“Meod Tob” – Very Good

The reference to the above words — “very good” — in connection with the discussion of Adam’s condition before and after the fall, as reported in “The Believer”, of Jan./Feb. ’73, is encouraging; and the C.S.C. are to be commended on their righteous, moderate and intellectual judgement.

It would appear to be an opportune time to enquire into the actual meaning of these two words, which have long been advanced as pertinent to the understanding of Adam’s nature.

The “very” in the Hebrew is “Meod” and is simply defined, as meaning to give emphasis to the word it qualifies.

The word “good” in the Hebrew is “Tob” pronounced to rhyme with “probe”. The defining of this short word “Tob” is not so simple as would at first appear. In Genesis chapters one to twenty-four “tob” is translated “good” nineteen times. The applications and meanings are not identical, so let us consider these.

The first six usages are God’s statement of his individual six days’ works. Genesis 1 — Vs. 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25 refer to:—

Light: Earth and sea: Grass, herbage, trees: Sun, moon and stars: Creatures of the seas and air: Animals of the earth and creeping things.

All these were declared to be “good”; God saw that this was so! After Adam was made, but evidently before Eve was made, at the end of the sixth day, God saw that everything was “very good”. This was the seventh usage of the Hebrew word “tob”.

Light (an intangible phenomenon); earth and sea; growth of grass, herbage and trees; huge heavenly bodies (these were inanimate); creatures in the sea and air; also on the earth, cattle and creeping things and Adam. All these creations — intangible, inanimate and animate, were collectively declared in Gen. 1:31 to be “very good.” This is the first type of application of the word “tob”.

Gen. 2:9. Here we read of “every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food.” All the previous items were described as “good” and “very good”, but the trees are described as “good for food”. This is a second type of application of the word “tob”, and the eighth time of usage.

Gen. 2:9. Next we read, “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Here we have an application different again from the preceding ones. “Tob” is now used in relation to the Hebrew “Ra” Evil. A moral inference is introduced for the first time. “Good” is applied as meaning the opposite of evil. This is quite definite, brooking of no misunderstanding, “good and evil”! This is the third type of application, and the ninth usage of the word “tob” — good.

Gen. 2:12. Again we read, “the gold of that land is good” — “tob”. Here we have yet another application of the same word — somewhat allied to the first seven usages, except that it is a specific indication for a metal, that had been found to be of excellent quality for the manufacture of articles. So we note this as the fourth type of application and tenth usage of the same word, “tob” — good.

Gen. 2:17…. “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” This eleventh usage is identical to the ninth and has a moral inference also.

Gen. 2:18. Now we read “it is not good for man to live alone.” Here we have yet another application of the word “tob”. We can only understand this application to mean “not desirable”, certainly we cannot take it to mean “immoral or evil”, no moral inference is intended. This then is the fifth application of the word and its twelfth usage.

Gen. 3:5. The thirteenth usage is also identical with the eleventh and ninth, and has the same moral inference… “be as gods knowing good and evil”.

Gen. 3:6. The fourteenth usage is similar to the eighth usage, again no moral inference. Eve “saw it was good for food.”

Gen. 3:22. The fifteenth usage is as the ninth, eleventh and thirteenth, “to know good and evil.” The same moral inference is indicated…. “become as one of us, to know good and evil.”

Gen. 15:15. We leave the first three “Creation” chapters of Genesis and read of Abraham’s “good old age”. This makes the sixth application and the sixteenth usage of “tob” — good.

Gen. 18:7. We refer here to “a calf tender and good” prepared by Abraham, making yet a further classification for the application of the word “tob” — good. The seventh application and seventeenth usage.

Gen. 19:8. Here Lot offers his daughters to the men of Sodom, to do to them as would seem “… good in your eyes.” This is a distinctly separate application of the word “tob” having an inference concerning a decision to be made by the men, and the “good” would for the men, mean “pleasant or desirable” to themselves, but actually an “evil” in the sight of Lot, his daughters and God. Here we have the eighth application and eighteenth usage.

Gen. 24:50. This provides our last example. Laban and Bethuel answering Abraham’s servant say:—”We cannot speak unto thee bad or good.” The words in the Hebrew are RA = bad or evil and TOB = good. So literally, the words are translated correctly as — “bad and good”. However, this is entirely at variance with the meaning Laban and Bethuel intended. They had already acknowledged God’s hand in this matter, i.e. God had decreed that Rebekah should go with the servant of Abraham, so the text of the N.E.B. and Jerusalem Bible convey what was intended, and read—N.E.B.: “We cannot say for or against,” and “We cannot say yes or no.” Jer. Bible. This then is our ninth application and our nineteenth usage of “tob” —good, and will suffice for our exercise of examination of the first usages and applications of the word “tob” translated “good”.

Our next referral is to the various English words used to convey the meaning of this same word “tob” elsewhere in Scripture. From Young’s Concordance we find that “tob” is translated as a “verb to be” with thirteen different words; as an adjective, 21 different words are used, and as a noun, 10 different words are used to convey the meanings. Strong’s Concordance substantiates this information, adding that the word “tob” is to be understood in the “widest sense”.

We have seen that in the first nineteen usages quoted in Genesis, nine different senses were expressed. It would appear that the first six similar usages should be understood as —pleasing or perhaps satisfactory (in the highest sense). If this is agreed then we must class the seventh likewise. If this is not agreed, what sense can we apply to the first six, and ipso facto to the seventh also? They cannot be separated. This would be the first type of application, of the word “tob”.

The second, referring to food, may be classed under the sense of suitability for food.

The third, unquestionably implies a moral sense of good as contrasted with evil. “The tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

The fourth, of the gold, again means a suitability for the purpose for which the gold was employed.

The fifth, about Adam living alone, would indicate — desirability.

The sixth, of Abraham’ old age, implies a sense of veneration and well being.

The seventh, the calf had to be first class, and of an age suitable for eating. A fine distinction of the suitability of an animal for food.

The eighth, concerning Lot’s daughters, infers a pleasantness to the men, such itself being evil.

The ninth, the words of Laban and Bethuel may be neither transposed, transliterated or translated, but must be transformed from their “bad or good” to the—”Yes or No” as per the Jerusalem Bible, or to the “For or against” of the N.E.B. so as to convey the correct meaning in our English language.

In view of the foregoing, how should we as inheritors of the Truth, and the keepers of Holy Writ, ascribe the sense to be conveyed by the oft-quoted words “VERY GOOD?” Have we been correct in asserting that these words effectively, and comprehensively, do in fact define Adam’s nature in a moral sense?

May it be asked of the Brotherhood how in fact we do define this “VERY GOOD” as being descriptive of THE NATURE OF ADAM, taking into consideration that the words were spoken of such a varied group collectively comprising:—

Things animate having no moral attributes. Tiny and huge inanimate things incapable of moral attributes.

The intangible phenomenon — light.

All are embraced together with Adam, under the description “MEOD TOB”. If we maintain that “very good” does describe Adam’s “nature” despite the apparent anomalies, a really difficult situation arises when we consider the nature of the serpent. Seeing that there is no indication to the contrary, the serpent must be included among all the beasts of the field, as being “very good.” This creature initiated the disobedience in Eden; “meod tob” surely does not imply that the serpent was morally “very good” as we have implied this sense to Adam?

To the Brotherhood is posed a question, to us who hold the Oracles of God. Have we been correct in our application of the Hebrew words “MEOD TOB” to Adam?

How say we Brethren?