THE Question
Righteous are You, O Lord. When I dispute with You, my brief will speak against You. Why does the way of the wickedprosper, all who deal treacherously rest tranquil? Jeremiah 12:1 Robert Alter
The way of the wicked – Do you remember “The Twilight Zone”? If you do, you must remember the episode where a man uses his mental powers to identify all the wicked people on earth. He makes them all into midgets. In the last scene of the show, his powers are unleashed. The deed is done—the camera shows his pet bird’s cage. His hand can’t reach it. He’s now too short.
Perhaps that’s the biblical perspective. If we could identify all the wicked, we would discover we’re in the group. Perhaps it’s much better that God does not judge them—yet. If He did, we might not survive. Akiva and Ishmael differed over the solution to this tangled problem. Akiva taught:
“‘All is foreseen, and free will is given, and the world is judged in goodness.’ Compassion is the key. Better to limit belief in God’s power than to dampen faith in God’s mercy. Rabbi Akiva viewed all history through the lens of trust in God’s mercy. God participates in His creatures’ suffering; it is as if God were wounded by the afflictions of Israel, God’s people. If Israel is in exile, the Shekhinah is with them. When Israel is redeemed, God is redeemed.”[1]
“The whole Akivan notion of God’s participation in human suffering—in the suffering of individuals and of the people—was foreign to Rabbi Ishmael’s teaching. In his view, this notion did not befit God’s dignity and could lead to a denial of God’s power. For him, God’s justice and power are key, not God’s compassion.”[2]
Akiva recognized the frailty of men, the human propensity toward disobedience, the need for mercy. Ishmael had a different view of God—transcendental, perfect, immutable—and as a consequence, justice was inexorable. God’s power was preserved in His wrath. In effect, both men struggled with Jeremiah’s question. “Jeremiah was famously bothered by the second problem especially: ‘You will win, O Lord, if I make claim against You, yet I shall present charges against You: Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why are the workers of treachery at ease?’ (Jeremiah 12:1)”[3] No matter what arguments I bring before God about the injustice of divine delay in punishment, I fail to persuade. The wicked do prosper. Apparently God allows it. How else can I understand sovereignty? But that very fact impinges on justice. Why should the wicked prosper? Especially in a metaphysical world without an afterlife. Is compassion so important that goodness is sacrificed? Could Abraham have argued for just one righteous person in Sodom—and won? And what about us? The world seems saturated with the prosperity of the wicked, by virtually anyone’s standard except God’s. He seems to tolerate far more than we could ever imagine. What does this say about His character—or about us?
Akiva’s solution is that God finds some redeeming qualities in even the most wicked people, and therefore does not judge them immediately. In fact, they reap their reward in this world because of His commitment to mercy, but in the next world they will not prevail, and the righteous will see justice served. This, of course, is now a common Christian solution. You will notice that it is not a solution offered by the prophets. That’s because it depends on the idea of an afterlife where good and evil are rewarded and punished. Akiva’s solution depends on a Greek idea of ultimate justice. That Greek idea may be true, as it seems that Yeshua also embraced it, but Torah conservatives like Ishmael could rightly object that Moses does not support it. As far as the Torah is concerned, the question remains unanswered. Jeremiah loses the court case but the question remains.
Now, are you satisfied?
Topical Index: wicked, reward, punishment, Akiva, Ishmael, Jeremiah 12:1
[1] Abraham Heschel, Heavenly Torah as Refracted through the Generations, p. 210.
[2] Ibid., p. 211.
[3] Gordon Tucker in Abraham Heschel, Heavenly Torah as Refracted through the Generations (Continuum, New York, 2007), p. 211, footnote 6.