likeness according to kind," since human reproduction is an obvious fact? Was it
228 The Literal Meaning ofGenesis
This then is the significance of according to kind, where we are to understand both the efficacious force in the seed and the likeness of succeeding generations to their predecessors, because none of them was createdjust to exist once and for all by itself, whether to continue forever, or to pass away with none to succeed it.
20. So why did it not also say about man, "Let us make man to our image and likeness according to kind," since human reproduction is an obvious fact? Was it because God did not make the man such that he would die, had he been willing to keep the commandment, and for that reason there was no need for any to succeed him on his decease; but it was only after his sin that he was compared to irra tional cattle and became like them (Ps 49: 1 2.20), so that from now on the sons of this age (Lk 20:34) would beget and be begotten, to make possible the continued existence of the race of mortals? But then what is the significance of that blessing given after the making of man: lncrease and multiply andfill the earth (Gn 1 :28), which could only happen, of course, by reproduction?
Or should nothing be said about this in passing, until we come to that place in scripture where these things will have to be more thoroughly investigated and discussed? Perhaps, you see, it is sufficient to say now that the reason according to kind was not said about man is that only one individual was made, from whom even the woman was also made. There are not, after all, many kinds and species of human being as there are of herbs, trees, fish, flying things, serpents, cattle, beasts; consequently we should take "according to kind" as in fact meaning according to their species, to distinguish from everything else things that derive their likeness to each other from one original seed.
Why a blessing like that given to humanity was only given to aquatic animals
13, 21 . Another question that is asked is what merit distinguished the aquatic animals in the eyes of the creator, so that they alone should be blessed like human beings. God, you see, blessed them too, saying: lncrease and multiply andfill the waters of the sea; and letflying things multiply upon the earth (Gn
1 :22). Was it enough for it to be said for one kind of creature, so that it could be understood to apply in consequence to the rest which increase by reproduction? In that case it should have been said for the first thing of that sort to be created, namely for grasses and trees. Or perhaps, since these would have no affection for the offspring to be propagated and would reproduce without any sensation, did he judge them to be unsuitable recipients of a blessing with these words, lncrease and multiply; but first he said it where such affection was to be found, so that it could be understood as also having an unspoken reference to terrestrial animals? It was, however, necessary to repeat it for man, in case anybody should say that there is any sin in the business of procreating children, as there is in the