Lecture 1 — The infinite grandeur of God

^11:1^ Then Sophar the Naamathite answered:

^11:2^ Should not he who talks a great deal be ready to listen? Or will a glib man be justified?

^11:3^ Should men keep silence for you alone? When you deride the rest, will no one answer you?

^11:4^ For you have said: My speech is pure, and I am clean in your sight.

^11:5^ Would that God had spoken with you and opened his lips to you,

^11:6^ to show you the secrets of his wisdom, that his law is versatile. Then you would understand that you are being punished much less that your evil merits.

^11:7^ Perhaps you understand the footprints of God, and you have discovered the truth even to the perfect Omnipotence of God.

^11:8^ He is higher than the heavens, and what can you do? He is deeper than hell, and from what do you know him?

^11:9^ He is larger than the earth in measure and wider than the sea!

^11:10^ If he wills to sweep them all away or draw them together into one thing, who can contradict him?

191. Then Sophar the Naamathite answered. In the speech above (Job 10:16), Job had remarked with wonder that he had been tormented by his friends, who rose against him like witnesses speaking for God. Sophar, who was touched by this argument, answers. So the text says, then Sophar the Naamathite answered: should not he who talks a great deal be ready to listen? He means, “You have spoken many things in a disordered way, and so it is not surprising that you are censured by your friends.” For if a man who speaks many things were not censured, it would follow that he would be held to be just simply from the fact that he talked a lot. So the text continues, or will a glib man be justified? that is, will he be considered just? Since Job could have said to him that he should have been spared because of his dignity, he excludes this objection, saying, should men keep silence for you alone, when you deride the rest? Will no one answer you? For he understood Job had mocked the others because he termed them witnesses for God (Job 10:17), and when he had said above, why do you slander true ideas? (Job 6:25). So he says it is not surprising if the others also speak against him. But perhaps Job could object that they have no reason to reproach him or his words. To reject this, he continues, for you have said: my speech is pure. He makes this interpretation according to what he had said already, you will find no evil on my tongue, nor will stupidity resound on my lips (Job 6:30); and I am clean in your sight. Job had not expressly said this, but Sophar wanted to take this interpretation from his words, to say that Job had argued that he was not punished for sin (Job 10:14). Also, from his statement, you know I have done nothing wicked (Job 10:17), or have I dissembled? I was silent, wasn’t I? (Job 3:26), he infers the same interpretation.

192. However, one should be careful to note that since sin is a turning aside from the law of God, one cannot know if something is a sin, or its magnitude, if one does not know the law of God, for one judges both the straight and crooked by reference to the straight line (De anima, i, 5). So since Job said he was free from sin, or he had not sinned as gravely as he was punished, Sophar understood that Job did not perfectly understand the law of God. Therefore he says, would that God had spoken with you and opened his lips to you! He seems to want to insult Job because he had asked, tell me why you judge me so (Job 10:3). God is said to speak to man simply when he inspires something about his wisdom in the heart of man, according to the Psalm, I will hear what my God has said to me (Ps 84:9). However, he opens his lips when he reveals something to men by means of his effects. For words are formed exteriorly with the lips and express the interior concepts of the heart.

193. Take note that we fall short in understanding divine things in two ways.

First, because as we cannot know the invisible things of God except through things which are created (Rom 1:20), and things which are created express the power of the creator very weakly, many things remain to be considered in the creator which are hidden from us. These are called the secrets of the wisdom of God. He speaks about these, saying, he might show you the secrets of his wisdom.

Second, because we are not even able to understand the order of creatures in itself completely in the manner in which it is governed by divine providence. For divine government is very different from human government. Among men, one is superior in ruling to the extent that his ordering only extends to more universal considerations, and he can leave the particular details of government to his subordinates. Thus, the law, under the direction of an exalted ruler, is universal and simple. But God is more superior in ruling, because his ordering power can extend even to the most insignificant details. So, the law of his rule is not only secret if we consider the high character of the ruler in exceeding completely any proportion to a creature, but also in the versatility with which he governs every single thing, even the most insignificant in the universe, according to a certain order. So he continues, his law is versatile.

194. One must certainly reflect on this, not only in natural things, in that they are subject to the rule of God, but also in human affairs. For human laws respect certain universal things which happen in the majority of cases, because those who frame them cannot consider every single particular. The manner in which universal human statutes should be applied to individual works is left to the prudence of the one performing the action. Therefore, man is capable of falling short of righteousness in many things which are not contrary to human positive law. But divine law extends to all particulars, and to the most insignificant things, because it is the wisdom of God. Thus, a man cannot be discordant with righteousness in something and not be contrary to the divine law. Since, then, man cannot attain the divine law itself, as though he examined things hidden in the wisdom of God, and consequently cannot understand its complexity, he sometimes does not think he is acting against the law of God, when in fact he is acting against it, or he may think he is committing a light fault, when in fact he is committing a serious fault. So he then says, then you would understand, namely, if the secrets of wisdom and the complex character of the law of God had been revealed to you, that you are being punished much less by him, in your suffering, than your evil merits, which you are either not aware of or think are small. In this he refutes what Job had said already, would that my sins for which I merit your anger were weighed in scales and the calamity which I suffer was weighed in a scale. The sands of the shore of the sea could not match them (Job 6:2).

195. Because he thought there was some hidden secret in God’s wisdom which had not been revealed to Job, he strengthens this opinion in what follows, trying to make it so sure that Job cannot deny it, saying, perhaps you understand the footprints of God. Footprints are signs of someone walking on a road. So the works of God are called his road, and the production of creatures is understood as a kind of procession of God in creatures, as the divine good which exists in him simply, and in the highest sense proceeds from him by degrees to effects derived from him, when higher things are understood to be better than lower things. Therefore, the footprints of God are certain signs found in creatures, from which God can be known in a certain sense through his creatures. But, as the human mind cannot totally and perfectly understand creatures in themselves, much less can it have a perfect idea about the Creator in himself. Therefore, he then asks, and have you discovered the truth even about the perfect omnipotence of God? because, if you cannot know creatures perfectly, much less can you know the Creator. He says plainly discover because reason proceeds by a certain process of investigation from effects to cause, and as soon as reason knows the causes through the effects, one is said to discover the cause.

196. One should also not be surprised if the Creator is not known perfectly through creatures who themselves cannot be perfectly understood, because even if creatures were perfectly known, the Creator would still not be known perfectly. For a cause can only be perfectly known through its effects when the effect is equal in power to the cause. This cannot be attributed to God. So he continues, he is higher than the heavens, and what can you do? He is deeper than hell, and from what do you know him? He is longer than the earth in measure and wider than the sea. He says these things metaphorically. For he does not mean that God, who is incorporeal, can be divided into corporeal dimensions, but he describes the greatness of his power using the metaphor of the great size of a body. This is because no matter how great the quantity of bodies seem to be in height, depth, width, or length, they are still deficient if compared to the greatness of the power of God, who can make things still greater. So he first plainly attributes omnipotence to God. From this he shows that he cannot be discovered perfectly in a creature, because even given the fact that all creatures could be perfectly known, one cannot know the power of God adequately from them, because they are in no way equal to him. Can one take a measure from them to know the power of God, who exceeds every creature? He clarifies this when he says, what can you do? and from what can you know him?

197. Divine power not only exceeds every being in creation, but also preserves them in being. For the preservation of a creature in being is only from God, and there is no power in the creature which can resist the divine will if he does not will to preserve the creature itself any more. So he continues, if he wills to sweep them all away, by reducing them to nothing, namely, by taking away their being, or draw them together into one being, by confusing them when he takes away the order which distinguishes one being from another, who can contradict him? that is, by going against his will. To preclude someone from arguing that he conserves everything in being because he is duty‑bound to do so, he next rejects this argument, saying, or who can say to him: why did you do this? as though he were trying to require an explanation about some duty which he omitted.