What If We Read All Wrong?

Think of how strange – and hilarious – it would be to read a recipe as if it were poetry, or a computer program as if it were a fairy tale. But it can also shed a different – and intriguing light.

I am aware of the language of engineering. In simplest strokes: Requirements are written, Specifications are formed, something is created, and then inspected for conformity with the specifications and underlying requirements. If they check out, they are signed-off as complete.

This, of course, is a process. It is a closed process, with the goal of emerging with a product. The process works, and it is checkable. So far, so good.

Now comes the fun part: let’s apply Engineering Speak to the biblical account of creation. Here is the first step:

IN THE BEGINNING God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And a wind from God moved over the surface of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good.

See this? We start with the background to the project – a chaotic and undefined world. G-d starts by creating light – and “it was good” is the formal signoff for that stage of the project. This does not have to be a moral judgement. Literally, “good” in the Torah might be understood as: “conforms to requirements and specifications.”

This totally upends the way I thought about this section just a few days ago, when I would point out that certain things are NOT called “good” – which suggests that there was something wrong with them. That could still be true – but not if we understand that each process does not necessarily end on the same day the process begins!

For example:

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide water from water. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

This is NOT called “good”! So, as I thought in the foolish old days of two days ago, “division is not good.” Which would be so, if we insist on seeing the days as the end of a subject. But what if the numbering of the day is not important to the project goals?

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Hold up! If we simply keep reading, keeping the same subject matter under the same heading, we reach a different conclusion: Maybe the division process did not complete until there was a distinction between Earth and Seas?! In which case, the project itself is signed-off as a complete unit, instead of a mere sub-step – just like an engineering program could be. “It was good,” would not apply to a sub-step, and only applies when that section of the project has been completed!

And thus the very next step, which also happens on the third day, is complete (which is why there are two “it is good” signoffs on the same day):

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after its kind: and God saw that it was good.

The rest of creation follows the same way. The 4^th day is lights in the sky, the 5^th for some animals, and the 6^th for others and mankind. This is all followed by:

And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good.

This is the final signoff. Creation? Done. The program is completed! See how much more sensible that is?

But there are a few niggling problems with such a tidy understanding. There are still things that are clearly not called “good.” What are they?

On the 5^th day:

And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply in the earth.

And then, on the 6^th day:

And God said, Let Us make Mankind in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created Mankind in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

And on the 7^th:

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their host. And by the seventh day God ended His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because in it He rested from all his work which God had created and performed.

Neither of these is called “good.” Why not? I think the use of engineering language explains it perfectly: these are not part of the program! Each of these are ongoing processes, not products. Being fruitful and multiplying is not something that ends – so it cannot be signed off. Similarly, Sabbath is an ongoing commitment, meant to be a never-ending process. So it cannot be signed off, because it is never meant to be completed!

The commandments, if that is what they were, are TO US. G-d passes the baton, to animals and people, as a whole and to each of us as individuals. G-d the Creator has handed the baton off, accompanied by a vague set of Requirements. Those Requirements are not Good, simply because they have not been fulfilled. As ongoing processes, they can never actually be fulfilled in entirety. Unlike, say, the creation of light.

Is this understanding of “good” reasonable in the rest of the text? Actually, far more than I expected. Take, for example:

G-d said, “It is not good for the Human to be alone; I will make a fitting counterpart for him.”

If “good” is “completed,” then “not good” is simply “not completed.” Adam is not finished until he has a mate. G-d recognizes that he cannot sign off on making mankind if Adam is alone.

Similarly, Jethro tells Moses, after witnessing Moses trying to singlehandedly teach and judge for the people: “Not good is this matter, as you do it!” Which works beautifully with the understanding of “good” as a functional designation: “your process is not effective. You cannot complete things in this manner.”

It extends everywhere! When G-d tells Avraham:

And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

The use of the word “good” means an age at which you have achieved your life-projects!!! A “good” life is one of achievement and accomplishment, a life in which we have done what we came here for. And who could ask for anything more than a life that is compared to a divine sign-off for a stage of Creation?