And God saw it was good
I. Introduction: The Liturgy of Creation
The opening chapter of the Hebrew Bible, Genesis 1, stands as a monumental portico to the canon of Scripture. It presents a cosmological narrative distinguished not merely by its sequence of creative acts, but by its rhythmic, liturgical structure. It is a text that has been scrutinized by rabbis, church fathers, medieval scholastics, and modern critical scholars, all of whom have noted its distinctive cadence. Central to this rhythm is the recurring evaluation formula: "And God saw that it was good" (va-yar Elohim ki-tov).
This phrase, repeated with strategic variation throughout the six days of creation, serves as the theological and literary backbone of the Priestly (P) account of origins.1 It establishes a worldview that is fundamentally distinct from the surrounding Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) mythologies, positing a universe that is intentional, orderly, and intrinsically valuable. Unlike the chaotic, conflict-ridden cosmogonies of Babylon or the biological emanations of Egypt, the Genesis narrative asserts a sovereign, distinct Creator who evaluates His work with the critical eye of a master craftsman and the delighted gaze of an artist.
The significance of this refrain extends far beyond a simple affirmation of quality. It functions as a divine seal of approval, a declaration of functional readiness, and an aesthetic judgment. The narrative does not merely report that the cosmos came into being; it insists on recording the Creator’s subjective engagement with the created order. The act of "seeing" (ra'ah) combined with the judgment of "good" (tov) creates a theology of material existence that rejects dualism, affirms the sanctity of the physical world, and establishes the foundation for ecological and ethical responsibility.
This report provides an exhaustive examination of the phrase "God saw that it was good." We will analyze its philological roots, excavating the semantic ranges of tov and ra'ah within the broader context of the Hebrew Bible. We will perform a granular structural analysis of the text, investigating the "Framework Hypothesis" and the significant omission of the formula on Day 2. We will place the text in conversation with its ancient neighbors—the Enuma Elish and Egyptian cosmogonies—to highlight its polemical nature. Finally, we will synthesize ancient rabbinic commentary, modern biblical criticism, and systematic theology (from Karl Barth to Jurgen Moltmann) to arrive at a nuanced understanding of how the divine gaze confers ontological validity upon the universe.
II. Philological Excavation: The Semantics of Tov and Ra’ah
To understand the weight of the creation formula, one must first excavate the semantic range of the Hebrew terms employed. The English translation "good" is often too flat, carrying primarily moral connotations that may be anachronistic or incomplete when applied to the primal elements of light, land, and luminaries. Similarly, the verb "to see" implies a passive reception of visual data in English, whereas the Hebrew ra'ah carries active, cognitive, and even prophetic dimensions.
A. The Hebrew Tov (Good): Function, Aesthetics, and Morality
The Hebrew adjective tov (טוֹב) is a multivalent term. In the context of Genesis 1, scholarship suggests it encompasses three distinct but overlapping domains: functional readiness, aesthetic beauty, and moral order.
1. Functional Ontology: The "Functioning Faucet"
Recent scholarship, particularly the work of John Walton, argues that the "goodness" of creation in Genesis 1 is primarily functional.2 In this view, the ancient cognitive environment perceived existence not in terms of material substance (material ontology)—atoms and molecules—but in terms of having a function within an ordered system. A thing "exists" when it has a name and a role. When God sees the light or the dry land and calls it tov, He is not commenting on its moral rectitude, but on its successful operation.
Linguistic studies of the term indicate that tov often signifies "suitability" or "alignment with a purpose".4 It is the exclamation of a craftsman who assesses a finished product and finds that it meets the design specifications. As one commentator notes, it is akin to checking a faucet; if water flows when turned on and stops when turned off, it is "good".5 It works. This functional definition is crucial for understanding the creation of "non-moral" entities like the firmament or the luminaries. Their "goodness" lies in their precise operation: the light effectively separates day from night; the land effectively supports vegetation.
The recurring affirmation confirms that the cosmos is not a chaotic accident but a functioning machine—or, more accurately, a functioning temple—designed for a specific purpose.1 This aligns with the wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible, where tov often describes that which is beneficial or advantageous for life (e.g., Ecclesiastes 2:24).
2. Aesthetic Delight: The "Beautiful" Tov
While function is paramount, the aesthetic dimension cannot be stripped from tov. The term is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible to describe physical beauty. It describes the appearance of women like Sarah, Rebekah, and Bathsheba, where it is often translated as "beautiful" or "fair".7 It describes the "goodness" of precious metals and finely crafted objects.
The divine gaze in Genesis 1 is one of delight. God is not merely an engineer checking a blueprint; He is an artist stepping back to admire the canvas. The Septuagint (LXX) translators, sensitive to this nuance, occasionally translated tov as kalos (beautiful/noble) rather than agathos (good in a moral sense) in contexts of creation and ordering.8 This aesthetic nuance suggests that the Creator’s evaluation includes an appreciation of form, color, and sensory richness.
Theologians like Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann have emphasized this "glory" or "beauty" of creation.9 The "goodness" of the trees, which are described in Genesis 2:9 as "pleasant to the sight" (nechmad l'mareh) and "good for food" (tov l'ma'akal), reinforces that the Creator’s evaluation is multisensory. The universe was created to be enjoyed, not just used.11 The aesthetic dimension of tov implies that beauty is an objective reality, rooted in the character of God, rather than a subjective preference of the observer.
3. Moral Order and the Absence of Evil
The third dimension of tov is the absence of ra (evil/dysfunction). In the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) worldview, the primordial state was often characterized by active malevolence or chaos. By declaring the light and the land "good," the Genesis narrative asserts that the fundamental structures of the universe are not hostile to life.13
Linguistic archeologists note that the pairing of tov and ra (good and evil) often represents a merism for "everything" or "total functionality vs. total dysfunction".13 However, in Genesis 1, ra is conspicuously absent. There is no "dark side" to the moon or the sea in the Genesis account; even the great sea monsters (tanninim), often symbols of chaos in other texts, are here created by God and declared "good" (Gen 1:21). This effectively demythologizes the universe, stripping the natural world of inherent evil.14
It has been argued that the shift in interpretation of tov from "beneficial/functional" to "morally good" was influenced by the Platonizing of Christianity, which tended to abstract goodness into a moral ideal rather than a concrete reality of flourishing.13 Recovering the Hebraic sense of tov restores the emphasis on life, fertility, and order.
B. The Divine Gaze: The Verb Ra’ah (To See)
The formula is not merely "It was good," but "God saw that it was good." The use of the verb ra'ah (רָאָה) is anthropomorphic, attributing to God the human experience of visual evaluation. This verb carries heavy theological freight in the Hebrew Bible.
1. Seeing as Establishing Reality
In the biblical worldview, to be "seen" by God is to be granted existence and validity. Hagar, in the wilderness, calls God El Roi ("The God who sees me") when affirming her own survival and significance (Genesis 16:13). In Genesis 1, God’s seeing acts as a confirmation of the reality of the object. It is an act of "witnessing" the creation.
By seeing the light, God differentiates it from the darkness. The gaze distinguishes the created object from the Creator, establishing it as a separate entity that stands before Him.14 This distinction is vital for avoiding pantheism; the world is not God, but it is seen by God. It stands vis-à-vis the Creator.
2. Evaluative Judgment and Prophetic Insight
The construction va-yar... ki ("and he saw... that") introduces a clause of judgment or realization. It is the moment of assessment. This literary device emphasizes that the goodness of creation is objective—it is external to God and judged by God. It is not good simply because He made it; it is good because, upon inspection, it conforms to His will.6
Furthermore, the verb ra'ah is etymologically linked to the noun ro'eh (seer), an archaic term for a prophet (1 Samuel 9:9).16 This suggests that God’s "seeing" is penetrative; He sees the nature and the future of the thing created. This is echoed in the Akedah (Genesis 22), where Abraham names the place of sacrifice Yahweh Yireh ("The Lord Will See/Provide").18 Just as God "sees" the ram as a provision, God "sees" the light and the land as provisions for the life that is to follow. The gaze is providential.
3. The Play on Ra'ah (Adversity)
Interestingly, the Hebrew root for "see" (resh-alef-hey) is phonetically identical to a root for "adversity" or "badness" (resh-ayin-hey)—ra'ah. Ecclesiastes 7:14 utilizes this wordplay: "In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity (ra'ah) consider (ra'ah)...".19 While they are distinct roots, the sonic similarity invites a contrast. In Genesis 1, God "sees" (ra'ah) and finds "good" (tov), deliberately excluding "adversity" (ra'ah). The divine gaze filters out dysfunction, establishing an order where tov reigns supreme.
III. The Architectonics of Creation: A Day-by-Day Exegesis
The distribution of the phrase "God saw that it was good" is not uniform. A careful structural analysis reveals a sophisticated literary pattern involving repetition, omission, and intensification. This pattern supports the "Framework Hypothesis," which views the days not merely as chronological units but as a literary structure of "forming" and "filling".20
A. The Pattern of the Seven Evaluations
The phrase occurs seven times in the narrative, but these seven occurrences do not map perfectly to the seven days. The distribution highlights specific theological emphases regarding the preparation of the habitat (forming) and the inhabitation by creatures (filling).
Table 1: Distribution of the Evaluation Formula in Genesis 1
Day
Creative Act
Domain
Evaluation Formula
Citation
Day 1
Light separation
Time/Light
"God saw that the light was good"
5
Day 2
Firmament/Sky separation
Space/Sky
OMITTED
8
Day 3
a) Dry Land/Seas
Space/Land
"God saw that it was good"
24
Day 3
b) Vegetation
Food/Life
"God saw that it was good"
5
Day 4
Sun, Moon, Stars
Time Rulers
"God saw that it was good"
24
Day 5
Fish and Birds
Sky/Sea Rulers
"God saw that it was good"
24
Day 6
a) Land Animals
Land Rulers
"God saw that it was good"
24
Day 6
b) Humanity/Completion
Image of God
"God saw everything... it was very good"
1
B. The Anomaly of Day Two: The Missing "Good"
One of the most debated features of Genesis 1 is the absence of the formula on the second day. When God creates the raqia (firmament/expanse) to separate the waters above from the waters below, the text moves directly to "there was evening and there was morning" without the benediction.8 This omission has generated millennia of speculation.
1. The Argument from Incompletion (Rashi & The Midrash)
The most prevalent scholarly explanation, dating back to the great medieval commentator Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 11th century), is that the work of the waters was not finished on Day 2. The separation of waters began on Day 2 with the vertical separation (waters above and below), but the horizontal separation (gathering the lower waters to reveal land) was only concluded on Day 3.27
Since the "goodness" of a thing is linked to its functional completeness, God could not declare the waters "good" while they were merely separated but not yet gathered into their proper place (the Seas). An unfinished garment is not praised by the tailor until the final stitch is placed. This theory is robustly supported by the text of Day 3, which contains two benedictions. The first "good" of Day 3 (Gen 1:10) appears immediately after the dry land appears and the waters are gathered—effectively serving as the delayed benediction for the work begun on Day 2.27
2. The Structural Engineering View
Another perspective suggests that the raqia (firmament) itself is a tool of separation, a structural necessity, but not a "finished good" in the same sense as the habitats. It is an instrument. Some commentators suggest that the firmament, as a barrier, represents a form of tension or division. While necessary for life, division itself is not the ultimate good; unity and filling are. Thus, the firmament is functional but perhaps not celebrated until it is filled with birds on Day 5.8
3. The "Tears" and Separation Theory
A more poetic and mystical interpretation suggests that the omission reflects a theological discomfort with division. The number two is the first number to deviate from unity (one). In some midrashic traditions, the "waters wept" at being separated from the upper realms. Consequently, God does not pronounce "good" over a schism, even a necessary one. This interpretation aligns with later Gnostic or mystical views of the "fall" into multiplicity, though it is likely an imposition on the original Priestly text.8
4. Textual Critical Perspectives (LXX vs. MT)
It is crucial to note that the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, does include the phrase "and God saw that it was good" at the end of Day 2 (Genesis 1:8).8 This textual variant suggests one of two possibilities: either the translators added it to "fix" what they perceived as an error in the Hebrew, or they were working from a Hebrew manuscript (Vorlage) that included it. However, the Masoretic Text (MT), which is generally preferred for the Pentateuch, lacks it. Most modern scholars treat the omission in the MT as the lectio difficilior (the more difficult reading), and thus likely the original, intended reading. The omission serves a literary purpose, driving the reader forward to the resolution on Day 3.
C. The Double "Good" of Day Three
Day 3 stands in contrast to Day 2 with two distinct acts of creation and two evaluations, resolving the tension of the previous day.
The Formation of Earth: The gathering of waters and appearance of dry land receives the first "good." This marks the completion of the habitable environment (the eretz). The waters are now "Seas" (yammim), and the chaos is bounded.
The Creation of Life: The sprouting of vegetation receives the second "good." This is the first instance of biological life. It is significant that vegetation is created before the sun (Day 4), a detail often seized upon by literalist interpretations, but structurally emphasizing that the earth itself has generative power ("Let the earth sprout...") granted by God.
This doubling emphasizes the earth (land) as the primary stage for human history. The "goodness" here is foundational; the stage is set, and the pantry is stocked (vegetation) before the actors (animals and humans) arrive.30
D. The Climactic "Very Good" (Tov Me'od) of Day Six
The final occurrence of the formula on Day 6 is modified by the adverb me'od (very/exceedingly). "And God saw everything that He had made, and indeed, it was very good" (Gen 1:31).
1. The Integration of the Whole
The shift from "good" to "very good" signals the completion of the system. While individual components (light, land, animals) were "good" in isolation, the "very good" applies to the totality ("everything that He had made"). It suggests that the value of creation is greater than the sum of its parts. The ecosystem acts in harmony; the water cycles, the light cycles, and the food chains are integrated into a sustainable whole.1
2. The Inclusion of Humanity
This final benediction follows the creation of humanity in the Image of God (Imago Dei). While humans are not individually called "good" immediately upon their creation (a point noted by scholars like R.N. Whybray), their presence within the cosmos precipitates the "very good" declaration.1 Humanity is the capstone that allows the cosmic temple to function as intended—with a priest-king to steward it. The "very good" implies that with humanity, the potential for relationship between Creator and creation is fully realized.24
3. A Counter to Fatalism
The "very good" is also a theological bulwark against fatalism and gnosticism. It asserts that the physical world, including the human body, is not a prison for the soul or a mistake of a lesser deity (as in some Gnostic systems), but a masterful work of the Supreme God. It is "very good" despite the potential for fragility or the eventual entry of sin. It affirms the original intent of the Creator.15
IV. Comparative Mythology: The Polemics of Goodness
To fully appreciate the Genesis formula, one must read it against the backdrop of Ancient Near Eastern cosmology, particularly the Babylonian Enuma Elish and Egyptian cosmogonies. The Genesis account is not written in a vacuum; it is a polemic, a theological counter-argument to the dominant worldviews of the time.
A. Genesis vs. Enuma Elish: Violence vs. The Word
In the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish, creation is the result of a violent cosmic civil war. Marduk, the champion of the younger gods, slays Tiamat, the dragon goddess of chaotic salt waters. He then constructs the universe from her dismembered corpse, splitting her body to form the sky and the earth. Humanity is subsequently created from the blood of the rebellious demon-god Kingu, specifically to serve the gods as slaves and relieve them of manual labor.34
Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Creation Goodness
Feature
Enuma Elish (Babylonian)
Genesis 1 (Hebrew)
Origin of Matter
Pre-existent, chaotic, divine corpse (Tiamat)
Created by Word (Ex Nihilo or Ordered), Passive
Nature of Matter
Fundamentally violent, residue of conflict
Fundamentally "Good" (Tov), obedient to God
Method of Creation
Violence, warfare, sexual procreation
Speech ("Let there be"), Separation, Evaluation
Status of Humanity
Slaves to relieve gods of labor
Royal Stewards (Image of God), "Very Good"
Divine Attitude
Annoyance (gods disturb Apsu's sleep)
Delight ("God saw that it was good")
Outcome
Tenuous order imposed on chaos
Peaceful Shalom, Sabbath rest
The Genesis account systematically dismantles this worldview.
The Rejection of Conflict: In Genesis, there is no battle. The tehom (deep) in Genesis 1:2 is linguistically related to Tiamat, but it is demythologized. It is not a monster to be slain but a passive element to be ordered. When God sees the light and land, He is not claiming victory over an enemy; He is observing the obedience of a creature.
The Nature of Matter: In Enuma Elish, the world is made of the carcass of a dead god; it is inherently violent and gross. In Genesis, matter is brought into being by the serene Word of God. It is "good," distinct from God, and holy.
The Status of Man: Instead of being an afterthought made of demon blood, humanity is the climax of creation, the reason for the "very good."
B. Egyptian Cosmogonies: Biology vs. Fiat
Egyptian creation myths often involve biological emanations. In the Heliopolis myth, the god Atum creates the other gods through masturbation or spitting. In the Memphite theology, the god Ptah creates through thought and speech—a closer parallel to Genesis—but the resulting creation is essentially an extension of the deity.34
Genesis 1 maintains a strict distinction between Creator and creature. God speaks, and the world becomes. It is not an emanation of His being (pantheism) but a work of His will. The formula "God saw that it was good" reinforces this distance: God stands over the creation, evaluating it as an object separate from Himself. This separation allows for a relationship between God and the World that is impossible in pantheistic systems.38
C. Canaanite Myth: The Subjugation of the Sea
In Canaanite mythology, the god Baal battles Yamm (the Sea). In Genesis 1, the sea (yam) is simply a gathered body of water, named by God (Gen 1:10) and declared "good." God does not fight the sea; He legislates its boundaries. By calling the seas "good," the biblical writer strips the ocean of its terrified, demonic power. It is a habitat for "good" sea creatures, not a realm of terror.35
V. Functional Ontology and Temple Theology
How did the ancient Israelites understand "existence"? John Walton’s influential work Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology suggests that for the ancients, to exist was to have a function. This "functional ontology" fundamentally shifts how we interpret the "goodness" of creation.
A. The Cosmos as Temple
Walton argues that the seven-day structure of Genesis 1 parallels Ancient Near Eastern temple dedication ceremonies, which often lasted seven days. In these ceremonies, the physical structure was built, the furniture was installed, and finally, on the seventh day, the deity entered to "rest" (take up residence).3
From this perspective:
Days 1-3 establish the functions of the cosmic temple (Time, Weather, Food).
Days 4-6 install the functionaries (Luminaries, Animals, Humans).
Day 7 is the inauguration, where God rests in His temple.
The phrase "God saw that it was good" functions as an inspection of the temple furnishings. When God creates the lights on Day 4, He is installing the temple lamps. When He creates the humans on Day 6, He is placing His "image" (statue/idol) in the temple, not made of wood or stone, but of flesh and blood. The "very good" is the declaration that the temple is ready for the presence of God. It is fit for habitation.41
B. Goodness as Order
In this framework, "good" does not mean "perfect" in a Greek philosophical sense (static, unchangeable). It means "ordered." Order is the prerequisite for God's presence. Chaos (tohu wa-bohu) is the absence of function; Creation (tov) is the establishment of function. This explains why the "very good" can exist in a world that might still contain danger or the potential for sin—the system is working as intended, providing a venue for the drama of human life and divine relationship.2
VI. Theological Dimensions: The Ontology of Approval
The repeated assertion of goodness carries profound theological weight, influencing Christian and Jewish doctrines of ontology, aesthetics, and ethics.
A. Intrinsic vs. Instrumental Value
Does creation have value only because it supports humans (instrumental), or does it have value in itself (intrinsic)? The distribution of the "good" suggests the latter.
Pre-Human Goodness: God declares the light, land, plants, sun, moon, fish, and birds "good" before humans exist. The stars are "good" (Day 4) regardless of whether humans are looking at them. This implies that creation has value to God independent of its utility to humanity. It pleases God directly.43
Theocentric Value: This is technically "inherent" value (value given by the valuer) rather than purely intrinsic, but since the valuer is the absolute God, the value is objective. The universe matters because God enjoys it. As Norman Habel argues in the Earth Bible Commentary, this text challenges anthropocentric views that reduce nature to mere resources. The "Earth" is a character in the story that responds to God ("Let the earth bring forth...") and is affirmed by God.45
B. Aesthetic Theology: The Beauty of the Infinite
The phrase "God saw" introduces an aesthetic category to theology. God is the first observer of beauty. Jonathan Edwards, the 18th-century American theologian, and later Hans Urs von Balthasar, the 20th-century Catholic theologian, argued that the "glory" of God is expressed in the beauty of creation, and God's delight in creation is a delight in the reflection of His own excellence.12
The Trinity and Delight: Theologians like Jurgen Moltmann argue that the "goodness" of creation is an expression of the Trinitarian love. The Father creates through the Son (the Word) and perfects through the Spirit (who hovers over the waters). The joy of the Creator in His work ("It is good") mirrors the joy within the Trinity.9
Tov as Beautiful: The connection between tov and beauty suggests that ugliness or the wanton destruction of beauty is a theological offense. To mar the creation is to deface what God has found aesthetically pleasing. This provides a theological basis for the arts—human creativity is an imitation of the Divine Artist.7
C. The Problem of Evil (Theodicy)
If creation is "very good," whence comes evil?
The Potential for Chaos: The "goodness" of Genesis 1 does not imply static perfection. The existence of the "waters" and "darkness" (Day 1) implies that creation is an ordering of something that could be disordered. Karl Barth describes evil as das Nichtige (the Nothingness)—that which God did not will and did not create, but which exists as a "shadow" or "threat" rejected by God's creative act. By saying "Light is Good," God implicitly rejects darkness as the dominant reality.49
Free Will and Fragility: The "very good" includes the creation of free beings (humans). A world capable of love is "very good," even if that capability entails the risk of rebellion. The "goodness" is in the design and potential, not necessarily in the guarantee that nothing will ever go wrong (as seen in Genesis 3). The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is, paradoxically, part of the "very good" garden, as it provides the necessary choice for moral agency.50
VII. Historical and Modern Interpretations
The interpretation of this formula has evolved from rabbinic midrash to modern ecological hermeneutics, reflecting the changing concerns of the community of faith.
A. Classical Rabbinic Thought
Rashi and other medieval commentators focused heavily on the gaps in the text, such as the Day 2 omission. Their approach was often atomistic, seeking to justify every word. They viewed the "good" as an indication of permanence. If something was not called "good" (like the separation of waters on Day 2), it was because the work was "fluid" or incomplete. This highlights a Jewish view of holiness as wholeness or completeness. Additionally, the concept of Ma'aseh Bereshit (The Work of Creation) in Jewish mysticism often analyzed the tov as the hidden light (Or Ganuz) reserved for the righteous in the age to come.27
B. Karl Barth and Neo-Orthodoxy
For Karl Barth, the "goodness" of creation is strictly grounded in the covenant. Creation is the "external basis of the covenant," and the covenant is the "internal basis of creation." God created the world "good" specifically so it could be a theater for the drama of redemption in Jesus Christ. Barth rejects "natural theology" (finding God through nature alone) but affirms the goodness of nature because it is the stage for grace. For Barth, the distinctness of creation—God seeing it as something other than Himself—is crucial. God loves the world as an object distinct from His own essence, allowing for a genuine "I-Thou" relationship.49
C. Modern Ecological Hermeneutics
In the face of the modern environmental crisis, scholars like Terence Fretheim and Norman Habel have returned to Genesis 1 to recover a "Green" theology. They emphasize that the command to "subdue" (Gen 1:28) must be read in the context of the "goodness" of the pre-human world.
If God loves the whales and the birds (declaring them good on Day 5), humans have no right to destroy them. The "goodness" of the non-human world places a limit on human dominion. We are stewards of a goodness we did not create. Habel’s "Earth Bible" principles argue that the Earth is a subject in the text, capable of rejoicing or mourning, and that the "goodness" is a shared state of flourishing between the land and its inhabitants.45
VIII. Conclusion: The Ontological Seal
The refrain "And God saw that it was good" is the heartbeat of Genesis 1. It transforms the cosmogony from a sterile list of origins into a narrative of relationship and value.
Through the philological lens, we see tov as a multivalent term embracing functional harmony, aesthetic beauty, and moral order, while the verb ra'ah establishes God as the sovereign witness and provider.
Through the structural lens, we see a deliberate literary architecture that navigates the tension of separation (Day 2) to arrive at the resolution of filling (Day 3) and the ultimate climax of the "very good" (Day 6).
Through the comparative lens, we see a radical rejection of the violence, pessimism, and pantheism that characterized the surrounding religious cultures of Babylon and Egypt.
Ultimately, the formula establishes the ontology of the universe. The world exists because God wills it, and it has value because God sees it. This divine gaze precludes the notion that matter is evil or indifferent. It grants the physical universe a sacramental quality—it is a temple, a work of art, and a beloved object. For the theologian, the scientist, and the ecologist alike, the text offers a profound starting point: we inhabit a universe that, at its deepest foundation, meets with the approval of its Creator. The "good" is not merely a moral attribute; it is the very signature of God upon the fabric of spacetime.
IX. Appendix: Textual Data
A. Hebrew Textual Occurrences of Ki-Tov in Genesis 1
Verse
Context
Hebrew Phrase
Translation
Gen 1:4
Light
וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאוֹר כִּי-טוֹב
And God saw the light, that it was good
Gen 1:10
Earth/Seas
וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי-טוֹב
And God saw that it was good
Gen 1:12
Vegetation
וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי-טוֹב
And God saw that it was good
Gen 1:18
Luminaries
וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי-טוֹב
And God saw that it was good
Gen 1:21
Sea/Air Creatures
וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי-טוֹב
And God saw that it was good
Gen 1:25
Land Animals
וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי-טוֹב
And God saw that it was good
Gen 1:31
All Creation
וַיַּרְא... וְהִנֵּה-טוֹב מְאֹד
And God saw... and behold, it was very good
B. Scholarly Matrix: Interpreting the "Good"
Scholar
Theory / Work
Key Theological Contribution
Rashi
Commentary on Genesis
Incompletion: Goodness requires finished work; Day 2 work finished on Day 3.
U. Cassuto
Commentary on Genesis
Literary Unity: The structure emphasizes the majesty of the One God over chaos; polemic against Enuma Elish.
J. Walton
Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology
Functional Ontology: "Good" means functioning in the cosmic temple, not just material existence.
K. Barth
Church Dogmatics
Covenantal Goodness: Creation is good because it serves as the stage for God's grace/covenant.
N. Habel
The Earth Bible
Ecological Value: Earth has intrinsic value/voice before humans; "Good" limits human dominion.
N. Sarna
Understanding Genesis
Demythologization: The "good" strips nature of divine/demonic powers, rendering it safe for human stewardship.
Works cited
Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative
Genesis 1: What's Functional Creation vs. Material Creation? - Logos Bible Software, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.logos.com/grow/creation-in-genesis-chapter-1-functional-creation-vs-material-creation/
Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology By John H. Walton - Eisenbrauns, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.eisenbrauns.org/books/titles/978-1-57506-216-7.html
What does "God saw that it was good" mean? - Bible Hub, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://biblehub.com/q/what_does_'it_was_good'_mean.htm
Tov: An Explosive Word | And Sons Magazine, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.andsonsmagazine.com/inspiration/tov-an-explosive-word
What does it mean that God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:18)? | GotQuestions.org, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.gotquestions.org/God-saw-that-it-was-good.html
Aesthetic Delight: God, Creation and You! | Articles - Inspiration Ministries, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://inspiration.org/spiritual-life/aesthetic-delight-god-creation-and-you
And God Saw That It Was…Pretty Good (Gen 1) - Psephizo, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/and-god-saw-that-it-waspretty-good-gen-1/
1 Created Goodness or Mythological Perfection? Reflections on the Genesis Narrative Craig A. Boyd Professor of Philosophy Direc - The Oxford Institute | of Methodist Theological Studies, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://oxford-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2007-8-boyd.pdf
The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth - First Things, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://firstthings.com/the-beauty-of-the-infinite-the-aesthetics-of-christian-truth/
Hebrew "Tov" and "Shabbath": Beauty, Delight, Creation - Pastors.ai, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://pastors.ai/bible/verse/hebrew-tov-and-shabbath-beauty-delight-creation/
How Can I See the Beauty of God?, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/how-can-i-see-the-beauty-of-god
Good and Evil, Towb and Ra - Faith & Science Conversation - The BioLogos Forum, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://discourse.biologos.org/t/good-and-evil-towb-and-ra/51238
God Saw It Was . . . : God's Seeing in Genesis 1 and 6, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/god-saw-it-was/
Good, Very Good, and Not Good | The Institute for Creation Research, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.icr.org/content/good-very-good-and-not-good-3
RTL Words: RAʾAH (ראה) - Bible & Archaeology - The University of Iowa, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://bam.sites.uiowa.edu/RTL/raah
How to Read the Bible: Unlocking Genesis 1 - Jeology, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://itsjeology.com/2024/12/11/constants-vs-variables/
Ra'ah - Wix.com, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://aaronhoughton217.wixsite.com/gospel-vs/post/2017/07/01/ra-ah
Hebrew Word Study – Consider – Ra'ah Ra'ah רעה ראה - Chaim Bentorah, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.chaimbentorah.com/2022/02/hebrew-word-study-consider-adversity-raah-raah-%D7%A8%D7%A2%D7%94-%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%94/
Genesis 1 - Framework Hypothesis-Interpretation - American Scientific Affiliation, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/fw.htm
Genesis 1 and the Framework Interpretation - Torrey Gazette, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://torreygazette.com/blog/2015/4/15/genesis-1-and-the-framework-interpretation
Genesis 1 KJV - In the beginning God created the heaven - Bible Gateway, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=KJV
When Creation is Not Good - First Things, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://firstthings.com/when-creation-is-not-good/
The Saying, "It Was Good" in Genesis 1 | Jonathan Srock, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://jonathansrock.com/it-was-good-in-genesis-1/
Genesis 1 NIV - The Beginning - In the beginning God - Bible Gateway, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=NIV
Genesis 1 - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/gen/1?lang=eng
Rashi on Genesis 1:1:2 with Sheets - Sefaria, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Genesis.1.1.2?vhe=hebrew%7CPentateuch_with_Rashi%27s_commentary_by_M._Rosenbaum_and_A.M._Silbermann,_1929-1934&lang=bi&with=Sheets
Torah Reading for Bereishit - Parshah with Rashi - Chabad.org, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading_cdo/aid/2452033/p/1/showrashi/true//jewish/Bereishit-Torah-Reading.htm
On the second day of creation God did not see that it was good : r/Bible - Reddit, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Bible/comments/1cbtebk/on_the_second_day_of_creation_god_did_not_see/
Contradictions with science in Genesis 1 render that it, and the Bible as a whole, are not inerrant nor infallible, and thus also put into question every and all other claims made by it. : r/DebateReligion - Reddit, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1gd2y6h/contradictions_with_science_in_genesis_1_render/
What's Wrong with the Framework Hypothesis? - Answers in Genesis, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/whats-wrong-with-the-framework-hypothesis/
Why Does It Matter That God Called Creation "Very Good"?, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://tifwe.org/why-does-it-matter-that-god-called-creation-very-good/
Original Goodness (Genesis 1) - Theology Pathfinder, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://derekdemars.com/2019/01/03/original-goodness-genesis-1/
Three Ancient Near Eastern Creation Myths - Bible Archaeology Report, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/22/three-ancient-near-eastern-creation-myths/
Comparing Genesis 1 with Ancient Near Eastern Creation Myths - Christopher L. Scott, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://christopherlynnscott.com/comparing-genesis-1-with-ancient-near-eastern-creation-myths/
Enuma Elish: Did It Influence Genesis 1?, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/enuma-elish-did-it-influence-genesis/
Creation Stories of the Ancient World (Part 1): On Enuma Elish and Genesis 1 Guest Post by Joseph Lam - The Bart Ehrman Blog, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://ehrmanblog.org/creation-stories-of-the-ancient-world-part-1-on-enuma-elish-and-genesis-1-guest-post-by-joseph-lam/
Jürgen Moltmann's ecological God - godblog, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://godblog.org/jurgen-moltmanns-ecological-god/
Questions regarding Genesis 1 and the Enuma Elish - The BioLogos Forum, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://discourse.biologos.org/t/questions-regarding-genesis-1-and-the-enuma-elish/38027
Genesis 1 in Ancient Perspective? - Theopolis Institute, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://theopolisinstitute.com/leithart_post/genesis-1-in-ancient-perspective/
Review of John H. Walton's Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology - Digital Commons @ Andrews University, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3190&context=auss
Functional Interpretation of Genesis: A Critical Evaluation of John Walton - Evidence Unseen, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://evidenceunseen.com/apologetics/science-and-scripture/functional-interpretation-of-genesis-a-critical-evaluation-of-john-walton
What Kind of Value Does Creation Have? - Ethics and Culture, accessed on November 24, 2025, http://www.ethicsandculture.com/blog/2020/what-kind-of-value-does-creation-have
Axiology of Genesis 1: Everything Created Good | Answers Research Journal, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://answersresearchjournal.org/most-high-and-axiology-of-genesis-1/
The Birth, the Curse and the Greening of Earth: An Ecological Reading of Genesis 1-11 - Sheffield Phoenix Press, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://sheffieldphoenix.com/product/the-birth-the-curse-and-the-greening-of-earth-an-ecological-reading-of-genesis-1-11/
(PDF) Genesis 1 : An Earth-Friendly Reading - ResearchGate, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380048977_Genesis_1_An_Earth-Friendly_Reading
Drawn by God's Beauty: The Surprising Jonathan Edwards - Samford University, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.samford.edu/beeson-divinity/blog/2018/mcdermott-drawn-by-gods-beauty
10 Things You Should Know about Beauty, our Aesthetic Sense, and the Glory of God, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.samstorms.org/enjoying-god-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-beauty-our-aesthetic-sense-and-the-glory-of-god
Karl Barth's perspective on evil - GCI Update, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://update.gci.org/2017/05/karl-barths-perspective-on-evil/
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: Evil or Good? - Answers in Genesis, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/tree-knowledge-good-and-evil/
The Cross in Creation – Karl Barth and Genesis 1.1-2 - think and let think, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://thinkandletthink.com/2016/07/27/the-cross-in-creation-karl-barth-and-genesis-1-1-2/
Trinity, Creation, and Re-creation: A Comparison of Karl Barth and Herman Bavinck's Trinitarian Doctrines of Creation - The Gospel Coalition, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/trinity-creation-and-re-creation-a-comparison-of-karl-barth-and-herman-bavincks-trinitarian-doctrines-of-creation/
God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation - Google Books, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://books.google.com/books/about/God_and_World_in_the_Old_Testament.html?id=rCJPYZJA99gC
Why Should Christians Practice Creation Care? - Ethics and Culture, accessed on November 24, 2025, http://www.ethicsandculture.com/blog/2020/why-should-christians-practice-creation-care
