An Extract.
MAN was not made like the beasts of the field, but formed out of the dust of the ground; and when He has done that (and there one sees what death simply is, “dust thou art,” and death is going back to it), then I get something that is not dust, something directly from God, and this makes all the difference.
The beasts were formed out of the earth; and the man is formed into shape first, and then God says, “I am going to connect this with myself,” and breathes into his nostrils the breath of life. By “connect” I do not mean that man might not fall away from God in will, for he could; but the breath of life which made him a living soul was directly from God. He was capable of dying, but still he had the breath of life, which was a distinct thing.
“A living soul” means anything that lives by blood and breath. I say this because it says, “Whereinsoever was the breath of life died.” All animals were living souls. Man was, and the animal was; but the essential difference was that God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living soul. This might be separated from his body, and the body return to the dust. That is what is referred to in “for we also are His offspring.” As I said to an Annihilationist, “Do you mean to call a pig God’s offspring?” Neither would he have died if he had not eaten of the forbidden fruit. His body is formed first without life, and the way he gets life is by God’s breathing into his nostrils the breath of life. He receives it as a creature, but direct from God. Adam was not made as other animals were. (See Genesis 2:77And 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. (Genesis 2:7).)
“This mortal,” or “mortal body,” leaves the soul by implication immortal. “Mortal” is always used of the body, and it is clear that death does not touch the soul; for you have the wicked man in Hades after death. I am quite satisfied that it is true to say “immortal soul.” The opposite thought is founded on the words, “who only hath immortality,” spoken of God, of course (that is, who only hath it in Himself); but this does not mean that He cannot communicate it. So the angels are only immortal by God’s making them so, and we the same. If I were immortal in spite of God, then I am to do as I like without fear of death. In the rich man and Lazarus is a perfectly clear ease — the one goes to torment, the other to Abraham’s bosom, after death.
But they say, “These are only figures.” “Yes,” I reply; “but figures of what?” I am not going to Abraham’s bosom, but I am to Christ’s. I asked them this, “Could God give eternal life to a dog?” “Yes.” “But would the dog be answerable for, what he had been doing while he was a dog?” and if he would not be, Christ had not to die for him, and so they destroy atonement. Put it in another way. If I am a mere brute, only a clever brute, until I get Christ as my life, my responsibility is gone.
Well, man was put in his place of responsibility not to eat the forbidden fruit, a thing in which there was no evil, save that it was forbidden.
And you get a striking thing here, one which has been a question even with heathens, and it is also a ground of discussion between Calvinists and Arminian: the tree of life, which is free gift; and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is responsibility. Man has been trying to undo this in himself, and never can. Man did take the responsibility tree, and was lost. Then the promise came to Abraham to show that grace was really the thing after all — the tree of life; and then came the law, the other tree. People have made the life dependent upon the responsibility tree, which is utter folly. But we find in Christ the two united; for He is the man who charges Himself with our responsibility, as He is Himself the life. If I have Christ for my life, with whom also I have died, I can bring the two together; but if taken out of Christ, it is impossible to unite the two things, any more than they were one in the garden.