Eikha Chapter 3, Part 7: Verses 31-39 - Further Exploration of God’s Compassionate Ways

 

 

 

The previous section (verses 27-30) struck a confident tone, advising the sufferer to bear his misfortune in solitude, silence, and submission. Why should the sufferer yield to this advice? Significantly, the three initial verses of this subunit (verses 31-33) are the kaf verses, all of which begin with the explanatory ki. These sequential verses contain three separate contentions with regard to God’s attributes, each of which appears designated to support the advocated compliance.[2] As we will see, according to these verses, God’s punitive decrees are temporary, ultimately compassionate, and meaningful (that is, not random).

 

By returning the discussion’s focus to God, this subunit suggests that each suffering individual is in God’s hands and must accept his suffering as God’s decree. Moreover, this section suggests that the sufferer can calmly embrace his burdens, given the certainty that God will renew His compassion when the sentence is complete.

 

Three brief axiomatic statements about God appear in the kaf verses. Presented as manifest truth, there is no attempt to explain or substantiate these ideas. This is not a treatise on theology, but an attempt to offer basic guidelines for the religious sufferer.

 

 

A short, blunt proclamation, this sentence does not easily bifurcate into two parts. The most likely division (as I have noted in my translation above) places undue weight on the sentence’s first half, “For He shall not reject forever.” Its second part consists of one stark word, which focuses our attention upon the renewed subject of the chapter: God. No longer fixated upon the human sufferer, the chapter returns its attention to God. However, by only naming God in its final word, the verse hints to the difficulty of grasping God, even as he avows God’s compassion and trustworthiness. While the book previously admits that suffering derives from divine rejection (see 2:7), Eikha here asserts that God’s rejection is not without an end. By employing the same word (zanach) that the gever had previously used to express his soul’s rejection of peace (3:17), this verse clarifies why there is still no cause for despair. God will not abandon a sufferer forever; there is no reason to lose hope.[3]

 

 

God’s goodness and compassion remain axiomatic; this is a basic principle of the Bible. Nevertheless, human suffering calls into question the notion of God’s boundless kindness.

 

While Eikha does not offer a programmatic discourse on this topic, it does adopt certain assumptions. First, it does not absolve God of responsibility for human suffering. Explicitly acknowledging that God causes grief (without yet explaining why),[4] this verse continues by promising that God’s compassion will soon push aside that grief. Recalling the opening section of the ruminations (3:22-23), this verse advocates the view that God’s kindnesses will always prevail and rekindle, even when they seem to have been suspended or terminated. Finally, this verse assumes that God’s afflictions are not the norm; they are always a temporary interval, soon to be replaced by God’s natural state, His abiding compassion and kindness.

 

Finally, the verse asserts that God does not inflict suffering from His own heart. In other words, God does not desire to cause people grief. He is not capricious, cruel, or vengeful. But this reassuring thought fails to address the critical question: Why, then, does God afflict people? No answer is forthcoming.[5] The individual has yet to state the obvious; the word sin remains noticeably absent from the discussion, as each individual begins to anticipate the impending, inevitable conclusion.

 

 

 

An alphabetic unit, verses 34-36 each begin with a lamed introducing an infinitive clause describing an injustice: trampling hapless prisoners, distorting justice, corrupting disputes. This section evokes the injustice that prevails among humans.[6] Humans can be cruel and arbitrary, sadistically relishing the torment of others. 

 

According to these verses, God does not behave in a similarly perverse manner as humans (see also Iyov 8:3).[7] These verses conclude that God does not sanction or condone these injustices.[8] Rashi (3:34-36) explains that the negative ki lo at the beginning of verse 33 carries over to all of the portrayed injustices, such that each one represents something that God does not desire and would never wield. Rashi also regards the definitive statement at the conclusion of the final lamed verse (“God does not see”)[9] as a statement that reflects on all of the previously delineated corrupt behaviors.[10] God does not see or identify with any of the immoral deeds cited in the lamed verses; He cannot bear or tolerate injustice. God does not crush prisoners under His feet[11] or behave with corruption in His judgment of humans. God remains above the immoral machinations of humans.[12] Thus, there must be an explanation for God’s decision to inflict grief.

 

The Mem Verses

 

At this point in the concise exploration, a conclusion seems in reach; it is perhaps even inescapable. Yet, it remains elusive for just a little longer. For another two verses, the ruminations continue, focusing upon God’s control over the world. Before arriving at the ineluctable finale to these contemplations, the chapter explores one final theological question: God’s omnipotence. While it has invested plenty of efforts in establishing God’s axiomatic goodness and justness, confirming that God is willing to prevent evil, the question of God’s omnipotence remains critical. As Epicurus famously asked:

 

A contradiction arises between God’s inability to tolerate injustice and the injustice that continues to prevail. Perhaps, then, God’s omnipotence is not certain; perhaps there are forces that overwhelm God’s desire for justice and good.

 

These rhetorical questions establish God’s control over the world, including over the bad things that occur. By formulating God’s omnipotence as rhetorical questions, the verses draw the reader in, expecting the readers to nod vigorously in acquiescence to these patent truths. Indeed, God created the world with the spoken word. Simply by uttering, “It shall be,” the world emerged into existence. If God created the world, then He has power over it.[16] Moreover, God assumes responsibility for everything – bad as well as good.[17] Everything comes from God, and everything is part of the just divine plan.[18]

 

If we accept that God is responsible for all evil and that He does not conjure evil on a whim or for His own delight, these contemplations can finally draw to their resounding, dramatic conclusion: Of what then can living man complain? Each gever only of his own sins!

 

As the word “sin” surfaces for the first time in the chapter, its absence from the first thirty-eight verses becomes glaringly apparent. Nevertheless, it is not entirely clear what this vivid finale means to convey. Is it a confession of sin, a blunt recognition that he must certainly have transgressed? Or is it an avowal of human limitations in trying to comprehend God?

 

Rashi regards this as a recognition of sinfulness, the logical conclusion of this contemplative passage:

 

And if I come and say, “This evil did not come from His hand, it was a coincidence that it happened to me,” this is not so, for whether bad or good events, who was it that uttered “and it shall be”? Was it not God who commanded, and from His mouth did not both good and bad emerge? And so, of what can living man complain?... Each individual can complain about his sins, for they bring upon him misfortune.[19]

 

According to this approach, no misfortune exists in a vacuum. If someone suffers, he must recognize his own culpability.[20] He certainly should not complain in a manner that suggests rebellion or renunciation of responsibility.[21] The obvious next step occurs in the verse that follows this revelation: “We must search our ways and examine them, so that we can return to God” (Eikha 3:40). Confession produces introspection, followed by repentance.

 

The age-old problem of evil people who prosper and good people who suffer arises in the wake of this unequivocal conclusion. Rather than address this inscrutable question, I will propose another way to understand the conclusive statement: “Of what shall living humans complain? Each man of his own sins!” Philosophical attempts to resolve the mystery of God’s designs inevitably fail. Instead, the sufferer has only one efficacious recourse, and that is to turn inward and consider how these events can produce change. While we can never comprehend God’s designs, we can control our own response. Therefore, the critical question is not a helpless, “Why did this happen?” but rather a practical, “What can each individual do in the wake of suffering?”[22] Each person can view his misfortunes as an opportunity to introspect and improve himself. In this schema, the direct correlation between sins and misfortunes dissipates. Instead, humans choose a constructive response to their travails, one that involves self-introspection and self-improvement.