Commentaire sur Job 9:36

Like a rod of tempered steel, (Jeremiah 1:19) this poor wretch braces himself to uphold his assertion that the personal governance which pours scorn on the princes (Psalms 197:40) and makes a mockery at the ordeal of the innocents, (Job 9:23) God's eyes are not upon it (Deuteronomy 11:12); His Throne is innocent (2 Samuel 14:9) of such calumnies. Such injustice cannot emanate from Him. The agents of the Cosmos, into whose hands the earth has been given, it is they alone that are at the heart this injustice (Ezra 9:2). Job's reply to Bildad is divided into three parts:

Part One: Job starts by responding to the proof Bildad had presented at the beginning of his speech, that which had purported to demonstrate God's Providence from considerations of universal law. Bildad had argued that it would be an injustice or a deficiency in the makeup of He who is Omnipotent and Righteous were He to delegate government to evil stewards. However, no injustice may be present in God and, likewise, He must possess absolute capability. And so Bildad had asked, Would God pervert judgment?¹Both Job and Bildad agree that God must be perfect. However, each draws different conclusions from this. Basing himself on ethical judgments, Job argues that to attribute the observed disorder in the governance of individuals to God is to imply that He is imperfect; this cannot be and so He must have been delegated this governance to another. On the other hand, basing himself on constitutional considerations, Bildad argues that for God to have delegated this governance to another is tantamount to denying His Perfection and Omnipotence. Job now sets out to show that delegating Providence to the Cosmos—Nature—does not involve any breach of the Divine Constitution.

Job's rebuttal is philosophical and is similar to that posited by Maimonides in a related matter, namely, when he argued against those who claim that there is more bad than good in the world. As he wrote:
The origin of the error is to be found in the circumstance that this ignorant man, and his party among the common people, judge the whole universe by examining one single person. For an ignorant man believes that the whole universe only exists for him; as if nothing else required any consideration. If, therefore, anything happens to him contrary to his expectation, he at once concludes that the whole universe is evil. If, however, he would take into consideration the whole universe, form an idea of it, and comprehend what a small portion he is of the Universe, he will find the truth. For it is clear that persons who have fallen into this widespread error as regards the multitude of evils in the world, do not find the evils among the angels, the spheres and stars, the elements, and that which is formed of them, viz., minerals and plants, or in the various species of living beings, but only in some individual instances of mankind... It is of great advantage that man should know his station, and not erroneously imagine that the whole universe exists only for him. We hold that the universe exists because the Creator wills it so; that mankind is low in rank as compared with the uppermost portion of the universe...

Now let us see how Job employed this same postulate in a wider context, in an examination of the whole of existence, as follows: It has become apparent to modern scientists,³Written in or about 1865. that the stars fall under the category of 'becoming and demising';⁴The category that accounts for the transient quality of the terrestrial (sublunar) world. that they are not made of a quintessence as had been the opinion of the ancients, but of ordinary matter like that of the Earth's; and that they too will ultimately decay. This is clear from the words of the prophets too:⁵This is an example of Malbim's thesis that the Tnach had nothing to fear from the new, for it had anticipated the new For the heavens will vanish like smoke, and the earth age like a garment (Isaiah 51:6).
It has also been shown that the sun, queen of the heavens, (Jeremiah 7:18) together with the multitude of stars in orbit around it, is as nothing and as naught (Isaiah 41:12) compared to the many thousands and tens of thousands of suns that are scattered throughout immeasurable space and which we see as just small specks twinkling in the Milky Way. They are worlds without number, which are also complex structures and are also destined for decay and demise.⁶In his commentary on Proverbs 3:19, Malbim writes: When He created the world ex nihilo, the Maker had in mind a number of possibilities about the different ways in which the world might be formed and, in His immaculate wisdom, He chose to form it in this way.

So we can say that even were the sun, the moon and all the multitude of stars to become extinct at some future time, together with all their inhabitants, this would be neither an injustice nor an act of absolute evil on the part of the Creator of the whole of existence. For since, in His wisdom, He chose to create a 'becoming and demising' universe that encompasses a multitude of worlds, beyond number, compared with which the solar system is no more than a drop in a bucket, (Isaiah 40:15) then were the sun and the stars to become extinct, it would be just an inevitable consequence of their overall 'becoming and demising' nature; a consequence of the general property of the stuff of the physical world, of which the astral world is a part. There would be nothing wrong in this in terms of overall existence, relative to which the sun is of no more consequence than is a single individual within the whole of mankind. And if it was only one particular planet, for instance, planet Earth, that was annihilated and not a large component of existence, such as the whole of the solar system, there would certainly be nothing wrong with this in terms of overall existence, compared to which the Earth is no more than a drop in the sea. And how much more, if the desolation was to affect only a part of planet Earth, such as might happen if a large mountain subsided as a result of an earthquake and many tens of thousands of people were to die. Once again, there would be nothing wrong with this in terms of overall existence, for it is an inevitability of the 'becoming and demising' property. Moreover, the Earth could not have been made as it is, from the four elements, without landslides and earthquakes sometimes occurring as a result of the fiery vapors, the watery particles or the winds which are enclosed within it and which are essential for its existence and continuance. The bad that sometimes results from this is insignificant compared to the overall good; for the very existence of the Earth would be impossible without this property (for otherwise the Earth could only be either a spirit or made of quintessence).

And finally, the misfortunes that befall a single person – one of the units of mankind – such as the disasters that had befallen Job by reason of the nature of overall 'demising', should certainly not be considered an evil at all. Accordingly, the philosopher [Aristotle] would say that Bildad has no basis for his complaint against primary law. For in his opinion, there is no inherent injustice in primary law that can be attributed to He who invented universal existence, since existence is good overall and He has graced it with His wisdom and bounty (1Kings 10:7 ). So we cannot consider Him unjust if, of necessity, harm and decay befall a single individual of a species or even if they befall a whole species that is no more than a single unit relative to the genus, and a fortiori relative to overall existence. For this 'evil' is necessary in terms of the order of general existence, which could not otherwise have come into being.

Thus, his Job's reply to the argument implied by Bildad's rhetorical question 'Would God pervert justice?' is that primary universal law is entirely good and gracious; there being no injustice in it (Deuteronomy 32:4 ). But if we hold that personal law emanates from Providence, we have no way of rationalizing this position. For if that is the case, the question remains of why does God not providentially prevent bad from befalling the innocent. From which it follows that He must have delegated individual providence to universal Nature, and that, notwithstanding, no injustice can be attributed to God by reason of the unwarranted evil that befalls a single man. For He deals only with overall existence, ensuring that it is as good as possible, and the bad that does befall individuals is insignificant compared to the overall good preserved in the whole of existence (Ch.9:2-l3).

Part Two: In the second part of his speech, Job disputes the new proposition that Bildad had introduced, namely, that afflictions befall the righteous by way of a quid pro quo: that on account of the bad a person presently endures he will receive good in the future. Since, in his presentation, Bildad did not go into the details of how this reciprocity works, Job now formally examines all the possible ways by which this could take place.
He posits that the exchange process can be visualized as occurring in one of five different ways, as follows: If an individual is to receive future good in exchange for present bad, then one of two conditions must apply:

1. That the relationship between the future good and the present bad is inherent;

2. That their relationship to one another is only incidental.

Each of these alternatives can in turn be further qualified in two ways:

• That the inherent relationship can be thought of as being natural: that just as all animals and other natural entities can only achieve their perfection through effort, work and anguish, so a perfect person can only acquire good through suffering.

• That the inherent relationship is metered and only takes place through God's will: that the person's anguish is weighed in His just balance (Job 31:6), bounty and delight being his recompense.

The incidental relationship can also be qualified in two ways:

That the good befalls him on account of the bad by virtue of prayer and mercy, for by reason of the suffering, the person prays to God and He finds favor in him, and He returns this man's virtue (Job 33:26).

Fourthly, it may be by way of a trial: that if the person withstands the trial and does not complain about the suffering, He will reward him with good and with grace.

A fifth possibility:

— is that the exchange mechanism is just a prophylactic; that when God foresees that a righteous person is by his nature likely to sin at some time in the future, He makes him suffer in advance, thereby bending his will (Leviticus 26:41) and preventing him from slipping; (Psalms 37:31) and then the Lord will again rejoice over him for good (Deuteronomy 30:9).

And so, this sophist [Job] sets out to refute all the ways by which this exchange can be thought to occur:

• He refutes the first possibility, namely, that the interrelationship is a natural one, by arguing that there is no natural link between the suffering and the good it is supposed to effect. When an animal strives to catch its prey, it gets its quarry or its gratification in exchange for the effort it put in by way of cause and effect; for it is by its effort that it gets its food. But how can future good be achieved through present suffering, there being no natural link between them? (Ch.9:25-26)

• As regards the second possibility, namely, that the interrelationship is metered and God will grant the person an amount of good that exactly balances the strife he has endured, he finds a contradiction in what he Bildad had said. For in this case, how could he Bildad have urged him to strengthen his resolve and accept the afflictions with joy? For this contradicts his assertion that the anguish is equated with the subsequent delight, justly balanced against it (Job 6:2). For if he braces himself and puts his agony and pain out of mind, his period of misery will just lengthen until he has suffered the measure of torment and anguish apportioned to him. It would be better for him were his torment to be intensified right now, for thereby the duration of his affliction would be shortened. (Ch.9:27-28)

• Regarding the third possibility, namely, that good comes in exchange for bad through the medium of prayer and mercy, he argues at length that the notion that a person who has been unlawfully hurt and who can exonerate himself before his oppressor both in justice and in law, should pray and plead for mercy instead of demanding justice, is unconscionable. He has committed no crime and should base his appeal on the integrity of his deeds and not plead and beg for forgiveness as though he was guilty. Furthermore, if the Judge is unwilling to acknowledge his righteousness why should He accept his prayers and supplications? Besides, a rationalist would refuse to believe (Leviticus 26:21) that God could ever accept his prayers, for it would mean that His statute is inconsistent, vacillating between favor and disfavor; and He is not like a man, to change His mind (1Samuel 15:29). And so he says: Even were I to call, and He did answer, I don't believe He would listen to my voice (Job 9:16). (Ch.9:13-22)

Arguing against the fourth possibility, i.e., that this exchange is accomplished through a trial, Job points out that quite often the person being tested may die as a result of the affliction. So where is the redemption, reward and compensation that he is supposed to receive for his suffering and for passing the test? (Ch.9:23)

Finally, he dismisses the fifth possibility, namely, that the suffering is a prophylactic designed to prevent him sinning in the future. He asks how it can be right for God to afflict a person before he has sinned at all, just in case he might sin in the future? But he has not yet sinned. Why should he be smitten before he has sinned? If and when he sins, let him then be punished, but not before. (Ch.9:29-32)

Part Three: Job now opens a new campaign against the philosophical thesis so firmly held (Daniel 11:1) by his two companions, that though God knows all detailed matters including those over which an individual has discretion, this pre-knowledge does not prescribe the person's actions and he is still free to act as he chooses. In questioning this, he cites the paradox of the contradiction between foreknowledge and free-will, namely, that since benightedness cannot be attributed to the Lord, may He be Blessed, and He must perforce know all that is going to happen in the future, man is not at liberty with regard to his actions. For his deeds are circumscribed by reason of the Cosmos, whether for good or for bad, and God knows with prior knowledge everything he is destined to do. This being so, Job returns and gives vent to his complain, asking why God makes him suffer for his deeds, seeing that he is compelled to act as he does and can do no good or evil other than that delineated by His actions and designs, from the very beginning of time.

He goes on to ask the questions posed by the philosophers who challenged the opinion of those who say that God knows all mutable matters down to the last detail:

• But such unfolding details can only be ascertained through the workings of a 'hylic force', such as the senses and imagination, and God has no 'hylic force' and so can have no knowledge of these circumstantial trivia.⁷A hylic force is one that is manifested through something else; until then its existence is only a potential. Mediaeval philosophers divided 'being' into that which exists in itself and that which exists in something else. The latter is designated 'accident'. Accident is then further subdivided into that which exists through the other thing and that which is the cause of the existence of the other thing. The former is again designated 'accident'; the latter is called 'form'.
Probably to avoid confusion, Maimonides introduced the term 'force' in place of 'accident' in its general sense, i.e. a 'being' that exists in something else. Hence, 'force' as used by Maimonides designates accidents, forms, the lower faculties of the rational soul, the internal principle of motion and the universals, all of which require something else in which to exist. (Wolfson p.99)

• And secondly, that these details are transient, i.e., their existence is in time, but God cannot discern temporal things since He cannot be described either as moving or as being at rest.⁸According to Aristotle, time is an accident that exists in motion, for we have no perception of time unless we have a perception of motion. According to this definition, time is inconceivable without motion and always implies the existence of a movable corporeal object. Thus, incorporeal eternal beings like God cannot have the attribute of time inasmuch as the attribution of time would imply corporeality (Wolfson p.95). As Job says: Do You have eyes of flesh, and see as men do? Are Your days as the days of a mortal, and Your years as those of a man? (Job 10:4-5) Implicit in this passage are all the other objections raised by the philosopher,⁹The philosopher disputant answered by Maimonides in Part III Sections 16–21 of The Guide for the Perplexed. namely:
• That were this so,¹⁰i.e., that God knows all mutable particulars. the Honorable One would be less than perfect, for its knowledge is the perfection of a 'knowing-being'.¹¹Mutable particulars are by definition imperfect and so knowledge of them would impair God's Perfection.
• That God could not be Immutable Unity, since a 'knowing-being' is augmented by the knowledge it acquires and how can Immutable Unity be augmented by various different notions?

• That details are without purpose but knowledge is a comprehensive and universal matter. And all of these points are implicit in the first two original questions.That since God has no hylic force (no sense perception) how can He ascertain mutable particulars and since the particulars are time-dependent how can He, who is above time, discern them?

On the basis of all of this, Job concludes that man is compelled to act as he does, in which case all these objections fall away:

• For God, may He be Blessed, knows all these minutiae by virtue of their commonality. He has known since the beginning of time that all these acts and other particulars were ordained and necessitated by universal governance.

• He does not have to ascertain these things through a 'hylic force', for He knows the logical order these things have by virtue of being formulated and circumscribed from the very beginning of time. Accordingly, He does not learn of them from their emergence in time, for by reason of being ordered they were so foreordained from the very beginning of time.

• Accordingly, He does not learn of them from their emergence in time, for by reason of being ordered they were so foreordained from the very beginning of time.

• Consequently, it cannot be argued that He is augmented by the knowledge of these things. Just the opposite; it is His Knowledge of them that necessitates their existence.

• Nor does any problem arise from the fact that these bits of information increase in number and have no purpose. For it is by virtue of the rational order that foreordains them that they assume significance and form a coherent whole.

All of this requires that there be nothing in existence that depends on man's choice. For if there were, all the above queries would return home (1 Samuel 25:26). A person's deeds are all simply determined and apportioned from the beginning of time, and God, may He be Blessed, knows everything in one eternal, universal, and immutable knowledge, which neither changes, nor increases, nor evolves; neither as a result of the increase in the number of things in existence nor by virtue of those events which depend, according to our imagination, on time or choice. For He knows everything through His perception of Himself, upon which the linking of all the causes and all their effects depends, through to the end of the series.¹²This mechanistic-deterministic view is resonant of Descartes' writings, though his solution to the problem of free-will and God's foreknowledge is quite different. Descartes held that 'freedom of the will is self-evident.' Doubt was the human faculty that proved this. On the other hand, he also asserted that 'we likewise know that everything is pre-ordained of God…His power is so immense that it would be a crime for us to think ourselves ever capable of ding anything which He had not already pre-ordained.' He reconciled these two apparently opposing statements as follows:
We will have no trouble at all if we recollect that our thought is finite, and that the omnipotence of God, whereby He has not only known from all eternity that which is or can be, but also willed and pre-ordained is, is infinite. In this way we may have intelligence enough to know that this power is in God, but not enough to know how He leaves the free action of man indeterminate; and, on the other hand, we are as conscious of the liberty which exists in us that there is nothing that we comprehend more clearly and perfectly. (Principles of Philosophy, 41) This is the thrust of Job's argument and reply in Chapter 10.

Accordingly, he finds a basis (Psalms 132:5) for his complaint that since neither choices nor free-will are in a person's hands – whether he is righteous or wicked has nothing to do with him, only with the higher eternal agents upon which his acts and deeds depend – how can He reprove and rebuke a man for the iniquity (Psalms 39:12), that he was fated to do?

And what if we say that the suffering befell him not as a punishment but as a purge, to remove evil from the world, just as poisonous snakes or scorpions (Deuteronomy 8:15) are killed or exterminated even though they do not harm by choice but by instinct. Well, he would then ask that since God already knew at the time he was born that this particular individual (Psalms 25:12 ) would sin and would in future be wicked, why did He create him and let him live? Why was He kind to him? (Job 10:12) Would it not have been preferable had he never been created?

And if, despite knowing that he would sin in the future, He granted him existence before he merited it and when he was still nothing, then a fortiori he deserved to be kept alive after coming into existence. For nothing new had now been added to him; nothing that would make him deserving of condemnation and about which God had not already known previously.

This is the gist of his contention. The answer to it will be found in Zophar's speech.

Replying to Bildad's retort 'Would God pervert judgment…' Job denies ever suggesting such a thing. On the contrary, his whole thesis had been based on the assumption of God's Perfection.
Malbim lists the following four ways by which one person can get the better of another:

1. by convincing him in an argument;

Job’s Reply
to contend with Him To debate with Him.

2. by being cleverer than him;

He is wise in heart to contend.

and mighty in strength to requite.

3. By overwhelming him with a greater force;

who hardened his heart and went away whole? Pharaoh hardened [his heart] and was destroyed, and so it is with all who hardened [their hearts].

4. By being the more stubborn. However, none of them would work against God.

He Who moved mountains He moved them away when He overturned Sodom.

Job rejects Bildad's contention that it would be a wrong on God's part to have handed individual providence over to the mandate of Nature. He argues that this places too much importance on the fate of just one individual and ignores the interests of the universe as a whole. No component of the universe is of any more consequence than any other; cataclysms are natural events. What we call natural disasters are not an expression of Divine wrath: they are not 'acts of God'. They are simply unavoidable random consequences of the nature of the physical world whose occurrence is vital for the regeneration and continued existence of the universe as a whole. ¹The interpretation Malbim puts on Job's words here is similar to that Maimonides gave to Aristotle's ideas (Guide III,17):
Aristotle sees no difference between the falling or a stone and the death of the good and noble people in the ship; nor does he distinguish between the destruction of a multitude of ants caused by an ox depositing on them his excrement and the death of worshippers killed by the fall of the house when its foundations give way…In short, the opinion of Aristotle is this: Everything is the result of management which is constant.

and they knew not until He turned them over.

He Who causes the earth to quake when He looks at it, and it trembles.

He Who spoke to the sun Heb. לחרס, to the sun, “Stand still.” and it kept the command of the King and did not shine.

Malbim notes: it is already known to the astronomers (by means of wonderful optical tools) that the sun and the many planets are just a drop in the bucket compared to the myriad of stars in the Milky Way which appears like shot ice around our heads. And who knows if the myriad of stars in the Milky Way are not as nothing compared to a multitude of Milky Ways apart from them. And so, were God to remove the motive force of the system around us, telling the sun to stand still and the earth and moon to disintegrate there would be nothing wrong in this in terms of universal existence; nor could we conclude that this happened because of annoyance or anger; just that it followed from the nature of the reality of the physical world.'

and He settled up the stars He closed off the stars with a partition and they did not shine.

He Who clone stretched out the heavens and the angels were created on the second day, lest you say that Michael stretched it out in the north and Gabriel in the south.

on the high places of the sea On the heights of the sea. This was stated regarding the Creation, that the lower waters raised themselves up on high, and He trod them.

Orion, and the Pleiades they are constellations.

and the chambers of the south into which to bring the tempest, as he states (below 37:9): “From the chamber shall come the tempest.”

Behold, He goes by me I know that all He wishes, He does.

He goes by me Before me, but I do not see Him.

Behold, He strikes suddenly Heb. יחתף, He strikes suddenly, like (Prov. 23:28), “She, too, will suddenly (כחתף) lurk,” an expression of suddenness.

will not hold back His wrath because of fear (other editions: righteousness) of a man.

Job now turns his attention to Bildad's theory that his punishment is part of a system of exchange. He rejects the suggestion that the way to change suffering into an entitlement to benefit is through prayer. He refuses to accept that though God ignores the justice of his case and the fact of his innocence, He will, nevertheless, accept his prayers or can be made to change His mind

[all the helpers of Rahab] stoop under Him The celestial host that came to aid the Egyptians. Egypt is called Rahab, as it is said (Isa. 30:7): “Therefore, I called this, ‘They are haughty (רהב) idlers,’” by dint of their haughtiness, for they said, “Who is the Lord? etc.” (Exod. 5:2).

Surely Heb. אַף.

I will not reply I will fear to raise my voice before Him.

my Judge Heb. למשפטי, like לשופטי.

I will not believe I will be unable to believe out of my fear for Him, for how do I not see Him?

He Who would crush me with a tempest My form was changed (other editions: my status) before Him.

would crush me Heb. ישופני, would crush me. “I crushed it and ground it” (Deut. 9:21) is translated into Aramaic as: ושפיתיתֵה.

my wounds Heb. פצעי, a wound that oozes blood and pus.

He Who would not let me He does not let me bring back my breath to myself.

If it is a trial of strength How can I contend with Him? If He comes with strength, behold He is mighty.

and if of judgment who will be able to summon me before Him and confirm my verdict? Is it not so that...

If I am innocent, my mouth will condemn me because my words will be silenced out of fear, and my mouth will make me crooked.

I am blameless I know of myself that I am blameless; nonetheless, I do not know my rest, how I will find rest.

It is all one in the world, concerning which I said that He destroys both the innocent and the wicked. Now, what is it?...

If the scourge of the Adversary’s tongue suddenly puts the righteous to death.

Perhaps the suffering is a test and the more stoically the victim stands up to it the greater will be his ultimate reward. But what if he dies before it's over?

at the calamity of the innocent that he put to death he will mock.

into the hands of a wicked one Referring to the Adversary.

he covers the faces of its judges from discerning and comprehending the truth of the matter.

If not, then If this [interpretation] is not the truth of the matter, who is it that destroys the innocent?

My days with the destruction of the other innocent people are swifter than a runner.

Is the link between present suffering and future benefit perhaps one of cause and effect? But how can the inactivity of the days wasted in suffering-enforced idleness be considered a cause, one that is comparable to the purposefulness of undertaking a course of action?

Ebeh The name of a rushing river.

swoops Heb. יטוש, flies.

my speech The words of my pain.

And if the suffering apportioned to the righteous person is subsequently to be made good by God, then the shorter and sharper it is the better. So why had Bildad told him to hold on patiently and uncomplainingly? To do so would only lengthen his sentence!

my anger Heb. פני, lit. my face.

and [I will] restrain myself Heb. ואבליגה, I will strengthen myself, like (Amos 5:9), “Who strengthens (המבליג) the robbed upon the strong.”

I will gather in all my sadness that it not let me cry out.

I know that You will not declare me innocent of my iniquity, so as not to requite me.

why should I toil in vain to come to judgment?

Finally, Job refutes the idea that the suffering is prophylactic, a sort of immunization against greater sin in the future.

with purity Heb. בבור, with cleanliness.

You will plunge me into the ditch to be sullied and contaminated; i.e., You will find great iniquity in me.

in debate Heb. במשפט, in words of debate. [The word] משפט is used in three expressions: 1) its beginning, viz. the clarification of the matters, 2) its middle, viz. the verdict, and 3) its end, viz. the meting out of the tortures and the collection of the debt. Sometimes Scripture writes it as referring to the beginning, sometimes to the middle, and sometimes to the end.

Job returns to his original subject, namely, the impossibility of obtaining a trial with God on equal terms.

arbiter discerner in Old French. He shows each one his guilt and his innocence.

who will place his hand The ruling of his fear and his power.

on both of us so that the stronger does not overpower the weaker.

He requests that his suffering cease so that he can address Him on more even terms and prove his innocence

for I am not so with myself Because I fear [God], I am certain with myself that I will not be found guilty in the trial.