to sin, and not to remain in the perfection ofhis image, and so did not wish to call
Book 111 239 course, that the man came to know it when God told him. l mean, if he had already done it then, that is, had taken the things that had been given him for food and eaten them, scripture would have followed its established pattern, and after saying and thus it was made, which serves to express prior knowledge, would next have introduced the activity itself as well, and said, and they took and ate. lt could have been said like that, you see, even ifGod were not mentioned, as in the passage where it says: Let the water which is under the heavens be collected together into one collection, and let the dry land appear, it then adds, and thus it was made, and does not say next, and Godmade, but still makes the usual repeti tion like this: and the water was collected together into its collection, etc.
Why it does not say individually about the human creature "And God saw that it was good"
24, 36. Now he did not say individually about the human creature, as in the other cases, And Godsaw that it was good, but after the man was made and given rights, whether to rule or to eat, he concluded about them all: And Godsaw all the things that he had made, and behold they were very good. This is certainly a point that deserves investigation. The man could, after all, have been paid indi vidually the same respect as had been paid individually to the other things that had been made before, and then finally it could have been said of all the things God made, behold they were very good. Perhaps because all the works were completed on the sixth day, is that the reason why it had to be said about them all, And God saw all the things that he had made, and behold they were very good?
But then why was it said about the cattle and the beasts and the reptiles of the earth, which also belong to the same sixth day? Unless, of course, they were enti tled to be called good both individually in their own kind and generally with all the other things, while the man, made to the image of God, was only entitled to be called this generally with the rest! Or was it because he was not yet completed, because not yet established in paradise—as if this that was left out here was said later on after he had been put there!
37. So what are we to say then? Was it that God foreknew the man was going to sin, and not to remain in the perfection of his image, and so did not wish to call him good individually, but only together with the rest, as though hinting at what was going to happen? Because when the things that have been made remain as what they were made, to the extent they received it, like those things that have not sinned or those that cannot sin, they are both good individually, and in the totality they are all very good. It was not for nothing, you see, that "very" was added, because the parts of the body too, if they are beautiful even by them selves, are all still much more beautiful in the total structure of the body. Thus the eye, for example causes pleasure and admiration; but still, if we saw one
240 The Literal Meaning ofGenesis separate from the body, we would not call it as beautiful as we do when we observe it fitted into its proper place, in relation with the other parts, in the whole body.
Those things, however, which lose their proper comeliness by sinning, do not in the least for all that bring it about that they too are not good when rightly coor dinated with the whole, with the universe. The man therefore before sin and in his own kind was of course good; but scripture forbore to say this, in order to say instead something that would foreshadow something yet to come. What was said about him, you see, was not untrue, because while someone who is good as an individual is clearly better when taken together with all the others, it does not follow that when he is good taken together with all the others he must also be good as an individual. And so it was arranged that something should be said which would be both true in the present and would signify foreknowledge of the future. God, after all, while being the best creator of natural things, is also the most just co-ordinator of sinners; so that even if things individually become deformed by transgressing, nonetheless the totality together with them in it remains beautiful. But now let us leave what follows to be dealt with in the next volume.