These two chapters form a commentary on the Book of Job, described by Maimonides as a ‘strange and wonderful’ (الغريبه العجيبه) story which he beleives to be fictional. Maimonides is compelled to put pen to paper because the story of Job represents a common source of perplexity to all thinkers, i.e. the phenomenon that “a simple and perfect person, who is upright in his actions, and very anxious to abstain from sin, is afflicted by successive misfortunes”. In answer to these ‘perplexities’, the Book of Job “includes profound ideas and great mysteries, removes great doubts, and reveals the most important truths”. Friedlander’s translation appears to be somewhat slopppy here, for the Arabic corrsponding to the last two phrases in this quote is “و تبينت به مشكلات العظيمة، و اتضحت منه حقائق لا غاية بعدها”.

According to Maimonides, the Book of Job illustrates a (possible) hierarchy of human suffering: 1) destruction of property; 2) loss of children; 3) bodily pain, in order of the likelihood that people can bear each kind of suffering.

Some of us deny God, and believe that there is no rule in the Universe, even if only their property is lost. Others retain their faith in the existence of justice and order, even when suffering from loss of property, whereas loss of children is too much affliction for them. Others remain firm in their faith, even with the loss of their children; but there is no one who can patiently bear the pain that reaches his own person: he then murmurs and complains of injustice either in his heart or with his tongue.

Some of Maimonides’ observations:

  • “Job, as well as his friends, were of opinion that God Himself was the direct agent of what happened, and that the adversary [i.e., Satan] was not the intermediate cause”
  • Even though Job is shown to be a good person, he is not described in the story as a wise person; had he been wise, “he would not have any doubt about the cause of his suffering.”
  • Satan does not have power over the soul of man, whatever other powers he may have.
  • He agrees with a certain quotation from the Talmud: “ ‘The adversary (satan), evil inclination (yeẓer ha-ra’) [translated, ostensibly by Hussein Attai, as ya’mal al-suu’ يعمل السوء], and the angel of death, are one and the same being.’ … It has thus been shown to you that one and the same thing is designated by these three different terms, and that actions ascribed to these three are in reality the actions of one and the same agent”
  • There is an ‘evil inclination’ and an inclination toward good in all of us; “the evil inclination we receive at our birth: for “at the door sin croucheth” Gen. 4:7, as is distinctly said in the Law, “And the imagination of the heart of man is evil from his youth” ibid. 8:21. The good inclination, however, comes when the mind is developed.”

There are some general opinions or principles held to be true by Job as well as his friends, e.g., the idea that when a wicked person is in prosperity, one expects an impending change, and similarly, when a good person suffers, one expects to see the situation change, presumably according to the justice of God. Essentially, Job’s friends are convinced that “those who act well receive reward, and those who act wickedly are punished. When a wicked and rebellious person is seen in prosperity, it may be assumed for certain that a change will take place; he will die, or troubles will afflict him and his house. When we find a worshipper of God in misfortune, we may be certain that God will heal the stroke of his wound.” It is not at all clear whether Maimonides himself believes this statement. Nevertheless, Maimonides recognizes that the underlying question is an important one, i.e., why do bad things happen to good people?

One possible response to seeing bad things happen to good people, says Maimonides, is Job’s (let us say naive, but entirely reasonable) poetic exclamation in Job IX 22-24, XXI 23-26 and others that good and evil seem to be equal before God, that affliction comes to both, that God does not care either way and has abandoned his creation. Maimonides tells us that the Sages of the Talmud have condemned Job for his blasphemous statements. However, he then proceeds to tell us that Job holds the above views at first:

It is the opinion which suggests itself as plausible at first thought, especially in the minds of those who meet with mishaps, well knowing that they have not merited them through sins. This is admitted by all, and therefore this opinion was assigned to Job. But he is represented to hold this view only so long as he was without wisdom, and knew God only by tradition, in the same manner as religious people generally know Him. As soon as he had acquired a true knowledge of God, he confessed that there is undoubtedly true felicity in the knowledge of God; it is attained by all who acquire that knowledge, and no earthly trouble can disturb it. So long as Job’s knowledge of God was based on tradition and communication, and not on research, he believed that such imaginary good as is possessed in health, riches, and children, was the utmost that men can attain: this was the reason why he was in perplexity, and why he uttered the above-mentioned opinions, and this is also the meaning of his words: “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent because of dust and ashes” XLII 5, 6; that is to say he abhorred all that he had desired before, and that he was sorry that he had been in dust and ashes; comp. “and he sat down among the ashes” II 8. On account of this last utterance, which implies true perception, it is said afterwards in reference to him, “for you have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.”

What are some of the other opinions described in the Book of Job?

Eliphaz believes that whatever afflictions Job is enduring must be punishment for some shortcoming; that if Job seems at first glance to be basically good, he need not be good to the extent that God expects him to be good. Maimonides says that “Eliphaz never abandoned his belief that the fate of man is the result of justice, that we do not know all our shortcomings for which we are punished, nor the way how we incur the punishment through them”.

Bildad likewise “defends in this question the theory of reward and compensation”, but from a different angle: he consoles Job that God will compensate him for his misfortunes. “He therefore tells Job that if he is innocent and without sin, his terrible misfortunes will be the source of great reward, will be followed by the best compensation, and will prove a boon to him as the cause of great bliss in the future world … This opinion concerning, Providence is widespread, and we have already explained it.” For this ‘opinion’ Maimonides cites Job VIII 6-8.

Zofar takes a different approach, and does not use the ‘theory of reward and compensation’ at all. “Divine Will is the source of everything that happens: no further cause can be sought for His actions, and it cannot be asked why He has done this and why He has not done that. That which God does can therefore not be explained by the way of justice or the result of wisdom. His true Essence demands that He does what He wills; we are unable to fathom the depth of His wisdom, and it is the law and rule of this wisdom that whatever He does is done because it is His will and for no other cause”.

For Maimonides, each of these maps to a different, then current, theory, about Providence: “The view ascribed to Job is the theory of Aristotle. Eliphaz holds the opinion taught in Scripture, Bildad’s opinion is identical with that of the Mu’tazilah, whilst Zofar defends the theory of the Asha’riyah. These were the ancient views on Providence” — but then a new character comes along, Elihu, with a new theory; “for this reason he is placed above the others, and described as younger in years but greater in wisdom”.

Person Theory
Job (initially) Aristotle
Eliphaz Scripture
Bildad Mu’tazila
Zofar Ashariya
Elihu ?

But what is Elihu’s theory? It’s difficult to say, but evidently Maimonides seems to agree most with his theory, for after relaying a lengthy account of Elihu’s solution to the problem, he adds “If you pay to my words the attention which this treatise demands, and examine all that is said in the Book of Job, all will be clear to you, and you will find that I have grasped and taken hold of the whole subject; nothing has been left unnoticed”.

According to Maimonides, Elihu’s explanations are supposed to culminate in the knowledge that the way in which God ‘rules’ and ‘manages’ the world does not, at all, have the same meaning as when we ‘rule’ or ‘manage’ things as human beings.

The term ‘rule’ has not the same definition in both cases: it signifies two different notions, which have nothing in common but the name. In the same manner, as there is a difference between works of nature and productions of human handicraft, so there is a difference between God’s rule, providence, and intention in reference to all natural forces, and our rule, providence, and intention in reference to things which are the objects of our rule, providence, and intention. This lesson is the principal object of the whole Book of Job; it lays down this principle of faith, and recommends us to derive a proof from nature, that we should not fall into the error of imagining His knowledge to be similar to ours, or His intention, providence, and rule similar to ours. When we know this we shall find everything that may befall us easy to bear; mishap will create no doubts in our hearts concerning God, whether He knows our affairs or not, whether He provides for us or abandons us. On the contrary, our fate will increase our love of God.

Commentary

Maimonides’ confident assertion that the Book of Job is a fictionalized account is in spite of his acknowledgement that some ‘Sages’ (الحكماء) — perhaps some of the contributors to the Talmud, i.e., the ‘KHaZaL’? — have believed in the historical existence of Job.

I believe that in this chapter, it is worthwhile to carefully parse Maimonides’ own views from the text, because much of the text relates the opinions of the characters in the Book of Job, or the opinions of the Sages of the Talmud, etc.

At first glance, there seems to be some sophistry to this explanation. But I think what Maimonides is getting at here is that the world works in mysterious ways; the natural chains of causes that lead to things happening in the world are not so simple that we can understand them mechanistically the way we can understand things that we create and manage. When we ask ‘does God know that I am going through this?’, Maimonides thinks we are asking the wrong question, because God’s knowledge of our affairs is nothing like our knowledge. Similarly, when we ask whether God is providing for us or abandoning us, we are asking the wrong question because the way God works in the world is nothing like the way we do things.