Man’s Creation by O. R. Fassett

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 2, 1871

Man’s Creation.

By O. R. Fassett

“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.” Gen. 2:7.

This is the original record of the creation of man in the beginning, and as written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It cannot be gainsayed nor refuted successfully. There it stands defying the ingenuity and wisdom of the world to alter the fact. Human vanity and pride must come down to the conclusion that “we are dust,” and animated with “the breath of life,” and “living souls.”

“Man, formed of the dust of the ground.” Man’s whole organism is of “dust;” his bones, his muscles, his nerves, all the tissues of his material body, his internal organs, the brain itself, and the organs of sight, of hearing, of smelling—man’s whole constitution is of “the dust of the ground.” How marvelous the transforming power of God, who has created every part of the human body, so diversified in character, of one material. And not only so, but “out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air” (Gen. 2:19); though “all flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.” 1 Cor. 15. Modern chemistry by analysis proves the above scriptural declaration to be true, and confirms the word of God. “The human body submitted to this test proves to be a combination of carbon, hydrogen, lime, and all those materials of which dust is composed.” If we need further proof, the results of death in the dissolution and decomposition of the body are a confirmation. The archaic phrase, “dust thou art,” is verified with all the sad facts connected with the departed dead under the one sentence following the original transgression, “unto dust shalt thou return.” Here is a three-fold proof demonstrating man’s constitution beyond all possible cavil.

“Breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (lives). The plural noun is in the original. Not to intimate a two-fold nature in man, or man a dual-being, as maintained; but because it is that “breath of life” (lives) which is common to all living, breathing animals, “all in whose nostrils is the breath of life.” Gen. 7:22. “For they have all one breath.” Eccl. 3. On the dissolution of man in death, the scriptural declaration is verified—“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” Eccl. 12. All that is constituted of “dust” returns to dust. That which is superadded to “man,” “the breath of life,” i. e., “the breath of the spirit of life,” does not return to dust, but “unto God who gave it.” Not in conscious entity; for there is no conscious entity in “the breath of life,” the ruah, which God breathed into man’s nostrils. If there is, as it leaves the body in death, then there must be in “the breath of life” of all living, breathing creatures; for “they have all one breath” (ruah). Eccl. 3. “Man became a living soul.” “Man”—“soul.” When alive, “a living soul;” when dead, “a dead soul.” Not an “immortal soul;” but simply “a living soul,” like all living animals, “every beast of the earth.” Gen. 1.

“The phrase ‘living soul’ is repeatedly applied to the inferior order of animals; it would seem to imply the same, therefore, when spoken of beasts.”—Prof. Bush. “A general term to express all creatures endued with animal life.”—A. Clarke. “A generic term for living creature.”—Prof. Stuart. “The idea is that God infused a portion of himself, of his own divinity, into the human body. If the proof is sought in the phrases ‘breath’ of life’ and ‘living soul,’ these do not prove anything, for both of them are applied, in the first chapters of Genesis, to brutes, and prove the same things concerning them.”—Dr. Bagnal. “Adam became a ‘living soul,’ that is, a living man.”—Columbian Bible, foot-note. “It seems as if the most proper idea resulting from these words is, that Adam became a living man.”—Union Bible Dic. “A general term for all living animals, on the land and in the sea.”—Bible Union Translators’ foot-note.

Against all this astounding proof, men are trying to maintain what is utterly and hopelessly impossible, and they are destined to fail, to their eternal confusion; and that is, “the dual nature of man,” or that man is a “dual being,” “possessed of a body, and an immortal soul,” or an “immortal spirit” which survives the death of the body, and exists in consciousness independent of the body. The discussion upon this subject has brought down the argument to a very small point with the more intelligent and advanced advocates; and this will be seen by the following extract from the work of Prof. Dods—“Immortality Triumphant.” It should be known that Dr. John B. Dods has written on the “Philosophy of Mesmerism,” “Philosophy of Electrical Psychology,” and has many other works now extant; besides, was invited to give a course of lectures before the members of the Senate and House of Representatives in Washington, for his great learning and eloquence.

The force of his argument will be seen to greater advantage when I quote the following scripture, which lays the whole subject matter before us—“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” Matt. 16:25, 26. Dr. Adam Clarke says: “On what authority many have translated the word psuche in verse 25, life, and in verse 26, soul, I know not; but am certain it means life in both places.”

“I extended my arguments,” says Dr. Dods, “to the whole animal and vegetable creation, and include them in the vast and boundless theme of immortality. I desire it to be distinctly understood that whenever I use the term life, mind, or spirit, I mean one and the same thing, differing only in the degrees of intelligence, sensation, or motion, in the individual existence to which I may apply them. I hold all life, whether animal or vegetable, to be a species of mind [the italics are his] in some one of the ever varied links composing the vast chain of being, and consequently immortal.

“If mind is not an immortal substance or being, but the result of an organized brain, then death is certainly the end of man, and human immortality is but a visionary dream!”

Yes, here is the issue: “Mind [i. e., life] is not an immortal substance or being.” This is a thing which can never be proved. Our argument founded on scriptural declaration is “triumphant” above his “immortality triumphant.”

But he proceeds: “This is making mind to be the effect of an organized brain, even as motion is the effect of the mechanism of a watch. Destroy the mechanism of the watch, and the motion is gone. Destroy the organism of the brain, and mind is no more! Surely this is a contemplation of gloom as profound as the end is melancholy.”

Of course it is; for death is a dread calamity which has befallen us as a race for sin; and without hope in God and the resurrection, we might well despair. But we do not despair, in view of death, “as those who have no hope.” Thank God, Jesus lives; and because he lives, we shall live also. He is risen the first fruits of them that sleep. But is not the brain the organ of thought? If it is not, why do we have to carry about such a quantity in our heads? If it is, then with its destruction the mind must cease. “In that very day his thoughts perish.” He still remarks: “As life therefore possesses an independent existence, as an organized substance of exceeding subtlety, so it must be the cause of organism.”

Where would such a thought lead, carried to its legitimate conclusions? The life of an animal, and of a plant, or vegetable, is its own creator! Furthermore, “the life” of “a vegetable,” and “all animals,” he regards as an “immortal,” “organized substance.” Then when a vegetable dies, its life exists as an entity with “a degree,” as he says, of “intelligence!” When any animal dies, as a horse, dog, cat, serpent, worm, insect, “the life” exists as “an organized substance!” Of course he, and all others, are driven to this very point; for “life” is “the soul,” and the soul is the life of any animal.

All we have to do, then, is to determine whether the life of anything living is an “immortal, conscious, organized substance, of exceeding subtlety,” or not, whether in the body or out. If it is, then we may glory in “immortality triumphant,” without a Redeemer, and all living, animate existences being “immortal, will survive the destruction of the corporeal fabric, triumph over the ruins of death, pass into a future state, clothed in an electrical body, and expand and brighten in mental and moral capacity without end.” Pp. 39–41, 48, 88.

Surely, what strange fancies will not men take up with when they war against the word of God, and in their boasted wisdom reject “the foolishness of God,” which “is wiser than men.” Give me the Bible still, rather than human philosophy, and the vain reasonings of men; and give me the blessed hope of “a better resurrection,” through a glorified, coming Redeemer, at the last day, to die no more.—O. R. FASSETT. In World’s Crisis.