((For the previous installment of "And Abraham Approached," click here.)
Divergent Views on Prayer:
The paradigmatic pray-er, Abraham, finds a contrasting biblical counterpart in Job, who held that prayer is futile, even misguided. Exploring such a viewpoint is invaluable, as understanding a concept well involves grappling with its opposition. Delving into Job’s skepticism towards prayer promises to yield rich insights for our study.
These great tsaddiks both pointed to the unfairness manifest in God’s natural world, whereby the good can perish along with the evil. Abraham said, “Will You really sweep away the righteous with the wicked?’” (Genesis 18:23), and Job said, “It is all the same. Therefore, I say, He destroys both the blameless and the wicked” (Job 9:22). But their similarities end there. For Abraham believed that man should intercede with God and alter the system of divine justice through this intervention, while Job believed that man should not and therefore could not influence God. Abraham approached Hashem and spoke up; Job maintained that this is impossible. Job’s God would not engage in dialogue with mortal man:
How can a man win a case against God? Should a person bring grievance against Him, He will not answer one in a thousand… who can argue with Him… who can say to Him, “What are You doing?”… For He is not a man like me, that I might answer Him, that we may go to court together. (Job 9:2-32)
The two great men responded in divergent ways to the moral arbitrariness of God’s actions: Abraham endeavored to alter the divine course, whereas Job sought to reconcile himself with its unfathomable nature.
In taking notice of perceived injustice in the natural order, both tsaddiks started with the same lucid and realistic point of view: The world is not fair. However, their divergent responses led Abraham to reward, and Job to suffering, respectively. As articulated in the Midrash:
Two people said the same thing, Abraham and Job. Abraham said: “Far be it from You to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked” (Genesis 18:25). Job said: “It is all the same. Therefore, I say, He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.” Abraham received a reward for it, yet Job was punished for it. Abraham said it as a mature thought; Job said it as an immature thought.1
Abraham took the natural order in and of itself as merely a starting point upon which the moral human operates; Job took it as an end. Abraham believed that man should perfect God’s world according to human standards, such that we could come to understand Him – this is his “reward”; whereas Job believed that God’s world will remain forever unfathomable and inscrutable to mortal man – and this is his “punishment.”
Job’s opinion on prayer fits into his general outlook on mankind and its relationship with the divine. An overview of this outlook will show that Job’s position was actually quite sublime: He maintained that man should not approach God with mortal, finite understanding, but should rather attempt to transcend the limitations of mortality and fathom, to the finite extent possible, infinite God. Abraham approached God, but Job? He didn’t dare to.
Jobian Philosophy:
A comparative study of the tale of these two tsaddiks will reveal the profound philosophy underpinning Job’s approach to the divine. Their respective narratives paint a pattern: Abraham and Job were diametric opposites, their outlook on prayer at the center of their debate.
The timelines of the lives of Abraham and Job both involve five of the same themes.
Abraham declared that he is but “dust and ashes”; he approached Hashem in prayer; his faith was tested by the trial of sacrificing his son, and he passed this test; he was then declared to be one who “fears God”; and he sacrificed an animal in lieu of his son. The narrative of Job also involves these same themes, but in opposite order and to different effect.
In the first verse of the first chapter of the eponymous book, Job is declared to be one who “fears God”; in that same chapter is described his practice of offering sacrifices according to the number of his children; his faith was tested by the trial of losing wealth, children and health, and he struggled and was challenged by this test; he asserted that approaching Hashem in prayer is futile; and then, after a revelation and a change of heart, he recognized that humans are but “dust and ashes.”
This list illustrates the similarities and differences from the biblical sources. Notice how the same themes appear, only in inverted order.
A: I, who am dust and ashes. (Genesis 18:27)
J: I repent in dust and ashes. (Job 42:6)
A: Far be it from You to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked. (Genesis 18:25)
J: Who can argue with Him?… It is all the same. Therefore, I say, He destroys both the blameless and the wicked. (Job 9:4-22)
A: After these things, God tested Abraham… “Take now your son… Isaac… and offer him there as a burnt offering.” (Genesis 22:1-2)
J: Satan answered Hashem and said, “Does Job fear God for nothing?… stretch out Your hand and strike everything he has; he will certainly curse You to Your face.” And Hashem said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has in your hands.” (Job 1:9-12)
A: For now I know that you are a man who fears God. (Genesis 21:12)
J: There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was… one who feared God and turned away from evil. (Job 1:1)
A: And Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. (Genesis 22:13)
J: Job… offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all. (Job 1:5)
The crux of Job’s philosophy is contained in the very first verse of the book: Job, we are told, was one “who feared God” – this just like Abraham – and additionally “turned away from evil.” In this aspect, he was even greater than Abraham, as Chazal say:
That which is stated about Job is greater than that which is stated about Abraham. As with regard to Abraham it is written: “For now I know that you are a man who fears God”, and with regard to Job it is written: “…one who feared God and turned away from evil.”2
Job went further than Abraham in eschewing evil, and it is this approach which forms the core of his profound philosophy and simultaneously represents its critical weakness: Job held that humanity’s goal should be to transcend the physical limitations imposed by the body. To turn away from evil is to reject the constraints of corporeal existence, the root of all evil, as the soul itself is divine, pure and untainted, compromised only by association with the physical form. Job’s approach to the human condition involved a complete negation of the body’s significance, a dismissal of any emotions, thoughts, or concepts tied to the experience of being an embodied being.
Let’s explore how this fundamental principle distinguishes Job’s perspective from Abraham’s. Initially, Job did not share Abraham’s view of humanity as “dust and ashes” – that is, inherently material. For Job, the body was inconsequential to man’s purely spiritual essence. Consequently, Job would express his devotion to God through symbolic sacrifice of animals, but saw no need in undergoing an actual, real loss of his children. He perceived the physical realm – the realm of actions, deeds, and tangible demonstrations – as dominated by Satan’s influence. Job distanced himself so profoundly from the material world that he couldn’t conceive of his trials as being tests of faith. For him, the idea of sacrificing in reality, of embodying loss and loyalty in physical terms, seemed unnecessary. Why should faith require actual, physical manifestation? He would symbolically give up his child through animal sacrifice, but actually, in body? Why would anything have to be done in actuality? This mindset led Job to struggle profoundly with his afflictions. He knew he was innocent of sin and he couldn’t fathom that he was being tested, since he rejected the notion that there is any value in manifesting faith through tangible actions in the gross, material world.
This mindset also shaped Job’s position on prayer’s irrelevance. He reasoned that divine considerations transcend what seems just or unjust to human beings, limited by their mortal nature. To Job, the individual’s plight holds no sway over divine actions; thus, the notion of indiscriminately mixing the fate of the righteous and the wicked aligns with a God who operates beyond human moral frameworks. The harsh, indifferent reality of nature, in Job’s view, reflected God’s impartiality. Attempting to influence this divine order with human appeals was not only futile but also blasphemous, a rejection of God’s sovereignty. According to Job, human-centric concerns should be subdued in acknowledgment of the sublime and unfathomable nature of God.
Prayer is devoid of efficacy or relevance before an infinite, transcendent God. It is not for humanity to approach God with its mortal limitations, but rather to transcend its humanity in seeking communion with the Divine.
Job’s perspective was that man should aspire to divine realms, yet his narrative illustrates the futility of such aspirations. An embodied being cannot harbor thoughts entirely detached from physical existence – Job’s sacrifice of animals in place of his children was proved to be but an empty gesture by the fact that he couldn’t accept their actual, bodily death. Job’s ordeal proved that the human can never abandon his humanity: What one wouldn’t do, concretely, tangibly, in actuality – one cannot truly believe. Thus, eventually, Job came around to the Abraham’s stance and repented “in dust and ashes.”
Abrahamic Religion:
Abraham, in contrast, did not “turn away from evil” in the manner Job did. Instead, he acknowledged the embodied and finite nature of humanity and fashioned a bridge between man and God that respects these limitations. He understood that divine and human perceptions of justice diverge fundamentally – the former being universal and the latter personal and subjective. Consequently, Abraham believed that for God to be known to humans, He would need to engage with them on their terms, demonstrating concern for individuals just as humans do.
Central to the Abrahamic notion of prayer lies the belief that human thoughts and desires are of cosmic consequence, despite our constraints as physical beings. God intentionally created humanity as distinct, finite individuals, suggesting that the perspectives of these mortal beings are integral to the unfolding of His creation. The divine plan is contingent upon human input: Paradoxically, God desires for His world to take on the mortal nature of the embodied mind, a notion that appears unreasonable from a divine standpoint yet is eminently reasonable from ours.
In our forthcoming segment, we will delve into the question of which individuals are worthy of shaping creation through prayer, and the qualities that render them capable of such profound influence.3
(For the next installment of "And Abraham Approached," click here.)
For more on the ideological clash between Abraham and Job regarding the nature of faith, see my books: Oros Yaakov, pgs. 14-21; ibid, pgs. 113-115; Mishnas Yaakov, pgs. 122-125; Ha’Aretz asher Ar’eka, pgs. 176-180; and “Out of Impure, Pure: The Red Heifer, Decree of the Torah.”
the idea of these conflicting schools of thought vis-a-vis prayer while explained well leads me to the question if Avraham's idea of prayer was the idea of the tzadik being a arbitrator wouldn't he have at least prayed that he shouldn't have to sacrifice Yitzchak at the Akeidah, as that was his progeny to continue the spread of his ideas? sort of a kal v'chomer if he prayed for the people of Sodom surely for his own son and legacy to carry on? yet we find him accepting the divine will without arbitration.
https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/lech-lecha/a-palace-in-flames/