Aligned sentence by sentence
,
The preceding established that one act cannot have two agents. Whoever supposes that the Creator (mighty and exalted) compels His servant to something has made a single act belong to both of them.
. ,
Furthermore: if He were to compel him, His command and prohibition would be meaningless. And if He compelled him to do something, He could not justly punish him for it.
, ,
Furthermore: if people were compelled, reward would be owed to the believer and the unbeliever alike — since each labored at what he was put to use for. Like a wise man who employs workers, one to build and another to demolish, who would owe wages to both.
, ,
Furthermore: compulsion entails excuse. Since it is known that a person cannot overpower his Lord's strength, if the unbeliever were to excuse himself saying he could not believe, he would have to be right and his excuse accepted.
, ,
As for scripture: we have already cited 'choose life' (Deut. 30:19); and what was said to the wrongdoers: 'Has this come from your hand? Does God show you favor?' (Mal. 1:9).
And where the Creator made explicit His disavowal of their sins, saying: 'Ah, rebellious children, declares the LORD, who carry out a plan, but not Mine; and who make an alliance, but not of My spirit' (Isa. 30:1).
,
From the traditions: what the early sages transmitted — 'Everything is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven' — citing: 'And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you, but to fear' (Deut. 10:12).
Aligned sentence by sentence
, ,
God marveled at this matter and said: 'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?' (Ezek. 18:23). The second: He affirmed it could not be — 'For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone' (Ezek. 18:32). The third: He swore an oath — 'Say to them, as I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked' (Ezek. 33:11).
,
Perhaps someone will say: if it is as has been shown — that He does not desire the sin of a sinner — how can there be in His world something that is not good or something He is not pleased with?
, , ,
The answer to this is close at hand: what seems strange to us — that a wise ruler allows in his realm what he does not want — is only strange in the case of a human being, since a person hates something only when it harms him.
, ,
Our Lord does not hate these transgressions for His own sake — no accident can befall Him — but He hates them for us, because they harm us.
,
Perhaps he will also say: since He knew in advance what would be, He knew the person would disobey Him — therefore the person must disobey Him, so that what He knew may be fulfilled.
, ,
Resolving this doubt is even clearer than the first. He who says this has no evidence that God's knowledge of things is the cause of their being — it is only conjecture or deliberate assertion.
Aligned sentence by sentence
,
— for if God's knowledge of something were the cause of its being, things would be eternal and pre-existing, since His knowledge of them is without beginning.
, ,
Rather, we believe He knows things according to the true reality of their being. What He produces, He knew He would produce; what a person will choose, He knew the person would choose.
?, ,
If he says: if God knew that the person would speak, can he remain silent? — we say explicitly: if the person were to remain silent instead of speaking, then the original premise would be that God knew the person would remain silent.
. . ?
Section 5. I found that people ask in this context: what is the wisdom in commanding and prohibiting the righteous person from whom it is known he will not depart from obedience?
, . ,
I established four considerations for this. First: to let him know what He wants from him. Second: to complete his reward — for if he performed obedience while not commanded, he would have no reward for it.