be more loving and godlike than the God who created us and all Nature’s laws? When we read the verses we are now considering, just as they appear, literally. in English, do we not feel that. in giving to man, beast, bird and “everything that creeps upon the earth,” the produce of that kingdom of Nature which is without conscious sensation, for their sustenance, God appears to share, and confirm that judgement of our souls. If so, why do we find in Nature this “law” of life depending on the sacrifice of life? For it is a law of Nature; and what is more, it is a universal law. It is not the law of the creatures of the waters only. by any means. Even if man and the whole animal creation were to become “strict vegetarians” the law would still hold, because plants also have life. The sacrifice of plant life which is non-sentient does not shock us to so great a degree as the sacrifice of sentient beings. It is the idea of suffering which really repels us. But the sacrifice, even of plant life, is a sacrifice of life. When the present writer sees a bowl of beautiful flowers on his study table, fading and dying, he is only too painfully conscious that their life has been sacrificed to feed his pleasure in having their beauty before him for a few days. He may try to argue with himself that, if they had been left to live out their life in the garden, they would have died almost as quickly; but that does not remove the painful feeling that they died for his pleasure. They have done something for him which he cannot repay. How much else there is, in the experience of every one, that can never be repaid!

We cannot, however, in any way, escape from the fact that there is, universally, this law that life feeds upon life-and that the God of all Wisdom and Love has ordained it so to be. There is a great mystery hidden in that fact, and if we can unravel that mystery, we shall have solved the mystery of all the suffering-the sin-of all the ages. Even the salvation of a human soul involved the sacrifice of life.

But, is there not another aspect to this question of the sacrifice of sentient life? God permits it as a universal law of Nature-but only because it is a necessity. As we said in our first chapter, everything must have a strictly “relevant” -cause: Bodies must be formed from material elements; minds must be built up of thought-elements; characters must be developed out of characters; and life can only come from life. God never desires suffering for any creature. Even Jesus, although He said it “behoved Him to suffer,” did not desire suffering for suffering’s sake; far from it :– “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” Nevertheless. He accepted it, but He spent the busiest part of His earthly life in relieving suffering. and God always mitigates suffering as far as possible. He has so ordained things that there are not only infinite grades of “life-forms,” but also infinite degrees of sentience in those life-forms. When we, in our imaginative thought “put ourselves in the place of” lower beings. we are apt to lose sight of that fact. The capability for suffering bodily pain, in man, for instance, increases in proportion as he becomes more highly developed; his nerves become more sensitive; his constitution becomes more refined; and above all, his imagination becomes more intense. He can also feel pain in anticipation. and anticipation of suffering may be even worse than the actual suffering when it comes. Animals, at least, are always spared that, as they cannot anticipate. They feel pain only in the moment of suffering it; and the lower they are in the scale of life. the lower is their sensitiveness to pain. Exactly the same principle works in spiritual life: Conscience does not greatly trouble a low type of man when he does wrong. It is the saint whose conscience torments him over the most trifling “peccadillo”-and even over quite imaginary faults. For that reason it is certain that the physical, mental, and spiritual sufferings of Jesus on Calvary would be infinitely greater than anything that the thieves beside Him were capable of feeling. If we suffer, God at least suffers with us; and in proportion as His consciousness is infinitely more extended than ours, and His “sensitivity” to all that is harmful. painful, out of harmony with the “good Law,” erroneous. or sinful, is infinitely more intense than ours. it is obvious that His suffering is infinitely greater than ours, also. Yet He chose-from the beginning-to take a path that He well knew would be a path of self-sacrifice; a path full of suffering to His own soul. Was not the Redeemer of humanity “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief”? Could He not have said, as Jeremiah did: “See if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow”? with even greater reason.

The whole Universe began in the sad longing of Eternal Love for objects to love and be loved by. Every act of creation was a “giving” of something of His own Self. Self-sacrifice began. continued, and will finally complete and perfect His “kingly work.”*

God has suffered because He loved; we suffer in order to grow into His likeness. There is, and can be, no way to the

*The word, baldly translated “his work” in Gen. II, V. 2 = “melachto,” is based on the word “melec,” i.e., “king” or “angel.”

Highest except through suffering. But suffering is only the way -not the goal. either for God or Man.

Do we really think in our souls that suffering is a bad thing; something God should not have allowed? Most certainly not always. at any rate. How often during the last half dozen years have our souls felt the “glory” of some act of self-sacrifice, suffering and even death willingly accepted in the cause of honour or duty! Is there anything that can touch our souls more deeply?- “I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me.” He knew suffering could be “worth while.” Those who have experienced sorrow and pain deeply are most able to sympathise with, and help others.

There is one more “side-issue” we may notice here. It is the question of what man owes most directly to the animal kingdom. All the components of our being. following the law which we have seen at work throughout Creation, have to be developed from mere “potentialities” through all the stages of creative work. For instance, in the mineral realm, every form of matter has to be developed from a state of undifferentiatedness in the primal element. The white chalk cliffs, the sandstones, the marbles, the granites, the coal beds, metallic ore beds, amber, precious gems, etc., all alike are the products of vast numbers of processes that have been at work for immeasurable ages. In some processes the vegetable kingdom has played a part. In others the animal kingdom has also played a part. These latter processes have been chiefly concerned with the production of that most valuable of all form of matter-good agricultural and garden soil suited for the growth of human foodstuffs. If we take the trouble to think the matter out carefully we shall see that things like “thought.” our “desire nature” and emotions, also “character,” have all been developed through long series of processes. “Man,” as he is to-day, is the product of all the past ages. There are infinite varieties of “characters” even in the plant world, but in that realm they are only expressed in “form” and “growth” and “manner of propagation.” In the animal world “characters” assume forms that approach what we mean by “characters” in human beings. Every animal expresses something which shows nature, disposition, or feelings. What we find expressed in animals, we can also find expressed in human beings, and so animals become representatives of human qualities. Most creatures in the animal world provide us-in their very names-with adjectives which vividly describe various human characters: for example, “lion” suggests courage, dignity, majesty, dominance, etc.; “tiger” suggests cruelty. spite, savage anger, etc.; “tortoise” suggests slowness; hare-swiftness ; “fox” -cunning; “rabbit”-timidity; “pig”-a creature wallowing in filth; “sheep” suggest the harmless, useful, unititiative, “follow-the-crowd” type; “viper” or “snake,” a silent, subtle, dangerous type; “bee”-industry; “butterfly’ ‘-pretty, vain, inconstant; “hawk” and “shark” -creatures preying on their fellows, and so on, ad lib. It is quite easy to recognise all these types of human beings-but with one conspicuous difference -In the animal world, none of the qualities mentioned is in a moral sense either “good” or “bad”; they are simply “natural,” as the animal is not possessed of any moral sense. But when the same characteristics appear in human beings. we instantly perceive that they have become qualities to be judged as “good” or “evil” in a moral sense. Man is given reason, deductive thought. and conscience” by which to judge qualities according to their relationship to God’s ideal of manhood. (The author of Genesis deals with this matter in Chapter II. verses 19 and 20) which “ideal,” whether we are conscious of the fact or not, is inherent in every man’s spiritual being; whether he is wise or simple, “good” or “bad.” Even the spirit of evil knows, quite well, “good” or “evil” when he meets them. In man these characteristics are a link with the animal world; they form his “animal nature”; but man has also the “human” qualities by which he can exercise “dominion” over all that is sub-human. The evolution of characters in the animal world was obviously the work of the Adamic spiritual forces, and it was preparatory to the “formation” of “human nature.”

Keeping in mind the matters just discussed, we may now be able to get at the real meaning of these (29-31) verses.

The Vegetable Kingdom represents all that grows out of the “earth”; figuratively, it represents man’s daily life with all the experiences it provides for him. Everything that can happen to man on earth, plays some part in building up his

“soul” and unfolding the powers of his “spirit.” It is all “food” for his soul and spiritual nature. Now we can see the meaning of the emphasis on that word “every.” Nothing that can happen to man is either “good” or “bad” for the soul and spirit-except as we ourselves, by the right or wrong exercise of our “human” qualities make them “good” or “bad.” Joy or sorrow, “good fortune” or “misfortune,” in themselves, are neither good nor bad for man’s essential being; but he can himself make them either good or bad. For instance: trouble, pain, or sorrow may come to us. We have a choice how we shall react to them ; we may meet them with impatience, resentment, irritation, anger, complaints, and rebellion against “the good power of heaven.” Every one of those things destroys something in the soul, and makes the spirit weaker and poorer. We have done injury to our inmost being; we have dissipated peace, lowered the level of our manhood; we have done ourselves a wrong that nothing outside ourselves could have done us.

But suppose we take another course; suppose we possess our souls in patience; meet our troubles calmly and with a brave heart; with an “active” resignation that is yet resolved to “make the best of things”; refusing to fall into despondency; keep a quiet confidence that God has some good purpose in all He permits. All these things are active forces for good. They are veritable “cherubim”(the word means: “those who build up’) they build up the soul, and strengthen the spirit. They make us masters of the ills that befall us, instead of their slaves; they develop faith and its mysterious power. In every way they leave us better men and women than we were before. “All good things, brother” (to quote Borrow). Yes; it is absolutely and literally true that no one, and nothing, except our own actions, or reactions, can do any harm to the human soul and spirit. That is the meaning of such sayings as: “All things work together for good to them that love God”; or “Fear not them that kill the body, and have no more that they can do”; but fear him ……. that hath power to destroy both soul and body……” The “him” referred to in that verse is the subtle enemy within every human being – that tendency which, because it is centred in our lower “self” and is “self-seeking,” is capable of destroying our true, immortal being. (He is “Nahash” – the “serpent” of Gen. III, v. 1.)

We will not forestall any further here what will need to be said in a later chapter.

The “green grass and herb” symbolise what is simple, harmless, useful and free from “sin.” Nothing below the human stage of life – least of all the plant world – can sin. This, perhaps, is why the plant world is chosen to represent the true “food” of the human soul and spirit

We notice that to the animal world are allotted the simplest means of sustenance; and to man something of a higher nature – something that is in itself both fruitful and the seed of fruit.

But before we close this chapter, there is just one word that should receive a special note. It is the word translated “meat” or “food” – “achelah.” That the word means “meat,” “food” or “sustenance” is universally admitted ; but it also has another meaning which is often lost sight of; and this fuller meaning furnishes us with the very thing that we need to complete all we have been trying to say. It is worth while to study it in detail.

The root of the word is “col.” This happens to be, itself. the very word “every”‘ which we have been talking about. It is composed of the two signs, “caph” and “lamed.” The “caph” is known as the “assimilative” sign. The hieroglyphic origin of the character is a hand in the act of closing on some-thing. Figuratively. it suggests “grasping” or “taking in hand” some object or the management of something; of assimilating something to our purposes or use. The “lamed” denotes extension, reaching out, etc. As a “word,” “col” means “all.” “every,” “the whole,” “completeness.” As a “root” it conveys a variety of associated ideas: taking hold of; seizing; containing; assimilation; chylification; consuming; consummating; completing; achieving; perfecting. These meanings can be checked by reference to words formed on the root, which can be found in any Hebrew dictionary. In this case the meanings that concern us most are that of “consuming,” “eating,” “feeding” on one hand, and that of “consummating,” completing.” “perfecting,” etc., on the other.

As we look back upon the whole story of the creative “plan” which we have endeavoured to unfold from the old text, does it not now commence to stand out as a closely connected logical Unity; one Great Idea. We have not yet come to the fuller story of the carrying of the plan on to its complete realisation. but we have a fairly sufficient outline of its character and purpose. We have seen “chaos” developing into a wonderful. ordered universe; the laying of the foundations on which life might be manifested; the conception of the vegetable kingdom, then of the animal kingdom, and finally that of the human kingdom in which God could realise his manifold likeness.

Every stage has been a necessary step towards the next higher, and the last step. when completed. ends where all began-in God. These verses which complete the story of the six “days” work just tell us that everything has been leading up to “man,” and that man himself has to give everything its complete and perfected meaning. Man is the ultimate product of all that has preceded him. All that exists is the material for his sustenance and complete development.

The characteristics of plants and vegetable “life” arose through their unconscious reactions to outer physical conditions. The characteristics of the animals arose from sentient reactions to the conditions and events of their daily life. Man contains within himself the essence of all the past. By his human spiritual qualities of thought. reason, and will, he has to carry everything to the fulfilment of its purpose, and its perfection in himself.

God, considering all that He had done, was satisfied that everything was so ordered that His purpose would, in the fullness of time, be realised. He pronounced it “Tob mod” = good to the utmost.” The “Creative” work was ended.

At this point the first chapter of Genesis quite logically ends. The first three verses of Chapter II are very commonly considered as part of the “creation” narrative, but they are really the introductory link with the “formation” narrative which we have to consider in later chapters.

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 15

Seventh Day of Creation

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 15

Fred Mayers

Genesis II, v. 1 to 3.

v.1: “And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

v 2: “And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which he had made.

v. 3 :“And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all His work which Cod had created and made.” (English R.V.)

The word “and” with which this verse commences in the English Revised Version, although it is a strictly literal translation of the Hebrew “vav.” does not render the sense of the original so well as the word “thus,” which is used in the old “Authorised Version.” Readers will remember that in a previous chapter we noted how the word “and” is made to do service in many cases where in English we should use various different words according to the requirements of the context. In this case the word is used to connect-up what is being said. with the creative work described in the previous chapter. It was in its “creative” aspect that the work of Elohim was finished-therefore, the word “thus” is the more suitable.

Then, in verse 2, we twice have the words: “His work which He had made.” That is certainly a literal translation of the Hebrew, but one cannot call it English idiom; if the word “done” had been used instead of “made,” it would still have been quite as correct literally, and would not have been so un-English. To “make work” in English idiom is not the same thing as “doing work.” However, these little points do not seriously affect the interpretation of the verses. There are other points of much greater importance to be dealt with.

The word “heaven” should of course have been “heavens” = “shamaim.” The word is always plural in the Hebrew text because, as we have shown before, there are “grades” in the heavenly worlds as there are in the material universe. Compare St. John XIV. v. 2: “In my Father’s house are many mansions . . .

How and when the general use of the singular form “heaven” arose, is not very clear. Dante, who was always careful to keep his theological ideas within the orthodoxy of his time AD 1300), pictures ten heavens, or ten spheres of heaven in his “Paradiso.” He conceives them as rising one above the other in ever-increasing glory and blessedness. They appear to correspond closely with the “Ten Sephiroth” of the Jewish writers,- i.e., the “Ten Splendours of God.”

Apart from these minor points, while most of the words in the passage should by this time be familiar to us, there are five words that will need explaining before the whole meaning of the passage will be clear to us. The first of these is the word translated “host,” “all the host of them,” = “chol-tzebaam.” The word “tzeba” is a compound of two roots: (a) “tzo,” which expresses ideas of “order,” “command,” “organisation”, “direction.” “Tzoh” means: “commanded,” “gave orders, appointed,” etc. (see Deut. v. 15); (b) and “ab,” which expresses the idea of a “controlling will,” an “innate directing force.” “Tzeba” denotes a “host” only in the sense of a large, disciplined, ordered army, as in such expressions as “the host of Sisera,” etc. It cannot be correctly used of a mere multitude, crowd, or mob. The whole emphasis of the word is on the ideas of order, discipline, generalship. In the case with which we are dealing the word is extended by the “universal” sign “M” final. It is used here of the universal “laws” and order of Nature; the ordered movements of the stars, and the perfectly organised workings of natural law. It is used with exactly the same meaning in the Divine Name: “Ihoah Tzebaoth” – the “Lord of Hosts.”

The next word with which we have to deal is “ha-shebihi” “the seventh.” There is in this case no uncertainty or difference of opinion as to the meaning. The only thing we have to point out is that in Hebrew, and indeed, in most ancient philosophies, every “number” has a very definite, and often very profound, symbolic meaning. This word “shebihi” is based on -the root “shob,” which expresses the idea of “returning” to some place, or state or position. The addition of “ayin” after the root “sh-b” gives it a material signification.

“Shebihi,” as a symbol, denotes the “completion of anything.” It is, however, more than an abstract philosophic conception. It is based on a great natural law. For instance, light-pure white light-is, strangely enough, composed of seven colours: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. The human eye is only sensitive to one octave, or rather, septet of this scale, but it is known to continue down-wards and upwards. The musical scale consists of seven tones also, which continue repeating; each repetition one octave higher in pitch than the preceding one. We are more fortunate in our receptiveness to musical tones than to light, as we are sensitive to many octaves. We see the same principle in the seven days of the week, ever repeating.

In every case “seven” completes a certain “cycle” or “series,” or something which “returns” to a starting point. This symbolic idea of “completion” is always associated with the number seven in the Bible. For instance, there are the ceremonial seven-branched candlestick or lamp-stand; the seven lights; the seven churches; and the seven spirits of God in “Revelation”; the “seventh day’ ‘-Sabbath; the seven planets; the seven-day week, etc., etc.

The third word which we have to study is the word “isheboth” which the English Bible renders: “rested.” More than that, the translators assume that this word “rested” is synonymous with “ceasing from work,” becoming inactive.” This is the word on which all the difficulties connected with the passage turn. The root of the word is “sheb.” The very same root which we have just been. discussing in connection with the word “shebihi”- “seventh.” We have already said that the idea conveyed by it is that of “returning.” or “being “re-established,” “restored,” of “going back to a former state or place,” of “settling down” (and out of that meaning it comes to mean also “sitting down,” a “seat.” This is the only way in which the word approaches the idea of “resting,” ceasing work’ ‘-and in this sense it is only used metaphorically). These meanings are perfectly well known to all Hebraists. Let us take at random a few examples to show the use of “sheb” or “shob” :–In Psalm I, v. 1 we have the words “nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.” The word “sitteth” is “jashob”; the word “seat” is “mosheb” (literally=the sitting, or settling down place). In Psalm II. v. 4 we have “He that sitteth in the heavens.” Here “sitteth” is “iosheb.” It is a poetic equivalent to “established.” We have the same expression in the “Creed”: “He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God.” In that case we have the same idea of “re-establishment’ ‘-and also the fact of a “returning” from the mortal to the Divine state. Another most interesting example is in Psalm XC. v. 3. The English A.V. reads: “Thou turnest man to destruction and sayest, Return ye children of men.” The present writer has never yet met anyone who could tell him what interpretation to put upon that verse-in that version. What the original text says is this: – “Thou causest ‘man’ (the word “man” here is “anosh” = bodily. physical man) to return to dissolution (“dust to dust”) and thou sayest, Return ye children of Adam”-(“The spirit shall return to God who gave it”) (Adam = spiritual man. “Return” is “shubu.” In every case quoted it will be seen that there is no suggestion whatever of “resting” or “inaction.” Now, how did the translators of the Bible into English come to translate the word “isheboth” by “rested”? The explanation which appears to the writer to be the most probable in this -All the principal translations of the Hebrew scriptures which we possess, interpreted the Hebrew through the Greek version of the LXX. That translation was made about the third century BC (Until comparatively recent times there was little direct knowledge of

· Hebrew and allied languages. Some of these had been absolutely “dead”-forgotten and lost for ages, and had to be re<Ieciphered and the meanings of their words rediscovered.) Between the date of the writing of Genesis and that of the Septuagint, the institution of the Jewish Sabbath and the ideas associated with it, had been so long established as to colour all their thoughts. Instead of trying to interpret Genesis directly. the translators brought to it the ideas they had acquired from that institution and tried to make it fit in with them. The idea of “resting,” of “abstaining from all secular work,” was essential -to the Jewish “Sabbath,” and they quite failed to see that Gen. II, v. 1-3, was really concerned with another and deeper significance of the Sabbath.

The fourth word we must take note of is “hallowed,” “ikaddesh” = “hallowed,” “consecrated,” “set apart,” “dedicated to God,” “made holy,” etc. This meaning is universally accepted, so there is no need to go into further detail, but it is a word of special significance in this place. The last word we need to note particularly is the last word in verse 3 : “l’asoth.” translated in English as “and made.” For some reason, difficult to explain on any grounds, except that of failing entirely to see the difference between “creating” and “making,” all translators and commentators, as far as the present writer is aware-without exception, translate the prefix “l” by “and.” This is the more extraordinary as it has never meant “and,” and could never be made to mean “and.” It is one of the most frequently used prefixes in Hebrew, and invariably denotes purpose, direction, or possession. According to its context it may be translated by: “to,” “towards,” “in order to,” for the purpose of,” “for,” “belonging to” – but never in any case by “and.” Then, the word “asoth,” to which it is prefixed. is not the past tense “made”; it is more equivalent to the English “present participle”- “making.” The meaning of the whole sentence is perfectly clear, in the light of what we have said in earlier chapters on “creating”:-’ ‘And Elohim blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because in it He returned from all his work, which He, Elohim, had created for making,” or “in order to make.” The word “Sabbath” means, literally, “The Returning.” The “seventh day” means the “day of full realisation.” We have seen that “Elohim” came forth from the unknown Eternal One in order to make Him “manifest.”- “knowable” through Creation. After having finished His creative work Elohim “returned” to the Divine Unity. This is signified in the remainder of the second chapter of Genesis by altering the Divine Name to “Ihoah-Elohim.” We have seen that. in the creative scheme, there was a working downwards from pure spirit to “earth”; and then in “man” and all that led up to him, all the preparations were made for the “return” from earth” to God. Elohim had created and set in motion all the “laws” and “forces” which would give “form” and “being” to the universe. This “returning” which is the full and complete realisation of the whole Creative purpose is the great universal “Sabbath” of Humanity. Well might God “bless” it and “hallow” it. See Chapter XI, page 77. (We have seen already what “blessing” is.) The “hallowing” of it gives a Divine sacredness to the whole evolution of mankind. A holy purpose permeates the whole history of man. When we consider all that men have done throughout the ages to hold back the realisation of God’s purpose. how consistently they have done anything but co-operate with Him, it is not easy to see that that “holy purpose” is really being worked out in the procession of the ages ; but it is a solemn thought that such IS the case.

Our readers can hardly fail to see how closely this “returning” of Elohim, after completing His creative work, to His former state of Unity with the Eternal Absolute Spirit – (“God the Father”) is paralleled in the New Testament. John I, v. 1: “In (the) beginning was the “Word,” and the Word was with (or in) God, and the Word was God.” v. 3: “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. John XVI, v. 28: “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world and go to the Father.” John XVII, v. 4: “I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do.” John XVI, v. 5: “Now I go my way unto Him that sent me.”

Elohim did not return to Unity with the Eternal One to “rest” or “remain inactive.” His activity continued, and still continues, through the “laws” and “forces” He had created. In exactly the same way, Jesus-the “Word” did not “ascend” to the Father to “rest” or “remain inactive.” He continued, and still continues His work for the complete “redemption” of mankind through the “Holy Spirit.” How is it possible to conceive of God being “inactive.” He is Life itself. “He resteth not neither is weary.”- “My Father worketh hitherto.” Is there any evidence whatever in the Old Testament that God ever ceased from taking a very active part indeed “in the affairs of men?” Is there even to-day any human being possessed of the -least spiritual perception who does not know to some extent the part God is taking in every human life? The real importance of the Sabbath is in the fact of its being the “Returning” of man to God. That is the “end” and the purpose of the whole creation.

We have frequently used the expression “creative Idea.” We should, however, make it quite clear that when God creates an “idea” it is something much more than merely a mental conception; it is also a living forte which contains within itself the power to realise itself outwardly. it is an “idea” plus the Divine Will and Power

As the scope of this book is not, as at present planned, to extend beyond the first few chapters of Genesis, it may perhaps be well to make this section more complete by a few notes respecting the institution of the weekly “Sabbath day” in the Jewish religion, in order to see whether, and to what extent it harmonises with what has been said in this chapter. The first mention of its institution is in the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue (Exodus XX, v. 8-11). It is dealt with again, in a somewhat altered form in Deut. V, v. 15. As the passages in the English Bible will, no doubt, be quite familiar to our readers, -instead of quoting them, we will give a strictly literal translation of the Hebrew text :-Ex. XX, v. 8-11: “Remember the day of the Sabbath (i.e., the “returning”) to sanctify it. Six days thou shalt labour and do all thy work (“labour” is work that must be done; “work,” “melacheth,” is work we do of our own choice not obligatory nor compulsory)-But the seventh ‘day” is the day of returning to the Eternal thy God. Thou shalt not do any work (see above). thou nor thy son and thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy woman servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger within thy gates ; For six ‘days’ (notice that the Hebrew does not say: “In” six days. What it says is much more deeply significant: “For the Eternal made the heavens and the earth six “days.” (That is : Creation was a sixfold “manifestation” of Himself. “Day” always stands for what is manifested, revealed; “night” stands for what remains hidden)-six “days” the Eternal made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and he rested in the seventh day ; wherefore He blessed the day of the Sabbath and sanctified it.”

That version differs from the statement in Gen. II, v. 1-3 considerably; it does not use the word “isheboth”- “returning to a former state.” It uses instead the word “ianach,” which does mean “rested” in sense of “ceasing work”-and it lays emphasis on that idea. But still it keeps in the background, so to speak. the idea of the returning. and it is that “returning” which has to be “remembered” or “kept in mind.” Now, assuming that Moses was the author of Genesis, and also of the “Law” which bears his name, why did he make this alteration? Before we try to answer the question we will deal with the passage in Deut. V, v. 15, which gives another quite different explanation for the institution of the Sabbath. The “law” as to keeping holy the seventh day is just the same as in Ex. XX, but the explanation of it, in this case, says nothing about God doing His work in six days and “resting” on the seventh. What it says is: “and remember that ye were slaves in the land of Egypt (“mitzraim” “oppressions”) and the Eternal thy God, brought thee hence with a strong hand and a stretched-out arm,* wherefore the Eternal thy God commanded the making of the Sabbath day.” We have, therefore, three different explanations of the meaning of the “Sabbath day”:

(1) Gen. II, v. 3, says that God “blessed” and “sanctified” the “seventh day” because in it he “returned” from all his work.

(2) Ex. XX, v. 11, says that after six days’ work, God “rested in the seventh day” and therefore blessed and sanctified it.

(3) Deut. V, v. 15, says that the “seventh day” was to be a “day of remembrance” for the deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage. We may take the liberty of suggesting that there was also a fourth explanation. We have mentioned before the fact that Moses was not only “learned in all the learning of the Egyptians,” but also had an intimate, inside knowledge of the Chaldean religion. The division of time into weeks was established in both those nations centuries before the time of Moses, as also was the naming of the days of the week after the “seven planets,” in the same order as they have come down to us to the present time through the Romans. For the Chaldeans, the day of “Saturn” (our Saturday) was the seventh day, but the Egyptians made it the first day of their week. (This is not the place to go into a detailed discussion of their reasons for this, but according to their different conceptions of the “creative plan,” each had reasons for their choice.) Moses adopted the Chaldean usage. As the first “day” of creation, in his narrative, was the day of “Light” he naturally made “Sun-day” the first day of his week, and so “Saturn-:lay” would be the seventh. This is perfectly in accord also with the attributes of Saturn. Saturn is the planet of “fate” or “destiny”; also of “Crisis.” It is interesting to notice that the symbol of Saturn closely resembles the Hebrew letter “Koph,” and both have very much the same meaning. The symbol denotes a “scythe.” Saturn “makes an end” of matters, or marks a “turning point.” Every great crisis in a moment of Saturn, either for ill or good. Moses knew all this; he also knew that all work depends on regular periodic rest. After each day’s work we need a night of sleep; but experience for ages has shown that the daily alternation does not quite suffice; it tends to monotony, and monotony itself wearies one. He knew that a weekly day of rest and a few other breaks at more widely separated intervals, best fitted in with some mysterious necessity of life, to make men consistently able to work at their best. That was, we suggest. a main underlying thought of his in the establishment of the Jewish Sabbath. But he was anxious also to add urgency to the keeping of these ‘‘rest , days by combining them with some deep religious and national significances, and so he makes them “remembrances,” as far as -religion was concerned, of the great Sabbath of humanity-the “returning” to God; and as concerned the national history of his people, of their liberation from bondage. (The “Bondage in Egypt” was but a symbol of much other bondage and oppression from which we still need an Exodus.) If our suggestion is accepted it will be sufficient explanation of the surface differences of the three passages and of their underlying unity. Each passage gives one phase of the thought of their author.

*That was not “inaction.”

The Israelites needed to be trained to religion, to godly life, and to steady. honest, faithful work, by practice and custom; and the weekly Sabbath was excellently adapted to serve those purposes. It was also a divinely wise measure for educating them in spiritual knowledge and life. The “Law” of the Sabbath included also a feature that seldom receives much attention: side by side with the injunction to do no work on the Sabbath day, we find a positive injunction to work on the other

six days. The law does not merely say: “You have six days in which you can do your work”; it says: “Six days thou shalt work.” It was not just permissive, it was imperative-a “command.” God did not intend any human beings to live idle, aimless, futile lives; there is plenty of work always waiting and needing to be done-work for rich and poor-and all should take a due share of it. “The fields are . . . . white unto the harvest.”-If a man will not work, neither shall he eat.”-. “Work while it is day.”- “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”- “He that will be greatest among you let him be servant of all.” Work is not only a “necessity” for some; it is-a duty for all. And when we do our six day’s duty with gladness, and to the best we are capable of, maybe the “rest” of the Sabbath will be really appreciated at its true value, and will have an added sweetness. “The expression that God ‘rested’ . . . “signifies merely the completion of the works of creation; the “return of God to His perfect spirituality. to His unchangeable “and eternal providence. The opinion of those who place the “whole weight of the Sabbath in the mere negative element of “refraining from work, without allowing that that great institution implies another positive element, which constitutes its “real and more internal character, is incomprehensible.

“Freedom from all occupation, physical, mental, or moral, is indolence and thoughtlessness and apathy, which cannot “possibly on any account, produce that sanctification which is “the ulterior aim of all human aspirations. To approach God

therefore the purpose of the Sabbath; mental and moral indifference would remove us from Him; and the Sabbath, instead of being the greatest blessing of mankind, would be its “greatest curse.” (Kalisch: “Exodus,” page 359.)

Although Moses owed something of his Sabbath institution to the Chaldean religion, he made it into something that no religion had previously even thought of. The Seventh day to the Chaldeans was a gloomy day indeed. “Saturn”-the god of the day, was feared ; his very temple was black, and his priests were robed in black; the idea of his service was to ward off his “malignity.” Moses made it into a day of rest, of recreation, of gladness, and convivial, friendly and family meetings; a day of spiritual education in tabernacle, temple, or synagogue; a day for teaching the scriptures, and chanting the glorious poetry of the psalms. It was a day to rest from all worldly cares and occupations ; a day to draw near to God, and keep ever in mind the glorious destiny designed for his “children” by God. It was not a day for dour, long-faced, chilling solemnity. Fasting was expressly forbidden. It was a day, rather, to bring hope to the most heavily-troubled soul.

Well might God “bless” it with a blessing that should make it “fruitful” in all good, to every human life!

In our days, too many things have conspired to smother the gladness, the beauty, and the glory of the Sabbath. For a time they hold mankind in spiritual serfdom; but already we grow weary of restless chasing of phantom pleasures and distractions; and even yet we shall come to see these things for the emptiness they are, shake off their yoke, and feel free again-joyfully free -liberated from “Egyptian bondage”-once more to seek and serve the Highest.

There is no mention of any “evening” or “morning” in the seventh “day.” “Le Sabbat de Dieu n’est plus un jour, une periode, mais un fait.” (Theophile Rivier.) “The Sabbath of God is no longer a day, a period, but a fact.”

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 16

Creation of Heaven and Earth

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 16

Fred Mayers

Genesis II, V. 4, 5, 6. (English R.V.)

v. 4: “These are the generations of the heaven and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord Cod made earth and heaven.

v. 5: “And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up : for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth and there was not a man to till the ground;

V. 6: “but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the, whole face of the ground.”

The first thing we notice when we compare the above version with the original Hebrew Text, is that the latter contains a word which is not translated at all in the English. It was also ignored in the Latin translation. The translators apparently did not know what to do with it. The Hebrew Text reads: “aelleh tho-ledoth.” The little word “tho,” which the translators have passed over, denotes “symbolic.” It may be applied to a book, a fable, a hieroglyph, a discourse, or anything else which, is of a “symbolic” nature. The translators of the “Septuagint” did not ignore the word, but they “by-passed” its real meaning (for reasons we have already referred to), and translated it merely by the word “book”; that avoided raising awkward questions. What the whole phrase really stated quite clearly was, that the “generations” or “productions” of the heavens and the earth, to be described in the succeeding chapters. would be described in symbolic language. It is particularly illuminating that the writer of Genesis should himself tell us this in advance. He takes the ground from under the feet of those who are continually seeking to “literalise” and “de-spiritualise” the Bible. The Hebrew word which in our version is translated “generations” is “toldoth.” This word is based on the word “iahlad”- “to give birth to” or “to produce.” It is used in both senses; for instance, in his commentary on Genesis, when dealing with this verse, Delitzsch quotes a passage from one of the Talmudic writings which he translates as follows:- “The productions of the heavens are made of heavenly materials, those of the earth of earthly material.” With all due respect to a great scholar we may point out that the translation sounds painfully materialistic in comparison with the original. The use of the word “material” for what is purely immaterial, heavenly, is far from happy (especially as there is no word equivalent to it in the original). But such are the limitations of language when the spiritual is dealt with. Even Shakespeare found the same difficulty : “We are such ‘stuff’ as dreams are made of.” However, the word translated “productions” is the word of our present text: “toldoth,” and in that case no better word suggests itself. The word which Delitzsch translates “are made of” is the passive form of the past tense of the verb “to create.” This is an example of how late Hebrew writers had begun to lose the distinction between the words “to create” and “to make,” which the writer of Genesis always observed. The passage is interesting in itself and it has a direct bearing on what we shall ‘have to say presently.

But before going further into that matter it may be well to refer to certain difficulties, in the wording and construction of the verse (4)’ which have given commentators trouble. They are of a kind that is constantly being met with throughout the Bible, and in fact, in all very ancient writings. especially those of an inspirational nature. This verse (and indeed the whole narrative). somewhat lacks the logical precision and completeness of detail that we found in the “Creation” narrative. On first reading the verse we are rather uncertain as to whether, or to what extent, it is referring back to the process of creation, or looking forward to the process of “bringing forth,” forming,” or “making.” We thin-k, however, that when it is examined more closely, the difficulties will disappear, and the meaning become clear. One difficulty arises from the fact that most ancient languages were singularly lacking in means of separating the sentences or parts of a sentence clearly. We mark a new sentence by making the first letter of the first word in it a “capital” letter. We indicate the divisions of a sentence by the use of the comma, the semicolon, the colon, or the full-stop. We put words in “parenthesis,” within brackets ( ); and any sentence which asks a question we distinguish by the “note of interrogation”?, etc. In primitive languages were few, if any. expedients of that kind, with the result that the reader was left very much to his own judgement or intuition to decide the exact meaning of many sentences, and naturally some mistakes were unavoidable. It is really very surprising that writers were able to make themselves as intelligible as they did, especially as their vocabularies were more restricted and their grammatical rules less precise than ours. Ail these things add to the difficulty of satisfactorily translating ancient records. Scarcely any two scholars will be found to translate a Babylonian tablet, or an Egyptian hieroglyphic inscription, exactly alike. Different interpreters will see different meanings in words, and each may approximate to the meaning the writer had in mind. (Compare, for instance, the version of the “Psalms” in the English Bible with that in the “Book of Common Prayer.”)

Maimonides, one of the greatest of Hebrew scholars, said that no one could attach a specific meaning to a Hebrew word without a careful study of its context and application. That is what we have to do in every case of doubt of difficulty. and that is what we must do in the case of the verses we are studying.

The two phrases: (a) “heaven and the earth when they were created,” and (b) “in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven,” require a little explanation. “When they were created” should be read rather in the sense of: “when they had been created.” Hebrew has not the elaborate variety of “tense” forms that modern languages have; it is content to distinguish what is “past.” “continuing.” and “future” in a simple way.

The word “heaven,” of course, should be always plural- “heavens.” What the verse tells us, is that when the “heavens” and the “earth” had been created, they had special roles to play m the unfolding development of the Creative plan; they had to “produce” or “generate” certain forces or influences in accordance with their own natures, to act upon the evolving life of the universe, and-as we shall see later-particularly upon the soul-life of humanity. This is what the writer of the Talmud passage, quoted above, was referring to. The heavens and the earth were to be “producers” of necessary elements of “human” life in “the day of the making of earth and heaven by Ihoah Elohim.”

Notice here that the “Creative” order: “heavens and earth” is reversed in the “unfolding” of the plan. Now the order·is “earth and heavens.” In “Creation” everything began in God and worked downwards to the foundations of the “reality” that was to built up. Now the movement is from earth, upwards. That movement is what Science calls “Evolution”.

“Creation” was described as the “sovereign work” of Elohim, and as a six-fold “manifestation” of the Eternal One. That work was “finished.” The “seventh” “day” dawns Elohim has “returned” to Unity with the Eternal One. The narrative marks that by the introduction of the new Divine Name, “Ihoah-Elohim.” Creation has now to become realised fact ;-and it has also to “return” to completion and glorification in the same Unity with the Eternal One. “Listen, Israel. Ihoah our Elohim (is) Ihoah, i.e., “Eternal-Unity” (literal translation). Also compare John XVII, v. 21: “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.

We cannot help noticing that from this point a totally different significance is given to the “seventh” day from that given to the other six. It becomes “the day.” “ha-yom.” That expression runs through Hebrew thought, throughout the ages, like a “leit-motiv”: “The Day”; “the” – Great Day”; “the day of the Lord”; “the Sabbath” (day of returning); “the day of Judgement,” etc. (“Judgement,” by the way. does not emphasise the idea of condemnation but of righting of wrong, of final adjustment, of the harmonising of discords, etc.)

Verse 5. This verse simply emphasises, in a “sketchy” but very graphic way, the fact (that we should now be familiar with) that “Creation” was not “realisation.” “Creation” was finished, but there was no plant in the earth, not a blade of grass had sprung forth, no rain had ever fallen to make vegetable life possible ; there was not a man to till the ground. That last sentence is of the greatest importance – but in the Hebrew text it tells much that the English fails to do. The Hebrew words translated “not a man” are “Adam ain,” “Adam was not”- “did not exist” (except as a spiritual potentiality). Then the Hebrew verse is very careful not to say that (had “Adam” been in existence) it was the “earth” he would have to “till,” but the “ground,”-the “Adamah,” the spiritual ground or source of his own being. That change-over from the use of the word “earth” in the earlier part of the verse to “ground” here, switches the thought of the verse into the spiritual realm.

It will be noticed that the Genesis writer, in these verses, does no more than touch on a few points, in themselves, scarcely connected with one another, and is quite unconcerned about questions of time or sequence. This unconcern really reveals the writer’s consciousness of the “timelessness” of Divine Spiritual Activity. The work of the “days” of creation was inter-penetrative, and time-sequence did not enter into the matter. We can form an idea of what the “timelessness of spiritual activity” means from an experience that everyone shares very frequently. We refer to the phenomena of dreams. It is well known that an elaborate dream, appearing to occupy long periods of time, may be the creation of a fraction of a second. It does not require time to grow in our minds-it just flashes into existence complete in every detail. But if we thus create in our minds an “idea” of something which is to be carried out in the realms of “time and space,” the carrying out of it must, of course, be subject to the conditions of time and space. The Bible, from beginning to end, being spiritual in purpose and expression, is very little concerned with chronology -or chronological sequence, even when, on the surface, it appears to be dealing with the duration of particular periods. For instance, no one has yet been able to settle, quite satisfactorily, bow long the Israelites dwelt in Egypt. There are several passages in the Bible dealing with that question; some even give definite figures-but these figures cannot be made to agree with one another, taken in a literal sense. The figures are symbolic. It was always the “idea” underlying the number-not the number merely as a literal number-that mattered to writers who wrote under the impulse of spiritual inspiration. This applies in a superlative degree, for example, to the “genealogies” given in Gen. V.-(one of the most wonderful passages in all literature, and certainly the most misunderstood). Spiritual facts cannot be “measured” in concrete numbers-but they can be symbolised by them.

The above remarks are somewhat of a digression, but they have a bearing on the verses we are considering, as they give a clue to the reason of a seeming tendency to incoherence or incompleteness in the narrative.

Verse 6. “but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.” The narrative has said nothing about the “making” or “formation” of the earth. The writer just passes directly to what is concerned with the subject he is about to deal with. He speaks of the earth as in actual existence and beginning to carry out its purpose.

This verse is by no means so simple as it appears, and a little close examination will soon show that a literal interpretation of it is quite impossible. We have already mentioned in connection with verse 5 the significance of the “switch-over” from the physical word “earth” to the spiritual word “ground” (“Adamah”). Here we have exactly the same thing repeated.

Let us study the verse in detail :-The word “but” in the original is just simply “va,” the “conjunction” normally meaning “and.” As we have before explained, it may be translated in many ways in English according to the context. In this case the translators chose “but” because of the statement in the previous verse that no rain had ever fallen on the earth which was, there-fore, utterly barren. The word translated ‘‘went up’’ is “iahleh” = ascended. The word ‘mist” is “ad.” It requires some explanation. It is a simple root word which denotes any-thing that emanates from something else; any idea of “force,” “power,” “necessity, “vigour’;; any “sympathetic or contagious emanation.” From these meanings it is easy to see how the word, applied in a more material sense, came to mean also “vapour,” “smoke,” “cloud,” “mist”; they are all “emanations.” The point that concerns us is that the translators selected the most materialistic meaning of the word that they could find-and, as we shall see, it will make no sense in the verse we are dealing with. The word translated “watered” is “hishekah.” It is not the ordinary “past tense” of the verb, but the “causative” form; it does not denote anything done, but the cause of something. The root of the word is “shk,” which conveys any ideas of “tendency,” “inclination,” “affinity,” “contact”; anything which acts “sympathetically,” which “enwraps,” “embraces,” “absorbs”; for instance, “shikkoo” means a “beverage”; “mashkeh” – something “to drink” or “to absorb”; “mashkeh” also means “irrigation”; “nahshak” means “kissed,” “touched,” “put in order,” “embraced”; “shok” denotes “amorous desire,” mutual inclination,” etc. So there are several ideas in the word to select from. We need not explain again the word “adamah” as it has already been dealt with. We have now all that is necessary for getting at the real meaning of the verse. Ii: the first place, if we accept “but” for the first word of the verse, it connects it directly with the statement that no rain had ever fallen on the earth, which was in consequence utterly dry and barren. Now, how could “mist” or “vapour” arise from anything that was void of moisture? In the second place, assuming for a moment that “earth” and “ground” were synonymous. we should have the extraordinary statement that mist” arose out of the dry earth to water the same dry earth. That would be no compliment to the intelligence of the Mosaic writer. Neither of those suggestions are worth a moment’s consideration. But if we read the verse in the light of what has been said in our earlier chapters we shall soon see that it not only makes sense, but also that it has something of real importance to tell us. Whatever it was that “emanated” from the earth, it was something that had to make its influence felt in the “adamah”-something of a spiritual nature; it was some-thing that had to take part in preparing the spiritual element from which “Adam” was to be formed. We have already seen that “Adam” was “created” as a universal spiritual “being,” and also as a human “Kingdom” of individuals on a physical plane. It was necessary then that Adam should be first formed in the Spirit world, of spiritual “human” elements, and then attracted to the physical plane to be “formed” into physical individual men and women. Elohim, as we saw in Chapter II, was the various Powers, Attributes and Qualities that had, so to speak, been latent in “Ain Soph” from all Eternity, flowing forth in the activities of creating. Elohim was not a “creation.” He was of the very “substance” of the Eternal One. He was, in the words of the Creed respecting the second “Person” of the Trinity: “begotten, not made.” The “whole Creation” was, as it were, a “shadow” or image” of His Being and “Adam” was to be created in that “shadow” and made to the Divine “likeness.” This “likeness” of Elohim, His self-expression in Creation, was the spiritual “element,” the “ground” (adamah) from which the Adam was to be formed. So the spiritual Adam was the “created” counterpart of Elohim; the universal human essence which has to be individualised in physical humanity.

At the point which our study of the narrative has reached a connection had to be formed between the physical plane “earth” and the adamah, so a “force” or “influence” “emanated” from the earth and “ascended” into the spiritual plane, “contacted” it and was “absorbed” by it. The earthly and the spiritual (to use the suggestions conveyed by the word “ishekah”) “embraced” or “kissed” one another, “inclined” themselves to one another so that a mutual attraction linked them together.

It may seem strange to some, to speak of any spiritual effluence from the physical realm, but there is no difficulty in the way of making what is meant quite intelligible. We all know perfectly well the tremendous spiritual effect that physical phenomena can have on, the human soul, and have had through all the ages of man s existence on earth. In the days of primitive humanity it was the activities of the physical forces of nature; those forces which men feared-and were powerless against: the lightning, the volcano eruption, the tornado, the earthquake, the sea in its anger, the terrors of darkness, etc., that most powerfully affected and awakened their souls, and led to their earliest spiritual experiences, and to their first religious thoughts. Those dread forces appeared to them to be instruments of punishment in the hands, some infinitely powerful Being or Beings who, they imagined, they must have angered, and must in some way placate. A poor and rather terrible “religion” that may seem to us to-:lay, but it is really quite impossible for us to realise the intensity of those early soul experiences, or the reactions to them of minds almost entirely “subconscious,” i.e., irrational. But we can at least understand that those primitive peoples would feel that the “gods” who could appear cruel and destructive in Nature, must desire to be placated by offerings of a similar character. That was the origin of the side of religion expressed, for example, in human sacrifices and mutilations. That, however, was not the only side of religion that arose from Nature phenomena. they were also aware that there were “gods” of a beneficent nature. They saw “Angus Og” awakened each Spring by the soft rain and the sunshine; they saw plants burgeon, flowers bloom, trees become laden with fruit, the yellow harvest of gram, etc. They did not need to placate the “gods” whose work all that was, but they felt that they must express their happiness and gratitude in song and dance, and offerings of the fruits of the earth. They felt that in so doing, they and the “gods” were joyful together. That perhaps was the first germination of the idea of “union with the divine,” which is the very essence of all the higher forms of religion. That was the brighter side of ancient religion. Thus it was that the influences arising from earth and earth life were actual forces developing and giving “form” to their souls, and enriching their spirits; and the verse we are now considering shows that while Adam was still a spiritual universal being, dwelling in purely spiritual realms, and had not yet become “realised” in physical men and women on the earth plane, similar emanating influences were ascending from the earth to take their part in the formation of his essential being.

In the original language of the “Creed” the word translated “person” did not suggest the idea of another “individual.”-T.F.

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 17

Formation of Adam

Ain Soph – The Unknown God

Chapter 17

Fred Mayers

Genesis II, v. 7. (English A.V.)

“And the Lord God formed man (of) the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ; and man became a living soul:’

We have discussed already the “Creation” of man- “Adam”; i.e., his conception in the mind of God, the ideal, the principles, and the forces of his nature, all that he was ultimately to express and exercise. Now we have come to the bringing of that creative work into effect. Creation was a spiritual act internal to God Himself. What we are told of now is still a spiritual act, the “formation” of a spiritual being, in the spiritual realm, but external to the essential Being of God. -The “Adam” has still no physical or material form of existence. He was “formed,” not of the dust of the earth or of any earthly substance, but “from the adamah”-the spiritual elements of humanity, of the qualities and attributes that constitute “man” a kingdom of being in himself or a link between the sub-human and Divinity. This is the important thing to keep in mind at this stage of our study. Although it is perfectly clearly stated in the Hebrew text, it never appears to have been understood by the great majority of Bible students, who have almost invariably been misled by the idea that the words earth” and “ground” must mean the same thing. They failed to see that the writer of Genesis was much too careful, too precise, and too concise to use needless synonyms. That kind of thing might be done in a poetical composition- (it has, in fact, been assumed that “parallelism” is a distinguishing feature in Hebrew poetry) – but it would be out of place in a work of Spiritual Philosophy. One thing is certain: he would never use words to confuse or destroy his real meaning, and we have already seen many times that, whenever we find him changing or varying the form of a word, it invariably proves to be necessary to his purpose, and always significant.

The word “iitzer,-He “formed,” differs in toto from the word “bara,”- “He “created,” Analysed etymologically its construction starts from the final letter which is. here, a contraction of the primal root, “AER.” We have had to refer many times to this root as denoting the “primal element” of the universe. As it is possible that the word “element” may suggest to the reader something more “material” than the writer intends, it may clarify the idea of spiritual “element” if we consider something analogous—-is, for instance, “thought.” Thought is not a material thing but it, most certainly. has spiritual sub-stance which can take on “form,” and which we can consider the “element” of intelligence. It not only has substance but it is substance of a kind that is infinitely more permanent than any material element. If a thought is spoken, the spoken words die as they are uttered ; if it is written the writing will fade or the printed book perish, but nothing can destroy a “thought.” It can pass from mind to mind; memory can recall it at will; it can grow and propagate. We might almost say that “thought” itself was the “primal element” of all creation. But to continue our analysis of the word “iitzer”; to the root “aer” is prefixed the “determinative” sign “tz,” making the composite root “tzr.” The meaning of that root is clear in the word “Tzor,” which means “to shape, to cc-ordinate, to form, to control or command, to define, to bind together the constitutive elements of anything.” All these meanings can be found by tracking the root in a dictionary. To the root “tzr” is prefixed the “i,” or “ee,” which is the sign of “manifestation,” “duration,” “eternity.” (Three “Yods,” “ill:’ were used hieroglyphically by the Hebrews as a name of God, signifying the “Triple Eternal.”) Thus, “itzer,” completes the word. The additional “i” beginning the word, as used in the text, is simply the pronominal sign of the third person, singular, masculine- “He.” So that “iitzer” really means “He gave a permanent and homogenous form” to the Adamic elements. We have deliberately gone into what may be considered quite unnecessary detail here because this kind of analysis is not taught academically. It is only used in the schools of the Kabbalists; and it is the only means by which the inner and deeper meaning of Hebrew words can be fully realised.

The word “man” (English Version) is “adam” in the original. We have to emphasise this as the word “man” in the English Versions is used indiscriminately for other Hebrew words, also, the English Versions show complete confusion in translating “adam.” Sometimes they treat it as a proper name and translate it with a capital letter: “Adam”; sometimes they make it “Man,” sometimes “a man” or “the man”; sometimes even by “men”: (Psalm XC, for instance). We refer the reader, therefore, to what has been said of “Adam” in previous chapters.

We can now see that the “formation” of Adam was his being constituted a spiritual “being” with an existence of his own, external to the Essential Being of God.

The next part of the verse: “of the dust of the ground” (English Version), has been a stumbling block to the translators, and their rendering of it has gone far to bring Genesis down to the category of “Myths” in the estimation of many people. Led astray by considering “earth” and “ground” as synonymous, and by the materialistic tendency of their whole conception of the Mosaic narrative, they could find no better rendering of the Hebrew word “aphar,” than the word “dust.” As a matter of fact, the word is not a noun at all but a verb; and the Hebrew text does not say that Adam was formed “of” “aphar.” The English Version admits that “of” is not in the original text, by printing the word in italics, but failed to see that “aphar” was a verb.

The Greek translators saw that “aphar” was a verb but still could only think of “dust,” so they tried to get over the difficulty by translating the word “by taking of the dust.” It is not difficult to see what was passing in their minds, nor to see that they were not ignorant of the basic meaning of the word “aphar,” They wanted at all costs some materialistic analogy to the meaning of the original to continue their purpose of hiding the deeper spiritual meaning of the Book from the intrusive “goyim,” and the only material thing which they could think of that was in any way analogous to the meaning of the word, was “dust.” The root of “aphar” is “whoph.” We have had this root to deal with before, when it was used for the “flying kind” of created things. It was explained as denoting anything of a light, swift, gliding. or soaring nature; anything active in higher realms than the earthly, although having a habitat on the earth. The “flying kind” of beings were shown to be representative of human thought and all the higher spiritual activities of man. We did not, when discussing the creation of the various “souls of life,” go into any detail on this point, but a study of ancient symbolism will give us conclusive evidence of the relevance of the “bird-like” idea to what we are now attempting to explain.

From the earliest ages of humanity of which we have any knowledge, we find wings or feathers used as symbols of spiritual or divine qualities. Records of the ancient Mayas, Incas, Quichis, and Maori, are full of references to the feather head ornaments of the Priest-Kings, Priests, and others to whom were attributed any divine office or function. They were worn on all ceremonial occasions. Over the doorway of the Egyptian temples were placed the “winged orb” representing the Divine Sun: the source of spiritual intelligence. Guarding the entrance to Assyrian temples were the great “winged bulls,” symbolic of Divine Strength :- the power to rise to higher realms of life. The Israelites had their winged “cherubim” on the cover of the Ark of the Covenant. (The “Cherubim” are the Divine powers that “build up,” multiply and increase.) The Israelites also conceived the idea of the “Seraphim” with “six-wings.” The Seraphim were the “Fire forces” whose task was to purify by the destruction of evil. They were the Angelic Divine representatives and envoys, complementary to the Cherubim. In all cases the wings represent their supraterrestrial activities and their divine missions. The same applies, of course, to the representations of “Angels” in Christian Art. The same idea also is expressed in Greek Art: Mercury, the “Messenger of the Gods,” wears a winged cap and winged sandals.

A variant of the idea is found in the legend of Dedalus, who comes to grief in trying to rise to the heavens by physical means. We may also mention in Christian symbology the “Dove” as the symbol of the Holy Spirit, and the “Eagle” as that of the most spiritual of the Apostles. This list might be very much extended, but enough has been said, perhaps, to make clear the spiritual idea called up by the root “hoph,” and to explain the connection between the “flying kind” and the higher human faculties, in the Genesis narrative. The word “aphar” as a verb, means to refine, to etherealise, to elevate, to spiritualise, to raise above the earthly level, etc. It is used in the verse we are considering in the form of the “present (or continuing) participle,” so that it should be translated :- “by (or ‘in the act of’) refining, elevating,” etc. Now we can see why the translators used the word “dust.” It suggested to them the refinement of matter until it was light, and airy, and easily blown into the air. So there was just a faint -a very faint-suggestion of the meaning of the original in it, but unfortunately it did not fit in with the most important fact that it was not earthly matter that the Lord God was moulding to His purpose, but the spiritual elements of Man.

This He accomplished – according to the English Version-by “breathing into his nostrils” the “breath of life.” Literally, that translation is correct. “Iaphah” does mean, in a merely material sense, “He breathed,” and “aphio” does mean “nostrils.” But here again we must remind ourselves of the before-quoted axiom of Maimonides that no definite, correct translation of any Hebrew word can be given without relating it correctly to its context. It is quite obvious ?o everyone that, when the Great Spirit breathes “living soul” into any being, it is not physical breath exhaled from a physical mouth that is in question. It is equally obvious that man does not inhale “soul” through his nostrils-but through some inward spiritual faculty. It ought to be unnecessary even to mention anything so obvious. The translators, however, in this case, did all that was required. There can, surely, be very few people so void of spiritual perception as not to be able to sense the true meaning of their phraseology here, viz., that “the Lord God inspired ‘in’ (not ‘into’)* the inspirational faculty” of “Adam”-(that is in the universal spirit of man) – “living soul.” Those last words “living soul,” however, require some explanation. The word here translated “soul” is quite a different word from that used in the passage Gen. I, v. 2-23, which was explained, in our eleventh chapter. In that case the words were “nephesh chaich.”- “soul of life,” or “living soul.” In the present case the words are “nishemath chayim.” This word “nishemath” is really a verb, “Shemah”; the root is “shm,” a root we should be familiar with by now (see Chapter V, etc.); it denotes what is – “high, exalted, superior, outstanding,” etc., that by which any-thing is distinguished (therefor – “name”). As a verb it means to give prominence to anything, to elevate, to ennoble, etc.

“Nishemath” is the “present participle” of the indicative passive, in the feminine constructive form. It means a “being elevated,” “being raised to a higher state. “The word “chayim” is not the singular “life,” but the plural “lives.” Thus, in the “formation ‘of’ Adam” by the infusion of divine spirit, all the qualities, faculties and powers of his spiritual being were elevated so as to give him superiority over all the Kingdoms of Nature. (This, it will be seen, was the realisation of the creative purpose, dealt with in Chapter XIII, that Adam should have “rule” in all the lower life Kingdoms, and in “all the earth.”) The spiritual elements which constitute the “human” Kingdom were brought into order and cohesion to form a spiritual focus of life and activity, and this was the prototype of what was to become the “individual soul” of every human being, when “man” became individualised as “men and women” -on the physical plane. What the “group” souls were to the animal “species,” Adam, as “living soul,” was to humanity as a whole-i.e., human “species.”

The last few words of the verse: “and man (adam) became a living soul,” do not present any difficulty. The English Version is quite literally correct. The chief thing to notice is that, in this case, the Hebrew expression translated “living soul” (nephesh haiah) is exactly the same as that used in the case of the “group souls” of the Animal Kingdom described in Chapter XI.

*Just as the normal physical human being has faculties of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and feeling, so the spiritual man has its “inspirational faculty” through which the Spiritual and Divine realms can contact the human soul.

What we gather, on looking back over the narrative as a whole, is that it describes, as continually in operation. a double process :-in the direction of the material realisation of the creative plan. it is a process of “Evolution,” but at the same time it is a process of “Involution,” that is, of continual involvement or influx of spirit into matter. Matter of itself is incapable of development or progression; it is always a “product” or residue, not an active formative force. Therefore, every successive stage of evolution must be brought about by some force not inherent in matter-the activity of some spiritual force. That which is to be realised on the material plane must be first formed as a living force in the spiritual realm. This is the essential point in which the Cosmogony of Genesis differs from the theories of materialistic Science, and Science will eventually be driven to accept the teachings of the more ancient wisdom.

Back to Chapters List – Forward to Chapter 18