Introduction
Moses Maimonides (Cir.
1135-1204 C.E.) affectionally referred to as the Rambam wrote a profound
philosophical work in approximately 1190 C.E. called The Guide of The
Perplexed. Within this book he provided a very enlightening exposition regarding
his view of the concept of divine providence. Recognizing the complexity of
this subject and seeing many philosophy and Bible students avoiding it one
comes to appreciate Maimonides and his efforts to tackle the concept of
providence. Because Maimonides wrote in medieval times he cannot be understood
using modern presuppositions.[1] In fact Colette Sirat’s excellent introductory
work on this subject in her own words affirms this. “This book was written…. In
an attempt to elucidate their (Middle Age philosophers) meaning and to situate
them in their historical context.” [2] Therefore
in order to begin to understand what he explained it is important to examine at
least the term providence.
Since terms have
meaning and we are reading an English version of The Guide of The Perplexed translated
in 1963 C.E., it is helpful to identify the words used designating providence. In
English the word is of late Middle English origin, which comes through Old
French from the Latin providential
meaning to attend to or to provide.[3] Of
course Maimonides may have been acquainted with Middle English, which is
recognized as beginning with the Norman invasion of 1066 C.E., but he wrote the
Guide in Arabic. Then in 1204 C.E. though a contemporary of his, Samuel ben
Judah ibn Tibbon, [4]
it was translated into Hebrew.
Ibn Tibbon coined
the Hebrew term hashgahah as a
translation of the Arabic word ana yah to
“provide.” Both of these words are language descriptors of providence. These
terms seem to be used most often in efforts to describe universal or even
individual measures of governance with which God carries out His controlling criterion
of the universe and particularly this earth and its inhabitants. In a sense then God plans, foresees, and governs
the universe as well as the world as an object of His care.
The subject of
providence carries with it several sub categories. Chief among these are
creation, origin of evil, and conservation or administration. While not the primary
object of this paper some consideration of Maimonides’ views on evil is helpful
to understand his exposition of providence.
Evil
Maimonides begins
his discussion answering the question, “Does God create evil?” He quotes the
Islamic school of Mutakallemim, who were adherents of Kalam; an Islamic
theological-philosophical school during the Middle Ages [5] by
saying their position was in error. Within their thoughts regarding evil they
said for example that physical maladies such as blindness and deafness were
positive properties actually created by God. They did not view these as
privations but creations. Through several examples Maimonides refutes the
Kalamist position. For example he says that evils are only evils in relation to
something else. His position is that they are not positive events. He says that
it is evil that a man is ill, poor or ignorant. In these instances, the evil is
where man has not achieved health, financial success, or he never became wise.
The evil in all these cases is the deprivation of some real, positive object.
Therefore, these evils were not created, because evils are not really in
existence. They are terms denoting the lack of real positive entities as
health, wealth, and wisdom. He states that God cannot be the creator of evil because
mankind’s own ignorance, which is a privation of knowledge, is the perpetrator.
So therefore he says that all evils or privations are based in our matter. That
is, the material component of our existence not the spiritual is the source of
wickedness, base desires, and fundamental ignorance. In doing so he provides
three separate but interlinked categories of evil all emanating from our
physical nature. First, evil can and will happen to us simply by being in the
world, which is composed of material substances and bound to the world’s
elements. So just being in the world we are subject to death, disease, and injuries.
Second, human beings cause evil through various actions to fall upon each
other. Some of these are rooted in envy, deceit and tyrannical domination.
Third, individuals bring evil upon themselves. Maimonides provides several
examples of this last segment. He uses intemperate eating, drinking and
excessive copulation as some overdone activities, which can lead to
self-induced evil. It is also a
principle of the Mosaic Law that God is not unjust in rendering evil to humans.
He uses this as a punishment for what they deserve just as He provides rewards
(pleasure) for those acts seeming to be in compliance with God’s Law. Further,
Maimonides makes it quite clear that mankind is ignorant of the various systems
God uses to accomplish His retributive justice for man’s acts. So in conclusion
Maimonides says quoting Isaiah 11:9, these calamities (evils) will be abolished
when men come to the knowledge of the true reality of the deity.[6] He
seems to be saying that the absence of God is the origin and perpetuation of
evil. Where God is (known and followed) evil will either disappear or at least diminish
for the person who embraces God and His ways.
Maimonides
Provides Options of Providence to Consider
Before Maimonides
begins to explain his belief in providence he begins by relating the opinions
of others, which he says, are ancient and heard at the time of the Hebrew
prophets. They are provided here.
1.
Pure chance, which is the Epicurean view.
This view says that there is no providence and that everything happens as
a result of the random variations or sorting of matter. This, for Maimonides
citing Aristotle, says is inadmissible. Those who espouse this position
including unbelieving Jews say that there is no one who orders, governs or is
concerned with anything. Maimonides counters this position by stating that
there is someone who orders and govern things.[7]
2.
Some chance, some providence. This is the
opinion of Aristotle. Aristotle’s view is that divine governance extends only
to the everlasting and immutable elements of nature. God provides the celestial spheres and their
contents, as well as the species of things, with what is necessary for their
preservation. Individual existents in this sublunar realm, however, are watched
over by providence only to the extent that they are provided with certain
essential attributes by the species to which they belong. So then a human being is endowed with reason
and a variety of instincts, all of which aid his/her preservation, by virtue of
his/her participation in the species “human being.” Everything else that happens to a human being that does not flow
from the species, however—everything, that is, that does not belong to a person
essentially and by virtue of being a human being—is due to chance. While Maimonides for the most part rejects
the Aristotelian view, he believes that there is indeed an element of truth to
it, one that he will use in his own account.
3.
All strict governance by God. This is the
Islamic position, which he also rejects. He says the Islamic sect of Ashariyya’s
theory of providence believes that nothing in the universe is due to
chance. Rather, everything is brought
about through the purposeful will of God.
Providence thus extends to every aspect of every event in nature, from
the punishment of a sinner to the falling of a leaf from a tree. Maimonides insists that this account is
unacceptable because it renders divine law useless as no human being has any
freedom to do or refrain from doing what the law commands or proscribes. It renders divine justice to be of no effect.
Since the Mosaic Law does not bind the Islamists one can form an understanding
of their position, because it would naturally not reflect the Torah’s teaching.
4.
Man has ability to act. The fourth
opinion also states that divine providence watches over all things, but adds
that human beings are free in their actions. The Mu’tazilites hold this
position. In this scheme of things God is responsible for distributing rewards
and punishments to all beings not by sheer acts of will (as the Ashariyya’s
view implies) but through wisdom and justice.
Maimonides objects to this view on the ground that it is inappropriate
to extend divine justice beyond the sphere of human agency. Just as the purveyors of this view say that
when a blameless person suffers, divine justice will provide him/her with a
greater reward in the world-to-come, so they must say that when a particular
animal is killed it was better for it to be so and it will receive a recompense
in the hereafter. They say in the same way that if another animal devours any
particular animal, which has not sinned it, too, will receive restitution in
the hereafter. Maimonides calls this a disgraceful viewpoint by citing their position,
which is; “it is better for the animal because it will receive compensation in
the other world for what has happened to
it.”[8]
5.
Divine providence coexists with man’s ability
to act. This fifth view is the one that Maimonides holds. He says that man
has an absolute ability to act because he has choice due to his nature and will.
He may do everything within his divinely ordained capacity to act. He seems to
say that man’s capacity to act has always been the same. Divine providence has
various characteristics seen as God controls His universe. It is to this fifth
view, that of Maimonides, the remainder of this paper will be focused.
Summary
of Maimonides on Providence
Maimonides begins
his explanation relating what the Mosaic Law says on this subject, within which
is also his position.[9] He does not have a view, which is contrary to
the Law but nestled within it. The only difference between the two as explained
by Strauss is: the outward teaching of the Law says moral virtue and external
happiness are coordinated to one another. The internal teaching, Maimonides
position, finds true happiness associated with the knowledge of God. Which as
Strauss says the esoteric doctrine of providence coincides with the
understanding of the essence of happiness as well as with the fundamental and
logically consistent distinction between true and merely supposed happiness.[10] The
initial theorem Maimonides presents is man has an absolute ability to act. God
has willed this in eternity past (parte ante) before the creation. The human
being is able to choose, exercise his will, and make intelligent decisions
based upon the limits or capacity the Creator has provided to man. By capacity
Maimonides means the limits the Creator has placed on His creatures. For
example man may will to defy gravity by leaping off of a building expecting
that he will not suffer a painful landing. However, since God has not given him
the capacity to exercise that desire a painful landing is inevitable.
The animals and
plant life also have a plan that has been preordained within the capacity that
they have been given. With plants it is only clear that they experience God’s
providence in reproduction and growth. The animals somewhat similarly endowed
are different than men because they are endowed with a capacity that seems to
limit their decisions to act only for various aspects of preservation. Whereas
mankind is able to exercise intellectual decisions, plant and animal life’s
decisions are limited to God’s preordained, preplanned margins of their capacity.
Divine providence
is connected to intellectual reasoning. Intellect and its perfection are
achieved through ethics. One can accept the linkage from the Creator who must
possess supreme intelligence, to the human through our intellect. At the same
time it is also possible to see Maimonides as something of an elitist. He seems
to say that those who are closest to God are the most learned of a society. Consider
what he states as fact. “Man and society cannot be perfected except through the
intellectual beliefs in God.” He goes on to say that this cannot come about
without studying first natural science and then divine science.[11]
So being close to God is measured by how much knowledge one acquires. It
follows then that anyone who does not have the advantage of being blessed with
the means to receive advanced natural scientific knowledge cannot know God or
even love God. This being Maimonides’ view is exclusionary to only the few with
superior intellect and education. Kreisel observed that Maimonides treats ethics
as a necessary means through which the ultimate end of intellectual perfection
is achieved. Kreisel also saw a contradiction in the “Guide” wherein Maimonides
seemed to also say the ultimate end is the practice of justice, righteousness
and living-kindness. [12] Divine Providence watches over people
belonging to the human species and based upon their circumstances and behavior,
which can be either good, or evil, they will receive what they have been
ordained to receive. This Maimonides
calls this their deserts.
Providential care
of God is exercised over things both animate and inanimate but intellectually
connected to humans who are yielded to His will. God has put into place a
system for individual human beings to take advantage of or not, as they choose. It appears that He does not compel the
human’s will. And it is the virtuous who pursue intellectual virtue, and not
merely the morally virtuous, who God prospers, while all others are left
without God’s focused providential protection. Therefore divine providence is
differentiated from mere preservation.
In terms of
animals and plants Maimonides’ view is like Aristotle’s in that he believes
that God does not exert His divine decrees upon the minutest action of the
world such as a falling leaf. He calls this pure chance, as does Aristotle.
This is ordained through the natural order, which God created. There are other
components of the natural order, to which providence applies and generally
exerted upon all beings within the creation. Those, which are necessary to
sustain life, belong to this category. The earth’s position relative to its
sun, the composition of the gaseous layer surrounding the earth, and its
ambient pressure for example, all belong to the natural order.
Divine Providence
is consequent of divine overflow (emanation) poured out upon the species, which
are united with the overflow, which is then poured out to the human intellect.
From this comes the fruit or out flow so that the providential endowment is
intellect. This again is a conduit through which God discloses His will. Interestingly
Kreisel affirms this connection calling it “practical intellect.” He says that
it is the faculty most directly responsible for translating metaphysical
knowledge into a system of perfect governance. [13]As
long as one is actively enjoying the intellectual connection to the divine
emanation, one is in fact protected. That is, providence is watching over, or,
better, engaged in such a person so that he is guarded from the vagaries of
chance. On the other hand, when one is
not attending to God (either because one has never made the effort or because,
having achieved the connection, one has temporarily become distracted to the
point of disassociation, perhaps by the pleasures of the senses), one is
abandoned to chance and left to one’s own devices in the face of the vagaries
of happenstance. This would also seem to be the lot of the person of low
intellect and learning in Maimonides teaching. The person who is not
experiencing the overflow is not enjoying its benefits. He is at the mercy of
nature’s elements and his well-being is subject to whatever may or may not come
his way. Providence is no longer
watching over him, not because God is actively punishing him, but because
through his own actions he has taken himself outside of the care that
providence (the overflow) offers and is now exposed to what chance brings. From
these circumstances we are compelled to praise God when He actively rewards and
believe that He is not responsible when evil is manifested toward those whom he
seems to be actively punishing. Maimonides states:
“With
regard to providence watching over excellent men and neglecting the ignorant,
it is said: He will keep the feet of his holy ones, but the wicked shall be put
to silence in darkness; for not by strength shall man prevail. It
says thereby that the fact that some individuals are preserved from calamities,
whereas those befall others, is due not to their bodily forces and their
natural dispositions … but to their perfection and deficiency, I mean their
nearness to or remoteness from God. For
this reason, those who are near to Him are exceedingly well protected… whereas
those who are far from Him are given over to whatever may happen to befall
them. For there is nothing to protect
them against whatever may occur; for they are
like one walking in darkness, whose
destruction is assured…For this
reason, those who are near to Him are exceedingly well protected … whereas
those who are far from Him are given over to whatever may happen to befall
them. For there is nothing to protect
them against whatever may occur; for they are
like one walking in darkness, whose
destruction is assured.” [14]
Those who do not strive for intellectual perfection have no more
providential protection than non-human animals.
They enjoy only general providence and whatever tools for survival the
species confers upon them (as well as everyone else). For such people, there is a great deal of
moral luck, in so far as their happiness and well-being, is subject to chance, and
therefore given over to circumstances beyond their control. As an affirmation
of God’s providence and the repudiation of chance Twersky referencing
Maimonides says, “Crying out in prayer and sounding an alarm in a time of
crisis and emergency - may it be famine, pestilence, war, or sickness - has a
philosophical doctrinal rationale: it underscores the providential design in
the world and uncompromisingly repudiates any theory of chance (Epicureanism).”[15]
Twersky again quoting Maimonides follows by adding, “Fasting and praying in
time of crisis and adversity is a means of impressing upon the individual and
the providential design in all events and reminding him of his absolute
dependence on God.”[16]
Now we come to the
final question regarding the issue of the reconciliation of divine providence
with the human’s independent will. Some refer to this as a tension. [17] Because
this issue is directly associated with the nature of God, one might consider
this issue as being dominated by one side or the other. So for example some
might simply say God is in total complete control of all events on the earth, as
the Islamic position (number 3) holds. Or some might simply take the reverse
which is mankind has independent control (The Mu’tazilites position number 4)
of his fate. Maimonides does say that we will never fully understand God’s ways
but he nevertheless attempts a reconciliation of the “tension” of a seemingly
unsolvable antinomy. I say antimony because the providence of God and the free
will of mankind seem to be both true but irreconcilable even incongruous with
our logic and reason in time and space. Metaphysically it certainly does have
reconciliation. However for now in the physical we must accept both as true. How
does Maimonides reconcile God’s providence and control with the will he has
given to mankind?
Maimonides takes
it for granted that God plays a direct and active role in the affairs of intelligent,
learned, ethical, human beings. He also presupposes that men have a will to
make choices regarding their intended actions. Men have limits, which restrain
some behaviors, which might be conceived. God on the other hand has no limits. Quoting
Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah, Rabbi, Marc Angel says:
“Free will is
bestowed on every human being. If a person desires to turn toward the good way
and be righteous, he has the power to do so. If a person wishes to turn toward
the evil way and be wicked, he is a liberty to do so… Man, of himself and by
the exercise of his own intelligence and reason, knows what is good and what is
evil…”[18]
Maimonides
responds to the doctrine of predestination, which presupposes that man’s
choices are already determined so that he really does not have any valid
choices. He calls the people of the world who hold this position fools because
we do have choices to make. We can be as wicked or as righteous as we want. Maimonides
does not give us any proof of this except to say that God’s wisdom is vastly
superior to ours so that it is beyond our comprehension. The Godly inspired Scripture
inform us of our will to make choices. Therefore we have independent choice.
Our inability to understand this tension is because we can’t understand God’s
knowledge and His ways.[19] The
intellect of a person seeking God will be guided out of harms way in most
instances. He will also accept those harms/evils that he does encounter as
God’s will even though God’s providential protection has been watching over
him. The person who is in God’s will by coupling himself to the “overflow”
through the intellect will experience advantages throughout his time in this
world.[20]
Maimonides near
the end of the Guide provides a simile of a king in his palace and his subjects
who are at different distances relative to him. Some of his subjects turn their
backs to the king. Others have a strong
desire to go to the palace. Several of those actually get to the palace, but
only a few get in the same room with the king. There is another final effort
required before they can actually stand before the king near or far, hear him,
or speak to him.
He is of course
referring to God as the king and the subjects are people who exert different
levels of drawing near to Him. He gives a superb conclusion to this simile and
his concept of the workings of providence in the human as being continually as
near to God as possible throughout ones life. “The true worship of God is only possible when
correct notions of Him have previously been conceived. When you have arrived by
way of intellectual research at a knowledge of God and His works, then commence
to devote yourselves to Him, try to approach Him and strengthen the intellect,
which is the link that joins you to Him. Thus Scripture says, “Unto thee it was
showed, that thou mightiest know that the Lord He is God” (Deuteronomy 4:35);
“Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord He is
God” (Deuteronomy 4: 36); “Know ye that the Lord is God” (Psalm 100:3). Thus
the Law distinctly states that the highest kind of worship to which we refer in
this chapter, is only possible after the acquisition of the knowledge of God.
For it is said, “To love the Lord your God, and to serve Him with all your heart
and with all your soul” (Deuteronomy 11:13), and, as we have shown several
times, man’s love of God is identical with His knowledge of Him. The Divine
service enjoined in these words must, accordingly, be preceded by the love of
God.”[21]
In closing it is
apparent that Maimonides sees the intellect, emanating from God as the link
joining us to Him. God is providential and strongly connected to us when we
exercise our power to strengthen the bond. We must seek the love of God and He
will be with us, guiding us providentially until we are brought over to
eternity. Therefore our free will is directly tied to God’s moral system and
the strength of our desire to be near to Him, the king in His palace provides
the strongest connection through which to receive His providential emanation. When
the human will is tightly connected to God in obedience then our will is in
harmony with His providential care and the antimony is absent. The two
seemingly incongruous wills are in synchronization.
Referenced Works
Angel, Rabbi Marc D. Maimonides, Spinoza and Us Toward and
Intellectually Vibrant Judaism. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing,
2009.
Carson, D.A. Divine
Sovereignty & Human Responsibility, Biblical Perspectives in Tension. Eugene,
OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002.
Kreisel, Howard. Maimonides
Political Thought, Studies in Ethics, Law, and the Human Ideal. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press, 1999.
Maimonides, Moses. Shlomo Pines translator, Guide of the Perplexed. Chicago, IL: The
University Chicago Press, 1963.
Sirat, Colette, A
History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages. Cambridge England: Cambridge
University Press, 1985.
Strauss, Leo, Hart Green, Kenneth, Ed. Maimonides The Complete Writings. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press, 2013.
Strauss, Leo. Persecution
and The Art of Writing. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press, 1988. (Originally published in 1952 by The
Free Press.)
Twersky, Isadore. Maimonides
Reader, edited with Introduction and Notes. Springfield, NY: Behrman House Inc. Publishers, 1972.
Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah). New Haven
CT: Yale Judaica Series, Yale University Press, 1980.
[1]
Strauss, Leo, Persecution and The Art of Writing,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL 1988 Originally published in 1952 by
The Free Press pg38
[2]
Sirat, Colette, A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages, Cambridge
University Press, The Pitt Building Trumpington Street, Cambridge England, 1985
pg. ix
[3]
Merriam-Webster
Dictionary on line, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/providence, accessed on May 19, 2014
[4] The Jewish virtual library on line, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0016_0_16141.html, accessed on May 19, 2014
[5]Sirat, Colette, A
History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University
Press, The Pitt Building Trumpington Street, Cambridge England, 1985, pg. 15.
[10] Strauss, Leo, Hart Green, Kenneth, Ed. Maimonides The Complete Writings,
University of Chicago Press, 2013 pf. 321-322
[11]
Maimonides, Moses, Shlomo Pines translator, The Guide of the Perplexed, The
University Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois Vol I 1963 pgs. 8-9
[12]
Kreisel, Howard, Maimonides Political Thought, Studies in Ethics, Law, and the Human
Ideal, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY 1999 pg.160
[14]
Ibid pgs. 475-6
[15] Twersky, Isadore, Introduction
to the Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah), Yale Judaica Series, Yale
University Press, New Haven CT., 1980 pg. 303
[17] Carson, D.A. Divine
Sovereignty & Human Responsibility, biblical perspectives in tension,
Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W, 8th Ave, Suite 3 Eugene, Oregon
97401 2002, pg.201
[18]
Maimonides Mishneh
Torah, Hilkhot Teshuvah 5:1. From, Angel, Marc D., Maimonides, Spinoza and Us, Toward and Intellectually Vibrant Judaism,
Jewish Lights publishing, Woodstock, VT. Pgs. 58-59.
[20] Maimonides, Moses, Shlomo Pines translator, Guide of the Perplexed, The University
Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois Volume II 1963 pg. 475
