lxxxiv. Some psalms are a protest against those who rely on human force

and human cunning instead of having faith in God, a protest of the ‏ענוים‎ against the view and creed of the ‏זדים‎ and ‏גאים‎ or ‏גוים‎ e.g., ix. and x., xi., xiv., xvi., xvii., &c. Some psalms are of a more didactic character, showing the way of true happiness (Ps. i.), depicting a truly pious life (xv., xxiv.), or the excellence of the word of God, as xix., cxix.; or the uselessness of sacrifice without purity of heart (xl., l., li.).

The poetical form of the Psalms, as of Hebrew poetry in general, is parallelism. The sentences are formed in such a manner that the psalm can be arranged in lines divisible into two parts, which are either two elements of a single idea, or a double expression of the same idea, or a combination of two ideas or things opposed to each other, illustrating an idea by its antithesis. In some of the Psalms the parallelism is perfect throughout, in others it is partly abandoned, probably in order not to slavishly subordinate the idea to the form of its expression. The same is to be noticed as regards other forms of the Psalms. Some are arranged alphabetically, that is, the successive verses begin with successive letters of the alphabet; but deviations from the plan are met with almost in all such psalms. There are psalms which are divided into a certain number of parts or strophes, each part beginning or ending with the same phrase or verse; but almost invariably these phrases or verses undergo some modification.

The style is naturally poetical, and figurative language is employed throughout. God is a Rock (‏צור‎), an habitation (‏מעון‎), a Shepherd (‏רועה‎), who feeds His flock with great care and love; He is an eagle, under whose wings (‏אברתו‎, ‏כנפיו‎) the weak find protection; He rides in the heavens of the heavens of old (‏רכב בשמי שמי קדם‎). Man is compared to “grass that withers,” to a “flower that blossoms in the morning, and in the evening it is withered and dried up;” the life of man is but a breath (‏הבל‎); a lie (‏כזב‎); light in the balance (‏במאזנים לעלות‎); he changes like a garment, like a raiment. The days of a long life are like the days of the heavens, the sun or the moon (‏כימי שמים‎, ‏לפני שמש‎, ‏עם שמש‎ or ‏לפני ירח‎). The mighty are mountains with many peaks (‏הרים גבנונים‎), they have horns like those of the unicorns, whilst the weak are “a wall bent” (‏קיר נטוי‎), “a fence thrust down” (‏גדר הדחויה‎); “they have sunk in deep mire;” “they have come into fire and into water;” “the waters have come unto the soul.” The meek are “broken in heart,” “crushed in spirit.” The wicked and unjust are like lions and dogs; they have poison “like the poison of a serpent, like a deaf adder that stoppeth its ears, that does not listen to the voice of charmers, to the clever sorcerer.” Their words are smooth like cream and oil, whilst in the heart there are war, daggers, sharp swords. The threatened one runs like a hind, escapes like a bird. Those who have no higher aim than material enjoyments are like “sheep driven to death;” “man in his dignity, without understanding, is like cattle that perish.” Mishaps come upon man like the waves of the sea. The Divine judgment visits the wicked like a thunderstorm; it shakes the earth like an earthquake or volcano. Sinners receive “the cup of confusion” (‏כוס התרעלה‎) at the hand of God; for “a cup is in the hand of the Lord, and the wine therein is red; it is full with drink, and He pours out from it, but its dregs all the wicked of the earth will suck and drink.”

The sinner is punished by his own deed; “he digs a pit and falls into it;” he feels like a sick person whose “bones are troubled, and wither;” his purification is toe healing of the soul; he is purified with hyssop; he becomes whiter than snow (li. 9). When man sins he feels as if he had become a changed creature, as if he had now been born and conceived in sin (ver. 7); when he repents and improves, God creates in him a new heart, and renews a firm spirit within him (ver. 12). The wife of the God-fearing man is compared to the fruitful vine, his children to young olive-trees (cxxviii.). The righteous will flourish like a palm-tree, will grow high like a cedar upon Lebanon (xcii. 13). Whilst the righteous is like a tree planted by the brook of water, the wicked are like chaff which the wind drives away (i. 3, 4). Israel is likened to a vine brought from Egypt and planted in Palestine (lxxx. 9). Peacefulness and brotherly love, between high and low, the mighty and the weak, the rich and the poor, the wise and the simple, are illustrated by the fine oil that flows down from the head to the beard, the beard that descends over the garments, and the dew of the high Hermon that comes down to the lower mountains of Zion (cxxx.).

There are some instances of play upon words (lvi. 9), and of rhymes (cxlv. 11; xxxiv. 6); the latter are apparently not intentional.

Although we generally speak of the Psalms of David, only a portion of them was composed by King David; the headings ascribe also one psalm to Moses, two to King Solomon, twelve to Asaph, one to Heman, and one to Ethan; and some have no author mentioned in the heading. Many have no superscription at all, and most of these seem to belong to a later period.

The individual psalms have various names. The most general of them is ‏מזמור‎ a poem, set in music. Of some it is distinctly stated that they were intended to be sung; this is expressed in the heading by the word ‏שיר‎ “song,” which either precedes or follows the title ‏מזמור‎ or stands alone without ‏מזמור‎. The term, ‏שיר‎ “song,” is further qualified by ‏חנוכת הבית‎ “of the dedication of the house,” ‏ידידות‎ “of love,” and ‏המעלות‎ or ‏למעלות‎ “of degrees leading upward,” i.e., towards God. Another name occurring in twelve psalms is ‏משכיל‎ “instructive song;” the maschil proclaims the lesson that God is King of the universe, and that those are happy who trust in His justice and mercy. A similar meaning attaches to ‏ללמד‎ the word superadded to ‏משכִל‎ in Ps. lx.; lit. “to teach,” i.e., that the song be learnt by all, in order that people may strengthen their confidence in God in times of trouble (comp. 2 Sam. i. 18). The meaning of ‏להזכיר‎ which occurs in two psalms (xxxviii. and lxx.), is “for prayer.” There is one psalm ‏לתודה‎ (c.), “for thanksgiving;” another “for the Sabbath-day,” ‏ליום השבת‎ (xcii.). Four psalms are called ‏תפלה‎ “prayer” (xvii., lxxxvi., xc, cii.); one (cxlv.), ‏תהלה‎ “praise;” one (vii.), ‏שגיון‎ “an error,” [8] referring to the miscalculation of the wicked in preparing weapons against the innocent, which weapons are turned against themselves; and six are superscribed ‏מכתם‎ “a jewel.” Such a jewel is the Psalmist’s “faith in God,” that inspires him with hope and pure joy in the midst of misfortune.

The headings include also instructions for the singers and references to the musical instruments which are to be used. The most general term is ‏למנצח‎ “to the chief,” scil., of the singers or Levites; it refers to the chief of a particular division of the Levites if it is followed by a qualifying phrase, and to the chief of all the Levites if it is not followed by any qualification. The term ‏למנצח‎ describes the psalm as a Temple-song, although this may not have been its original object. Even poems which have been composed by David on certain personal events became—perhaps slightly modified—national songs, and formed part of the public service. The adaptation was easy, because these historical psalms rarely contain any allusion to the particular event mentioned in the superscription.

The term ‏למנצח‎ is qualified by ‏על נגינת‎ “on a stringed instrument,” ‏נגינת‎ being the particular instrument of the Levites, of whom this ‏מנצח‎ was the master. The term ‏בנגינות‎ which in several psalms follows the word ‏למנצח‎ is grammatically unconnected with the latter; it means “on stringed instruments,” and is the instruction for the ‏מנצח‎. There were several kinds of such instruments; two kinds are named ‏שמינית‎ and ‏גתית‎ “the neginath with eight strings” or “chords,” and “the gittith” coming from Gath, a town in the land of the Philistines. Other kinds of musical instruments are ‏נהילות‎ (v.), ‏מחלת‎ (liii.), and ‏עלמות‎ (xlvi.); these are hollow flute-like instruments, also called ‏נבלים‎ (1 Chron. xv. 20). In some cases the division of Levites is named instead of the instrument: ‏ידותון‎ “Jeduthun” (xxxix., lxii. and lxxvii.; comp. 1 Chron. xxv. 3); ‏לבני קרח‎ “to the sons of Korah” (xlii. to xlix., and lxxxiv. to lxxxviii.); once the direction occurs ‏לענות‎ (lxxxviii.), “to sing alternately,” referring to the two divisions of Levites headed by ‏הימן האזרחי‎ and ‏איתן האזרחי‎ “the Ezrahite Heman,” and “the Ezrahite Ethan” (lxxxviii. and lxxxix.).

A few terms are met with in the headings which describe the contents of the psalm in a poetical style. Such are (a.) ‏שושן עדות‎, ‏ששנים עדות‎ and ‏ששנים‎ (lx., lxxx., xlv., and lxix.), “Testimony for the lily or lilies,” or “for lilies.” The poet calls by this name the flower of the nation, the meek and God-fearing, who are under the special protection of God, and are destined to be crowned in the end with glory and victory, (b.) ‏אילת השחר‎ (xxii.), “The strength of the dawn.” The phrase refers to the strength given to the sufferer in the darkness of his despair by the awakening of his faith in God, which is compared by the poet to the dawn as the forerunner of daylight, (c.) ‏אל תשחת‎ “Do not destroy” (lvii., lviii., lix., and lxxv.). By this heading the author indicates that the psalm is a protest against the self-confidence of the wicked in the success of their wickedness, either with reference to their evil designs against the author himself, or to their plans in general. (d.) ‏יונת אלם רחקים‎ “Dove in the force of those far,” scil., from God (lvi.). The psalm contains the expression of David’s faith in God when he was caught by the Philistines in Gath.

In some of the headings the event is mentioned which prompted the Psalmist to compose the psalm: David’s flight from Jerusalem when Absalom rebelled against him (iii.); the slander of the Benjamite Kush (vii.); the death of Labben (ix.); rescue from the hands of Saul and other enemies (xiii.); dedication of the house (xxx.); David’s escape from Abimelech, king of the Philistines (xxxiv.); his capture by the Philistines in Gath (lvi.); his stay in the cave of Adullam (lvii., cxlii.); danger of being put to death by the servants of Saul (lix.); war with Aram and Edom (lx.); sojourn in the wilderness of Judah (lxiii.).

The order of the Psalms is not chronological; e.g., chap. iii. refers to the rebellion of Absalom, whilst chap, cxlii. was composed before the death of Saul. The principle which guided the collector in fixing the place of each psalm is not known. But it is certainly not the result of mere chance that the first two psalms speak of the Law of God, and of the punishment of those who rebel against God and against His anointed; and that the last psalm calls upon all to praise God with all their soul: “Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord, Hallelujah!” Nor is it mere chance that the psalms are divided, like the Law, into five groups or books, each one ending with a doxology. It is possible that the psalms were recited or sung at the public service in a manner corresponding to the reading of the Law and the Prophets.

The first two books contain most of the psalms superscribed ‏לדוד‎ “by David,” but there are also some in the other books (one in III., two in IV., fourteen in V.). At the end of the second book (lxxii. 20) the following words are added: “The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended;” i.e., the hope which has just been expressed in the words ‏וימלא כבוד יי את כל הארץ‎ “And the whole earth shall be filled with the glory of God,” forms the aim and end of all the prayers of David, the son of Jesse. The verse does not mean that the first seventy-two chapters of the Psalms contain all the prayers of David, as there are several psalms of David between chaps, lxxiii. and cl.

The Psalms were composed by David and other authors partly for private use, partly for the public service in the Temple and other places of worship. Of those that were originally for private use some were subsequently adapted for public service, and even those intended from the beginning for public worship were adapted to the different modes of recitation or singing. The Book of Psalms includes, therefore, two recensions of several chapters; e.g., xiv. and liii.; xviii. and 2 Sam. xxii.; lx. 7–14 and cviii. 7–14; lvii. 8–12 and cviii. 2–6; cv. 1–15 and 1 Chron. xvi. 8–22; xcvi. and 1 Chron. xvi. 23–33; cxxxv. and cxxxvi.

A considerable portion of our daily prayers consists of psalms. We distinguish the following groups:—(a.) ‏פסוקי דזמרא‎ “Verses of song,” Ps. cxlv. to cl.; to which the following are added on Sabbaths and Festivals: xix., xxxiv., xc, xci., cxxxv., cxxxvi. (called ‏הלל הגדול‎ “the great Hallel”), xxxiii., xcii., and xciii. (b.) ‏שיר של יום‎ “Song of the day;” a different psalm is recited each day of the week after the morning prayer in the following order: xxiv., xlviii., lxxxii., xciv., lxxxi., xciii., xcii. (c.) ‏קבלת שבת‎ “Friday evening psalms,” xcv. to xcix. (d.) Sabbath afternoon psalms: civ., cxx. to cxxxiv. (e.) ‏הלל‎ “Praise,” cxiii. to cxviii. (f.) Penitential psalms after evening prayer on week-days, in the following order: xxv., xxxii., xxxviii., li., lxxxvi.

2. ‏משלי‎ Proverbs of Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel. The Book of Proverbs belongs to those Biblical books which are called ‏ספרי חכמה‎ “books of wisdom.” They appeal to the reason of man, and do not support their words by the authority of Revelation, although the authors and those who gave them the final shape were inspired and guided by the ‏רוח ה׳‎ “the divine spirit.” The commandments of God and His ways are referred to as the safest guide for man in all conditions of life. Three books are included in this class: Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes.

“The Proverbs of Solomon” are divided into the following six sections:—(A.) Introduction, i. to ix.; (B.) Collection of Proverbs: (a.) Proverbs of Solomon, x. to xxii. 16; (b.) Words of the Wise, xxii. 17 to xxiv. 22; (c.) Second group of Words of the Wise, 23 to 34; (d.) Proverbs of Solomon collected by the men of Hezekiah, xxv. to xxviii.; (e.) Words of Agur-bin-yakeh, xxx.; (f.) Words of Lemuel, xxxi.

The fourth section (chaps, xxv. to xxix.) is introduced by the following superscription:—“Also these are the Proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, had removed.” The men of Hezekiah seem to have been uncertain whether this section should form part of the book, because of the seeming contradiction between the fourth and fifth verses of the twenty-sixth chapter. The men of the Great Synagogue decided the question in favour of its incorporation in the book, and reconciled the seeming contradiction by their interpretation.

The fifth collection of proverbs is ascribed to Agur-bin-yakeh, an allegorical phrase meaning “collection deserving respect.” The collection is further called “the burden”—the usual heading of prophecies—in order to give it more weight. Also the rest of the superscription, “The saying of the man Leïthiel,” Leïthiel ve-ucchal, is of an allegorical character, signifying, “God—i.e., the word of God—is my task, and I shall prevail.” The phrase is set forth more clearly in the succeeding verses: human knowledge is insufficient, but “All the word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who trust in him” (xxx. 5). The second half of this collection has the heading La-alukah, “For a necklace” (comp. i. 9), similar in meaning to the heading ‏מכתם‎ “Jewel,” in the Psalms. The form of these proverbs, based on the numbers two, three, and four, is similar to that of the prophecies of Amos (chaps, i. and ii.). The last collection is headed, “Words to Lemuel, the king; the burden wherewith his mother instructed him.” The contents of the instruction is, “Be not licentious and intemperate; help the poor and oppressed.” The name Lemuel is likewise allegorical, meaning “God-ward.” The book concludes with the praises of a virtuous woman.

(A.) Introduction.—The object of the book is set forth in verses 2 to 7 of the first chapter as follows: “To make man know wisdom and instruction, comprehend words of understanding, and take the instruction of acting wisely, with justice, judgment, and righteousness; to give skill to the simple; to the young knowledge and discretion; that the wise may hear and increase doctrine, and the prudent acquire cleverness to understand proverb and figure, the words of wise men and their allegories. The beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord; wisdom and instruction fools despise.” This last sentence is the basis of the book. Without fear of the Lord all knowledge and wisdom will prove insufficient for establishing man’s true happiness. The Introduction consists of several connected addresses, in which the author persuades the reader to listen to his advice, and keep away from wicked people before it is too late. He exhorts man to entrust himself to the guidance of the Lord, and not to rely on his own understanding. “Be not wise in thine eyes, fear the Lord, and depart from evil” (iii. 7). He warns against bad society, against becoming security for debtors, and against idleness. The two ways open to man are allegorically represented by two women, the one wise, the other foolish; the one leading to happiness, the other to ruin; each one inviting man to her house, and displaying in the very act of invitation her full character.

(B.) The collections of proverbs begin with the tenth chapter. The proverbs have the form of parallelism, each verse being divided into two parts, mostly containing an antithesis illustrating the difference between the wise and the foolish, the good and the bad, the just and the unjust, the industrious and the idle, the rich and the poor, and the like. Each verse is a proverb by itself, and is independent of the verses which precede and follow. There are only a few passages in which several verses are connected, and these occur in the later collections, e.g., xxii. 22–23, 24–25, 26–27; xxiii. 1–3, 4–5, 6–9, 10–11, 12–13, 20–21, 29–35; xxiv. 3–7, 10–12, 30–34; xxvii. 23–27. The whole of the thirtieth chapter consists of small paragraphs of three or four verses, and the last chapter consists of two continuous parts.

In these collections of proverbs we find advice for every condition of our life. Our relation to God is shown; how He loves the good and just:—

“The way of the wicked is an abomination of the Lord; but he loveth him who pursues righteousness” (xv. 9).

“The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination of the Lord, but the prayer of the righteous is his pleasure” (xv. 8).

“The Lord is far from the wicked, but he heareth the prayer of the righteous” (xv. 29).

“To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice” (xxi. 3).

He protects the poor, the weak, the widow, and the orphan:—

“He who oppresseth the poor, blasphemeth his Maker; and he who is gracious to the needy, honoureth him” (xiv. 31).

“He who is gracious to the poor, lendeth to the Lord, and he will repay him his reward” (xix. 17).

“Do not rob the poor because he is poor; and do not crush the poor in the gate, for the Lord will plead their cause, and will take the soul of those who rob them” (xxii. 23).

“The Lord will pull down the house of the proud, and will establish the border of the widow” (xv. 25).

“The rich and the poor meet; the Maker of them all is the Lord” (xxii. 2).

He punishes the evil-doer and rewards the righteous:—

“Do not say, I will repay evil; hope in the Lord, and he will help thee” (xx. 22).

“He who closeth his ear because of the crying of the poor, he also will call and will not be answered” (xxi. 13).

“He who keepeth a command, keepeth his soul; he who despiseth his ways shall die” (xix. 16).

“When the Lord is pleased with the ways of man, he will cause even his enemies to make peace with him” (xvi. 7).

“The Lord will not let the soul of the righteous be hungry, but the desire of the wicked will he thrust back” (x. 3).

He knows the heart of man:—

“There is a test for silver, and a refining pot for gold; but God trieth the hearts” (xvii. 3).

He directs all events:—

“Man’s heart planneth his way, but the Lord directeth his step” (xvi. 9).

“The horse is prepared for the day of war, but the victory is the Lord’s” (xxi. 31).

His blessing is a true blessing:—

“The blessing of the Lord, it maketh rich, and doth not increase trouble with it” (x. 22).

His Will alone must be obeyed:—

“There is no wisdom, and no understanding, and no counsel against the Lord” (xxi. 30).

“Whoso despiseth a word will be punished, but he who feareth a commandment will be rewarded” (xiii. 13).

“Without a vision the people cometh into disorder; but he who keepeth the Law, happy is he” (xxix. 18).

The fear of the Lord is the basis of a virtuous and happy life:—

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (i. 7); the fountain of life (xiv. 27); the fear of the Lord adds days, but the years of the wicked will be short” (x. 27).

According as we display wisdom or folly we make others and ourselves happy or unhappy:—

“A wise son giveth joy to his father, and a foolish son is the sorrow of his mother” (x. 1).

“The wisdom of woman buildeth her house, and folly pulleth it down by her hands” (xiv. 1).

“Eat, my son, honey, for it is good, and honeycomb, which is sweet for thy palate; know that thus is wisdom for thy soul; if thou hast found it, there is a future, and thy hope will not be cut off” (xxiv. 13, 14).

“The prudent seeth evil, and is hidden; the ignorant pass by, and are punished” (xxvii. 12).

“As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman without discretion” (xi. 22).

“The simple believeth every word; but the prudent man looketh well to his going” (xiv. 15).

The ways of wisdom and folly are frequently displayed in our words:—

“In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin, but he who spareth his words acts wisely” (x. 19).

“A soft answer turneth back wrath, but a harsh word raiseth anger” (xv. 1).

“Also a fool when silent is considered wise; he who closeth his lips is prudent” (xvii. 28).

“He who keepeth his mouth and his tongue, keepeth his soul from troubles” (xxi. 23).

“By long-suffering the prince is persuaded; and a soft tongue breaketh a bone” (xxv. 15).

“Answer not a fool like his folly, lest thou be equal to him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his eyes” (xxvi. 4, 5).

The principal virtues recommended to man are righteousness (‏צדקה‎), honesty (‏אמונה‎), truthfulness (‏אמת‎), meekness (‏ענוה‎), industry, thrift, temperance, contentment, and moderation:—

“Treasures of wickedness are of no profit, but righteousness delivereth from death” (x. 2).

“Better a little in the fear of the Lord than a large treasure, and confusion therewith” (xv. 16).

“The righteousness of the upright maketh his way straight, but the wicked falleth by his wickedness” (xi. 5).

“The remembrance of the righteous is for blessing; but the name of the wicked will rot” (x. 7).

“Guilt is the interpreter of fools, but favour that of the straightforward” (xiv. 9).

“To do justice is joy to the righteous, and a terror to evil-doers” (xxi. 15).

“Like a fountain made turbid and a well that is corrupted, is the righteous that yieldeth in the presence of the wicked” (xxv. 26).

“Where a man of honesty is, there is multitude of blessings; but he who hasteneth to become rich will not be guiltless” (xxviii. 20).

“The lip of truth will be established for ever, but the tongue of falsehood for a moment” (xii. 19).

“A witness of faithfulness is he who does not lie, but he who uttereth falsehood is a false witness” (xiv. 5). [9]

“A lip of excellency becometh not a low man; how much less doth a lip of falsehood a noble man!” (xvii. 7).

“Pride came, and shame came; but with the meek is wisdom” (xi. 2).

“Meekness cometh before honour” (xv. 33). “Pride cometh before the fall, and haughtiness of spirit before the stumbling” (xvi. 18). “Let another praise thee, and not thy mouth; a stranger, and not thy lips” (xxvii. 2).

“He is poor who worketh with a slack hand, but the hand of the industrious maketh rich” (x. 4).

“Better is he who thinketh little of himself, and is a slave to himself, than he who thinketh much of himself and lacketh bread” (xii. 9).

“The hand of the industrious shall rule, but the slack hand shall be tributary” (xii. 24).

“In all labour there is profit; but when there is only a word of lips it leads but to want” (xiv. 23).

“Also he who is lazy in his work is a brother to the man that destroyeth” (xviii. 9).

“I passed by the field of a slothful man, and the vineyard of a man wanting heart; and behold, thorns have come up over the whole of it; its surface is covered with thistles, and its stone-fence is pulled down. And I beheld, I turned my heart, I saw, I took instruction: a little of sleep, a little of slumber, a little of joining the hands to lie down; then thy poverty cometh like a traveller, and thy want like an armed man” (xxiv. 30–34).

“The righteous eateth to the fulness of his soul, but the belly of the wicked shall want” (xiii. 25).

“Wine is a mocker, strong drink roareth, and every one that erreth therein will not be wise” (xx. 1).

“Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath complaining? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? Those who tarry long at the wine; those who come to search mixed drink. Do not look upon the wine though it be red, though it send forth its colour through the cup, though it flow smoothly; in the end it biteth like a serpent and stingeth like an asp; thine eyes shall see strange things, and thy heart shall speak perverse things; and thou shalt be like one that lieth in the midst of the sea, and like one that lieth on the top of the mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick. They have beaten me; I felt it not. When shall I awake? I will seek it yet again” (xxiii. 29–35).

“He who is greedy after gain troubleth his house, but he who hateth gifts shall live” (xv. 27).

“He whose desire is wide stirreth up strife, but he who trusteth in the Lord shall be fattened” (xxviii. 25).

“There are who spend liberally, and there is an increase; and there are who withhold more than is right, and yet it leads to want” (xi. 24).

“Know well the state of thy flock; set thy heart to the droves; for treasure is not for ever, nor a crown for generation and generation. When hay is gone, and grass is spoilt, and the herbs of the field are gathered in, there are lambs for thy clothing, and he-goats are the price of a field: and there will be goats’ milk enough for thy food, for the food of thy house, and maintenance for thy maidens’ (xxvii. 23–27).

“Lust overcome is sweet to the soul; but to depart from evil is the abomination of fools” (xiii. 19).

“Better is he who is long-suffering than a hero; and he who ruleth his spirit is better than he who conquereth a city” (xvi. 32).

“Like an open town without a wall is the man whose spirit is without restraint” (xxv. 28).

The following proverbs refer to the relation between husband and wife, and between man and his neighbour as friend or enemy, father and child, rich and poor, king and people:—

“He who hath found a wife hath found a good thing, and obtained favour of the Lord” (xviii. 22).

“A virtuous wife is the crown of her husband, but a wicked woman is like rottenness in his bones” (xii. 4).

“House and wealth are the inheritance of fathers, but a wise wife is from the Lord” (xix. 14; chap. xxxi. 10 to end).

“He who revealeth a secret is a slanderer, but he who is faithful in spirit covereth a thing” (xi. 13).

“Hatred stirreth up strifes, but love covereth all sins” (x. 12).

“Better is a meal of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith” (xv. 17).

“He who covereth transgression seeketh love, but he who repeateth a matter separateth a friend” (xvii. 9).

“Open rebuke is better than secret love” (xxvii. 5).

“He who saith to the wicked, Thou art righteous, him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him; but to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them” (xxiv. 24, 25).

“Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are like smoke” (xxvii. 6).

“When there is no wood the fire goeth out; so when there is no tale-bearer strife ceaseth” (xxvi. 20).

“A kind man doth good to his soul, and a cruel man troubleth his flesh” (xi. 17).

“Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thy heart be glad when he stumbleth, lest the Lord see it and it displease Him, and He turn away His wrath from him” (xxiv. 17, 18).

“The righteous knoweth the feelings of his cattle, but the heart of the wicked is cruel” (xii. 10).

“He who curseth his father and his mother, his lamp shall be put out in obscure darkness” (xx. 20).

“Children’s children are the crown of old men, and the glory of children are their fathers” (xvii. 6).

“The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it” (xxx. 17).

“Where there is the instruction of the father, there is a wise son; but a mocker will he be who heard no rebuke” (xiii. 1).

“He who spareth his rod hateth his son, and he who loveth him chastiseth him early” (xiii. 24).

“Chastise thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul turn to his crying” (xix. 18).

“Train the lad in his way, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (xxii. 6).

“Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him” (xxii. 15).

“Withhold not correction from the child; for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from death” (xxiii. 13, 14).

“The benevolent shall be blessed, for he hath given of his bread to the poor” (xxii. 9).

“The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that stilleth the thirst of others shall also have his thirst stilled” (xi. 25).

“He who despiseth his neighbour sinneth, but whoso is gracious to the poor is happy” (xiv. 24).

“In the multitude of people is the glory of the king; but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince” (xiv. 28).

“The king’s wrath is like messengers of death; but a wise man will pacify it” (xvi. 14).

“The heart of a king is in the hand of the Lord like brooks of water; He turneth it whithersoever He liketh” (xxi. 1).

On miscellaneous subjects:—

“There is that maketh himself rich, yet hath nothing; there is that maketh himself poor, yet hath great riches” (xiii. 7).

“The heart knoweth its own bitterness, and a stranger doth not intermeddle with its joy” (xiv. 10).

“If care is in the heart of man, let him still it; if a good thing, let him brighten it up” (xii. 25).

“He is a guide to life who keepeth instruction, but he that refuseth reproof misleadeth” (x. 17).

“Boast not thyself of to-morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth” (xxvii. 1).

“All the ways of man are clean in his own eyes; but the Lord weigheth the spirits” (xvi. 2).

Job, ‏איוב‎—The Book of Job consists of the following three parts:—

(a.) Introduction (i. and ii.).—God is figuratively represented as presiding over a council of ministers (‏בני האלהים‎ “sons of God”), amongst whom also the accuser (‏השטן‎ “the hinderer,” one who is hostile to the word of God) appears. While God praised the piety of Job, the accuser doubted the purity of his heart, and suggested that if any adversity were to befall Job he would no longer be pious; Job, exposed to hard trials, remained firm in his faith in God. “Naked came I forth from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither; the Lord hath given, and the Lord hath taken: let the name of the Lord be praised” (i. 21). “Skin for skin,” said the accuser, “and everything that man hath, he giveth for his soul; but stretch now forth thy hand and touch his bone and his flesh: surely he will take leave of thee in thy presence” (ii. 5). The trial was granted. And when Job’s wife was surprised that Job was still holding to his integrity, adding “Take leave of God and die,” he replied, “Thou speakest like the speaking of one of the wicked women. Are we to accept of God the good, and shall we not accept the evil?”—“In all this did Job not sin with his lips, and did not find fault with God” (i. 22). His friends came to see him, but felt so distressed that they sat with him for seven days without uttering a word.

(b.) Discussion between Job and his friends Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and Elihu; Job asserting his innocence, and consequent inability to see the justice of his afflictions; his friends contending that he has sinned, and has been justly punished; Elihu attempts to justify Job’s sufferings, on the plea that they are merely a reminder sent by God that Job has sinned, and must seek reconciliation with God, who is All-wise, All-good, and All-powerful; God addresses Job, and shows him man’s inability to comprehend the Divine power and wisdom in the creation and in the ruling of the universe; whereupon Job repents.

(c.) Conclusion.—God rebukes the friends of Job, that they have not spoken rightly like His servant Job (xlii. 7), and richly compensates Job for his sufferings and losses.

The book has no heading, and therefore we do not know by whom or when it was written. There is, however, a tradition, mentioned in the Talmud (Baba Bathra, p. 14b), that Moses wrote the Book of Job. Even about Job himself it is impossible to ascertain at what time he lived. But the description of his riches and the length of his life leads us to think of the time of the patriarchs. His name is mentioned only in one other book of the Bible. The prophet Ezekiel names him together with Noah and Daniel as a righteous man who would, by his piety, save himself in the time of general calamity, though he would not be able to save his generation (Ezek. xiv. 14). There is also an opinion that Job never existed at all. ‏איוב לא היה ולא נברא אלא משל היה‎ “Job never lived; nor has he had any existence; the story is all only an allegory” (Babyl. Talm. Baba Bathra, 15a). This dictum can only refer to the detailed account of the manner in which the misfortune came upon Job, and the poetical discussion of Job and his friends. But it is undeniable that a pious man of the name of Job lived, and escaped from a calamity to which others succumbed; since it is clear that Ezekiel refers to real and not to imaginary personages. Job and his friends were not Israelites. The patriarch lived in the land of Uz in Arabia; the friends came from Teman, Shuah, Naamah, and Buz, in the south, east, west, and north of Uz. Like the Book of Jonah, this book conveys the lesson, ‏חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא‎ “The pious of all nations have a portion in the world to come” (Maim., Mishneh-torah I. Hilchoth Teshubah, iii. 5). God rewards the righteous of all nations, punishes those among them who deserve punishment, and pardons the penitent.

The introduction and conclusion are written in prose, but the principal part of the book is poetical, and consequently parallelism is a predominant feature of the book.

The following are a few sentences from the book:—

“Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” (ii. 10).

“The small and great are there (in the grave), and the servant is free from his master” (iii. 19).

“Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his Maker?” (iv. 17).

“Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty” (v. 17).

“Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? are not his days also like the days of an hireling?” (vii. 1).

“He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength; who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered?” (ix. 4).

“Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” (xiii. 15).

“For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and he will rise in the end over the dust” (xix. 25).

“And when my skin is gone, when worms have destroyed this body, and when my flesh is no more, yet shall I see God” (xix. 26).

“And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil, that is understanding” (xxviii. 28).

The following passages are noteworthy, on account of both their lofty thought and their poetical form:—

Eliphaz mildly rebukes Job, exhorting him to repentance (iv.).

Job’s charge against the cruelty of his friends (v. 12–30).

Bildad’s view of God’s justice (viii. 3–13).

Job’s conception of God’s Omnipotence (ix. 2–12).

Zophar’s explanation of God’s justice (xi. 2–7, 10–15).

Job’s declaration of his faith in God (xiii. 6–16; xix. 23–27; xxiii. 3–12).

Job’s confession of man’s dependence on God’s wisdom (xxviii. 1, 2, 12–28).

Job’s defence of his innocence (xxxi.).

Elihu’s defence of God’s justice (xxxiii. 8, 9, 12–30).

Job is shown his ignorance (xxxviii. 3–24); his impotence (xl. 9–14).

Job’s contrition (xlii. 2–6).

The three books, Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, are distinguished from the rest of the Bible by their peculiar accents, which are on this account called ‏מעמי אמ״ת‎ “the accents of the books, ‏תהלים‎, ‏משלי‎ and ‏איוב‎.”

The Song of Solomon, ‏שיר השירים‎ (lit., The Song of Songs = the most poetical song).—The faithfulness of the beloved to her lover, her resistance to all temptation, and the concentration of all her thoughts on the well-being of her lover, form the theme of the book. The relation between lover and beloved has been interpreted allegorically as representing the relation between God and Israel. The latter remains faithful to his God, throughout all vicissitudes of fortune. “I am for my lover, and my lover is for me,” is the centre of this feeling of faith. According to the heading and the tradition, King Solomon is the author of the book.

Ruth, ‏רות‎—The book contains the history of Ruth, a Moabite woman, who, by her marriage with Boaz, became the founder of the house of David. Elimelech of Beth-lehem in Judah, with his wife Naomi and his two sons, left his country in time of famine in order to stay in the land of Moab. There the two sons marry Moabite women, Orpah and Ruth. Elimelech and the two sons die. Naomi returns to Judah; Orpah, at the request of Naomi, remains in Moab and goes back to her family, but Ruth insists on accompanying Naomi, saying, “Whither thou goest I will go, and where thou lodgest I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: where thou diest will I die, and there will I be buried: so the Lord do to me, and more also, if ought but death will part thee and me” (i. 16, 17).

Naomi having lost her property, Ruth was obliged to glean ears of corn in the fields in order to maintain herself and her mother-in-law. She happened to glean in the field of Boaz, a near relative of Elimelech. Boaz having noticed her, and having heard of her conduct toward Naomi, married her; his son was Obed; the son of the latter was Jesse, the father of David. Thus the virtues of Ruth, modesty, faithfulness, and industry, were rewarded; this is one of the lessons derived from the book. The principal object of the book, however, is to show the origin of the house of David.

The Lamentations of Jeremiah, ‏איכה‎—The name of the author is not mentioned in the book, but tradition informs us that the prophet Jeremiah composed these lamentations. The first four chapters are alphabetical; in the third chapter there are three verses for each letter; the fifth chapter is not alphabetical. The cause of the lamentations is the catastrophe of the kingdom of Judah through the victories of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, although neither Nebuchadnezzar nor Babylon is mentioned in the book.

Ecclesiates, ‏קהלת‎—This book contains reflections on the vanity of man’s labours and plans; whatever man aims at as the source of his happiness and blessing proves in the end useless and deceptive. Man is disappointed to find everything transient; he discovers just people in misery, and wicked people in apparent comfort; he begins to doubt whether virtue and wisdom are really conducive to true happiness. Thus man, left to himself, is at a loss to find the right way to happiness. The author therefore concludes his reflections with the exhortation: “The end of the word in which everything is heard is, Fear God, and keep His commandments, for that is the whole of man. For every deed will God bring to account, together with every hidden thought, whether good or bad” (xii. 13, 14).

Koheleth mentioned in the heading is King Solomon. The philosophical reflections are frequently intermixed with proverb-like lessons and maxims, of which the following are a few examples:—

“For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow” (i. 18).

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven” (iii. 1).

“The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh” (iv. 5).

“Better is an handful with quietness, than both the hands full with travail and vexation of spirit” (iv. 6).

“Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and readiness to hear is better than the fools’ giving of sacrifice; for they consider not that they do evil” (iv. 17).

“Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth; therefore let thy words be few” (v. 1).

“When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for He hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed” (v. 3).

“A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death better than the day of one’s birth” (vii. 1).

“Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry; for anger resteth in the bosom of fools” (vii. 9).

“Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldst thou destroy thyself?” (vii. 16).

“Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldst thou die before thy time?” (vii. 17).

“There is not a just man upon earth, that doth good, and sinneth not” (vii. 20).

“Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment” (ix. 8).

“A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left” (x. 2).

“He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it; and whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him” (x. 8).

“He that observeth the wind shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap” (xi. 4).

“Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them” (xii. 1).

“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to the God who gave it” (xii. 7).

Esther, ‏אסתר‎—The history of the conception and frustration of the wicked plans of Haman against Mordecai and the Jews is described in this book. Ahasuerus, king of Persia, sent Vashti, his wife, away, and married Esther, a cousin of Mordecai. Haman, enraged against the Jews because Mordecai did not bow before him, planned to kill the Jews on the thirteenth of Adar; but Esther frustrated Haman’s design; Haman himself and his ten sons were killed; and the Jews were allowed to take up arms against those who attacked them. The Jews defended themselves victoriously on the thirteenth of Adar; in Shushan, the capital, also on the fourteenth. This deliverance was the cause of the institution of Purim.

The name of the author is not mentioned; the book was probably written by Mordecai and Esther (comp. Esther ix. 29).

Daniel, ‏דניאל‎—The author of this book is not named. The book is called Daniel because it contains the history and the visions of Daniel. According to a tradition mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud (Baba Bathra, 15a), the men of the Great Synagogue wrote or edited the book probably from trustworthy traditions, partly written, partly oral. The last six chapters seem to have been written by Daniel himself; he speaks in them of himself in the first person.

The object of the book is to show that God is the Ruler of the Universe. The author, therefore, gives, on the one hand, examples of men of great piety and genuine faith in God—Daniel and his friends; and, on the other hand, examples of men of great wickedness—Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar; the former enjoyed glorious victories, the latter received their due punishment. The style is throughout bold and emphatic; the frequent heaping of synonyms is to serve the purpose of emphasis. In the last chapters the author shows that the misdeeds of the wicked and the sufferings of the pious are foreseen by God, and that both the punishment of the former and the redemption of the latter form part of the Divine plan in the government of mankind. We are thus exhorted to remain firm in our faith in time of oppression, and to wait patiently for deliverance, which is sure to come.

Although Daniel belonged to those distinguished men to whom God communicated coming events in visions, he is not classed among the prophets, because he had no Divine message to bring to his fellow-men, and he was not charged to address them in the name of God. Daniel was brought to Babylon, together with other captives, in the third year of Jehoiakim, and remained there during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and the first years of Cyrus the Persian. He distinguished himself by great piety and wisdom, so that in a prophecy of Ezekiel (xiv. 14), in the sixth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin, he is mentioned, together with Noah and Job, as famous for piety, as one of those whom God protects from danger because of their righteousness, although their piety could not save their fellow-men. The same prophet mentions him as a wise man (xxviii. 3).

The book is divided into two parts: (A.) An account written in Chaldee of Daniel’s wisdom and piety, with a Hebrew Introduction (i. to vi.). (2.) The visions of Daniel in Chaldee and Hebrew (vii. to xii.). In the introductory chapter the author narrates the principal facts of the training of Daniel in Babylonian wisdom, and his great success at the court of Nebuchadnezzar. Then follows the Chaldee portion, including the following subjects:—

(1.) Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream.—The king demands that the sages initiated in Babylonian wisdom shall tell him his dream, which he himself has forgotten, and its interpretation. They cannot do it, and many of them are put to death. Daniel arrests the slaughter; for he prays to God, and God reveals to him the king’s dream.

When Daniel appeared before the king he began thus: “The secret which the king wants to know, no wise men can tell. But there is a God in heaven, the revealer of secrets, and He has let King Nebuchadnezzar know what will come to pass in the remote future” (ii. 27, 28). The dream was this: He saw a big statue, its head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs and feet of iron and clay. A large stone fell upon the legs of the statue, broke them, and the whole statue fell together and was crushed into pieces; then the stone grew larger, and filled the whole earth. The following was the interpretation of the vision: The statue represented a series of earthly kingdoms; the gold was Nebuchadnezzar, the silver referred to his successors, the brass to the Persian government, the iron to the Greek, and the mixture of iron and clay to the kingdoms that would then follow, all of which would ultimately be overthrown, and the Divine kingdom would then be recognised by all. Daniel was greatly rewarded; he and his friends received high positions in the government of the empire.

(2.) Nebuchadnezzar erected a large statue, and commanded that at certain times all should worship it; disobedience was to be punished with death. Daniel’s friends did not bow before it, and were accused before the king. They said to the king, “There is a God whom we worship; He can save us from the burning furnace and from thy hand, O king. And if He does not save us, let it be known to thee, O king, that we shall not worship thy god, and not bow down before the golden image which thou hast set up” (iii. 17, 18).

They were thrown into the furnace, and miraculously saved. Thereupon Nebuchadnezzar sends letters to all the peoples of his empire, testifying to the greatness of God, and narrating what wonderful thing had occurred to him. He had a strange dream, and none but Daniel was able to interpret it; the dream was literally fulfilled according to Daniel’s interpretation. The dream, which, after the manner of such phenomena, introduced and mingled together diverse elements, was this: He saw a high tree with many branches and much foliage. Suddenly an angel from heaven came, and ordered the tree to be cut down, but the root to be left for seven seasons, bound with fetters of iron and brass, in the midst of the grass of the field. The heart of man was to be taken from it, and replaced by a heart of beasts. The interpretation was, that the mighty Nebuchadnezzar would be removed from the society of man, and live like a beast with beasts for seven seasons. This happened to him just when he was boasting of his greatness and said, “Is this not great Babylon which I have built for the royal house, in my great power, and to my great glory?” (iv. 27). He was humbled, recognised the dominion of God over the whole universe, and was again, after seven seasons, restored to his former power and dignity. “Praised be God,” he exclaimed, “whose deeds are all truth, and whose ways are justice, and who can humble those who walk in pride” (Ibid. 34).

(3.) King Belshazzar, in the midst of a banquet, at which the holy vessels of the Temple in Jerusalem were used, perceived a hand writing on the wall opposite him strange signs which none could read. Daniel was called, and read the writing: “Mene, mene, tekel upharsin,” and explained it thus: The days of thy government are counted and brought to a close; thou hast been weighed and found wanting; thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians (v. 25–28). That same night King Belshazzar was killed, and the Mede Darius was made king (v. 30–vi. 1).

(4.) King Darius, advised by his officers, who sought to find an opportunity for overthrowing Daniel, issued an order, that within thirty days no god or other being except Darius should be prayed to, and that transgressors against this decree should be punished with death. Daniel prayed to God three times a day at his open window. He was thrown into the lions’ den; but God protected him from the mouths of the lions. When he was taken out of the den, his accusers were thrown into it, and the lions immediately devoured them. Thus Darius was forced publicly to recognise the Omnipotence of God.

(5.) A dream of Daniel is related by the author in Daniel’s own words, who had written down the dream, and explained the chief points. [10] The following is the dream:—He saw four beasts, viz., a lion, a bear with three ribs in its mouth, a leopard with four wings and four heads, and a fourth beast with iron teeth and ten horns, one of the horns being small, but having “a mouth speaking haughtily.” In a court of justice the latter beast was sentenced to death, and the other beasts were to be deprived of their power; but respite was granted to them for a time and a season. The royal power was given to one who approached the judge appearing like a human being, and not like any of the beasts. His rule was to remain for ever. The interpretation of the dream is this: There will be four different kingdoms; out of the fourth ten different kingdoms will be formed. One of these will haughtily presume to oppose the Will of God, and to abolish the festivals and the religion of the holy ones. It will succeed for “a season, seasons, and half a season,” and will then be utterly destroyed, whilst the rule of “the holy ones” [11] will in the end be firmly established and continue for ever.

The indefinite character of the vision shows that it was intended to apply to all those oppressors of the Jews who at different times have presumed, or still presume, to be able to abolish the religion of “the holy ones.” Whether the oppression lasts a “season of seasons” (or “a season and seasons”), i.e., a very long time, or “half a season,” i.e., a very short time, the holy ones are exhorted to remain firm in their faith in God’s justice. The truth of this vision is especially illustrated by the failure of the attempts of Antiochus Epiphanes after a temporary success. More definite are the numbers 2300 “evening-mornings” (viii. 14), 1290 days and 1335 days (xii. 11, 12); but the absence of any further description as to the date of the first of these days leaves even to these numbers a certain degree of indetermination. From the context we learn that they are somehow connected with the persecution to which the Jews were subjected by Antiochus Epiphanes. 2300 days (or 6 years 110 days) passed between the decree of the Syrian king enforcing idolatry and the peace with Lysias granting religious liberty; there were 1290 days between the decree forbidding the practice of the holy religion and the enforcement of idolatry in the Temple of Jerusalem, and 1335 days is the period between the latter event and the death of Antiochus.

(B.) The second part contains visions of Daniel as written down by himself.

(1.) In the third year of Belshazzar, Daniel had the following vision:—Being in Susan, in the province of Elam, near the river Ulai, he saw a ram with two unequal horns pushing towards west, north, and south. From the west came a goat with one horn, and overthrew the ram; in the place of the one horn four horns grew up in all directions; there was one small horn which pushed on against the south, the east, and Palestine; it rose even against the host of heaven and the chief of the host, and destroyed his holy place. Daniel heard one holy one saying to another, “This state of things will last till ‘evening-morning 2300.’” The angel Gabriel gave him the interpretation of the vision: The ram represented the empire of the Medes and the Persians, the goat that of the Greeks, out of which four kingdoms would be formed; in one of these a wicked king would venture to rise against the Prince of princes, but his power would in the end be destroyed. Daniel was told to keep the vision secret, for it referred to a distant future (viii. 26).

(2.) In the first year of Darius, son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, Daniel reflected on the seventy years of exile foretold by Jeremiah, and fervently prayed to God for pardon and the restoration of Jerusalem. At the end of his prayer the angel Gabriel appeared to him, and told him that the hoped-for restoration would not take place before the lapse of seventy weeks of trouble and anxiety. There would elapse seven weeks before the “princely anointed” (‏משיח נגיד‎) led the Jews back to Palestine; sixty-two weeks of trouble and anxiety were predicted for the time of the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple; and one week’s misery on the arrival of a new prince or governor, who would strengthen the covenant of the enemies and entirely suspend the Divine Service in the Temple for a short time. [12]

(3.) In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, Daniel, after three weeks’ mourning and fasting, had the following vision on the twenty-fourth day of the first month:—He saw near the river Tigris (Hiddekel) a man of extraordinary appearance, who told him that he came in answer to his prayers; that for twenty-one days (x. 13) he was opposed by the prince of the kingdom of Persia, and had on his side only one of the princes, Michael. Future events are foretold: the fall of Persia, the division of the Greek kingdom, the wars between the Northern country (Syria) and the Southern (Egypt), the troubles of the Jews, the ultimate deliverance of the Jews out of danger, and the glorious victory of the teachers “who taught many, and led them to righteousness” (‏המשבילים ומצדקי הרבים‎ xii. 3). When Daniel asked, “Till when have we to wait for the end of these wondrous things?” (‏עד מתי קץ הפלאות‎ Ibid. 6), he was told, “After a season, seasons, and a half (‏למועד מועדים וחצי‎ Ibid. 7) [13] all these things will come to an end.” He further asks, “What then?” He is told, “The things must remain sealed till the time of the end (‏עד עת קץ‎ Ibid. 9), when the wise and good (‏משכלים‎) will understand them.” The vision ends with the words addressed to Daniel: “But thou go toward the end, and thou wilt rest, and rise for thy lot at the end of the days” (xii. 13).

Ezra, ‏עזרא‎—The Book of Ezra relates the first return of the Jews under Zerubbabel from Babylon to Palestine by the permission of King Cyrus (‏כורש‎) of Persia, the construction of the altar, the foundation and the building of the Temple by permission of King Darius. It also describes the second settlement of Jews from Babylon in Palestine under Ezra, the Scribe, in the reign of Artaxerxes, and his energy in purifying the community from intermarriages with heathen people. The book is written in Hebrew, with the exception of iv. 8–vii. 27, which includes several documents written in Chaldee by the Persian kings. The author of the book is probably Ezra; he speaks of himself in the first person (vii. 28; viii. 1, &c.); he is also named as the author of the book in the Babylonian Talmud; and lastly, the name of the book is Ezra, although Ezra is only mentioned in the second half of the book. The special merit of Ezra was the promotion of the study of the Law; his name is followed by the title, “A ready scribe of the Law of Moses” (‏סופר מהיר בתורת ה׳‎ vii. 6), and “Scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord and His statutes for Israel” (‏ספר דברי מצות ה׳ וחקיו על ישראל‎ vii. 11); the task he set to himself was “to study the Law of God (‏לדרוש את תורת ה׳‎), and to practise it, and to teach in Israel Law and judgment” (vii. 10).

Nehemiah, ‏נחמיה‎—The heading probably indicates the author, “Words of Nehemiah, son of Hachaliah.” [14] The book contains the history of Nehemiah’s visit to Jerusalem by the permission of King Artaxerxes, and the building of the walls of Jerusalem under Nehemiah’s supervision, in spite of the opposition of Sanballat and Tobiah the Ammonite; his example of disinterestedness and of liberality towards the poor, which is followed by the princes and the rich; the reading and expounding of the Law by Ezra; the celebration of the festival of the first of Tishri and of Tabernacles; the renewal of the covenant “to walk in the Law of God, which was given through Moses the servant of God,” to keep Sabbath, to abstain from intermarrying with the heathen, and to contribute towards maintaining the Sanctuary; the provision for filling Jerusalem with inhabitants by selecting by lot one-tenth of the general population to dwell in the holy city; the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem; and Nehemiah’s energy in enforcing the laws of Sabbath and of marriages. The two books Ezra and Nehemiah are also called by some “two books of Ezra,” and by some “the book of Ezra.” Nehemiah is written in Hebrew.

The Chronicles, ‏דברי הימים‎—The two books of Chronicles contain the following three parts: (1) Genealogical tables (I., i.–ix.); (2) the history of the death of King Saul, the history of David and Solomon (I., x.–II., ix.); (3) the history of the kingdom of Judah from Rehoboam till the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (II., x.–xxxvi.). Special attention has been given by the author to the arrangements made at various periods for the Temple-service, by King David (I., xxiii. sqq.), King Hezekiah (II., xxix.), and King Josiah (II., xxxiv., xxxv.).

The author is not named in the book; according to the tradition it is Ezra. As the genealogical tables give six generations after Zerubbabel (I., iii. 19–24), we may assume that the author wrote about fifty years after Zerubbabel; that is, the last years of Ezra and Nehemiah.

The sources from which the author derived his information were, besides the Biblical books, the following:—The book of the kings of Judah; the book of the kings of Israel, registers probably kept in the Temple archives; the histories of Samuel the Seer, Nathan the prophet, and Gad the Seer; the prophecy of Ahijah of Shilo; the visions of Jedo; the Midrash of the prophet Iddo; the history of Jehu, son of Hanani; the history of Isaiah, son of Amoz, and the history of Hozai.

This is the last book of the series of Holy Writings. Books that were written later, whatever their intrinsic value may be, were not considered holy, and were not received into this collection. There are a number of books known as Apocrypha (‏גנוזים‎), lit. “Hidden things” or “put aside,” that is, kept separate from the Holy Scriptures. They were not considered as genuine, as they consisted of a mixture of fact and fiction, truth and error. They were, however, not suppressed or forbidden; in the Talmud several quotations from these books are met with. The following are the principal books belonging to the Apocrypha:—

(1.) The Book of Wisdom, or the Wisdom of Solomon. Wisdom based on the fear of God, and guided by it, is the source of man’s true happiness, and if wisdom and virtue are not rewarded by success in mundane affairs, the reward is sure to come in the future world. This is the quintessence of the lessons taught in this book. The kings and potentates of the earth are frequently exhorted to be just and kind towards their people, and to remember that they are but human beings, weak and mortal, like the rest of mankind; wisdom alone can raise them to higher perfection and happiness.

“For the very true beginning of her is the desire of discipline, and the care of discipline is love. And love is the keeping of her laws; and the giving heed unto her laws is the assurance of incorruption. And incorruption maketh us near God. Therefore the desire of wisdom bringeth to a kingdom. If your delight be then in thrones and sceptres, O ye kings of the people, honour wisdom, that ye may reign for evermore” (vi. 17–21).

“For regarding not wisdom, they got not only this hurt, that they knew not the things which were good, but also left behind them to the world a memorial of their foolishness, so that in the things wherein they offended they could not so much as be hid. But wisdom delivered from pain those that attended upon her. When the righteous fled from his brother’s wrath, she guided him into right paths, shewed him the kingdom of God, and gave him knowledge of holy things that made him rich in his travels, and multiplied the fruit of his labours” (x. 8–10).

(2.) The Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach.—Proverbs, maxims, and moral lessons collected by Joshua (Jesus), son of Sirach of Jerusalem. After having studied the Law, the Prophets, and the other Holy Writings, he thought it advisable to write a book on knowledge and wisdom for those who seek instruction, in order to lead them to greater obedience to the Law. Joshua’s grandson migrated from Palestine to Egypt, and translated the work of his grandfather into Greek for those who could not read the Hebrew original. The translation was made in the thirty-eighth year of King Euergetes II. of Egypt (3888 A.M.).

The contents of the book are similar to those of the Proverbs of Solomon: the author recommends the acquisition of wisdom, patience, faith in God, meekness, obedience of children to parents, charity, cautiousness in the use of the tongue, temperance, honesty, and the like. As models of piety and wisdom the principal heroes in the Bible, from Adam to Joshua, son of Jehozadak, are named, and in addition to these Simon the high priest.

“My son, if thou come to serve the Lord, prepare thy soul for temptation. Set thy heart aright, and constantly endure, and make not haste in time of trouble. Cleave unto him, and depart not away, that thou mayest be increased at thy last end. Whatsoever is brought upon thee take cheerfully, and be patient when thou art changed to a low estate. For gold is tried in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of adversity. Believe in him, and he will help thee: order thy way aright, and trust in him” (ii. 1–6).

“But he that giveth his mind to the law of the Most High, and is occupied in the meditation thereof, will seek out the wisdom of the most ancient, and be occupied in prophecies. He will keep the sayings of most renowned men, and where subtle parables are, He will be there also. He will seek out the secrets of grave sentences, and be conversant in dark parables” (xxxix. 1–3).

(3.) Baruch.—The book may be divided into two parts. In the first part Baruch, son of Nerijah, the amanuensis of the prophet Jeremiah, addresses, in Babylon, Jehoiachin, the captive king of Judah, and the other captive Jews; they send money to Jerusalem for sacrifices, with a letter exhorting their brethren to return to God, and comforting them with the prospect of a glorious future. The second part contains a letter of Jeremiah to his brethren in Jerusalem denouncing idolatry.

The letters are probably not genuine, not being in harmony with the facts related in the books of Jeremiah and Kings.

(4.) The Book of Tobit.—Tobit, of the tribe of Naphtali, a good and pious man, was one of those who were carried away into the Assyrian captivity. One of the charitable acts to which he devoted himself with special zeal was the burying of the dead. Twice was misfortune brought upon him for practising this deed of piety. Once he had to flee, and to remain away from his family in misery and want, and a second time something fell into his eyes, and he became blind. In both cases he was saved out of his trouble, and was greatly rewarded for his patience, his faith in God, and his perseverance in the performance of the Divine commandments. The author of the book is not known.

(5.) Judith.—An incident of Jewish history during the Persian rule. Judith is set forth as an ideal of piety, beauty, courage, and chastity. Holofernes, a general in the service of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Assyria, conquers many lands, but meets with vigorous resistance in Judea; he besieges Bethulia and endeavours to suppress the Jewish religion. He falls by the hands of Judith. Thus the stratagem and the courage of the Jewish heroine, combined with the plans of Divine justice, frustrated the wicked plans of the heathen conqueror, and delivered the besieged city.

(6.) Additions to the Books of Daniel and Ezra, containing—

(a.) The song of the three men in the furnace (Dan. iii.).

(b.) The false charges brought against Susanna, and her deliverance through Daniel.

(c.) Bel and the Dragon. Cyrus, the Persian, worshipped these idols, but was convinced by Daniel that they had no claim whatever to man’s worship.

(d.) The apocryphal Book of Esdras, containing portions of the Books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah; only chaps. iii. and iv. being original. In these it is related how Zerubbabel distinguished himself before King Darius in describing Woman and Truth as the mightiest rulers of mankind, and thus obtained permission to return to Palestine and rebuild the Temple. A second apocryphal Book of Esdras is named, in which Ezra is represented as a prophet addressing his brethren in the name of God, and telling them the visions he had.

(7.) The Books of the Maccabees.—Three books containing the history of the Maccabees, and various episodes of the wars against the Syrian oppressors, both legendary and historical.

Sixth Principle.—“I firmly believe that all the words of the Prophets are true.”

By “the Prophets” the prophets thus designated in the Bible are to be understood who have proved themselves to be the true messengers of God, and were accepted as such by the people. They either counselled the people what to do under various circumstances, in times of peace and in times of war, in times of security and in times of danger, or they announced the coming catastrophe as a punishment sent by the Almighty for disobedience, and foretold future happiness and prosperity in case of improvement and return to God. Those prophecies that referred to the proximate future have been verified by subsequent events, and so also will those prophecies that refer to the remote future and have not yet been fulfilled.

“A prophet out of thy midst, of thy brethren, like unto me, will the Lord thy God raise up unto thee; unto him ye shall hearken” (Deut. xviii. 15). “The former things, behold, they are come to pass, and new things do I declare; before they will spring forth, I shall let you hear” (Isa. xlii. 9). “I have also spoken unto the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and by the ministry of the prophets have I used similitudes” (Hosea xii. 11). “And by a prophet the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved” (Ibid. 14).

In the sixth article we declare our belief in the fact that the Almighty has communicated His Will to human beings, although we are incapable of forming a clear and definite idea of the manner in which such communication took place. The selection of the individual for the office of a prophet, as well as of the time, the place, and the object of the Divine communication, is dependent solely on the Will of God, whose Wisdom and Plan no mortals are able to fathom. We know only the fact that Malachi closed the series of Prophets, but are ignorant of the reason why since Malachi no human being has “found a vision from the Lord.” Mankind is, however, not altogether deprived of the benefit of prophecy; the holy book need only be opened, and the message of the prophets is heard once more.

Seventh Principle.—“I firmly believe that the prophecy of Moses was a direct prophecy, and that Moses was the chief of the prophets, both of those who preceded him and of those who followed him.”

All that has been said with regard to the sixth article applies to the prophecy of Moses. There is, however, this distinction between the words of Moses and the words of other prophets:—whilst other prophets chiefly addressed their own generation, blaming their brethren for disobedience to the Divine Law, threatening with punishments and comforting with blessings of which experience was to be made in the remote future, Moses addresses all times and generations, communicating to them laws “for all generations,” “everlasting statutes,” “the things which have been revealed for us and our children for ever.” He is therefore proclaimed by the Almighty as the greatest prophet. When Miriam and Aaron had spoken against Moses, God rebuked them, saying, “If there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will make myself known unto him in a vision, I will speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so; he is faithful in all my house; with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the form of the Lord shall he behold” (Num. xii. 6–8). The Torah concludes with the praise of Moses, as follows: “And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face: in all the signs and the wonders, which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land; and in all the mighty hand, and in all the great terror, which Moses wrought in the sight of all Israel” (Deut. xxxiv. 10–12).

The phrase “knew God face to face,” or “I will speak with him mouth to mouth,” and the like, denotes figuratively “the clearest, most direct, and most simple communication,” the figure being taken from the way in which men communicate to each other things when they desire to be clearly understood, and to leave no doubt as to the truth and the meaning of the communication.

Eighth Principle.—“I firmly believe that the Law which we possess now is the same which has been given to Moses on Sinai.”

The whole Torah, including both history and precepts, is of Divine origin; nothing is contained in the Torah that was not revealed to Moses by the Almighty, although we do not know in what manner Moses received the information. The history of preceding generations was probably handed down to his time by tradition; in part it may have been contained in documents then extant, as is likely to have been the case with the various genealogies mentioned in the Pentateuch. But it was by Divine inspiration that Moses knew to distinguish between truth and error, between fiction and reality. The events recorded in the Pentateuch are to demonstrate and to keep constantly before our eyes the fact that there is a higher Power that ordains the fate of men and nations according to their deeds. Everything is described in a simple and objective manner. Although the whole Torah is the work of Moses, the great prophet speaks of himself everywhere in the third person, except in the Book of Deuteronomy, in which he records his addresses to the people in the last year of his life.

The last few verses, which describe the death of Moses, the mourning of the Israelites for the death of their teacher, and his exaltation above all other prophets, have been added to the Torah by Joshua the son of Nun, the leader of the Israelites after the death of Moses. Thus, from that day until the present the Torah, in its integrity, has been in the hands of the children of Israel. It was guarded as the most valuable national treasure, and although there have been not a few generations which were corrupt and idolatrous, Israel has never been entirely bereaved of pious and faithful worshippers of the true God; and when in one generation or period the study and the practice of the Torah were neglected, they were resumed with greater vigour and zeal in the next.

There is a tradition recorded in the Talmud that after the Babylonian exile Ezra, the Scribe, replaced the ancient Hebrew characters in which the Torah had originally been written by the square characters still in use. Nothing, however, was omitted from or added to the contents of the Torah, when the present forms of the letters were introduced by Ezra. In the scrolls of the Law the letters were not provided with vowel-points and accents; the manner in which the words, phrases, and sentences were to be read was a subject of oral teaching. Also many explanations and details of the laws were supplemented by oral teaching; they were handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation, and only after the destruction of the second Temple were they committed to writing. The latter are, nevertheless, called Oral Law (‏תורה שבעל פה‎), as distinguished from the Torah or Written Law (‏תורה שבכתב‎), which from the first was committed to writing. Those oral laws which were revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai are called ‏הלכה למשה מסיני‎ “Laws given to Moses on Mount Sinai.” There are several passages in the Bible from which it appears that a certain unwritten law must have supplemented the written Law; e.g., when a man was found in the wilderness gathering sticks on the Sabbath-day, the persons who discovered him brought him to Moses. They must have been taught before, that the gathering of sticks constituted a ‏מלאכה‎, labour prohibited on the Sabbath-day, although this had not been distinctly stated in the written Sabbath-laws. Had this not been the case the Sabbath-breaker could not have been put to death, since he would have committed the sin in ignorance. The same can be said of the man who cursed the name of God; he must have known that cursing the name of God was a capital crime; for he would not have been put to death if the Israelites had not yet been taught that death would be inflicted for such an act. The question which the prophet Haggai (ii. 11) addressed to the priests, and the answers which the priests gave, lead to the conclusion that the details of the laws on uncleanness and cleanness (‏טומאה וטהרה‎) must have been known to the priests and the prophets to a greater extent than has been explained in the written Law. Besides, there were many precepts that came at once into force. These must have been fully explained to the people, who were anxious to obey the word of God.

All these explanations and the detailed rules with regard to the written Divine precepts of the Pentateuch, together with laws and institutions established in the course of time by the highest authorities of the nation in obedience to the dictates of the Pentateuch, form the contents of the Oral Law.

The Oral Law or the Tradition has been handed down in two different forms: (a) in the form of a running Commentary on the Pentateuch; such Commentaries were called Midrashim; (b) arranged according to the different subjects, and treated independently of the text of the Torah. This is done in the Talmud (“lesson,” “tradition”).

The principal Midrashim are: Mechilta (lit. “measure”) on Exodus; Sifra (“book”) on Leviticus; Sifre (“books”) on Numbers and Deuteronomy. Rabboth on the Pentateuch and the five Megilloth. Yalkut (“collection”) on all the books of the Bible.

The Talmud—which exists in two different recensions, viz., the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud—consists of two elements, which have to each other the relation of text and commentary, and are called Mishnah (‏משנה‎ “learnt by heart”), and Gemara (‏גמרא‎ lit. “completion,” “a thing settled”); the former contains the traditional laws mostly without argumentation; in the latter these laws are further discussed, examined, and finally settled. Following the example of the Pentateuch, the Talmud includes two elements: laws and narratives, or Halachah (‏הלכה‎) and Agada (‏אגדה‎); the latter, the Agada, contains history, fables, allegory, meditations, prayers, reflections, philosophical and religious discussions, and a large number of moral sayings. The Midrashim likewise include these two elements.

The Mishnah is divided into the following six orders or sections (‏סדרים‎): [15]—

1. ‎‏זרעים‎ “Seeds.” Laws referring to agriculture; preceded by laws on Divine Worship. 2. ‎‏מועד‎ “Seasons.” On Sabbath and Festivals. 3. ‎‏נשים‎ “Women.” Marriage Laws. 4. ‎‏נזיקין‎ “Damages.” Civil and criminal legislation; the Government. 5. ‎‏קדשים‎ “Holy things.” On Sacrifices. 6. ‎‏טהרות‎ “Purity.” On the distinction between clean and unclean.

The laws taught in the Talmud are: (i) those which are directly or indirectly derived from the text of the Pentateuch; they are called “laws derived from the Torah” (‏מן התורה‎ or ‏מדאורייתא‎); (2) those which trace their origin to the time of Moses, or, in general, to the remote past; they are called ‏הלכה למשה מסיני‎ “Law given to Moses on Sinai;” (3) those laws which originated between the period of the Pentateuch and the close of the Bible; they are called ‏דברי קבלה‎ (“words of tradition”); (4) those which have been introduced in post-Biblical times; they are laws ‏מדרבנן‎ “laws introduced by our teachers.” These are either preventives against breaking any of the Divine precepts, and are then called ‏מרותגזרות‎ or ‏סיג‎ “a fence,” or tekanoth (‏תקנות‎ “institutions” or “regulations”) made in order to ensure obedience to the Law and improvement of conduct, to remove abuses and prevent error and misunderstanding; (5) Minhag, “Custom” (‏מנהג‎); religious practices which have not been introduced by any authority or based on a particular Biblical text, but in consequence of long usage have become as sacred as a law established by the proper authority.

These laws, as finally settled, were again codified, in various works, the most important of which are the following two: (1) Mishneh-torah (‏משנה תורה‎ or ‏יד החזקה‎ [16] lit. “Copy of the Law,” or “Strong Hand”), by Moses Maimonides (twelfth century) in fourteen books; (2) Shulchan-aruch (‏שלחן ערוך‎, lit. “Table-arranged”), by Rabbi Joseph Caro (sixteenth century).

Ninth Principle.—“I firmly believe that this Law will not be changed, and that there will not be any other Law given by the Creator, blessed be His Name.”

In this article we pronounce our belief in the immutability of the Law. Over and over again the phrase “an everlasting statute” (‏חקת עולם‎) occurs in the Pentateuch. It is true that the Hebrew term ‏עולם‎ is used in the Bible in the sense of “a very long time,” but in the phrase ‏חקת עולם‎ the word cannot have that meaning. Some indication would have been necessary to inform the people when the laws would cease to be in force. On the contrary, the test of a prophet addressing his brethren in the name of God, as a Divine messenger, consists in the harmony of his words with the precepts of the Pentateuch. A prophet who, speaking in the name of God, abrogates any of the laws of the Pentateuch is a false prophet. “If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he give thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods which thou hast not known, and let us serve them: thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet or unto that dreamer of dreams.... Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death; because he hath spoken rebellion against the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, ... to draw thee aside out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in” (Deut. xiii. 2–6). Moses distinctly says, “The things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Ibid. xxix. 28).

There is also an express commandment given: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Ibid. iv. 2). In two ways this law may appear to have been disregarded: there are certain sections of the Law which are at present not in force; and, on the other hand, there are many apparently new precepts at present in force which have been introduced in the course of time by the religious authorities of the nation. But these are only apparent exceptions; in reality they are entirely in harmony with the Pentateuch.

As to the first class, there are many of the Divine commandments the fulfilment of which depends on certain conditions; e.g., the existence of the Tabernacle or of the Temple and its service, the possession of Palestine by the Israelites, the independence of the Jewish State. In the absence of these conditions such laws cannot be fulfilled. The laws of sacrifices belong to this class. We are, in reference to these laws, in the same condition as a person who is physically prevented from doing what he is commanded to do, and what he is actually longing to do. The Law is not altered; our circumstances demand a temporary suspense of such laws and not their abrogation.

The second class contains all those precepts which are known as ‏מצות דרבנן‎ “Rabbinical precepts,” ‏תקנות‎ and ‏מנהגים‎ “Institutions” and “Customs.” But these imply no addition to the Torah; they are merely byelaws and regulations as regards the method of carrying out the laws of the Pentateuch, and are designed to facilitate or ensure their fulfilment, and to prevent ourselves from forgetting or disregarding them. Our teachers, the Rabbis, made it a matter of conscience to describe their own regulations as ‏דרבנן‎ non-Pentateuchical, and throughout the Oral Law and the entire Talmudic literature the distinction between ‏דרבנן‎ and ‏מן התורה‎ is noted and scrupulously upheld.

It is useless to investigate whether it would be in harmony with the immutability of the Divine Being to change the laws or any of them, or to grant a new revelation. Certainly the words “I, the Lord, have not changed” (Mal. iii. 6) have great weight; so also, “For God is not a son of man that he should change his mind” (Num. xxiii. 19). But the fact that the laws were given by God as “an everlasting statute for all generations” makes all philosophical speculation on that point superfluous. Persons who address us in the name of God as His messengers, and bid us turn away from any of the laws commanded in the Pentateuch, are in our eyes impostors, who, knowingly or unknowingly, give forth their own opinions as Divine inspirations.

3. REWARD AND PUNISHMENT, ‏שכר ועונש‎.

“Behold I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil: in that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply, and that the Lord thy God may bless thee in the land whither thou passest over Jordan to go in to possess it” (Deut. xxx. 15). “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed: to love the Lord thy God, to obey his voice, and to cleave unto him: for that is thy life and the length of thy days” (Ibid. xxx. 19, 20).

The doctrine taught in this passage is the alpha and the omega of the sacred literature. The whole history related in the Bible from the Creation to the Babylonian captivity and the restoration of the Jews to their land is but one continuous series of illustrations of this doctrine. Obedience to God’s word is followed by His blessings, while disobedience is the cause of ruin and misery. Thus, in Lamentations the poet exclaims in the name of his nation, “Just is the Lord, for I rebelled against his commandment” (Lam. i. 18). Moses, in his last song exhorting the people to obedience to the Almighty, begins his address with a praise of God’s justice, saying, “The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are judgment: a God of faithfulness, and without wrong, just and right is he” (Deut. xxxii. 4). Even those who doubted the Divine justice, in respect to the fate of individual persons or nations, admitted, “Surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him: but it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow: because he feareth not before God” (Eccles. viii. 12, 13). Job, wondering why he should be subjected to the greatest trials, cannot help confessing, “Even he will be to me an help, for there shall not come before him an hypocrite” (Job xiii. 16). God is therefore called “God of judgment,” ‏אלהי המשפט‎ (Mal. ii. 17); ‏דין‎ “Judge” (1 Sam. xxiv. 15); ‏צדיק‎ “just,” ‏שופט צדיק‎ “just Judge” (Ps. vii. 12); ‏אל קנא‎ “a jealous God” (Exod. xx. 5); ‏אל נקמות‎ “God of vengeance” (Ps. xciv. 1); ‏אלהים‎ “God” in the sense of “Judge.” The rejection of this belief by the wicked is expressed by the phrase ‏אין אלהים‎ “There is no God.” Thus David exclaims, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God; they are corrupt; they have done abominable things; there is none that doeth good” (Ps. xiv. 1). In post-Biblical literature we find this unbelief, which is characterised as the source of all corruption and wickedness, expressed by the phrase, ‏לית דין ולית דינא‎ “There is no judgment, and there is no judge” (Targ. Ps. Jonathan, Gen. iv. 8).

There are two different sources from which such unbelief springs forth—limitation of God’s powers and limitation of man’s capacities. The one of these sources leads to a denial of God’s Omniscience, whilst the other deprives man of his freewill. There are some who argue that God is too high to notice the ways and the acts of individual men, and that these must be utterly insignificant in comparison with God’s greatness. “They crush thy people, O Lord, and afflict thine heritage. They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless. And they say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob consider” (Ps. xciv. 5–7). “And thou sayest, What doth God know? Can he judge through the thick darkness? Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the sphere of heaven” (Job xxii. 13, 14). The very words which the Psalmist addresses to God with a heart full of gratitude, “What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him?” (Ps. viii. 5), are uttered in a rebellious spirit by the unbeliever, who thus “sets limits to the Holy One of Israel” (Ps. lxxviii. 41). But the power of God is not limited, nor is His wisdom or His goodness; He is not only “the God of heaven,” but also “the God of the earth.” He who has created everything has certainly a knowledge of everything. “Lift up your eyes on high and see who hath created these things. He who bringeth forth by number their host, calleth all of them by name; not one of them escapeth the knowledge of him who is great in might and strong in power” (Isa. xl. 26). The Psalmist thus replies to those who deny God’s Omniscience: “Consider, ye brutish among the people; and ye fools, when will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear; he that formed the eye, shall he not see? He that chastiseth the nations, shall he not correct, even he that teacheth man knowledge? The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, however vain they be” (Ps. xciv. 8–11). It would indeed be absurd to imagine that the Creator of all things should not take notice of everything that His hands have made. What difference can it make to the Almighty whether He provides for the whole human race or for one individual man? It would be attributing to the Divine Being human weakness and false pride if we assumed that He is too great to take notice of any single creature of His! Rabbi Jochanan said wherever in the Bible we find a description of the greatness of God, there we find His meekness. Thus, e.g., it is said in the Torah: “For the Lord, your God, he is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the mighty, the great, the strong, and the terrible, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward. He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger in giving him food and raiment” (Deut. x. 17, 18).

That man is not insignificant in the eyes of God is clearly expressed in the account of the Creation, where we are taught that man was made by God ruler “over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Gen. i. 26). “Man is loved by the Almighty,” say our Sages, “because he is created in the image of God; but it was by a love still greater that it was made known to him that he was created in the image of God” (Mishnah Aboth, iii. 18).

One of the chief blessings man received at the hands of his Creator is freewill. Within certain limits man can determine his own actions. When he is about to do a thing, he can reflect on it, examine its nature, investigate into its consequences, and accordingly either do it or refrain from doing it. God said to the Israelites, “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse; and thou shalt choose life” (Deut. xxx. 19). Our freedom, however, is not unlimited. There are various causes that prevent us from remaining firm to our will. If we resolve to do what is beyond our physical condition, we cannot carry it out. Again, if a man chooses to do what would interfere with the will of his fellow-men, he will frequently be compelled to abandon or change his own determination; especially as he is in most cases ignorant of the thoughts and plans of his fellow-men. In a still higher degree this is the case with regard to the designs of the Supreme Being. Hence the great difference between our will and our actual deeds. We have, however, the conviction that ‏בא לטהר מסייעין לו מן השמים בא לטמא פותחין לו‎ “He who wishes to purify himself is helped by Heaven towards his aim, while he who desires to defile himself will find the means thereto” (Babyl. Tal. Shabbath, p. 104).

We admit that there are influences over which man has no control, and which, on the contrary, help to shape his will. No man is so isolated as to be entirely inaccessible to outward influences. Man inherits certain ideas and habits from his parents; others are forced upon him by his surroundings, especially in his earliest youth; society and the State compel him to conform to certain notions and laws; climate and temperature also have no small share in the formation of man’s will. But in spite of all these influences man’s will is free, and it is by reason of his free-will that he chooses to conform to the rules of society and the laws of the State. Hence it happens that individuals, subject to almost the same influences, still vary greatly in their resolutions. What the one praises is an abhorrence to the other; what repels the one attracts the other; what is recommended by the one is denounced by the other.

Although there may be many who profess to believe in predestination or fate, as a matter of fact all nations, ancient and modern, have based their constitutions on the belief in man’s responsibility for his actions. Every State has its laws, its system of reward and punishment. A principle so general and so essential for the safety and welfare of society, as well as of each individual, cannot be a mere illusion; its good effect has been tested and is generally recognised.

In case of criminals and sinners, we make allowance for the possible outward influences under which the offender may have fallen; we assume the broad principle, ‏אין אדם חוטא אלא אם כן נכנס בו רוח שטות‎ “No one sinneth unless the spirit of folly has entered into him” (Babyl. Talm. Sotah, 3a); but no one would go so far as to acquit the sinner altogether from blame. We pity him and try to teach him how to return to the right path, and how to overcome outward evil influences. When David had become aware of the greatness of his sin and sincerely repented, he prayed, “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with a willing spirit. Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall return unto thee” (Ps. li. 10–13). Both elements are here harmoniously united. God’s interference is asked for; He helps man to carry out his good resolution; but man has free-will, and the author of the psalm, in seeking the assistance of God, feels nevertheless the weight of his own responsibility.

Tenth Principle.—“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, knoweth all the actions of men and all their thoughts, as it is said, ‘He that fashioneth the hearts of them all, He that considereth all their works’ (Ps. xxxiii. 15).”

In the rhymed form of the Creed (‏יגדל‎) this article is expressed thus: “He watcheth and knoweth our secret thoughts; He beholdeth the end of a thing in its beginning.” Here the author proclaims not only the Omniscience of God, but also His foresight; His knowledge is not limited, like the knowledge of mortal beings, by space and time. The entire past and future lies unrolled before His eyes, and nothing is hidden from Him. Although we may form a faint idea of the knowledge of God by considering that faculty of man that enables him, within a limited space of time, to look backward and forward, and to unroll before him the past and the future, as if the events that have happened and those that will come to pass were going on in the present moment, yet the true nature of God’s knowledge no man can conceive. “God considereth all the deeds of man,” without depriving him of his free-will; he may in this respect be compared to a person who observes and notices the actions and the conduct of his fellow-men, without interfering with them. It is the Will of God that man should have free-will and should be responsible for his actions; and His foresight does not necessarily include predetermination. In some cases the fate of nations or of individual men is predetermined; we may even say that the ultimate fate or development of mankind is part of the design of the Creation. But as the actual design in the Creation is concealed from man’s searching eye, so is also the extent of the predetermination a mystery to him. To solve this problem is beyond the intellectual powers of short-sighted mortals; it is one of “the hidden things that belong to the Lord our God.”

David, in Ps. cxxxix. 1–12, describes the Omniscience and the Omnipresence of God in the following way: “O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my down-sitting and mine up-rising; thou understandest my thoughts afar off. Thou searchest out my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it. Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in the grave, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea: even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me shall be night; even the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.”

Our belief in God’s Omniscience is beautifully expressed in the Musaph prayer of New-year: “Thou rememberest the work of bygone times, and thinkest of all the imaginations of former days; all hidden things are revealed before thee; also all the multitude of hidden things which are from the beginning. For there is no forgetting before the throne of thy glory, and nothing is concealed from thine eye. Thou rememberest every deed, and no thought is hidden from thee. Everything is revealed and known before thee, O Lord our God, who beholdest and seest to the end of all generations.”

Eleventh Principle.—“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be He, rewards those who keep His commandments, and punishes those who transgress His commandments.”

The immediate reward and punishment for our conduct we receive in the pleasure and happiness we experience in doing something good, and in the grief and remorse we ought to feel on learning that we have displeased the Almighty by our conduct. As a rule, every good act leads to further good acts, and every sin to further sins; and our Sages say therefore: “The reward of a good act (‏מצוה‎) is another good act, and the punishment for a transgression is another transgression.”

But when we speak of the principle of Retribution, we generally mean such reward and punishment as is given in addition to the feeling of happiness or unhappiness inseparable from our actions.

This principle of retribution has been proclaimed in the grand Revelation made to all Israel on Mount Sinai, in the Decalogue which has been accepted by all civilised nations as the basis of religion: “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments” (Exod. xx. 5, 6). We understand the doctrine of retribution only in its general outlines; we are convinced of the truth of the Divine words, “There is no peace to the wicked” (Isa. lvii. 21); but how the law is applied in every single case is known to God alone. It is presumptuous on the part of short-sighted man to criticise God’s judgments, and to find injustice in the seeming prosperity of the wicked and the seeming misery of the righteous. What man is able to estimate the merits of his neighbour fully and correctly? “For the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart” (1 Sam. xvi. 7). This our inability of rightly estimating the merits of our neighbour’s actions, is illustrated by the Biblical narrative of Cain and Abel. Both brought sacrifices to the Lord; and we cannot discover any difference in their actions, and yet the sacrifice of Cain was rejected by God and that of Abel was accepted. Some important element there must therefore be in man’s deeds which is hidden from his neighbour’s eye, but is known to the Almighty. The inability of man to penetrate into the secret of God’s rule is also illustrated by the prophet Habakkuk. He asked, “Wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy peace when the wicked swalloweth up the man that is more righteous than he; and makest men as the fishes of the sea, as the creeping things that have no ruler over them?” Whereupon he receives the Divine answer: “Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.... Behold, there is crookedness in the eyes of him whose soul is not straight; but the just will live by his faith” (Hab. i. 13, 14, and ii. 2, 4).

One of the Psalmists (Asaph; Ps. lxxiii. 2 seq.) confesses that this problem had greatly troubled him and endangered his faith. He says: “As for me, my feet were almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipped. For I was envious of the arrogant, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no bands in their death; but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men.... Therefore his people return hither: and waters of a full cup are wrung out by them. And they say, How doth God know? and is there knowledge in the Most High? Behold, these are the wicked, and being always at ease, they increase in riches. Surely in vain have I cleansed my heart, and washed my hands in innocency; for all the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning. If I had said, I will speak thus; behold, I had dealt treacherously with the generation of thy children. When I think how I might know this, it is trouble in mine eyes: until I come into the sanctuary of God; then shall I consider their latter end.” The temporary success and seeming prosperity of the wicked does not shake the firm belief of the singer in the justice of God; his communion with God, his coming into the sanctuaries of God, is a blessing which the soul of the pious yearns for, and in comparison with which all the wealth and power of the wicked is but a deceitful shadow.

The Book of Job illustrates the vanity of man’s attempts to lift the veil that conceals the plan of God’s decrees. The reader is informed beforehand why Job is afflicted with pains and troubles. But Job and his friends have not been informed. Job desires to know what act of his has brought upon him that terrible calamity, if it is to be endured as a punishment; he protests his innocence, and criticises the justice of the Almighty. The three friends declare with certainty that Job’s sufferings are a punishment for sins committed, and are angry that Job does not accept their view.

God appears, rebukes Job for his presumption, but declares that the view expressed by his friends, insinuating sinful conduct to Job, was wrong, and that Job, who contended that he did not know the cause of the suffering, spoke more rightly than his friends. For Job had not been afflicted because of his sins, and this was shown to the friends of Job by the compensation which God gave Job for all that he had lost and suffered.

Koheleth likewise shows the futility of man’s endeavour to find independently of Divine revelation the aim and object of man’s life on earth, or the share his free-will has in the performance of his actions and the determination of his fate. Man is lost in a labyrinth of problems, out of which he can extricate himself only by faith in God and His guidance. The result to which the investigations of Koheleth led him is expressed thus: “Fear God, keep his commandments; for this is the whole of man’s duty. For every action God will bring to judgment together with all hidden thoughts, whether good or evil” (Eccles. xii. 13).

The acts of Divine justice recorded in the sacred literature serve as a warning to the evil and an encouragement to the good. They are all of a material character, as only in this shape can they be perceived by man. But by no means do they exhaust all the ways of God. The Divine retribution so frequently referred to in the Law points mostly to the good or evil consequences which the conduct of the Israelites will bring upon the whole community or state, because the whole community is benefited by the virtues and injured by the misconduct of each of the members composing it; it is the duty of the authorities, by watchfulness and by well-defined punishments, to prevent the spread of disobedience to the Divine Law. What other rewards or punishments await the individual in this life or after death we do not know. But there are, especially in the Psalms, numerous indications that the pious sufferer was sure that everlasting happiness would more than compensate for the absence of material and transient success in this life. The following passages may serve as an illustration:—

“Many sorrows shall be to the wicked, but he that trusteth in the Lord, mercy shall compass him about” (Ps. xxxii. 10).

“How precious is thy loving-kindness, O God! and the children of men take refuge under the shadow of thy wings. They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house; and thou shalt make them drink of the river of thy pleasures. For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light” (xxxvi. 8–10).

“For evil-doers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the land” (xxxvii. 9).

“For the Lord loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off” (Ibid. 28).

“Mark the perfect man; and behold the upright: for the latter end of that man is peace. As for transgressors, they shall be destroyed together; the latter end of the wicked shall be cut off” (Ibid. 37, 38).

In these and similar passages the pious and enthusiastic singer has in his mind something more durable and permanent than this short life, or otherwise the conflict between his hopes and the reality would have shaken his faith.

Twelfth Principle.—“I firmly believe in the coming of Messiah; and although he may tarry, I daily hope for his coming.”

When Abraham was chosen by God to be the founder of a nation proclaiming the Unity of God, when he was commanded to separate from his relatives and friends and to travel a stranger in a foreign land, the blessing promised to him was not to be enjoyed by him in the present, but by his descendants in remote future: “All the families of the earth shall be blessed in thee” (Gen. xii. 3). The same promise was repeated when Abraham stood the trial, and was ready to bring any sacrifice in obedience to the Will of the Supreme Being: “All the nations of the earth shall bless themselves in thee” (Ibid. xxii. 18). The conviction that the seed of Abraham have the distinction and the mission to become a source of a blessing to all mankind was transmitted from generation to generation; from Abraham through Isaac to Jacob or Israel, whose descendants, the Israelites, guarded the inherited charge, as their peculiar treasure. Before receiving the Decalogue on Mount Sinai, the Israelites were reminded of this their mission in the words, “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. xix. 6). It was not by force of arms or by persuasion that they were to influence the whole earth, but by setting an example of noble, pure, and holy conduct. A special spot was selected for them where they should, in seclusion from the rest of the world, be trained in the true worship of God and in the practice of virtue. Zion and Jerusalem became in course of time the religious centre from which “instruction came forth and the word of the Lord.” The Israelites became negligent in their mission and faithless to their holy charge. Instead of leading other nations to the true worship of God, they allowed themselves to be misled by them to idolatry; instead of living a pure life of justice and righteousness, they yielded to luxury and lust, and committed acts of injustice and oppression. They were punished. Troubles followed troubles; they lost their independence and their religious centre. The men of God, the prophets, from Moses to the last of the prophets, Malachi, foretold the catastrophe, but at the same time added words of comfort and encouragement, pointing to a distant future, when “her appointed time of trouble will be complete, and her guilt atoned for;” when Israel will be restored to his land, and under the guidance of Messiah, “the Anointed of the Lord,” he will be filled with the fear of the Lord and an earnest desire to do that which is just and right. Moses, in one of his last addresses to Israel, said, “And it shall come to pass, when all these things have come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which 1 have set before thee; and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee, and shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt obey his voice, according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; that the Lord thy God will return thy captivity, and have compassion on thee, and will return, and gather thee from all the peoples whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee. If any of thy outcasts be in the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee,” &c. (Deut. xxx. 1–3). The glorious times of Messiah are described by Isaiah in the following words: “And it shall come to pass in the end of days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it. And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths, for out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall reprove many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isa. ii. 2–4). The same has been prophesied in almost identical words by Micah (iv. 1–4), a contemporary of Isaiah. The peace of the Messianic period is figuratively described by Isaiah in the following verses: “And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed: their young ones shall lie down together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the basilisk’s den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (Isa. xi. 6–9). In the days of Messiah all people will unite in the proclamation of the Unity of God and in His worship: “And the Lord shall be King over all the earth: in that day shall the Lord be one, and his name one” (Zech. xiv. 9). “Then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent” (Zeph. iii. 9).

The distinction given to Israel and to his land will again appear in all its glory. Israel is punished, deprived of independence, even despised and ill-treated at times; but with all this he is loved by God, and not rejected by Him for ever. Isaiah prophesies as follows: “Remember these things, O Jacob and Israel, for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant; O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me” (Isa. xliv. 21). “For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall my covenant of peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee” (Ibid. liv. 10). Comp. lix. 20, 21; lx. 19–21; lxvi. 22; Jer. xxxiii. 25, 26; Hos. ii. 21, 22.

Those who during the years of Israel’s punishment have despised and ill-treated him will repent of their conduct when they witness his wonderful redemption. Their repentance is beautifully depicted by Isaiah in the passage beginning, “Behold, my servant will be successful” (lii. 13). Israel, the servant of God, patiently bears insults and persecution, faithfully waiting for the fulfilment of the Divine promise. Israel’s oppressors will then, on seeing how God loves him, confess their wrong and own that Israel has innocently suffered at their hands. With the redemption of Israel is connected the restoration of the throne of David. “A branch of the house of David” will be at the head of the nation, upon whom “the spirit of the Lord will rest, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord” (Isa. xi. 2). Thus Jeremiah prophesies: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and he shall reign as king, and deal wisely, and shall execute judgment and justice in the land. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name, whereby he shall be called, The Lord is our righteousness” (xxiii. 5, 6). All the attributes of Messiah are those of a human being in his highest possible perfection. No superhuman qualities are ascribed to him; all his glory, all his success, is dependent on the Will of God. He is an ideal man, and an ideal king, but not more; if miracles are to be wrought, it is not Messiah who will perform them, but God, who will act wondrously for Messiah and Israel. The advent of Messiah is not expected to change the nature of man, much less the course of the world around us. The only change we expect is, that the Unity of God will be acknowledged universally, and that justice and righteousness will flourish over all the earth. Those who believe in a superhuman nature of Messiah are guilty of idolatry. Our Sages express this principle in the words, ‏אין בין העולם הזה לימות המשיח אלא שעבוד מלכיות בלבד‎, “There is no other difference between the present time and the days of Messiah but the restoration of Israel’s independence.”

An opinion is mentioned in the Talmud in the name of a Rabbi Hillel—not the great Hillel, the Babylonian—that “there is no Messiah for the Israelites, because they have already enjoyed the blessings of Messiah in the reign of Hezekiah” (Babyl. Talm. Sanhedrin, 98b). This can only refer to the miraculous defeat of the enemy, and the direct benefits derived therefrom by the Israelites. But the Rabbi by no means rejects our belief that Messiah will come, and with him the universal worship of the One God, the universal practice of virtue in all its forms, and universal peace and prosperity. [17] Hillel, however, found no support for his view; on the contrary, his error is at once shown to him, that he forgot the prophets who prophesied after Hezekiah.

There are some theologians who assume the Messianic period to be the most perfect state of civilisation, but do not believe in the restoration of the kingdom of David, the rebuilding of the Temple, or the repossession of Palestine by the Jews. They altogether reject the national hope of the Jews. These theologians either misinterpret or wholly ignore the teaching of the Bible, and the Divine promises made through the men of God.

The hopes with which our religion inspires us can never lead us to intrigues, political combinations, insurrection, or warfare for the purpose of regaining Palestine and appointing a Jewish Government. On the contrary, our religion teaches us to seek the welfare of those nations in whose midst we live, and to conscientiously take part in the work for their national progress and prosperity, whilst patiently waiting for the miraculous fulfilment of the prophecies. Even if a band of adventurers were to succeed in reconquering Palestine for the Jews by means of arms, or reacquiring the Holy Land by purchasing it from the present owners, we should not see in such an event the consummation of our hopes.

Does the advent of Messiah and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem imply the restoration of the Sacrificial Service? The last of the prophets, Malachi, declares that “then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem shall be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in ancient years” (Mal. iii. 4). In the same spirit all the prophets spoke, and when in some cases prophets denounce sacrifices, it is only the sacrifices of the wicked that they denounce. Sacrifices must be preceded by purification of the heart, and by the earnest resolve to obey the word of God, otherwise they constitute an increase of sin. When we express our longing for the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of the Temple-Service—the return of the priests to their service, and the Levites to their song and music—it is solely our desire for the opportunity of serving God according to His Will and command, and is not a feeling that should be modified by fashion or taste. It is because of our sins that we have been deprived of our Temple; the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of the Sacrificial Service will be the result of our own purification, and the consequent Divine pardon.

When will this take place? We do not know, and are content to bear in mind that the time of our redemption is one of the “hidden things which are the Lord our God’s;” “If it tarries,” says Habakkuk, “wait for it, for it will surely come, and not later than the time fixed” (ii. 3). Certain numbers of days and weeks are mentioned in Daniel, [18] but it is not stated how these are to be counted; to which period they are intended to apply; whether to the time of the restoration under Zerubbabel, to the period of the Maccabees, to the destruction of the second Temple, or to the future and final redemption. It is also possible that these numbers have some symbolic signification. In reference to these mysterious numbers Daniel says (xii. 8–10): “And I heard, but I understood not; then said I, O my lord, what shall be the issue of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are shut up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white, and be refined; but the wicked shall do wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand; but they that be wise shall understand.” These words of Daniel are a warning to all those who are inclined to compute by means of the numbers given in Daniel the exact year of Messiah. Many have disregarded the warning and have fallen into gross error. It is the duty of the pious Israelite to have faith in God’s wisdom, goodness, and power: “The righteous shall live in his faith” (Hab. ii. 4).

Thirteenth Principle.—“I firmly believe that there will take place a revival of the dead at a time which will please the Creator, blessed be His name and exalted His memorial for ever and ever.”

As imperfect as is our conception of a creation from nothing, so imperfect is our notion of the resurrection of the dead. We only perceive the dissolution of the body into its elements, which enter into new combinations and form new bodies; and it is almost impossible for us to imagine a reconstruction of the original body out of its own elements. There is no doubt that the Almighty produces fresh life from death—we need only observe the action of Nature in the world around us to convince ourselves that God is ‏מחיה המתים‎ “that he gives life to things dead.” But how this will be done in reference to our own selves, whether we shall enjoy the same life, whether our future life will be an improved edition of the present one, whether all will be restored to life, or whether the new life after death will be enjoyed by the soul alone, or by body and soul jointly: these and similar questions transcend the bounds of human knowledge. We know nothing but the bare fact that God can restore to life that which is dead, and that a resurrection will take place. But all further description of this event rests on man’s imaginative powers. The fact itself is stated by Daniel (xii. 2): “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt;” it is indicated in the Pentateuch in the words, “I shall kill and I shall make alive; I have wounded and I shall heal” (Deut. xxxii. 39). According to Maimonides, the author of the Thirteen Principles, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is identical with that of the immortality of the soul, calling the life of the soul after separation from the body, resurrection; the verse quoted from Daniel is accordingly interpreted in a figurative sense. The belief in ‏תחית המתים‎ “the resurrection of the dead,” emphatically enjoined in the Talmud, was thus restricted by Maimonides to the separate life of man’s soul after his death, because the immortality of the soul appeared to him more rational and more acceptable to thinking man. This may be the case, but we, human beings, a combination of soul and body, are, in reality, as unable to conceive the separate existence of our soul as we are to comprehend the resurrection of our body. We are taught that there exists for us a life beyond the present one. But any attempt to describe that life must be considered merely as an act of imagination rather than of knowledge. It is probably for this reason that no distinct ordinance in the Pentateuch sanctioned the belief in future life, or in the immortality of the soul. The belief, nevertheless, existed among the Israelites, and found expression in several passages of the Bible. Foremost among these is the following verse of Koheleth (xii. 7): “And the dust shall return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” David also gives frequent expression to this belief in his Psalms. In the Seventeenth Psalm, e.g., he speaks with contempt of the wealth and the success of the wicked, and says of himself: “As for me, I shall see thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with beholding thy likeness” (Ps. xvii. 15). Similarly he says in Ps. xvi. 8–11: “I have set the Lord always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall dwell in safety. For thou wilt not leave my soul to death, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life; in thy presence is fulness of joy, in thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.” In the Book of Proverbs (xii. 28) we read: “In the path of righteousness there is life, and a smoothed way where there is no death.” These and similar verses show that the belief in the immortality of the soul was firmly established among the Israelites, and found frequent expression in the words of the men of God.

The belief in the Resurrection assists us in our endeavour of reconciling the apparent contradictions between the justice of God and our own experience. The latter comprises only the transient pleasures of the wicked and the sufferings of the just in this short life, and cannot be compared with the pleasure of the good and the suffering of the bad in the future, eternal life. Another benefit derived from this belief consists in its raising us above the ordinary sphere of earthly gains and losses; it turns our minds to higher aims; it purifies our heart and elevates it.

Opponents of this belief quote some passages from Job in support of their view; e.g.: “Before I go whence I shall not return, even to the land of darkness and of the shadow of death” (x. 21). “As the cloud is consumed and vanishes away, so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more” (vii. 9). These and similar words were uttered by Job when he suffered great pain, and wished, as many would wish under similar circumstances, to be relieved by death from his momentary troubles, unconcerned as to what might happen in distant future. Besides, Job is not an Israelite; he is described as a man just and upright, but need not have had the same convictions and beliefs as the Israelites. How little the above verses represent the exact view of Job may be learnt from the fact that he gives also expression to the opposite belief: “If a man dieth, will he live again? All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my relief cometh” (xiv. 14). “And when my skin is gone, when worms have destroyed this body, and when my flesh is no more, yet shall I see God” (xix. 26).

NOTES.

On page 19 sqq.

The Number of the Principles of our Creed.—The contents of our Creed has its source in the Bible; there the Principles are taught, some directly, others indirectly; but they are neither formulated nor enumerated. The most ancient declaration of faith is contained in the verse: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is One” (Deut. vi. 4). There is even a tradition (Midrash Rabboth Gen. ch. xcviii.) that these words were first uttered by the sons of Jacob, when their father, in the last hour of his life, wished to know whether all his children were faithful to the inherited religion. We repeat these words thrice a day, in the morning and in the evening; with these words on their lips the martyrs of our nation suffered death; these words are the last which the pious Israelite utters before “his spirit returneth to him who hath given it.” When the Israelites took possession of Palestine, at the solemn assembly between the mountains of Gerizim and Ebal, they were not commanded to recite or sign a series of articles of faith, but to declare their determination to obey the Will of God as expressed in the Torah. This was also done by our forefathers when standing round Sinai. They declared, “All that the Lord hath said, will we do and hear” (Exod. xxiv. 7). When Elijah on Mount Carmel had demonstrated the perverseness of the Baal-worship, the Israelites declared, “The Lord, he is God.” Jonah describes himself thus: “I am a Hebrew; and I fear the Lord, the God of the heavens, who hath made the sea and the dry land” (Jonah i. 9).—Also, after the Restoration in the days of Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, the Jews were exhorted to act according to the words of the Torah, and they renewed their covenant with God in this respect, but nothing is known of a declaration of belief, of reciting or signing articles of faith.—The struggle with the Samaritans produced special legislation with regard to certain religious observances, but there was no need for the formulation of a creed. But care has been taken that the principles of our faith should find expression in our daily prayers. Thus the sections which precede and follow the Shema contain an indirect declaration of the three fundamental principles of our religion, the Existence of the Creator, Revelation, and Divine Justice. The first section, called ‏ברכת יוצר‎ praises God as the sole source of everything, of light and darkness, of good and evil. In the second section (‏ברכת אהבה‎) we acknowledge in gratitude the benefits of Revelation; and in the third (‏ברכת גאולה‎) we thank God for the redemption of our forefathers from Egypt, by inflicting punishment on our oppressors. Although much stress is laid on faith (‏אמונה‎), and he who was found wanting in faith was stigmatised as ‏כופר‎ or ‏כופר בעיקר‎ unbeliever or infidel, yet no creed was officially formulated. Even the discussions between the Sadducees and Pharisees, which concerned also the principles of faith, brought only about certain changes in the prayer—such as the substitution of ‏מן העולם ועד העולם‎ for ‏עד עילם‎ in the responses of the congregation during the public service, in order to establish the belief in the existence of another world and another life beyond the grave.

The necessity of formulating the principles of faith arose when the contact and intercourse with other religious communities gave frequent occasion to discussions on these and similar subjects. Without some fixed basis, it was feared, disorder and confusion would disturb the peace in the camp of Israel.

Thus Saadiah says in Emunoth Ve-deoth: “I have seen men drowned, as it were, in the sea of doubts, covered by the waves of error, and there was no diver to bring them up from the depth, nor any swimmer to take hold of them and draw them out. As I possessed enough of what God taught me to support them, and had the power for upholding them granted to me, I considered it my duty to assist and guide my fellow-men according to the best of my abilities.” In ten chapters Saadiah discusses the various theological problems, and defends the following articles of faith: Existence of God; His Unity; Revelation; Free-will; Immortality of the Soul; Resurrection of the Dead; Final Redemption of Israel; Reward and Punishment. Although these principles do not seem to have been shaped into the form of a solemn declaration or embodied in the prayer, they are treated as themes familiar to the reader, and as elements essential in the Jewish faith (‏אשר אנחנו מחויבים להאמין‎).

Rabbi Abraham ben David (Rabad, ‏רא״בד‎), in his Haemunah haramah (“The Lofty Faith”), seems to assume three principles: Existence of God, Prophecy, and Reward and Punishment, which to defend from the attacks of the unbeliever, he considers as the first duty of the Jewish scholar (‏התורני‎); but he does not follow this decision in his book. He comprises all religious truths which he has to demonstrate under six heads (‏עיקרים‎). The first of them he calls “Root of the faith;” it expresses the conviction that all things in the universe owe their existence to a “First Cause”—God. Next comes “Unity of God,” which is followed by “Attributes of God,” “The intermediate causes of natural changes.” “Prophecy”—or ‏האמונה האחרונה‎, “the subsequent belief,” i.e., the belief which follows the belief in God—and “Divine Providence.”

Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi explains to the Kuzarite king his faith as follows: “We believe in the God of our forefathers, who brought the Israelites forth from Egypt by signs and miracles, sustained them in the wilderness with manna, divided for them the sea and Jordan, gave them the Law through Moses, exhorted them through His prophets to obey His commandments: in short, we believe all that is written in the Torah” (Kuzari, i. 8). He then explains philosophically “the root of the faith” in the following ten propositions: (1) The universe is finite; (2) it had a beginning; (3) the time of the beginning had to be determined by the Divine Being; (4) God is without a beginning; (5) God is eternal (i.e., without an end); (6) incorporeal; (7) omniscient; (8) all-wise, all-powerful, living; (9) free in His actions; (10) without change. To these must be added the belief in prophecy, in the truth of the prophecies, and in man’s free-will, which he fully discusses in the course of the book.

Rabbenu Bachya, in his “Duties of the Hearts” (‏חובות הלבבות‎), considers also faith as one of these duties, and expresses it in the most simple form, “Belief in God and in His Law.” He does not, however, devote a special chapter to faith. The first chapter treats of the distinctively Jewish creed of God’s Unity, but less as a duty of belief than as a duty of research and study for the purpose of philosophically establishing that God is One. The author states only briefly in the prefatory notes to the first chapter, that it is our duty to believe in the Existence, Providence, and Unity of God, as commanded in the verse, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.”

Maimonides comprehended our belief in thirteen articles, known as the Thirteen Principles of our Creed. He insists on the fact that these articles are not the product of chance; they are the result of long study and deep research. Every one of them is essential, and he who rejects any of them is an infidel (‏כופר‎), and puts himself by such rejection outside the Jewish community (‏יוצא מכלל ישראל‎).

Rabbi Joseph Albo criticised Maimonides’ thirteen articles of faith (‏עיקרים‎). Whilst recognising all of them as true, he would make a difference between fundamental principles (‏עיקרים‎) and secondary beliefs (‏שרשים‎). The former are all those dogmas by which Judaism falls and stands, without which Jewish faith cannot be imagined; the latter are those principles which are actually true, but Judaism can be conceived without them. To the former he counts, e.g., the belief in the existence of God, to the latter the belief that to Him alone prayer is to be offered. For Judaism cannot be conceived without the belief in God’s existence, but could be conceived without the belief that only God is to be prayed to. Albo further finds fault with Maimonides for not having embodied in the Creed the belief in man’s free-will, in the truth of the Biblical account of the miracles, in the Creatio ex nihilo, and the like. To these objections Maimonides would reply, that the articles enumerated by him were all actually fundamental, the question whether Judaism could be imagined without this or that principle being of no importance whatever; and that the dogmas named by Albo as omitted, were implied in the Thirteen Principles. According to Albo there are three fundamental principles (‏עיקרים‎): Existence of God, Revelation, and Reward and Punishment. The first includes four articles (‏שרשים‎): Unity of God, His Incorporeality, Eternity, and Perfection; the second implies three: God’s Omniscience, Divine inspiration, and Divine messengers (prophets); the third only one: Providence. Albo’s criticisms on Maimonides have passed away without effect. The Principles of Faith as formulated by Maimonides have found their way into the daily Prayer-book in prose and poetry, and have since formed an essential element in every text-book of Jewish religion. Modern theologians erroneously quote Albo in favour of rejecting some of the articles, because he speaks of three fundamental principles; but they forget that Albo never rejects any of the thirteen principles; he only insists on making a difference between those which are more and those which are less fundamental.

On the First Principle, pp. 22 sqq.

Maimonides does not mention the term Creator except in the beginning of each paragraph as a substitute for “God.” He employs the philosophical term “First Cause” in defining the existence of God. In the sixty-ninth chapter of the first book of “The Guide” we find the explanation thereof. He says: “The philosophers, as you know, call God the First Cause (‏עִלָּה‎ and ‏סִבָּה‎); but those who are known by the name Mutakallemim (Mohammedan theologians) are very much opposed to the use of that name, and prefer to call Him ‘Maker’ (‏פּוֹעֵל‎), believing that there is a great difference whether we use the one term or the other. They argue thus: Those who say that God is the Cause, implicitly assume the coexistence of the Cause with that which was produced by that Cause, and believe that the universe is eternal, and that it is inseparable from God. Those, however, who say that God is the Maker do not assume the coexistence of the maker with his work; for the maker can exist anterior to his work; we cannot even imagine how a maker can be in action unless he existed before his own work. This is an argument advanced by persons who do not distinguish between the potential and the actual. For there is no difference whether we say ‘cause’ or ‘maker;’ ‘cause’ as a mere potentiality precedes its effect; and ‘cause’ as actuality coexists with its effect. The same is the case with ‘maker;’ so long as the work is not done, he is a maker potentially, and exists before his work; he is an actual maker when the work is done, and then he coexists with his work.”

“The reason why the philosophers called God ‘the Cause’ and did not call Him ‘the Maker’ is not to be sought in their belief that the universe is eternal, but in other principles, which I will briefly explain to you. Everything owes its origin to the following four causes: the substance, the form, the agens, the final cause. The philosophers believe—and I do not differ from them—that God is the agens, the form, and the final cause of everything; in order to express this, they call God ‘the Cause’ of all things. Every one of these three causes leads, through a chain of causes, to God as the First Cause.” Maimonides further points out in this chapter that the choice of the term by no means decides the question whether the universe has had a beginning or not.

Maimonides has been severely criticised by his successors for the absence of the belief in “Creation from nothing” from the Creed. In “The Guide” Maimonides distinctly states that the arguments for “Creation from nothing” and the arguments against it are equi-balanced, and that for this reason he follows the literal interpretation of the Scripture as regards Creation. Were the arguments in favour of the eternity of the universe stronger, he would not have found any difficulty in interpreting Scripture accordingly. Such being the view of our great philosopher, he could not make the belief in Creation part of the Creed, or declare that all who denied the Creation from nothing were unbelievers.

However strange this argumentation of Maimonides may appear, and however arbitrary his treatment of Scriptural teaching, his view is not without justification. It seems strange that, in spite of all his reverence for the Bible, he should have entrusted himself entirely to the guidance of his own reason, and forced, as it were, the Bible by peculiar interpretations to follow his reasoning. In truth, however, the method of Maimonides is neither strange nor arbitrary. There is no doubt that figurative language is extensively used in the Scriptures, especially in the poetical and the prophetical books. Whether a certain expression or phrase was to be understood in its literal meaning or in a figurative sense must be learnt from the context; in some cases—as, e.g., in the exhortation, “Ye shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart” (Deut. x. 16)—the figurative sense is accepted by all, whilst in other cases opinions are divided. Our decision in favour of the one interpretation or the other is based on our conviction that the Bible contains nothing but truth. When we discover a contradiction between a Biblical statement and the dictates of our reason, we are sure that we have erred either in the right understanding of the words of the Bible or in our reasoning. On finding the mistake in our reasoning we abandon what we have hitherto considered as fully established; but so long as we are unable to discover where our reasoning is faulty, we either suspend our judgment for the present and consider the question as one of the problems which we have not yet been able to solve satisfactorily, or, whenever possible, we attempt to reconcile by figurative interpretation the teaching of the Bible with the results of our research. Maimonides is therefore justified in saying that so long as reason does not decide against the teaching of the Bible in its literal sense he would adhere to the latter, and only if reason were to decide against the Creatio ex nihilo, he would follow reason and interpret Scripture accordingly.

It cannot be denied that Maimonides travelled here on rather slippery ground, and set a dangerous example when he admitted that he would interpret Scripture according to his preconceived view of the world’s beginning. But, on the other hand, it must be owned that many passages of the Bible admit of a figurative interpretation, and the reader must follow his own reason and discretion in deciding in each particular case which of the two interpretations is the correct one. Maimonides has not made excessive use of this license.

Saadiah in his Emunoth Ve-deoth devotes the first chapter to the problem of the Creation. It is headed ‏חדוש‎ “Creation,” and examines thirteen different opinions as to the origin of the universe. In the conclusion of this chapter he makes the following remarks: “Perhaps some one might ask in what manner something was produced from nothing. To this we reply as follows: If we were able to understand this, we should not have ascribed the creative act to God alone. But we declare God as the only Creator, because we can form no idea as to the manner in which something is created from nothing. Those who desire us to show them how to do this, desire, in fact, that we should make them and ourselves creators. We only conceive in our mind the fact of the Creation, but cannot form an idea or image of the process itself.... There may be some who think little of the universe, and wonder that this should be the result of all the power and wisdom of God. We reply that He created as much as, according to His knowledge, would be within the range of man’s observation and perception, and would be sufficient to teach man the existence of God.... How can we conceive the idea that the universe counts only 4633 years? But the universe has been created, as we believe, and must have had a beginning at a certain time. Suppose we had been living in the year 100; we should then not have been surprised: why should we be surprised now?” The question as to the purpose for which the universe was created, Saadiah makes three attempts to answer. Maimonides, however, in “The Guide,” more correctly, shows that the question is unanswerable and superfluous. For, whatever purpose we assume, we must always further inquire what is the purpose of this purpose, and so on ad infinitum, till we arrive at the answer, it was the Will of God. If the prophet declares that God “hath not created it in vain, but hath formed it for dwelling,” he likewise says implicitly it was the Will of God that the earth should be for a dwelling.

The question, however, arises whether the Biblical account of the Creation harmonises in all its parts with the results of scientific research. To prove the existence of harmony between the two discordant elements has been since days of old the task which theologians proposed to themselves; philosophic culture forced them to accept the doctrines of a certain school of thought as established truths, whilst religious feeling would not allow them to abandon the teaching of the inspired writers. But the search after this harmony was superfluous, and the harmony found was illusory. For, whilst the teaching of the Bible remains unchanged, the systems of philosophy and science, like everything human, have no claim to permanency; each system has its season; it begins to shine, and rises higher and higher; and when it has reached the zenith, it begins steadily to decline till it disappears beneath the horizon of science. So long as Aristotle and Ptolemy were dominant, theologians exerted themselves to show that the account contained in the first chapter of Genesis fully harmonises with Aristotle and Ptolemy. When these princes were dethroned, and their places were occupied by others, the old harmony was gone, and a new method had to be invented. Maimonides has clearly pointed out how the conflict between reason and faith, where it existed, could best be brought to a conclusion. Such of the laws of nature as have been established by human acumen and human observation have been discovered in the phenomena of existing nature; but the phenomenon of creation has never been observed in nature from which we could learn the laws of creation.

In the seventeenth chapter of the Second Book of “The Guide” Maimonides says as follows: “Everything produced comes into existence from non-existence; even when the substance of a thing has been in existence, and has only changed its form, the thing itself which has gone through the process of genesis and development, after having arrived at its final state, has properties different from those which it possessed at the commencement of the transition from potentiality to reality or before that time.... It is quite impossible to infer from the qualities which a thing possesses after having passed through all the stages of its development what its condition was at the moment when this process commenced; nor does the condition of a thing at that moment show what its previous condition had been. If you make this mistake, and attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually existing, you will fall into great confusion; you will reject evident truth and admit false opinions.... If philosophers would consider this well, and reflect on it, they would find that it represents exactly the dispute between Aristotle and ourselves. We, the followers of Moses, our teacher, and of Abraham, our father, believe that the universe has been produced from nothing, and has developed in a certain manner, and that it has been created in a certain order. The Aristotelians oppose us, and found their objections on the properties which the things in the universe possess when in actual existence and fully developed. We admit the existence of these properties, but hold that these properties themselves have come into existence from absolute non-existence. The arguments of our opponents are thus refuted; they have demonstrative force only against those who hold that the nature of things as at present in existence proves the Creation. But this is not my opinion.”

This reasoning holds good with regard to the modern theory of Evolution. We may be able to discover numerous facts in evidence of this theory, we may well conceive the idea of a protoplasm developing into a whole system of worlds, and yet our belief in the truth of the Biblical account of the Creation is not shaken in the least. The laws of Evolution are the result of the creative act of the Almighty, and not its causes; they include nothing that could disprove the correctness of the theory of Creatio ex nihilo.

Rabbi S. R. Hirsch, in his “Commentary on Genesis” (i.) says: “The word ‏בראשית‎ ‘in the beginning,’ teaches that nothing preceded the act of Creation; that there was a Creatio ex nihilo. This truth forms the foundation of the faith which the Divine Law is intended to establish in our hearts. The opposite theory is the doctrine of the eternity of the substance, a theory which leaves to the Creator nothing but the function of giving form to the substance that has existed already from eternity, and which has been the basis of the heathen belief up to the present day.... The first word of the Torah dispels the darkness of this false belief; and the words, ‘The opening of thy word giveth light’ (Ps. cxix. 130), have in the Midrash correctly been applied to the word ‏בראשית‎. Everything, the matter and the form of all beings, is the result of the free will of the Creator, who continues to rule matter and form, and to determine both the natural forces and the laws of their action. For it is His free will that created matter, endowed it with certain forces, and fixed the laws by which the forces impress the different forms on it.”

The idea of development and evolution is not entirely excluded from the account of the Creation. Not in one moment or in one day was the universe produced, but in six days by successive creations of a systematic order. In Mishnah Aboth (v. 1) this is expressed in the following way: “By ten words (‏מאמרות‎) the universe was created, although this could have been done by one word.” Commentators have variously attempted to explain this fact, and to show that the order observed in the Creation was determined by the nature of the things themselves. Thus Ibn Ezra believes that the successive creations were the results of the continued action of light and heat. [19] But it is by no means necessary to reconcile the Biblical account with every theory that happens to be considered by some scholar or school as the right one. There may be found in nature and in the working of the natural laws some facts analogous to certain acts of the creation; but a perfect equality of two such incongruent things as the creation from nothing and development of created beings is impossible. By forcing the text of the Bible into such harmony we deprive the account of its poetry and beauty, and weaken the force of its teaching.

Science teaches that millions of millions of years must have elapsed before the earth received its present form; that it took millions of years before the light of certain stars could reach the earth. In all these calculations one important factor is ignored, viz., that for every development something must be given, which is subject to the process of developing; to determine in what condition that something was, when it passed from the passive state of creation to the active state of developing, is a problem for the solution of which there is no analogy in nature. He who could create a germ endowed with all the natural forces required for development and differentiation into the great variety of forms which we perceive at present, must certainly have been able to create the things actually endowed with these forms. Thus, also, the various strata of the earth, whatever forms they contain, cannot with certainty be described as the results of development; they may just as well have come directly from the hand of the Creator.

Maimonides (The Guide, xxx.) says in reference to this question: “You should also know the dictum of our Sages—‘All the beings of the work in the beginning (‏מעשה בראשית‎) were created in their full height, their fully developed reason, and endowed with the best of properties.’ Note this, for it involves an important principle.—The work of the Creation went on for six days; every day brought to light a new force, a new result of a creative action, but on the seventh day ‘God declared [20] the work which He had done as finished,’ as endowed with the properties and forces required for their further development” (The Guide, I. lxvii.).

Science has proved, it is maintained, that the earth does not form the centre of the universe, and that man does not form the principal object in nature, in opposition to the teaching of the Scriptures that the earth is the centre round which the whole universe revolves, and that man on earth is the lord of the creation. Whatever view the authors of the Biblical books held as regards the systems of the universe, whether they placed the earth in the centre or not, whether all the stars and systems of stars existed, in their opinion, only for the sake of the earth or for the benefit of man, their object was to address man, to instruct him, and to teach him the omnipotence, wisdom, and goodness of God. For this reason the account of the Creation is given in such a manner that man should be able to reproduce in his mind the work of each day of the Creation, to view it from his standpoint, and to recognise the benefits each day’s work bestowed on him. The fact that other beings are benefited at the same time, and that the benefit they derive is likewise part of the Creator’s design, is by no means denied by those who believe that the well-being of man was included in the design of the Creator. It is part of our duty of gratitude to ascribe the benefits we enjoy to their Author. The prophets and the inspired singers knew well the place which weak and mortal man occupies in the universe; but they did not ignore the dignity and importance with which the Creator endowed him in spite of all his weakness and apparent insignificance. “What is man,” exclaims the Psalmist, “that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? And yet thou hast made him a little lower than angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour” (Ps. viii. 5, 6).

On the Fifth Principle, p. 44.

The principle that no other being but God is worthy of being addressed in prayer implies the belief that God can fulfil our petitions. We believe in the efficacy of prayer. It is true that when we communicate our wishes to the Most Holy, our just Lord and our loving Father, we are eo ipso reminded to examine our desires, whether they contain anything unholy, anything unjust or ignoble. Prayer to God has therefore the salutary effect of purifying, refining, and ennobling our heart. It banishes evil thoughts, and thus saves us much pain and sorrow. This effect may have been designed by the Creator, and it may be for this purpose that He has endowed us with a natural impulse to pray, and has taught us to pray in His Holy Word. But this cannot be the direct object of prayer. The immediate effect sought to be obtained by this act is the fulfilment of our wishes. Every such fulfilment implies a miracle, a deviation from the regular course of nature. We are not in the habit of praying for things which we expect as the sure result of the natural laws; we may praise and admire nature in its workings, but we shall never ask nature for the fulfilment of our desires. Only those things which we believe to be dependent solely on the free decision of the Supreme Being can form the substance of our petitions; and since we believe that everything, the regular working of the natural laws not excepted, depends on the Will of God, we include in the objects of prayer whatever concerns the well-being of individual man and society at large.

There have been thinkers that formed such an idea of God that they were compelled to deny Him every direct influence on human affairs. Some thought it incompatible with the notion of God’s Unity and Immutability that He should be moved by man’s prayer to do something which otherwise He would not have done. Again, others believe that the laws of nature—whether given by God or not—are so permanent that they never change under any circumstances. Prayer has therefore been explained to be of a purely subjective character, and to effect only the above-mentioned improvement of man’s heart. But could we really pray to God to grant us the one thing or the other if we were convinced that He cannot grant us anything, but must allow nature to take its course? Can a prayer offered in such a frame of mind be called a “prayer without lips of deceit”? In opposition to such theories our teachers purposely introduced into the daily prayer here and there a reminder of the true theory in words like the following: ‏המחדש בטובו בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית‎ “Who repeateth anew every day regularly the work of the Creation.” He is constantly ‏יוצר אור‎, ‏בורא חשך‎, ‏מחיה המתים‎; He constantly “formeth light,” “createth darkness,” “giveth life to the dead,” &c.; they have expressed our gratitude to God ‏על נסים שבכל יום עמנו ועל נפלאתיך וטובתיך שבכל עת‎ “for His miracles which in our behalf He performs every day, and for His wonders and kindnesses shown at all times.”

“This idea of God’s real and active rule in the universe is the basis of prayer. It is not only the belief in the truth of the Biblical account of miracles that enables us to pray to our Father, but the conviction that wonders and miracles are constantly wrought by Him. In the Talmud and in the Midrash man’s earning his daily bread (‏פרנסה‎) is declared to be a miracle by no means inferior to the miracles wrought for the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt.—‘Is need greatest, is God nearest,’ is a well-known saying, the truth of which many have experienced in the course of their life. Those who have been dangerously ill, and after having found that man, with all his science and resources, was incapable of affording relief, gradually recover their former health; those who have shared with others a common danger, and while their companions, under exactly the same circumstances, perished, were themselves saved; those who, having exhausted every means conceivable to them of obtaining a livelihood, at length find a new path of subsistence opened to them: all these have experienced the Divine help and His nearness in their distress; they have learnt to recognise the miraculous power of Providence. But it is not only in such extraordinary events that the finger of God is seen; to him who has eyes to see they appear daily and hourly. We are exposed to many dangers, the existence of which we frequently only learn when we are safe; we escape them by a miracle.” [21]

The Immutability of God and of His decrees is frequently insisted upon in Scripture. “I, the Lord, I change not” (Mal. iii. 6). “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent” (Num. xxiii. 19). “The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent” (1 Sam. xv. 29). “And he hath established them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree, and it shall not pass away” (Ps. cxlviii. 6).—This immutability, however, does not interfere with the free-will of man and its consequences. The teaching of the Bible is beautifully expressed in the well-known sentence: ‏תשובה תפלה וצדקה מעבירין את רע הגזרה‎ “Repentance, prayer, and good deeds remove the evil of the divine decree” (Musaf of Rosh ha-shanah); whatever a man has forfeited by evil deeds, he may recover by prayer and improved conduct. This lesson is taught in the Bible on every page, and is illustrated by the history of Israel. For this reason the prophets were sent to the people of Israel to exhort them, and to show them how they could, by means of repentance, ward off the impending catastrophe. To non-Israelites the same mercy was extended, as is shown by the history of the mission of the prophet Jonah.—Mishnah Aboth (iv. 13) therefore declares, “Repentance and good deeds are like a shield against punishment,” ‏תשובה ומעשים טובים כתריס בפני הפרענות‎.

The seeming incongruity of the two principles, God’s immutability and man’s hope for mercy and pardon from God, has to some extent occupied the attention of our ancient teachers. “If our condition for a whole year is determined in advance, what is the good of our daily prayers and our supplication for God’s help in times of trouble?” Such is the question asked in the Babylonian Talmud, Rosh ha-shanah (16a), and the answer is given, ‏יפה צעקה קודם גזרה ואחר גזרה‎ “Prayer is of good effect both before the decree and afterwards.” It is always in the power and in the will of the Almighty to accede to our petitions and to fulfil our wishes. The question has since been repeated frequently, but no better solution has as yet been supplied.

Abraham, who was the first teacher of monotheism, has also been made by tradition the father of prayer. In the Biblical account he is the first who uttered a prayer; a prayer in the true sense of the word, not for himself, but for his fellow-men. The words of Cain, ‏גדול עוני מנשא‎ “My punishment is greater than I can bear,” have not the character of prayer, nor can the “calling by the name of God” in the age of Enosh be considered with certainty as an expression of prayer. Tradition relates, therefore, that before Abraham there was no one that called God by the name ‏אדון‎ “Lord.” Abraham was the first who recognised God as Lord of man, in whose hand his fate lies,—the condition sine quâ non of prayer. From Abraham onwards prayer remained the chief refuge in danger, and the best, solace and relief in time of trouble.

Whilst, however, insisting on the belief in the efficacy of prayer, our Sages teach us that it would be wrong to expect that every petition uttered before God must be granted. We pray to the Almighty, being convinced that it is in His power to grant what we pray for; but we must trust in the wisdom and mercy of God, that the rejection of our petition is also for our good. “He is near to all those who call on him, to all those that call on him in truth,” who continue to trust in Him and His goodness even when their wishes are not fulfilled. It would be almost equal to superstition to believe that any words, however earnest and devout, uttered by us will infallibly have the desired effect. The Mishnah (Aboth ii. 13) therefore teaches: ‏אל תעש תפלתך קבע אלא רחמים ותחנונים‎ “Do not make thy prayer a fixed claim or demand, which must be fulfilled, but a supplication for mercy, which may or may not be granted.” The belief that the prayer will undoubtedly be fulfilled is denounced in the Talmud as ‏עיון תפלה‎ “Looking out with certainty for the effect of the prayer.” [22] Since the principal object of prayer is the granting of our petitions, prayer will be superfluous when no wants will any longer be felt, ‏לעתיד לבוא התפלות בטלות‎ “In future prayers will be discontinued;” only ‏תפלת תודה אינה בטלה לעולם‎ “The prayer of thanksgiving will never be discontinued.” “In the enjoyment of the purest blessings our feelings of gratitude will never die out” (Yalkut on Ps. lvi.).

Rabbi Joseph Albo, in the book Ikkarim, says (IV. xvi.): “Although Prayer is not one of the principles of our Torah, it is intimately connected with the belief in Providence, and every one who believes in Providence ought to believe in the efficacy of prayer. For he who does not pray to God in time of trouble either does not believe in Divine Providence, or if he does believe, he doubts whether God is able to supply his wants; in both cases man is an unbeliever. It is also possible that a person who believes in Divine Providence and in God’s Omnipotence doubts whether he deserves that his prayer should be granted—a feeling of humility which ought indeed to fill the heart of every person—but this idea must not prevent him altogether from praying to God concerning his wants. If he does not pray from this reason, he may believe in God’s justice, but he does not believe in His mercy and kindness. It is also contrary to the teaching of the Bible. ‘Not relying on our righteousness do we offer our supplication before you, but on your great mercy!’ For the benefits bestowed by God on His creatures are acts of love, not of recompense.... Man receives benefits, whether he is entitled to them or not, because prayer gives him a qualification which he does not possess by nature, and enables him to receive such good things as could not be obtained from any other being or through any other means....

“There are some who doubt the efficacy of prayer; they argue thus: We must assume that a certain good thing has been either decreed or not decreed in favour of a certain person: if it has been decided, prayer is not wanted; and if it has not been decided, how can prayer effect a change in the Will of God, who is unchangeable? Neither righteousness in action, nor prayer, is of any avail in procuring any good thing that has not been ordained, or in escaping any evil that has been decreed. This is also the argument of Job in chap. xxi. But the answer to these arguments is this: Whatever may have been decreed, certain conditions must be fulfilled before the decree is executed. If a good harvest is decreed to a certain person, he must plough and sow before he can secure such a harvest; if punishment is decreed against him, the punishment is not inflicted in the absence of continued and repeated sinning. The history of King Ahab shows that the evil decreed against any sinner takes no effect if the sinner repents and is turned into another man. The change that takes place in man himself is the direct effect of prayer and righteousness; it prepares and qualifies him for receiving benefits and protection from evil. Our Sages say therefore: Prayer has its good effect both before and after the Divine decree. The Immutability of God is not less consistent with Efficacy of Prayer than it is with His knowledge of things which are possible, and may happen or may not happen. God and His knowledge being unchangeable, everything must be certain and nothing merely possible. And yet we are convinced of the existence of these things, and believe at the same time in the Immutability of God’s knowledge. In the same manner we are convinced of the Efficacy of Prayer without doubting the Immutability of God’s Will.”

On Revelation, p. 46.

The term ‏נביא‎ “prophet” only expressed the prophet’s function of addressing his fellow-men when inspired and impelled by the Spirit of the Lord. The verb “to prophesy” is therefore in Hebrew expressed by the nifal or passive. In so far as the Word of God has been revealed to him he is called ‏ראה‎, ‏חוזה‎ and ‏צפה‎ “Seer,” ‏איש אלהים‎ “Man of God,” ‏איש הרוח‎ “The inspired.” In the time of Samuel the title ‏ראה‎ was generally given to the prophet instead of ‏נביא‎ (1 Sam. ix. 9), as his advice was also sought by many who believed him to be able to foresee coming events and to know everything. As, however, the word ‏נביא‎ only describes the prophet as addressing his fellow-men, it is used both of the true and the false prophets, and also of teachers and preachers generally. The Targum on the Prophets (Jer. xxix. 15; Isa. xxix. 10) renders, therefore, the term ‏נביא‎ in some instances: ‏מלפין‎ “teachers,” ‏ספריא‎ “scholars.”

The enthusiasm manifested by the prophet in his mode of address, or in his endurance of insult and ill-treatment, made him sometimes appear in the eyes of the public as though he were struck with madness, so that scoffers used ‏נביא‎ and ‏משגע‎ “mad,” as synonyms (Jer. xxix. 26), and ‏מתנבא‎ is both one who acts as a prophet and one who imitates the appearance of a prophet (1 Sam. xviii. 10).

The false prophets are divided by Jeremiah into three classes: there were those who were guilty of a direct plagiarism, preaching the Divine messages of the true prophets and describing them as their own inspiration. There were others who plagiarised and reproduced true prophecies in a form and style of their own, and others again who altogether invented dreams and visions. The principal test for distinguishing between the true and the false prophets was the purity of moral and religious conduct. In matters wholly indifferent as regards morality and religion the prophet was believed after having established his trustworthiness in some way or other, and his advice was acted upon. The prophet himself could easily detect the fraud of a false prophet; for what he was commanded by God to do, another prophet could not, speaking in the name of the same God, order not to be done. The prophet, therefore, who deceitfully induced “the man of God” to return to Beth-el by the very way which the word of God had forbidden him to go again (1 Kings xiii. 18), could not have been a true prophet, although he was subsequently entrusted with a Divine message for “the man of God.” Bileam was likewise for a certain purpose made the bearer of God’s words, although he was by no means a good man. In either case the sinful intention of the false prophet was stigmatised as contrary to the Will of the Most High, and both had, as it were, to own the wickedness of their intention or the wrong of their actions.

The subject-matter of the prophecy is called “the vision,” “the word of God,” or “the burden of the word of God.” In the days of Jeremiah the term “burden of the Lord” seems to have been used contemptuously of the prophetic utterances in the sense of “trouble” and “strife” (comp. Deut. i. 12), and the prophet was ironically asked by the people, “What is the burden of the Lord?” Jeremiah exhorts them to say, “What hath the Lord answered thee?” or “What hath the Lord spoken?” “But the burden of the Lord shall ye remember no more; for the burden shall be the man’s to whom His word is brought” (Jer. xxiii. 36).

On the Sixth Principle, p. 131.

Saadiah in Emunoth ve-deoth iii. says: “Some men believe that we have no need of prophets, our reason being able to distinguish between good and evil. But if this were the case, God would not have sent messengers to us, because He does not do a thing that is purposeless. I considered the question thoroughly, and found that the mission of the prophets was necessary, not only for the promulgation of categorical commands, but also for that of rational precepts. Thus the duty of thanksgiving to God for His goodness is dictated by our own reason, but the Divine messengers had to fix the time and the form of thanksgiving. Again, adultery is rejected by our reason as a crime; but the Divine teaching determines the conditions of the bond that unites man and wife....

“As a test of the prophet’s truthfulness and trustworthiness a sign is given, which consists of an act implying a deviation from the ordinary laws of nature (comp. Exod. iii. and iv.). The Israelites are therefore frequently reminded of ‘the great wonders which their eyes saw’ (Deut. vii. 19). Those who believed after the sign was given were ‘the righteous,’ whilst those who did not believe ‘went astray.’ ...

“The object of ‘the wonders’ was to produce belief in the prophecies; except for such a purpose as this, the regular course of Nature is not disturbed, so that man can make his plans and arrange his affairs on the basis of the continuance of the laws of Nature. The messengers sent by God were not angels, but men like ourselves, in order that the force of the sign may be more apparent; for, seeing that beings like ourselves perform things which we cannot perform, we conclude that a higher Being has endowed them with extraordinary power for a special purpose. If, however, angels had been chosen for the task of prophets, we should not have considered their performance as signs; but, not knowing the nature of angels, we should have thought that such acts were within the regular and natural powers of angels. Prophets, like other human beings, cannot dispense with the regular functions of the organs of their body; they are subject to the different conditions of health; to poverty, ill-treatment on the part of their fellow-men, and to ignorance about future events, except those communicated to them by Divine inspiration.—I found it necessary to state this here, because there are people who believe that the prophet does not die like ordinary people; others deny him the sensation of hunger and thirst; others again think that he does not suffer from violence and wrong directed against him, and some even believe that nothing is hidden from him. These ‘do not know the thoughts of the Lord, and do not understand His counsel.’

“It is, further, my conviction that the prophets were satisfied, by some extraordinary supernatural phenomena, that they were addressed by the Almighty. (Comp. Exod. xxxiii. 9 and Ps. xcix. 7: ‘In a pillar of cloud he speaketh to them.’)

“As to the relation of the Egyptian Magicians to Moses, we are informed that ten miracles were wrought by Moses and only three by the Magicians. Even these three were only mentioned in order to show the difference between Moses and the Magicians. Moses acted openly, the Magicians secretly; the effect of Moses’ doing was felt throughout the whole country, that of the Magicians only in a limited space....

“Some one might ask, ‘How could Jonah have been chosen for his mission? Wisdom would forbid us to appoint for an important mission a messenger that is disobedient.’ But I have examined the Book of Jonah, and have not found any statement as regards the disobedience of Jonah. On the contrary, I assume that he, like all prophets, brought the Divine message to the Ninevites. We frequently find in the Pentateuch. ‘Speak to the children of Israel and tell them,’ and we assume that Moses told the Israelites, although this is not distinctly mentioned. The reason why Jonah fled is this: the first message which he actually brought to the inhabitants of Nineveh contained simply a summons to repentance. He feared that he would be again sent to threaten with punishment if they did not return; and if they returned and the threatened catastrophe did not occur, they might in course of time begin to doubt the veracity of his words. He therefore left the land, which was distinguished as the land of prophecy (Jonah iv. 2).”

Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi, in the book Cuzari (V. xii.), describes prophecy as an extraordinary gift granted by the Almighty to such human beings as are qualified for it by the highest degree of intellectual development, moral conduct, and an earnest desire for communion with God. Such qualification is found only in a few privileged individuals—“the heart of mankind” (‏לב האדם‎)—who, as it were, possess it as an inheritance transmitted from generation to generation, but it can only be possessed or acquired under certain favourable conditions, e.g., that the prophet live in Palestine, the land of prophecy, or have his attention directed to Palestine (I. xcv.).

It was, however, necessary that mankind should derive a benefit from the revelations made to the prophets. All had to learn that it was possible for a human being to receive a direct communication from God. This lesson was given when the Israelites stood round Mount Sinai, and suddenly became prophets. For, although the Israelites believed in the Divine mission of Moses after he had done many wonderful deeds, there remained yet a doubt in their minds whether God could speak to man, and whether the Torah did not originate in the plans and schemes of human beings, which by the help and assistance of God developed to perfection; for it seemed strange to them to ascribe speech, which is corporeal, to a spiritual being. It is this doubt which God intended to remove from their hearts; they were therefore commanded to sanctify themselves inwardly and outwardly, whereby they were prepared for the condition of prophets and for hearing the words of God which were to be directly addressed to them. After a preparation of three days they received the Decalogue, not from any prophet or other person, but from God Himself. But they felt their weakness and their inability to witness such a great sight again. They were convinced that the Torah was communicated by God to Moses, and was not the result of human invention; that prophecy does not consist in the union of the soul of man with the active intellect, in his attaining to great wisdom, or in his mistaking his own words for the words of God. Such erroneous opinions were refuted by the revelation on Mount Sinai.—But, objects the king of the Cuzarites, to believe that God spoke to the Israelites and wrote the Decalogue on the tables of stone amounts to believing in a corporeification of the Deity.—To which objection the following reply is given:—“Far be it from us to think that the Torah contains anything contrary to reason. The Decalogue commences with the commandment to believe in God, and prohibits in the second commandment the representation of God in any corporeal form. How could we, who deny corporeality even to some of His creatures, attribute any corporeal property to the Supreme Being? For it is not the tongue, heart, or brain of Moses that speaks to us, instructs and guides us, but his soul which is rational, incorporeal, and not subject to the relations of space; we ascribe to the soul attributes of angels, of spiritual beings. How much more is this the case with God! We have, therefore, no reason for rejecting the Biblical account of the revelation on Mount Sinai; but we admit that we do not know how the idea became corporeal and was turned into audible speech, what new thing was then created or what things then in existence were annihilated. He is Almighty, and when we say that He created the tablets and covered them with His writing, it was done, like the creation of the heavens, by His word; that is, it was His Will that His thought should become corporeal to a certain extent and assume the form of tables, and that a certain writing be inscribed on them. Just as the division of the sea and the formation of a broad path between the walls of water was done directly by His Will, without using instruments or employing intermediate causes, so the air that reached the ear of the prophet assumed such a form that sounds were perceived expressing the idea which God desired to communicate to the prophet or to the people” (I., lxxxvii.–lxxxix.). In describing the different meanings of the names of God, Elohim and the Tetragrammaton, [23] the author says: “The nature of Elohim can be perceived by reason, which teaches us that there exists a being who governs the universe. The opinions at which people arrive vary according to the different modes of reasoning which they employ; the opinions of the philosophers have the greatest probability. But the idea contained in the Tetragrammaton cannot be found by reasoning, but is perceived intuitively by that prophetic vision during which man is almost separated from his fellow-men, transformed into an angel, and filled with another spirit; ... previous doubts concerning God disappear, he smiles at the arguments by which men generally arrive at the idea of a deity and unity; he then worships God in love, and would rather sacrifice his life than abandon the worship of God” (IV., xv.).

Abraham Ibn Ezra explains the words “And the Lord spake to Moses” as referring to true speech and not to speech with the mouth, which is merely a representation of the other. “God spake to Moses” as man speaketh to his neighbour; that is to say, directly and not through a messenger (On Exod. xxxiii. 11).—In commenting on the Nineteenth Psalm he says: “The first part shows how the intelligent man can find in nature evidence for the existence and power of the Deity; but there is a far better and more trustworthy witness: the Law, &c, called by David ‘perfect,’ because no other evidence is required in support of the Divine utterances contained in the Holy Writings” (On Ps. xix. 8).—Ibn Ezra is so firm in his belief in the truth of the Divine Writings that he sets aside the contrary opinions of men as absurd. “We believe in the words of our God and abandon the vain opinions of the sons of man” (On Gen. vii. 19).—Whatever message they brought from God was true, and its realisation could be relied upon provided that the conditions were fulfilled, which were either expressed or implied. In other things, however, which were not contained in the Divine message they were not infallible (On Exod. iv. 20). The prophets were trained for the office. The sons of the prophets (or “the disciples”) led a contemplative life of seclusion, in the hope of receiving inspiration, every one according to his faculty (On Exod. iii. 15). The first step in this preparation was “the training in the fear of the Lord,” which leads man to heed the negative precepts of the Law. Then follows “the worship of God,” which includes the observance of all positive precepts (Yesod Mora, vii.).

Maimonides (Mishneh torah, I.; Yesode ha-torah, vii. 1):—“One of the principles of our faith is to believe that God inspires men. The inspiration can only take place in men who distinguish themselves by great wisdom and moral strength; who are never overcome by any passion, but, on the contrary, overcome all passions; who possess wide and profound knowledge. If those who are endowed with these various gifts, and, being physically perfect, enter the garden of speculation, are absorbed in these great and difficult problems, have the mind to understand and to comprehend, sanctify themselves more and more, abandon the ways of the common people that walk in the deep darkness of the time, and zealously train themselves in freeing their mind from useless things, the vanities and tricks of the time, in order always to keep the mind free for reflecting on higher things, on the most holy and pure forms, on the whole work of the Divine Wisdom from the first sphere to the centre of the earth, and to comprehend thereby the greatness of God: then they will at once be inspired with the holy spirit, their soul will then be in the society of angels, they will become other beings, they will feel that they are not the same as before, that they are above other men, even above the wise. Thus it is said of Saul, ‘And thou wilt prophesy with them, and be turned into another man’” (1 Sam. x. 6).

The same opinion is expressed by Maimonides in his “Commentary on the Mishnah” (Sanhedrin, xi. 1), and in “The Guide” (III., xxxii.). In the latter (l.c.) the various views on prophecy are fully discussed, and the difference between the view of Maimonides and that of the “philosophers” is given more distinctly. According to the philosophers, the highest physical, moral, and intellectual development is the sole means for the acquisition of the prophetic faculty. Maimonides demands in addition to this the Divine Will; he reserves, as it were, for the Supreme Being a kind of veto, and believes that the prophetic faculty may, by Divine interference, i.e., by a miracle, be withheld from a person in spite of all preparation and fitness. He compares this interference to the sudden paralysis and equally sudden recovery of the hand of King Jeroboam (1 Kings xiii. 4). Although the physical conditions for the motion of the hand were present, the motion could not take place, because it was the Will of God that the hand should at that particular time not be able to perform its natural functions.

The question naturally suggests itself, Why, then, is the number of prophets so exceedingly small? Why are there no prophets amongst the large host of philosophers whose intellectual faculties have been most highly developed, and who apparently live in a sphere of ideals far above earthly and ordinary passions? Maimonides denies the fact that the conditions are fulfilled; he believes that the life of the philosophers is on the whole not so pure as would qualify them for the office of prophecy (II., xxxvi.).

But Bileam, Laban, and Abimelech enjoyed the privilege of Divine communication, although they had not attained to the highest degree of moral sanctity. Maimonides says in reference to the dreams of Abimelech and Laban (ibid., chap. xli.): “The sentence, ‘And Elohim (an angel) came to a certain person in the dream of the night,’ does not indicate a prophecy, and the person to whom Elohim appeared is not a prophet; the phrase only informs us that the attention of the person was called by God to a certain thing, and at the same time that this happened at night. For just as God may cause a person to move in order to save or kill another, so He may cause, according to His Will, certain things to rise in man’s mind in a dream by night. We have no doubt that the Syrian Laban was a wicked man and an idolater. Abimelech, though himself a virtuous man, is told by Abraham, ‘I said, Surely there is no fear of God in this place’ (Gen. xx. 11). And yet of both it is said that Elohim appeared to them in a dream. Note and consider the distinction between the phrases ‘Elohim came’ and ‘Elohim said;’ between ‘in a dream by night’ and ‘in a vision by night.’ In reference to Jacob it is said, ‘And an angel said to Israel in visions by night’ (Gen. xlvi. 2), whilst in reference to Abimelech and Laban it is said, ‘Elohim came to Abimelech (or to Laban) in the dream by night’ (Ibid. xx. 3 and xxxi. 24). Onkelos therefore renders this phrase: ‘A word came from the Lord,’ and not ‘God revealed himself.’”

Bileam is, according to Maimonides, in some respect like Laban and Abimelech; what God told him in a dream by night was not a prophecy. In other respects he is described by this philosopher as a person endowed with ‏רוח הקדש‎ “the holy spirit;” i.e., he felt that some influence had come upon him, and that he had received a new power which encouraged him to speak for a certain object (The Guide, xlv.). Maimonides adds that at that time Bileam was still a virtuous man.—This view of the position which Bileam occupies in the class of inspired men is different from the place assigned to him in the Midrash, where the following passage occurs: “‘There arose no prophet again in Israel like Moses;’ that is to say, in Israel none arose, but among other nations there was a prophet as great as Moses, namely, Bileam” (Sifre, Deut. xxxiv. 10). Whatever may be the meaning of these words—whether they are meant as a satire or not—they seem to indicate that Bileam possessed a high degree of prophetic faculty. But comparing the deeds of Bileam with those of Moses, we find that the latter guided the Israelites and led them to good deeds and to a virtuous life, whilst Bileam misled those who followed his guidance to sin and vice.

The view of Maimonides, that man after due preparation and training may still be debarred from the rank of prophet, is severely criticised by the Commentators of the Guide. They maintain that God, after having invited and encouraged man to approach Him, would not then thwart the very hope He had implanted. According to their opinion, God’s hand is extended to all; every one may acquire the prophetic faculty, and those who have not acquired it have not been duly qualified for it. (Comp. the Comm. of Ephodi, Narboni a. o. on “The Guide,” II., xxxii.).

Albo (Ikkarim, III., vii. sqq.) likewise admits that it is impossible to imagine a prophet who has not attained a high degree of moral and intellectual perfection. But he does not consider the prophetic faculty as a natural development of man’s intellectual faculties. It is solely and directly due to Divine inspiration (‏שפע אלהי‎), by means of which man acquires a knowledge of things which are otherwise beyond the limits of human intellect. Of what nature the inspiration is, how it gives certitude to the prophet, and by what psychical process it is accomplished, only the prophet himself can fully comprehend. Albo, like Maimonides, assumes different degrees of inspiration from the inspiration (‏רוח ה׳‎) which moved Samson to heroic deeds and David to sacred songs, to the prophetic communion of Moses with God “face to face.” The clearness of the prophet’s utterances varies according to the different degrees of his prophetic faculty, although all are equally true.

On the Seventh Principle, p. 133.

The words ‏שנבואת משה רבנו ע׳׳ה היתה אמתית‎ have been wrongly translated “that the prophecy of Moses was true,” because this is contained in the sixth principle, which applies equally to Moses and to all other prophets. The term ‏אמתית‎ does here not denote “true,” but “real,” “perfect,” or “direct;” and the difference between the Divine inspiration of Moses and that of other prophets is expressed in the above phrase, in accordance with the distinction made in the Pentateuch (Num. xii. 8). It has been considered necessary to formulate this distinction between Moses and other prophets in a separate article, because it is of great importance in the proof of the Immutability of the Law.

Maimonides in “The Guide” (chap. xxxv.) and Mishneh torah (I., Hilchoth Yesode ha-torah vii. 6) fully describes the difference between Moses and other prophets. He enumerates four points:—(1.) Other prophets received the Divine message in a vision or a dream, whilst Moses received it in a state of complete consciousness, being awake, and apprehending the words like those spoken by a man to his fellow-men. (2.) Other prophets received the message in images, which they had first to interpret before communicating it to their fellow-men; Moses was addressed by God in clear words and not in figurative speech. (3.) Other prophets were overcome by the sight, and were in a state of fear and trembling; Moses experienced nothing of this kind. (4.) Moses was sure to receive a Divine reply whenever he sought it; not so the other prophets.

Maimonides comes thus to the conclusion that the term “prophet” when applied to Moses cannot have the same meaning as it has when applied to other Divine messengers; and the prophecy of Moses differs from that of other prophets not only in degree, but in kind. There are, however, other theologians who hold that the prophecy of Moses is of the same kind as that of other prophets, and excels the rest only by a higher degree of prophetic faculty. (Comp. Albo Ikkarim, III., xvii.)

On the Eighth Principle, p. 134.

The integrity and authenticity of the Pentateuch has been subjected to all kinds of tests by critics of every age. The Massoretic remarks, to which allusions are found in the Talmud, seem to include the result of critical examination of the text of the Bible. Thus we read in the treatise Aboth di-Rabbi Nathan (chap. xxxiv.): “There are ten passages in the Pentateuch which are provided with points on the top of the letters, namely, Gen. xvi. 5; xviii. 9; xix. 33; xxxiii. 4; xxxvii. 12; Num. iii. 39; ix. 10; xxi. 30; xxix. 15; Deut. xxix. 28. What is the meaning of these points? Ezra—who is supposed to have added them—said, ‘If Elijah should come and show me that the reading was wrong, I should tell him that for that reason I marked them with points; and if he should say that I wrote correctly, I should remove the points.’” In the treatise Soferim (vi. 4) the following passage occurs:—“Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, Three copies of the Pentateuch were found in the hall of the Temple; they are called Sefer meonah, Sefer zatute, and Sefer hee. In the one ‏מעון‎ was written instead of ‏מעונה‎ (Deut. xxxiii. 27), in the other ‏זאטוטי‎ (Exod. xxiv. 5) instead of ‏נערי‎, and in the third eleven times ‏היא‎ instead of ‏הוא‎. The reading that was found only in one of the three copies was rejected, and that of the other two preferred. The received text has therefore ‏מעונה‎, ‏נערי‎, and ‏היא‎.”

These instances which tradition has preserved, are evidence of the great care and conscientiousness with which Ezra the Scribe and other men transcribed and multiplied copies of the Pentateuch. We learn further from these instances that the text was never altered, even where the sense did not seem quite clear; and where the reading had been changed in some cases, the Massoretic notes show the way how to read the word whilst the text was retained in its original form. This is the cause of the Keri and Kethib, “How the word is read” and “How it is written.” In the Talmud a certain number of passages are described as tikkun soferim, “The style of the scribes;” others as ittur soferim, “Elegance of the scribes.” Commentators have interpreted these terms as indicating alterations of the text; but the instances quoted for illustration do not contain any trace of such a process. An instance of tikkun soferim is, “And Abraham stood yet before the Lord” (Gen. xviii. 22). These words were believed to continue the account of the Divine vision introduced by the words, “And God appeared to Abraham” (ibid.