Q&A: The Relationship Between the Governance of Unity and the Governance of Justice
The Relationship Between the Governance of Unity and the Governance of Justice
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi.
I’m attaching a short passage I wrote on this topic. I’d be happy if you would read it and write what you think.
“The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and gracious in all His deeds” (Psalms 145)
In order to understand this verse, one must explain the two pairs of expressions: “righteous” versus “gracious,” and “His ways” versus “His deeds.”
As is known, the righteous person is one who fulfills his obligations according to the law, whereas the gracious or pious person is one who also goes beyond the letter of the law.
But what is the meaning of the expressions “His ways” and “His deeds”?
To understand them, we need to begin with a short introduction about God’s providence in our times. In the period of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), we see God intervening directly in reality and in its physical laws—He splits the Red Sea, brings water from the rock, stops the sun, and so on. But in our times, God intervenes in nature much less, for various reasons (which I won’t get into here—and, God willing, should be written about separately). Divine providence today is expressed through intervention in the links of a chain of causes.
For example, if a certain person (who is under individual providence for some reason) is seriously injured in an accident, it is clear that this was decreed from above. After the decision is made, God causes its implementation in some hidden way. For instance, He causes a rare bird to pass by the scene of the accident and distract the driver who causes the crash. As a result of that distraction, the driver gets into an accident in which that person is seriously injured. This is essentially God’s way (“His ways”) of bringing it about that His decisions are ultimately carried out. This implementation is what the verse calls “His deeds.”
Sometimes God decides to intervene in the chain of causes through the attribute of justice, but there may be disruptions along the way. For example, God initially decided that the rare bird would cause a severe accident in which the victim would be killed, but the driver managed to reduce his speed and “only” seriously injured him. Seemingly, this is a kind of disruption of God’s decision. But the verse says that God takes into account that after His intervention in the chain of causes (sending the rare bird), changes may occur that mitigate the person’s sentence, so that the decree will not be carried out in full. Therefore the verse says that God is gracious in all His deeds—meaning that sometimes God decrees a severe punishment for a person, but in practice he receives a lighter punishment because of some factor God chose not to intervene in (in this case, the offending driver’s decision to slow down). In other words, God’s “deeds,” the actual implementation of His decisions, are done in a manner of kindness, and therefore He is “gracious in all His deeds.” The kindness is God’s choice not to intervene in the course of events, even if the driver’s free choice causes the punishment to be lightened.
Of course, the opposite case is also possible: God decreed that so-and-so should be seriously injured, but the offending driver decided, of his own free will, to make the accident more severe and kill him. In that case, God’s decision was fully carried out (since death includes injury), but free choice caused the punishment to become more severe. That added severity is not part of God’s “ways,” because God does not intervene in free choice; He only takes it into account. Therefore the verse does not apply to that case.
From what we have said so far, it follows that every divine decision regarding a person’s fate has two goals: the goal of giving reward or punishment to the one who deserves it (the governance of justice, in Ramchal’s terminology in his book Da’at Tevunot), and the goal of advancing the world toward its purpose (the governance of unity, in Ramchal’s terminology). Sometimes, because of another person’s free choice, only the goal of the governance of unity is realized, and not the goal of the governance of justice. In the example we gave, the accident victim deserved the death penalty, and God also wanted him removed from active life in order to advance the world toward some goal. But God is willing to suffice with achieving the goal of the governance of unity (the victim being removed from active life through serious injury), and to forgo achieving the goal of the governance of justice (the victim’s death). Of course, it is possible that later He will choose to complete the punishment in the World to Come, because the principle stated in the verse refers only to the unfolding of events in this world. But if God’s goal in the governance of unity was not achieved at all (for example, the victim was only lightly injured and will return to functioning), then God will intervene again until that goal is achieved. In that case, the verse in the title does not apply, because God is righteous in all His “ways” only when His “deeds,” that is, His decisions, are actually fulfilled.
From here we can also understand the sayings of the Sages: “Exile atones for sin,” “A metzora is considered like a dead person,” “A poor person is considered like a dead person.” One who sins deserves punishment, of course. But it may also be that God wants to distance him from society so that he will not influence others. A person who goes into exile, becomes a metzora, or becomes poor ceases to function in society with the same intensity as before. If a person whose sins warrant death goes into exile or becomes poor or a metzora, then God’s goal in the governance of unity has been achieved, and all that remains for the sinner is to receive the punishment under the governance of justice. But as stated, God may suffice in this world with achieving the goal of the governance of unity, and therefore it is worthwhile for a sinner whose punishment is death to go into exile so that he can continue living in this world, repent, and atone for his deeds.
Answer
Hello Eliyahu.
I’m not sure I understood. Is your main claim that nowadays reality is formed by a combination of the governance of unity and the governance of justice? Was that not the case in the past? What is the significance of the change over the generations for the picture described here? I didn’t understand the connection to your opening.
Beyond that, what you’re basically saying is that reality is formed by two kinds of considerations, and that is obvious. But I don’t know whether that is in fact the meaning of the terms “governance of unity” and “governance of justice” as taken from Ramchal. That needs to be checked there (I’m not well versed in his terminology). I also don’t know on what basis you identify “His deeds” and “His ways” in the verse with those two things. It’s one possible interpretation among many others.
What comes out is that the picture you drew is correct, but fairly self-evident (I assume everyone understands this). So the main novelty seems to be the connection to Ramchal’s terminology and to the interpretation of the verse. But precisely those two connections are not argued for here; they are only suggested in a general way.
Discussion on Answer
Hello Eliyahu.
My main problem is the scientific perspective. Nowhere do we see any deviation from the laws of nature. Certainly not reward and punishment. There are plenty of explanations, but they are not plausible, and I see no logic in accepting them. Your explanation doesn’t answer that. At the end of the day, if the Holy One, blessed be He, intervenes, there will be a deviation from the laws of nature.
I suggest that Rabbi Michi’s team do a bit of work before they answer, especially when responding to writers of greater intelligence, as in this case.
Dear Helena, hello.
First, there is no team. It’s always me, for better or worse.
Second, I’d be happy to hear a more specific criticism. General suggestions like these are a bit hard to implement.
Let me explain more:
The Rabbi wrote on this site that today he does not see intervention by the Holy One, blessed be He, in reality. I assume the intention is that we do not see open miracles as in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). But according to what I wrote, there is a second, “softer” kind of intervention, which can sometimes be seen in reality.
The Rabbi even went so far as to write that today we have no hope that prayer will change anything in reality (except in very exceptional cases). But according to what I wrote, that is definitely possible, and this without directly contradicting the laws of nature or free choice (as I explained).
Take, for example, the survival of the Jewish people. There is nothing here that is literally above nature, but there is certainly something highly improbable here, something we perceive as wondrous.
In my humble opinion, what leads the Rabbi to conclude that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not (or almost does not) intervene in the world today is the total absence of any governance of reward and punishment in the reality we see. But as I explained, that is not the only kind of governance. If one looks at the governance of unity (that is, tries to understand what God’s purpose is in this world and how He works toward it), one can see providence more clearly.
As for the interpretation of the verse: certainly this is a kind of homiletic insight (“explanation,” in Rav Kook’s wording in his introduction to Ein Ayah).
As for Ramchal: I will quote Rabbi Re’em HaCohen here (from his article in the Shabbat supplement, “A Smallness Prayer”):
“In many places in his writings, Ramchal formulates two modes by which God governs His world: the governance of justice and the governance of unity and sovereignty. In the governance of justice, a person is judged according to his deeds; there are righteous people and wicked people, and the divine relation to them is by way of the mechanism of recompense, according to the rules of reward and punishment. The system of relations is clear and direct, and even understandable and expected. The governance of unity and sovereignty, by contrast, expresses the mode of divine providence that depends on the divine will beyond any system of laws—a providence that relates not only to what human beings are doing at this moment, but to the long-term course of the world’s development. The governance of unity is responsible for ensuring that the world indeed reaches its destiny and that the great goals of history, as planned by the Creator of the world, are in fact realized.”