Divine Providence:

Maimonides Account in The Guide to the Perplexed

Eugene Marshall

Divine providence is Gods providing for his creations, such that they are guided towards

right action and protected from harm through providence, God provides for, guides, and

protects humanity. In The Guide to the Perplexed, Maimonides presents an account of

providence where a persons rationality determines the extent to which one is protected by Gods

providence. Maimonides gives a largely naturalistic, Aristotelian account of providence that

emphasizes rational contemplation. This account, Maimonides claims, is consistent with the

central tenets of Judaism. Further, he believes that God does provide for, supply guidance to,

and protect humanity, but on the basis of their having and using their faculties of reason. He

asserts that it is the special nature of the relationship between people and God and their places in

the context of Maimonides system, which allows his account to work.

To understand Maimonides account of providence, one must first come to understand

some central aspects of his system. What follows is a survey of the relevant aspects of

Maimonidean metaphysics, after which his account of providence will be laid out. Then some

challenges will be raised, to which some Maimonidean responses will be considered. Finally,

some philosophical implications of his account will be explored. Maimonides emphasis on the

responsibility of the individual in divine providence and his naturalism make for an attractive

account of providence.

Maimonides imports much of the Aristotelian metaphysics unchanged into his system.

Of special importance for our discussion is his notion of the nature of God, of which

Maimonides says, God is the intellect as well as the intellectually cognizing subject and the
intellectually cognized subject, and that those three notions form in Him one single notion in

which there is no multiplicity1 (163). God is pure intellect, thought, and the subject of that

thought. He continues, saying, For in the case of every intellect, its act is identical to its

essence (164). Gods essence, then, is self-cognizing cognition. Further, God is unitary, eternal,

unchanging, simple, and incorporeal these ideas are wholly Aristotelian.

Genesis tells us that God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (21).

Maimonides begins to explain this when he says, Now man possesses as his proprium

something in him that is very strangeintellectual apprehension (23). Like Aristotle,

Maimonides claims that the defining characteristic of humanity is the capacity for reason, a

characteristic that places us in a special relationship to the deity. Of this special relationship,

Maimonides says, This apprehension was likened unto the apprehension of the deity It was

because of this something, I mean because of the divine intellect conjoined with man, that it is

said of the latter that he is in the image of God and His likeness (23). It is in virtue of his

having reason that we are made in Gods image.

But an important disanalogy exists between the divine intellect and the human intellect.

The divine intellect, we are told, is fully active, as Maimonides explains when he says, God is

an intellect in actu and that there is absolutely no potentiality in Him (165). But the human

intellect cannot remain perpetually active, leading Maimonides to say, We, however, pass

intellectually from potentiality to actuality only from time to time (166). Despite this

disanalogy, when the human intellect is active it is similar to the divine intellect. Maimonides

says, Thus in us too, the intellectually cognizing subject, the intellect, and the intellectually

cognized object, are one and the same thing whenever we have an intellect in actu (165). The

1
Moses Maimonides, The Guide to the Perplexed, trans. Shlomo Pines (University of Chicago Press, 1963). All
subsequent quotations are from this source will be followed only by a page number.

2
truth of this identity claim is rooted in an Aristotelian way of thinking, of which Maimonides

says, the intellect in actu is nothing but that which has been intellectual cognized, and, its act

is identical to its essence (164). Just what does this mean?

First, Maimonides must say that, when a mind knows a thing, the minds essence and its

knowledge are identical. Put colloquially, Maimonides would reject the phrase, the mind has

thoughts, where that would imply two things present when a mind knows some thing, in

preference for the mind is thoughts, where only one thing is present in an instance of

knowledge. That is not to say that Maimonides would claim that each mental act is an individual

mind. Instead, he would say that each mental act is an instance of some potential mind

becoming actualized. In modern terms, perhaps he would hold that the mind retains its identity

over time because it is dispositionally conscious, thought not always episodically so.

Second, he must be identifying an act of understanding with the thing known. Here too,

Maimonides would not distinguish the act of knowing from the content of such an act. Making

these two assumptions allows Maimonides to claim that the mind, when performing an act of

apprehension, is identical to its act of apprehending and to that which is apprehended. Thus, the

mind, its act of grasping, and the thing grasped all are identical. Whether this is an acceptable

doctrine depends, I think, on the two assumed identity statements above. In Maimonides time,

such Aristotelian assumptions were commonplace and were common ground between him and

his opponents, though that does not entail that we should accept them. 2 Regardless,

Maimonides point here is to show how, when our minds are active, they are simple unities,

2
Maimonides argument for this position is found on pp. 164-5. These arguments, however, simply assert that the
identity (among the active mind, its act of knowing, and the content of that knowledge) is self-evident, and no
further proof is offered. He also simply asserts that a potentially (but not actually) knowing mind, the potentially
known thing, and the substratum for these potentia (the humans matter) are three distinct things. Why these are
self-evidently three while the others are self-evidently one is not evident to me. For more, consult Aristotles
Metaphysics, 1072b14 ff and De Anima, 430a10 ff.

3
much as Gods mind is eternally. Thus, when a humans intellect is active, he resembles God in

an important way.

But it is not simply a relationship of resemblance that exists between God and us. God

also sustains us and is the source of our intellectual actualization. To understand this aspect of

the human-divine relationship, a brief summary of Maimonides cosmology is needed. Like

Aristotle, Maimonides believed that God is the First Cause of the universe. But Maimonides

sees God not merely as a causa secundum fieri, or creating cause, but as a causa secundum esse,

or sustaining cause a cause according to being. This means that God is not only Creator of the

universe but also the ground on which the universe continues to exist. If God were merely a

creating cause, He would no longer be necessary for the continued existence of the universe; but,

if God is a sustaining cause, then He is not only responsible for the universes creation but for its

continuance. With this idea in mind, Maimonides says, [God] continually endows it [the world]

with permanence in virtue of the thing that is spoken of as overflow (169). Thus, He sustains

the universe and us with existence via overflow a notion that needs some explanation. In fact,

on Maimonides account, the nature of this overflow determines the nature of His providence.

The notion of overflow may be the most slippery in the Guide. Maimonides himself

describes the overflow analogy as a poor metaphor, but the best one available. Overflow is the

means by which God sustains the universe, but specifically it is the means by which our

actualized intellects come into an intimate relationship with the deity. Because God is

unchanging, simple, and incorporeal, this relationship of sustainment by overflow cannot be

otherwise. Maimonides begins to describe overflow when he says,

Hence the action of the separate intellect is always designated as an overflow, being likened to a
source of water that overflows in all directions and does not have one particular direction from
which it draws while giving its bounty to others. For it springs forth from all directions and
constantly irrigates all the directions nearby and far. (279)

4
Maimonides believes that Gods overflow stems from His perfection, which is infinite. Like a

spring with an everlasting supply of water, Gods perfection eternally overflows in all directions,

endowing everything with as much perfection as possible. Like God, the overflow is unchanging

and incorporeal and does not have a location in time-space. Furthermore, this overflow does not

merely sustain the universe in its existence; its content also determines the nature of that universe.

Gods relationship has been described as a cause according to being. This is also called a

formal cause, in that Gods relation to existence is analogous to the relation between an

Aristotelian natural form and its object. If the form of a thing were to leave the matter in which

it was found, the object would pass away. Likewise, the worlds continuance is dependent on

God. A form determines the nature of its object, which is also the case with God and the world.

Maimonides claims this when he says, Just as every existent thing endowed with a form is what

it is in virtue of its form there subsists the very same relation between the deity and the totality

of the remote principles of existence (169). Unlike a natural form that endows its object with

certain properties by inhering within the object, however, God does not inhere within the world.

Thus Maimonides says, He is the dwelling place of His world, [whereas] His world is not His

dwelling place (173). This makes it clear that God is not immanent, but transcendent. Yet God

still determines the nature of the world, much as a form determines the nature of its object. As

Maimonides has said, God endows the world with its principles of existence, (169) suggesting

that Gods overflow not only sustains but also governs existence.

According to Maimonides, it is the content of the divine overflow that determines the

nature of existence. Maimonides says, Governance overflows from the deity to the intellects

according to their rank; that from the benefits received by intellects, good things and lights

overflow to the bodies (275) Thus God governs the world and keeps order in it by virtue of

5
this overflow. The content of this overflow, then, is the divine order of the universe. That is, the

content of the divine overflow is the means by which God maintains order and bestows good

things upon the objects in the world. Since this overflow is the source of the principles of

governance by which the world is ordered, this suggests that the world is governed by certain

laws or principles that distribute goods according to Gods plan. Thus it seems that Maimonides

believes that there exists a set of principles by which the world is ordered and goods are

distributed, and that this set of principles comes from Gods divine overflow to us. But how

does this overflow connect human beings to the deity?

In the details of his largely Aristotelian cosmology, Maimonides describes several

separate intellects, each of which is correlated to one of the heavenly spheres. Upon describing

our sublunary sphere, Maimonides says, The 10th intellect is the Active Intellect, whose

existence is indicated by the fact that our intellects pass from potentiality to actuality (257). It

is this Active Intellect that is the source of the actualization of our intellects. Maimonides

provides Aristotelian reasons as to why our intellects must be actualized by some other intellect

when he says, Now everything that passes from potentiality to actuality must have necessarily

something that causes it to pass and that is outside of it. And this cause must belong to the

species of that which it causes to pass (257) The cause of our intellects becoming actualized

must itself be an intellect, and this causing intellect must be separate from ours. Maimonides

gives an example of a carpenter who builds a storehouse. The carpenter does so because there

subsists in his mind the form of a storehouse In this way the giver of a form is indubitably a

separate form, and that which brings intellect into existence is an intellect, namely, the Active

Intellect (258). So, whenever ones intellect passes from potentiality to actuality, the efficient

cause of that movement is the Active Intellect. But the Active Intellect has as its source the

6
divine intellect, which is why Maimonides says, Gods perfection overflows into these several

separate intellects and eventually into the Active Intellect. These separate intellects overflow

from Godthey are they intermediaries between God and all these bodies (259). Thus, our

intellects become actualized by means of Gods overflow of perfection into our intellects,

through the Active Intellect. Our coming to have knowledge, he says, consists in its being an

overflow overflowing from God through the intermediation of the Active Intellect, toward the

rational faculty (369). Therefore, any knowledge we obtain has God, through the Active

Intellect, as its efficient cause, via divine overflow.

Of course, this does not mean that, every time one obtains knowledge, God has acted

specifically such that that person obtains it. If that were the case, Gods simplicity and eternity

would be in question. Instead, Maimonides argues, God is the efficient cause of such knowledge

by providing us with constant overflow. This is a constant and unchanging potential that will

necessarily be actualized whenever we remove the obstacles blocking our access to it.

Maimonides claims that bodily, moral, and intellectual impurities and imperfections act as

hindrances to the actualization of the intellect. Matter, he believes, is weak and prone to

corruption. If one undertakes a life of health, morality, and study, then one may remove those

obstacles preventing the actualization of ones intellect. I will address this issue below.

Gods overflow of perfection has been described as unchanging and ever-present, and

this is also the case for the Active Intellect. Since the Active Intellect is constantly overflowing

towards us, one would assume that our intellects should be constantly actualized and unchanging

as well. And yet our intellects change and are imperfect, being actualized only some of the time.

Why is this? Maimonides explains that, though God is constantly overflowing towards us

through the Active Intellect, we must choose to accept Gods overflow, when he says, that

7
intellect which overflowed from Him towards us is the bond between us and Him You have

the choice: if you wish to fortify and strengthen this bond, you can do so (621). God is always

overflowing with perfection towards us, but, because we have free will, we must choose to turn

towards God and embrace the bond between Him and us. The nature of this bond is an

intellectual overflow from Him to us. Thus it is by our intellects that we are connected to and

bonded with God, and this connection is embodied in the divine overflow.

This connection, the overflow, is also the means by which we may receive Gods

providence. Maimonides says, Divine providence is consequent on divine overflow, and the

species with which this intellectual overflow is united, so that it became endowed with

intellect, is the one accompanied by divine providence (471). According to Maimonides,

divine providence comes to us by means of divine overflow. This overflow is of an intellectual

nature, and connects the Divine Intellect with our human rational faculty. As we have seen, this

overflow, our bond with God, is that which orders existence via a set of principles; it is also the

source of all actualized knowledge. This suggests that our bond with God, by which we are

bonded with Him and through which we receive His providence, consists in our knowledge of a

set of principles that order the world and enable human knowledge to be actualized.

Furthermore, the degree to which a human being receives Gods providence varies and is

proportionate to the actualization of their intellects. Thus Maimonides says, When any human

individual has obtained, because of the disposition of his matter and training, a greater portion of

this overflow than others, providence will of necessity watch more carefully over him than

others (475). Again, divine providence, being consequent on divine overflow, is proportionate

to the degree to which an individual has tapped into that overflow. That overflow is present and

available to humans in the Active Intellect, which makes possible the passing of our intellects

8
from potentiality to actuality. Thus, if we are able to bring our intellects into actuality, we will

receive, of necessity, divine providence.

In fact, this divine overflow by means of the Active Intellect into the human intellect is

the conduit for not only Gods providence but also wisdom and prophecy. Maimonides says,

The true reality and quiddity of prophecy consists in its being an overflow overflowing from

God through the intermediation of the Active Intellect, towards the rational faculty (369).

The mechanism through which God delivers prophecy is closely related to that through which He

delivers providence. Maimonides further says:

Accordingly divine providence does not watch in an equal manner over all the individuals of the
human species, but providence is graded as human perfection is graded For it is this measure
of the overflow of the divine intellect that makes prophets speak, guides the actions of righteous
men, and perfects the knowledge of excellent men with regard to what they know. As for the
ignorant and disobedient, their state is despicable proportionately to their lack of overflow. (475)

Thus, as stated above, the degree to which one receives Gods providence, prophecy, guidance,

and knowledge is consequent on receiving divine overflow. The degree to which one receives

the divine overflow is equivalent to the degree to which ones intellect is actualized. Thus

receiving Gods providence is consequent on actualizing ones intellect. The more ones

intellect is actualized, the more one is protected by providence.

Maimonides describes the content of providence when he says, through the overflow of

the intellect that has overflowed from Thee, we intellectually cognize, and consequently receive

correct guidance, we draw inferences, and we apprehend the intellect (280). Gods overflow

towards us allows us to reason to conclusions that could guide us in our lives, if we reach them.

Since the content of the divine overflow includes the ordering principles of the world, if we are

able to actualize some part of our intellect, we may be able to use our reason to make inferences,

based on the principles of existence that make up the divine overflow. If we come to understand

these principles that order and govern our world, Maimonides claims, we may use them to draw

9
inferences and thus receive correct guidance from them. Since these principles and our

actualized intellects have as their source the divine overflow, Maimonides would say that, in

reasoning to conclusions based on these ordering principles, we receive guidance from God. In

fact, Maimonides continues, saying, providence watches over everyone endowed with intellect

proportionately to the measure of his intellect (625).

In sum, then, we receive divine providence by strengthening our bond with God, which is

the divine overflow. The content of the divine overflow is actualized knowledge and the

principles of existence; therefore, we may receive a larger part of the divine overflow (and thus

strengthen our bond with God) by increasing our actualized knowledge by means of coming to

grasp the principles of existence, the source of order and governance in our world. In

strengthening that bond, we receive more of Gods providence.

I will attempt to state the nature of overflow in non-Maimonidean terms, if possible. In

general, divine overflow is a relation that exists between God and His creation. Concerning all

of creation, a relation R exists between a deity d and creation c, where dRc would be spoken as,

the deity overflows towards creation. This relation is such that the following are the case:

1. R is one-directional, that is, non-symmetric, such that dRc but not cRd.

2a. R is a relation of causation, such that if dRc then d causes c such that, even while

causing c, d remains unchanging and simple.

2b. This causation is such that, if dRc, then d determines c properties.

R is also an instance of a causa secundum esse, where that entails the following:

3. If dRc, then c exists exists only if d exists.

10
Now, statements 1 and 3 seem clear enough. For example, the relation has been compared to the

relation between plant life on Earth and the sun, because plant life exists only if the sun exists

and the relation is non-symmetric.3 Statement 2a is trickier and is rooted in the Plotinan idea of

emanation. In a sense, the sun example can be helpful here as well. The sun changes in no way

when it causes some plant to grow. Simply by continuing to be what it is, the sun brings life to

the plant. No change in the sun alone can be marked simply because it has caused some plant to

grow on Earth. Nor does this instance of causation necessarily require that the sun be a complex

thing. In the end, however, the analogy can only go so far. After all, there are naturalistic

explanations for how the sun provides light and heat to the plant on Earth, while no such

explanation exists (perhaps in principle) for how a deity could remain unchanged and simple,

eternally, while simultaneously causing the creation and sustainment of the universe. The

greatest challenge is the one for which Maimonides has no demonstration how a state of affairs

could, at time t, be such that no universe existed and then, at time t+1, be such that God had

created the universe.4

Maimonides must accept statement 2b regardless of whether he believes in the doctrine

of creation or not. He asserts statement 2b when he describes God as being in a formal relation

to creation, such that God not only creates and sustains creation, but governs it as well. Perhaps

2b should be expanded and restated as follows:

3 It is also important to realize that c continues to exist not on account of ds continual actions to recreate and
maintain c, but an eternal sustainment. That is, R is not causation in the Asherite or Occasionalist sense, where the
deity continually recreates the world at every moment. This is a case of eternal sustainment. For how this
Maimonidean doctrine conflicts with his doctrine of creation, see note 4, below.
4
An investigation into the following claim is beyond the scope of this paper, but this surprising lacuna in his thought
may be one of the secret doctrines to which he had alerted us in his Introduction. Perhaps his secret doctrine (or one
of them) is that the doctrine of creation is false, and the universe has existed eternally, simultaneously with God.
Interestingly, it is the only major argument in The Guide for which he does not give a demonstration.

11
 2b. If dRc, then d not only causes cs existence, but also determines c essence or form,

where that is construed in the Aristotelian sense.5

Thus, it is said that God creates, sustains, and governs the world through overflow. As stated

above, this governance is the formal structure of creation.

The nature of the relation of overflow that exists between individuals and God is more

complex, however. Surely, because they are denizens in creation, the above relation R holds

between them and the deity as well. Humanity is dependent on God for its creation and

sustainment in existence (1, 2a, and 3). As for 2b, in the case of human beings, we receive our

form or essence through Gods overflow as well; thus, we are rational animals by Gods

overflow. In addition to those statements, however, the following could also be said:

4. We come closer to God (receive His providence) by actualizing our intellect.

This further aspect of overflow is special to humans (or, in principle, any rational beings) and is

the special avenue by which providence can be transmitted.

Since it is the degree of intellectual actualization that determines ones providence, it

follows that those who are most intellectually actualized will receive the most providence. These

people, according to Maimonides, are the prophets and true philosophers, followed by those who

pursue speculation about truth, then those who hold true opinions based on authority, followed

by the ignorant masses that heed the commandments without necessarily holding any true

opinions (III.51). Therefore, it is solely ones level of intellectual acumen and actualization that

dictates how much one receives divine providence.

But this may seem counter-intuitive to the layperson; after all, is it not virtue that God

desires and rewards? To claim that Gods providence is not dependent on virtue seems opposed

to Gods greatest commandment to us to love Him with all our hearts which does not seem to
5
Lest this become a paper on Aristotle, I will not further pursue what exactly a form or essence is.

12
involve intellectual apprehension at all. Furthermore, Maimonides system describes an

unchanging flow of providence that is available to whoever turns to it. This idea, it seems, must

also exclude any possibility of divine intervention on an individual basis on behalf of a virtuous

person, which, according to many, would be the paradigm example of Gods providence. That is,

this idea may preclude what are commonly called miracles.

Maimonides has already provided us with responses to these questions, however.

Maimonides quotes Moses, who said, Show me Thy ways, that I may know Thee...that I may

find Grace in Thy sight (123). Maimonides interprets this line when he says, [this] indicates

that he who knows God finds Grace in His sight and not he who merely fasts and prays, but

everyone who has knowledge of Him (123). Thus, according to Maimonides, the Torah tells us

that it is he who has knowledge that finds favor with God, and not he who only behaves properly.

It is Gods will, according to Maimonides, that we come to know Him and His works, as much

as we are able, and in so doing will we receive Gods favor and thus His providence. In fact,

Maimonides goes so far as to say that a person who seems to be virtuous, but does not have

knowledge, is not virtuous at all. He says, As for someone who thinks and frequently mentions

God, without knowledge he does not in true reality mention or think about God. For that thing

which is in his imagination and which he mentions in his speech does not correspond to any

being at all (620). The act of pursuing knowledge of God and His nature is equivalent to

performing proper worship, which is an activity traditionally ascribed to the virtuous person.

Maimonides furthers his point when he says, If you perform a commandmentwithout

reflecting upon the meaning of the action or upon Him you should not think you have

achieved your end (622). Now, understanding the nature of God and the true meaning of the

13
Laws is the business of the person who engages in philosophical speculation; thus for

Maimonides, reflection, speculation, and knowledge make for the truly virtuous person.

In addition, on Maimonides account, one cannot achieve rational perfection unless one

has achieved moral perfection. There can never be someone who is completely intellectually

actualized and immoral or vicious. Maimonides says, The moral virtues are a preparation for

the rational ones, it being impossible to achieve true, rational acts I mean perfect rationality

unless it be by a man thoroughly trained with respect to his morals (77). That is, no one can

achieve full intellectual actualization and thus receive divine providence unless they are moral.

Maimonides believes that an immoral person, as such, is possessed by passions that cloud the

mind such that one cannot actualize ones intellect as fully as a moral person can. He also

believes that bodily health is a necessary requirement for full intellectual actualization, since ill

health, as well as an immoral character, will impede ones ability to be rational. In essence,

Maimonides believes that no immoral person could ever become fully rational or intellectually

actualized. These claims are similar to Aristotles beliefs, as stated in his Nicomachean Ethics,

that rational activity is a part of virtue, because it is the exercising of our special human capacity.

Since the highest commandment is to love God, it follows that, to best love God, we ought to

strengthen our bond with him, which is His overflow that we receive via our rational activity.

Concerning our love of God, Maimonides says, love is proportionate to apprehension

(621). That is, we love God best by coming to apprehend Him. He also says, To love the

Lord this love becomes valid only through the apprehension of the whole of being as it is and

through the consideration of His wisdom as it is manifested in it (512). Our love of God is only

truly valid if it is a kind of apprehension or intellectual actualization. And as we have seen

14
above, Maimonides believes that one cannot properly display our love of Him, through prayer

and worship, when one does not have true opinions about Him.

Maimonides tell us that loving God with all ones heart is setting thought to work on the

first intelligible after apprehension, total devotion to Him and the employment of intellectual

thought in constantly loving Him should be aimed at (621). Apprehending the truth of Him and

His works is truly loving God and following the Law, guaranteeing providence. It should be

remembered that Maimonides argues that becoming moral is logically prior to becoming

intellectually actualized. That is, one must cultivate a moral character before one may become

intellectually virtuous or actualized. This is why Maimonides prescribes a course of study that

begins with the Law, which is intended to make one moral, moves through rational science,

which is the apprehension of Gods works, and ends with divine science, which is the rational

apprehension of His essence.

To emphasize his point that it is rational intellection of God and His works that matters,

Maimonides says, He who apprehends and advances with his whole being towards the object of

his apprehension, is like one who is in the pure light of the sun [Whereas] he who has no

intellectual cognition at all of God is like one who is in darkness and has never seen light (625).

Whats more, Maimonides says, If a mans thought is free from distraction, if he apprehends

Him in the right way and rejoices in what he apprehends, that individual can never be afflicted

with evil of any kind (625). This invulnerability to all harm, this total protection, is that

paradigm case of divine providence for those who are most deserving. For Maimonides, then, all

instances of providence, even the most miraculous cases, are dependent solely on the

actualization of the intellect.

15
 It is agreed that by strengthening our bond with God, properly worshipping Him, and

loving Him we become virtuous; for Maimonides, we strengthen the bond, properly worship

Him, and love Him through rational activity. From all of this it becomes clear that, for

Maimonides, being virtuous is identical with having knowledge of God and His ways, and acting

virtuously is identical with pursuing knowledge of Him and His ways. This is the case because

the way in which we strengthen our bond with Him is by receiving a greater portion of his divine

overflow via the Active Intellect, which we do through rational apprehension of Him and His

works. Thus, consistent with the laypersons intuitions, Maimonides believes that the most

virtuous person is the fullest recipient of Gods providence. For Maimonides, however, being

virtuous is defined solely as having or pursuing knowledge. Thus, having knowledge of God and

His works entails receiving Gods providence.

Concerning the question of whether God intervenes on behalf of individuals, Maimonides

has another response. His account, Maimonides says, [Is] what all the prophetshave said

concerning individual providence watching over each individual in particular according to the

measure of his perfection this consideration follows necessarily from the point of view of

speculation, provided that, as we have mentioned, providence is consequent on the intellect

(476). People receive Gods providence in accordance with their level of perfection or virtue, as

the laypersons intuitions seem to imply. Since virtue and perfection have been defined in terms

of intellectual actualization, Maimonides argues, his account ends up being the same as that of

the prophets. The truth of this claim, however, depends on whether the prophets in fact meant

for us to pursue knowledge of God as our greatest good, which is why Maimonides spends much

of The Guide arguing for this interpretation of the prophets words.

16
 Maimonides also would protest the laypersons intuition, arguing that the Torah never

tells of the kind of divine intervention on behalf of an individual that the layperson might have in

mind. Maimonides believes that God is the cause of all providential events, but His providence

comes by way of proximate causes that seem perhaps more ordinary than what the critics have in

mind. He says, all those intermediate causes are sometimes omitted in the dicta of the prophets,

and an individual act produced in time is ascribed to God, it being said that Hehas done it

(409). These intermediary causes between The First Cause of all things, I mean Gods will and

free choice (409) and the proximate cause are often not mentioned in the prophetic texts, and

thus many wrongly come to believe that no intermediary causes were present. Maimonides

continues, saying,

Know that all proximate causes, through which is produced in time that which is produced in time,
regardless of whether these causes are essential, or natural, or voluntary, or fortuitous I mean by
the voluntary cause of that particular thing produced in time, the free choice of man and even if
the cause consists in the volition of an animal other than man: that all these causes are ascribed in
the books of the prophets to God. (410)

Therefore the occurrences where its seems that God has intervened in a direct and immediate

way are in fact consistent with his account, Maimonides argues, because those occurrences are

simply instances of prophetic omission of proximate causes. In fact, it seems that God acts only

through proximate causes, as Maimonides implies when he says, The governance and

providence of Him accompany the world as a whole in such a way that the manner and true

realityare hidden from us (193). God and His providence may act in the world through

proximate causes such that we do not immediately recognize them as providence.

Maimonides account of providence places on the human individual a great responsibility.

Maimonides says, that intellect which overflowed from Him towards us is the bond between us

and Himyou have the choice: if you wish to fortify and strengthen this bond, you can do so

(621). This choice involves coming to apprehend the nature of God and His works. Referring

17
by parable to our coming closer to God, Maimonides describes citizens of a city attempting to

come near to their ruler. He says, If, however, you have understood the natural things, you have

entered [His] habitationIf, however, you have achieved perfection in the natural things and

have understood divine science youare with him in one habitation (619). Thus it is choosing

to study the natural things and then the nature of the divine that we come closest to God and thus

receive the bounty of his providence, as when Maimonides says, For all natural things are called

the work of the Lord (160). By choosing to study the nature of Creation, i.e., natural science,

and the nature of God, i.e., the philosophical study of Him, called divine science, we receive

providential guidance and protection.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, Gods providence is not something superadded

to the pursuit of intellectual apprehension, or some reward that is bestowed after the fact. His

providence simply is that intellectual apprehension, and the protection bestowed on the recipient

of Gods providence merely a consequence of ones knowledge. We have seen that our bond

with God is the divine overflow, via the Active Intellect. The content of this overflow is the set

of principles of existence; that is, the content of the overflow are the principles that order and

sustain the formal properties of the universe and its contents. Further, we know that God has

established a well-ordered and well-governed world for us, where those principles rule

absolutely. Finally, we know that our bond with Him is by means of our intellect, and we

strengthen it by actualizing our intellect to receive more of the divine overflow, the content of

which is this set of principles. In other words, we follow Gods commandment to love Him by

actualizing our intellect in such a way that we grasp the principles of existence as much as we are

able, and by so doing receive Gods providence. Since this providence is not a separate end from

the activity, but simply is this activity, it must be the case that Gods providence is brought about

18
as a result of understanding the principles that govern our world. Gods providence His

guidance and protection comes about when we come to understand the regularities in our world

and learn to use this understanding to guide and protect ourselves. Further, these principles of

existence that comprise the divine overflow, which allow us to guide and protect ourselves, must

be none other than the laws or regularities of nature. Maimonides refers to Aristotelian natural

science as being, in essence, the truth of Gods works. Therefore, coming to understand nature

and its laws, according to the Aristotelian model of natural science, is coming to know the

principles that comprise the divine overflow. This is what the person of knowledge possesses

that others do not that allows the person of knowledge to receive the benefits of divine

providence: the knowledgeable person will be able to make more accurate predictions about his

or her world and thus avoid harm to a much greater extent than the ignorant person who merely

follows the commandments without understanding.

God allows individuals to have free will and He provides the means for us to receive

guidance and providence, via the Active Intellect. Thus any individual who chooses not to do so

is turning away from their bond with God. God does not and should not come to the aid of the

individuals who has gotten into trouble as a result of their own free choice to turn away from

God. One might respond, wondering why God would let an individual adopt such an attitude or

disposition that would allow them to befall such harm. In response to this line of thought,

Maimonides says,

God does not change the nature of human individuals by means of miraclesIt is because of this
that there are commandments and prohibitions, rewards and punishmentsHe has never willed to
do it, nor shall He ever will it. For if it were His will that the nature of any human individual
should be changed because of what He wills from that individual, sending of prophets and all
giving of Law would have been useless. (529)

Since God has given us the means to guide and provide for ourselves via the Active Intellect, one

who chooses otherwise is choosing, of their own free will, to turn away from the bond between

19
Him and us. It is not for God to try to change their mind or their attitude concerning their

decision, for if He does so, He will have undermined the purpose of setting down the Law

through the prophets. God gave us the Law and sent us the prophets so that we could come to

know how best to live and worship Him. If we choose to go against the Law and the wisdom of

the prophets, and because of that choice come in danger of being harmed, God ought not to

rescue us from the consequences of our freely chosen action, because to do so renders the Law

and the prophets pointless.

Further, Maimonides asks, why would God need to intervene in His creation, unless that

Creation were imperfect? To suggest that God might need to intervene in Creation after having

created it is to suggest that the mechanisms of Creation were not functioning as God would like.

Concerning Gods relationship to the mechanisms of His creation, Maimonides says, His

knowledge of things is not derived from them, so that there is multiplicity and renewal of

knowledge. On the contrary, the things in question follow upon His knowledge, which preceded

and established them (485). So, as an artificer is to his artifact, so is God to His creation, which

follows according to the mechanisms instilled in it by Him and to suggest that one of these

mechanisms might go against His will in such a way that He might need to intervene to correct it

is to suggest a deficiency in His knowledge and Creation. Maimonides explains what might have

led his critics to such a mistake when he says, What first impelled them toward this speculation

was the fact that they considered the circumstances of people, of the wicked and the good, and

that in their opinion these matters were not well ordered; as was said by those among us who

were ignorant: The way of the Lord is not well ordered (464). Those who do not see the order

that guides our sublunary realm do so because of their ignorance; for to suggest that this world is

not well ordered is to suggest that Gods Creation and Gods works are disordered, which is

20
again to ascribe deficiency to God. Those who criticize Maimonides account of providence

because, according to them, it does not follow the Law, themselves violate the purpose and

principles of the Law in their reasoning. Maimonides account, on the other hand, is true to that

purpose and principle.

Maimonides account has several important, and perhaps controversial, implications

about the nature of human reason and the world. Maimonides has said that an individual who

fully actualizes his intellect and fully apprehends God and His works, i.e., natural and divine

science, will be invulnerable to harm or evil, as long as that intellect is fully actualized. For this

to be the case, then, the actualized individual would know, for example, not to board a ship that

was headed out to sea that would be sunk in a storm that night. The individual would know not

to board the ship even if the skies above were perfectly clear.6 The implication that follows from

this is that the fully actualized individual must truly be a master of all natural science and must

fully grasp the principles of existence, such that he or she could accurately predict weather

patterns, landslides, earthquakes, etc At the very least, this individual must know how to deal

with these natural disasters and the loss they may bring. Otherwise, some evil would befall the

individual, and if that individual were fully actualized and thus fully virtuous, an unjust result

would occur. Since God is responsible for all of the mechanisms of the world, it could be said

that Gods Creation led to unjust results. To suggest this is again to impute deficiency or

injustice to Him, which is unacceptable for Maimonides. Therefore, for Maimonides to be able

to maintain his account of providence without violating the Law by imputing deficiency or

injustice to God, it must be the case that every aspect of our sublunary realm is, in theory,

accessible to human understanding. At the very least, the ideally actualized individual must be

able to make accurate predictions about not only the natural events in the world but also the
6
This implication also belies Maimonides belief that the natural world is governed by deterministic laws.

21
actions of his fellow human beings. Truly, the ideal human intellect is impressive, in that it

would grasp all the laws of nature and psychology.

Thus, Maimonides account of providence is at base largely naturalistic, in that we

receive Gods divine providence through the use of our faculty of reason, by coming to

understand the natural mechanisms of our world. Those mechanisms are knowable through the

various sciences and predictable by the intellectually actualized individual. Finally,

Maimonides naturalistic account implies that the order and mechanisms of our world are

inherently knowable to human reason; thus it can be said that, concerning the sublunary realm,

Maimonides believes that Gods knowledge of Creation, that is, the knowledge by which His

creation is ordered, and our knowledge are entirely univocal to each other.7

Therefore, the status of miracles, understood as divine intervention into the natural order

of things, is as follows. Strictly speaking, miracles understood in this way do not occur on

Maimonides account. Is there a sense in which miracles can occur in Maimonides system? If

so, these Maimonidean miracles would lack the characteristic that defines the common sense of

miracles the Maimonidean miracle would not be divine intervention into the natural order of

things. Instead, such an event would be instead a singular only seeming exception of a universal

causal law that could nonetheless be explained naturalistically by a completed science. Perhaps

at one time only, and at no other time or place in all of creation, the relevant causal laws would

be such that a particular event could not be predicted by a nearly completed science. In any

other circumstance, the event in question could be predicted, but in this singular case, the laws of

7
I do not mean to claim that Maimonides entire cosmology is univocal, or that any being endowed with earthly
matter could ever possess a fully actualized intellect for any great length of time. He claims that Moses was the
wisest person to have lived, but he was only perfected as much as is possible for a being endowed with matter to be
so. The relationship of our material nature to our knowledge and virtue is, however, beyond the scope of this essay.

22
nature dictate that some other event occur, despite the best predictions of the nearly completed

science. That is, perhaps only a completed science could predict this event.

Setting aside the unlikelihood of such a state of affairs, accepting such a possibility

would introduce a tension into Maimonides system.8 Maimonides has said categorically that a

human being with a fully actualized intellect would necessarily receive Gods providence, such

that she was immune from harm. How could a fully actualized human being, assuming she exists

before the completion of science, be immune from harm when possible anomalies could occur,

perhaps causing her harm?

One answer is this: no one can be fully actualized until science is completed. But this

answer is unsatisfactory, because it seems unjust for one individual to be able to become fully

actualized and another not so, merely because of the time of their births. And Maimonides goes

to great pains to demonstrate the justice and rationality of the Law. Another answer is this: the

fully actualized person would know the lacunae of the science of her day and would be able to

identify a danger significantly ahead of time such that she could avoid it. For example, she

might know that she cannot predict the weather patterns over the Sea of Galilee, so to board a

boat crossing the Sea would be dangerous.

But this too is not really very satisfactory. As noted above, even a fully actualized human

being cannot be expected to have mastered every single science to such an extent that she can

fully determine in advance every possible danger or harm to her or her loved ones. For example,

Spinoza describes Moses as the most fully actualized human being ever to have lived, yet even

he had to sleep and could not remain eternally actualized. Even Moses, when these lapses

8
Perhaps this whole thought experiment is in tension with the Maimonidean belief that the rationale of His
governance (that is, the laws of nature) is univocal with human reason. The notion that some law of nature would be
universally true except for one anomalous exception seems to contradict the notion that God made the world so that
we could understand it and thus predict events.

23
occurred, fell out from under the strongest aegis of Gods providence. Maimonides has said

himself that no human being, in principle, could maintain a fully actualized intellect for an

extended amount of time. Thus, if that is the case, no human being is ever fully guaranteed

Gods providence to such an extent that he is categorically always immune from harm.

One other answer occurs to me. Perhaps the fully actualized individual will be able to

accept whatever harms do happen to befall her due to her inability to predict them. Of course,

such an individual would be able to predict and manipulate the majority of such harms, but she

could also have the capacity to accept such events stoically. This question remains, however; is

choosing this last answer an ascription of imperfection to Gods plan? After all, would not a

world in which the virtuous (fully actualized) people never had to accept harms be more perfect

than one that they had to do so? I am not sure how to answer this complaint.

It seems undeniable to me, however, that this Maimonidean theodicy is in the end

unsatisfactory. I call it a theodicy because, on Maimonides account, any harm or evil that

befalls an individual does so because the individual was not properly actualized such that he

could predict and avoid that harm. In essence, this view is a claim that whoever is harmed must

have deserved it, because he should have seen it coming. After all, Maimonides might respond,

God provided us with a fully mechanistic, deterministic world, a rational intellect with which to

predict all of its events, and the divine command to love Him (which amounts, as we have seen,

to know Him and His creation.) Thus, if a person suffers pain or harm, he must not have been

following Gods commandment to know creation; otherwise, he would have been able to avoid it.

Thus, any evil that befalls man is a result of his own choice.9

9
In making this claim, Maimonides believes he has demonstrated the fairness, justice, and rationality of the Law.

24
 In conclusion, we have seen that Maimonides account of providence is a naturalistic one

that emphasizes our responsibility to engage in rational apprehension. The mechanism of

providence lies in our intellectual connection with God by virtue of His overflow, through the

intermediation of the Active Intellect. God has commanded us to apprehend Him and His works

and has given us the means to do so. We possess an intellect in potentia that can be actualized if

we set ourselves to the task. Furthermore, He has created a world according to principles

accessible to and univocal with human reason, so that we may come to understand our world and

thus receive guidance and protection from Him, through the intermediation of the Active

Intellect and our own intellects. In so doing, Maimonides has given us an account of divine

providence that is consistent with both Aristotelian natural science and the science of the Law.

25