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 [170]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 [171]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 [172]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 [173]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 [174]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 [175]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
[176]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 [177]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
[178]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. [179]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.
[180]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.”
[181]
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.17 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 [182]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 declared18 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 [183]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 [184]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; [185]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.”19
The Immutability of God and of His decrees is frequently [186]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 [187]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.” [188]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.”20 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 [189]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.”
[190]
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 [191]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).
[192]
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 [193]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 [194]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 [195]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 [196]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,21 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.).
[197]
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 [198]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
[199]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 [200]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 [201]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 [202]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 [203]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, [204]“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. xviii. 1), and interrupted by the narrative of the visit of the three angels. The
reader might have expected, “And God stood yet before Abraham.” The method of expressing
the same in the above form for the sake of euphemism is called tikkun soferim. From the instances of ittur soferim quoted in the Talm. Nedarim 37b, we infer that the occasional omission of the copulative vav was designated by that name. (Comp. Gen. xviii. 5, אחר).
In Midrashic interpretations of the Bible we frequently meet with the phrase אל תקרי, “Do not read,” seemingly implying an emendation of the Biblical text. It is, however,
certain that the authors of such interpretations did not for a moment entertain the
idea that the passage in question was corrupt and required correction. What was meant
by the above phrase is this: A Jewish audience was supposed to be familiar with the
text of the Bible, and it was therefore believed that the lessons which the teacher
or preacher desired to impart would better reach the heart of the listener, and be
more easily retained in his memory, if it were expressed in the words of some Biblical
passage. If a passage could, by a slight alteration, be made to serve this purpose,
such alteration was adopted and introduced with the words אל תקרי, “Do not read, … but …”
There are also some instances in the Talmud and the Midrashim of Biblical quotations
not in harmony with the received text. This discrepancy is either due to the fact
that preachers and expounders quoted from memory, and may have erroneously confounded
two similar passages, or it is due to the carelessness of the copyists. Indications
of a Biblical text at variance with the received text are found in the ancient Versions.
But, with the exception of the Chaldee Version of the Pentateuch by Onkelos, and that
of [205]the Prophets by Jonathan, we have no authorised Version, and it is uncertain how many
of the discrepancies have their origin in a corrupt text in the hands of the translator,
and how many of them are due to the error of the translator in misreading or mistranslating
the correct text before him. By no means are these facts sufficient ground for doubting
the correctness of the received text, however plausible the suggested emendations
may appear.
Samaritans and Mohammedans have accused the Jews of having altered the text of the
Bible; but they have not proved the charge. (See Emunah-ramah, 5th Principle, chap.
ii.)
Modern critics have impugned the authenticity of most of the Biblical books. We will
discuss their opinions concerning three of these books, and these are the most important
ones concerning which Tradition speaks most decidedly, viz., the Pentateuch, the Prophecies
of Isaiah, and the Book of Daniel.
The existence of the Pentateuch at the time when the other Biblical books were written
is clear from the frequent references to the history and the laws contained in it.
Such are, e.g.: “Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according
to all the law which Moses, my servant, commanded thee,” &c. “This book of the law
shall not depart out of thy mouth,” &c. (Jos. i. 7, 8). “As Moses, the servant of
the Lord, commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law
of Moses,” &c. “And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses which
he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel. And afterward he read all the
words of the law, the blessing and cursing, according to all that is written in the book of the law” (Ibid. viii. 31, 32, 34). “Keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to
keep his statutes and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as
it is written in the law of Moses,” &c. (1 Kings [206]ii. 3). “But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which
is written in the book of the law of Moses,” &c. (2 Kings xiv. 6). “Keep the passover
unto the Lord your God, as it is written in the book of the covenant” (Ibid. xxiii. 21). “Remember the law of Moses, my servant, which I commanded unto him in
Horeb for all Israel, statutes and judgments” (Mal. iii. 16).
The authors of the other books of the Bible show familiarity with the words, the phrases,
and the contents of the Pentateuch. Thus Psalm civ. is based on the first chapter
of Genesis; the flood is mentioned in Ps. xxix. and in the prophecies of Isaiah (liv.
9); the history of the Patriarchs and of the Israelites in Egypt and in the wilderness
in Ps. cvi., lxxviii.; the history of Jacob is alluded to in Hosea xii.; the destruction
of Sodom and Gomorrah in Isa. i. 9, Amos iv. 11.
Of the laws contained in the Pentateuch many are mentioned or alluded to in the books
of the Prophets and the Hagiographa; the feast of Passover (Jos. iv.), Tabernacles
(Zech. xiv. 16–20, Ezra iii. 4, Neh. viii. 14–18); the first day22 of the seventh month (New-year) is mentioned as a “holy day” (Neh. viii. 10). The
dietary laws are referred to by Isaiah (lxvi. 17); the laws of cleanness and uncleanness
form the text of a prophecy of Haggai (ii. 10 sqq.). Such phrases as “Uncircumcised in heart” (Jer. ix. 25) and “Thou wilt purify me
with hyssop and I shall be clean” (Ps. li. 9) show familiarity with the laws of the
Pentateuch. Sabbath and sacrifices are frequently mentioned. Critics, however, assert
that certain laws seem to have been unknown or out of practice in the period of the
Judges and the Kings. There is, e.g., a perfect silence as to the celebration of “the Day of Blowing the shofar” and “the
Day of Atonement,” even where such [207]mention is suggested by the context, as Kings viii. 65, 66, and Nehemiah viii. But
the inspired historians preferred to describe the celebration of those festivals that
had been neglected, or those that were also of national and political importance by
concentrating the mass of the people in the capital; such festivals were Passover
and Tabernacles. The Day of Blowing the shofar and the Day of Atonement were set aside for quiet, private devotion and meditation,
the additional service in the Temple being in the hands of the priests, and the observation
of these days as holy days in accordance with the Law was a matter of course, and
was not considered by the authors as a memorable event that required special notice.
One of the prophecies of Isaiah (chap, lviii.) seems to have reference to the Day
of Atonement.
That in the days of the Judges, when “every man did what was right in his eyes,” and
during the reign of wicked kings many laws were ignored or broken is not at all surprising.
When the sacrifices offered up by Samuel and Solomon are adduced as a proof that the
Law, which only allows priests to sacrifice, was not known in those days, the argument
is based on a misinterpretation of the Biblical text. When laymen brought sacrifices,
the priests performed the service for them; the principal thing to be mentioned was
in whose name or in whose presence the sacrifice was brought; it was unnecessary to
state that the priests had to sprinkle the blood and to burn certain portions upon
the altar; no one doubted it.
Another argument against the authenticity of the Pentateuch has been based on the
fact related in the second book of Kings (xxii. 8 sqq.): “And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found a book
of the law in the house of the Lord. And Shaphan the scribe showed the king, saying,
Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king.
And it [208]came to pass when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent
his clothes.” It is maintained by some scholars that the book, which seems to have
been an unknown thing to those who found it and to the king, had only just then been
written. This is not what is directly stated in the Bible. Hilkiah speaks of the Law התורה, the well-known Torah; he would not have said so if the Torah had not been in existence
before. Furthermore, the king on hearing the words of the book rent his garments,
and sent to inquire of the Lord concerning the words of this book; for “great is the
wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book.” These words of the king clearly show that the king was convinced of the divine
character of the book, and also of its existence in the time of his forefathers. The
fact that King Josiah accuses “the fathers” suggests the following explanation of
the event:—During the reign of the wicked King Manasseh the reading of the Law was
interrupted; the book itself was hidden lest it should be destroyed by the idolatrous
priests; now that it was found again, the king was reminded that the Torah had been
neglected in the interval through the sin of the preceding generation. Whether there
was another copy of the Law in the Temple, whether the one found by Hilkiah was complete,
or contained only a portion of the Law, perhaps Deuteronomy, chap. xxvii. and chap.
xxviii., which are in the Pentateuch called “the words of this covenant” and also
“the words of the curse,” titles which occur also in reference to the above copy in
the books of Kings and Chronicles; to these and similar questions the Biblical account
gives no decided answer. Only so much is certain that the book found was not new or
unknown to those who found it, and the king recognised it as the book of the Torah.
Far from finding in the other books of the Bible any evidence—whether positive or
negative—of the later origin [209]of the Torah, we feel convinced that their contents presuppose not only the existence
of the Torah, but also the authors’ familiarity with it. Without the Torah the other
books are unintelligible. There is nothing in the Pentateuch that betrays a post-Mosaic
origin. If the Pentateuch had been written in the period of the Kings, the author
would have mentioned Jerusalem as the appointed place for the Sanctuary; in the rebukes
(תוכחה), in addition to idolatry, the social corruption pointed out by the prophets would
have been mentioned; the restrictive law concerning the marriage of heiresses would
have been superfluous, as it only applied to the first generation that entered Palestine.
The phrase עבר הירדן has been quoted as a proof that the author of the Pentateuch must have lived in Palestine,
or else he could not have called the east banks of the Jordan “the other side of Jordan;”
but this translation is wrong. The phrase only means the banks of Jordan.
In the Talmud the Pentateuch in its entirety is ascribed to Moses. “Moses wrote his
book and the book of Bileam” (Babyl. Talm. Baba Bathra, 14b). The book of Bileam is the section of Numbers which contains the parables of Bileam
(from xxii. 2 to xxiv.).
There is, however, a difference of opinion with regard to the last eight verses of
the Pentateuch. According to Rabbi Jehudah (or Rabbi Nehemiah) Joshua wrote this passage.
Rabbi Shimeon objected: “Is it possible that the Torah was incomplete when Moses was
told, ‘Take this book of the law?’ (Deut. xxxi. 26).23 God dictated the last eight verses of the Pentateuch to Moses, and the latter wrote
them with tears.”
With this exception, no doubt was entertained by any [210]of the Rabbis as to the integrity of the Torah. Various, however, were the opinions
as to the method followed by Moses in writing down the events and the laws. Rabbi
Jochanan, following the opinion of Rabbi Banaah, held that the Torah was written by
Moses piecewise at different times, just as the events happened or as each law was
revealed to him. Rabbi Shimeon ben Lakish said “it was given at one time in its entirety”
(Babyl. Talm. Gittin 60a).
Passages of the Torah which seemed to contradict each other, or to be contradicted
by statements found in other books of the Bible, were thoroughly discussed and explained.
The belief in the integrity and divinity of the Torah was so strong that those who
rejected either of these beliefs were considered as unworthy of the blessings of the
future world (Babyl. Talm. Sanhedrin 99a).
With the rise of Karaism Bible criticism received new encouragement, as in the warfare
between Karaism and Rabbinism, or Scripturalists and Traditionalists, it furnished
both sides with sharp weapons. Some, however, of the commentators went further, and
gave utterance to all sorts of heterodox views. Thus a certain Yitzchaki of Spain
was of opinion that Gen. xxxvi. 31–43 was a later addition, on account of the phrase,
“These were the kings who ruled over Edom before a king ruled over Israel.” The critics
forgot that this passage is intended to point out the advance which Esau’s descendants
had made, when the prophecy, “And kings shall come forth out of thee” (xxxv. 11) had
not yet been fulfilled in the case of the Israelites.
Of the Commentators of the Middle Ages, Ibn Ezra is generally singled out as an advanced
scholar who held certain passages of the Pentateuch as later additions. Ibn Ezra was
far from such views, and he sharply rebuked those who entertained them. Thus he says
of Yitzchaki, the author of the above criticism, “Every one who will hear this will
[211]laugh at him, and his book deserves to be burnt.” With equal vigour he criticises
a grammarian who pointed out certain passages as grammatically incorrect, and also
another scholar who in his interpretations of the Bible did not take sufficient notice
of the traditional accents. The error concerning Ibn Ezra has its origin in his habit
of adding the phrase, “The words have some deeper sense” (יש לו סוד), whenever the literal interpretation does not quite satisfy him, or when the object
of the author in adding a seemingly superfluous sentence is not clear to him; as,
for instance, in the four passages referred to in the Commentary on Deuteronomy i.
2, namely, “The Canaanite was then in the land” (Gen. xii. 6), “On the mount of the
Lord will it appear” (Ibid. xxii. 14), the repetition of the sacrifices of the twelve princes (Num. vii.), and
the stations enumerated in Numbers (chap. xxxiii.), in addition to the detailed geographical
description of Deut. i. 1 sqq. The meaning of this remark has been misunderstood by the early expounders of Ibn
Ezra’s Commentary, and since then the mistake has been repeated by most of the critics
of the Bible. Spinoza, in his theological treatise, quotes Ibn Ezra, with the usual
misinterpretation, in support of his view concerning the Torah.
Modern critics have attempted to analyse the Pentateuch, and to assign to it several
authors, revisers, and editors. But there is little harmony among the critics; the
one considers as the latest addition what the other holds to be the oldest portions
of the book. Numerous emendations are made by every one of them in order to establish
his special theory. The fundamental principle of most of them is that the section
in which the name Elohim is prevalent could not have been written by the author of another section in which
the Tetragrammaton is employed. But the two names, though denoting the same Being, are not identical
in meaning: the one signifies the Almighty, who is the Ruler of the [212]universe, the Master and Judge of all beings; the other is the name of the Merciful
Father, who reveals Himself to man, interferes in his behalf, and has especially revealed
His Providence and Kindness to the Israelites.
A careful study of the Hebrew Bible will show that it is not the author, or the age
of the author, but the contents of the passage that determined which of the Divine
names was to be used. The same author repeats the same account with some variation,
according to the lesson which he intends to convey to the reader. The proofs which
are based on the differences discovered in two accounts of apparently the same event,
or on seeming contradictions or anachronisms, are so indifferently supported that
they are not able to conquer the fortress of Faith and Tradition. The difficulties
pointed out by the critics vanish before patient study and the earnest longing for
instruction and comfort offered by the Bible.
The Book of Isaiah has likewise been subjected to the analytical test of the critic,
and it is generally believed that the prophecies contained in the book have not all
been written by the same author or in the same age. The book is divided into two large
sections; the second section, from chap. xl. to chap, lxvi., is thought to have been
composed shortly before the return of the Jews from Babylon. Although it is possible
that anonymous prophecies were added to a book, the reasons which induced critics
to make such a division are untenable. The first reason is the difference in style;
but we must take account of the difference in the contents of the two sections. The
prophecies in the first section have mostly a threatening tendency with regard to
imminent punishment, whilst in the second section Israel is to be encouraged in his
faith in the Almighty and in his hopes for a better future. It is but natural that
the style should not be the same in both sections. [213]Another reason for ascribing the second section to a later prophet is the fact that
Koresh (Cyrus), king of Persia, is mentioned by name, and the fall of Babylon and
the consequent deliverance of the Jews are described as well-known facts of the past.
This and similar arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the character of the
prophecies. The critics ignore the essential difference between the writings of inspired
messengers of God and those of ordinary men. They deny to the man of God the power
of foreseeing and foretelling coming events of which his fellow-men could not have
any knowledge. By such arguments the critics set limits to the power and wisdom of
God, and employ the same measure for both that which is Divine and that which is human.
A Divine prophet has, by the Will of the Almighty, the future unrolled before him;
he sees the catastrophe which is to come centuries later, and perceives its effect
and its end. Even when he reviews the present state of affairs and takes the immediate
future into consideration, his eyes frequently behold scenes and events of “the end
of the days” (באחרית הימים), which he points out as the goal of our hopes and aspirations. When he warns, advises,
or encourages his brethren with regard to their present wants, the virtues and the
happiness of the Messianic age are not rarely introduced. Earlier events, though still
future in time, appear then in the light of accomplished facts, and in their description
the past tense is used instead of the future. Thus it happened that the prophet Isaiah,
who flourished during the reign of King Hezekiah, could take his standpoint on the
return of the Jews from Babylonia, look back at the exile as a thing of the past,
and reveal to his brethren further troubles, the succeeding final redemption, and
the ultimate triumph of the faithful and God-fearing over the faithless and wicked.
It is true that it is an unusual thing for a prophet to name a king who is to rule
centuries after the death of the [214]prophet, unless the name is a common noun, and has by its meaning some bearing on
the prophecy. The name Cyrus fulfils, perhaps, this condition; according to Ktesias,
it signifies “sun,” an appropriate name to be given to the king who is destined to
be the deliverer of a captive people. King Cyrus may have assumed this name when he
became convinced of the mission entrusted to him by Providence.
The authenticity of the Book of Daniel has likewise been impugned, and its advocates
are, it must be admitted, at present very few. The narratives which the book contains
are considered as improbable or even impossible, and its visions as prophecies ex facto. It was written, according to these critics, in the period of the Maccabees, and
the name of Daniel was chosen in order to give more weight to the contents of the
book, Daniel being known as a man famous for his piety among his fellow-exiles. Against
this we have the distinct evidence in the book, in which the author is described as
the same Daniel that lived during the Babylonian exile; Jewish tradition knew of no
other author of the book than Daniel. Although the Book of Daniel was not placed amongst
the books of the Prophets, because he was not charged with any mission to his fellow-men,
the visions described in Daniel were nevertheless, in Jewish literature, considered
as true and genuine prophecy. The narratives have the distinct object to teach that
piety and firmness in obedience to the word of God can conquer the rage of the most
powerful tyrants; this tendency on the part of the author is especially noticed in
the manner in which every circumstance bearing on this lesson is depicted. This, however,
does not detract the least from the truth and genuineness of the facts which, by the
plan of Providence, seem to have taken place for this very purpose. The demand of
the king that the magicians should tell him his dream, which he himself had forgotten,
and that failing to do so they should be put to death; [215]the decree commanding his subjects to worship the idol and to pray to him, and other
foolish royal acts, almost incredible to us, are strange indeed, but would appear
less strange if all the records of the acts of Eastern tyrants had been preserved.
It has been contended that the history of the Syrian wars with Egypt, and the suffering
of the Jews through the Syrian invasion, is given in such detail as could only be
done by a contemporary. But apart from the fact that a careful study of the visions
of Daniel will convince us that we have here only a faint outline of the Syrian wars
and not a detailed description, it must not be forgotten that the author only reproduces
what was shown to him by the Omniscient concerning the most important event in the
history of the nation—the preservation of the holy religion through the firmness and
the courage of a few faithful servants of God. The fulfilment of the portion of the
vision which referred to the period of the Maccabees is a guarantee for the fulfilment
of the prophecies yet unrealised.
In like manner have the authenticity and the integrity of other Biblical books been
rejected; the method and the arguments are the same; they are based on a misunderstanding
of the true essence of prophecy and inspiration, and originate in a want of belief
in the Omniscience and Omnipotence of the Divine Being.
On the Ninth Principle, p. 139.
In the Pentateuch there is not the slightest indication that the laws revealed on
Sinai might be superseded by a future Revelation. On the contrary, we meet repeatedly
with the phrases, חקת עולם, “an everlasting statute,” לדרות עולם, “for everlasting generations,” and similar expressions, which clearly show the intention
of Him who gave the laws that these should last for ever. The Israelites were told
that [216]Prophets would be sent to them, and that they must listen to the Prophets and obey
them, but at the same time they were commanded to put to death a prophet who would
attempt “to turn them aside from the way which the Lord commanded them to walk therein”
(Deut. xiii. 6). Besides, the Prophets never speak of a new Revelation, which would
supersede the Torah. When Jeremiah prophesies about a new covenant, the context teaches the reader what is meant by the “new covenant.” He speaks of
the future and final restoration of Israel as follows: “Behold, days will come, saith
the Lord, when I shall make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house
of Judah. Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I
took hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, because they broke
my covenant, and I rejected them, saith the Lord. But this is the covenant which I
shall make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, when I set my
Law among them and write it upon their heart: both I shall be to them a God, and they
shall be to me a people” (Jer. xxxi. 31–33). The Law is not to be altered, but it
will dwell more firmly in the heart of Israel; the deliverance from Egypt was soon
forgotten, but the future deliverance will plant the fear and love of God—here called
the Law of God—in the hearts of the people in such a manner that it will take a deep
root and will not be plucked out of it again. There occur, however, in Talmud and
Midrash sayings which seem to imply a future alteration of the Law; e.g., “In future all prayers will cease except that of thanksgiving: in future all sacrifices
will cease except that of thanks-offering” (Midrash on Ps. c.). In these sayings their
authors simply intended to emphasise the duty of thanksgiving; even in the state of
physical and moral perfection, when there will be a perfect absence of trouble and
fear and a perfect immunity of sin, so that there will be nothing to be prayed [217]for, nothing to be atoned for through sacrifice, the duty of offering prayers and
sacrifices of thanksgiving will still remain in full force. Another saying of this
kind is: “If all festivals were to cease, Purim will never be forgotten” (Piyyut for
Sabbath Zachor); that is, even if other festivals should be neglected, Purim is so
much liked that it will never be forgotten by the Jews. In Talmud Jerus. Megillah
(i. 7) we read: “The reading from the Prophets and the Hagiographa may at some future
time be discontinued, but the reading of the Pentateuch will never be abolished.”
The idea expressed by this dictum is, that the warnings or consolations or prayers
may become superfluous by the changed condition of the future, but the laws and statutes
of the Pentateuch will always remain in force.
In sayings of this kind the time to which they are meant to apply is not defined.
“The future” (לעתיד לבא) may mean the time of Messiah, or else the time of the Resurrection, or what we are
used to call “the future life.” As in the above quotation, the authors aimed at inculcating
some moral lesson for the present state of things, and not at describing the results
of philosophical speculation with regard to remote times. A new revelation, or the
abrogation of the Law or part of it, is nowhere mentioned.
On the contrary, it is emphasised in the Talmud that the Torah has been given to Israel
in its entirety, and nothing has been reserved for a second revelation. “The Law is
not any longer in heaven,” it is entirely in the hands of man. The only authority
recognised in the interpretation of the Law was that based on knowledge, tradition,
and common sense. Authority claimed for this purpose on the ground of supernatural
privilege, prophecy, bath-kol or miracle, was not recognised (Babyl. Talm. Baba Metsia, 59b).
Maimonides (Mishneh torah, Hilchoth Yesode ha-torah ix.) says on this principle as
follows:—“It has been distinctly stated in the Torah that its precepts remain in [218]force for ever without change, diminution, or addition. Comp. ‘The word which I command
you that you must keep to do, thou shalt not add ought unto it nor take ought away
from it’ (Deut. xiii. i); ‘That which has been revealed for us and for our children
for ever is to do all the words of this Law’ (Ibid. xxix. 28). Hence it follows that we are bound for ever to do according to the words
of the Torah. It is further said, ‘An everlasting statute for all your generations’
(Exod. xii. 14, 17, et passim); ‘It is not in heaven’24 (Deut. xxx. 12). Hence we see that a prophet cannot reveal any new law. If, therefore,
any man, whether an Israelite or a non-Israelite, should rise, perform signs and miracles,
and say that the Lord sent him to add one precept or to abolish one of the Divine
precepts, or to interpret a precept in a way different from what has been handed down
to us from Moses, or assert that the precepts which were given to the Israelites had
only temporary force and were not permanent laws: such a man is a false prophet, because
he contradicts the prophecy of Moses. The mission of the Prophets after Moses is to
exhort the people to obey the Law of Moses, and not to make a new religion.”—Comp.
“The Guide,” II. xxxix.; and Saadiah, Emunoth ve-deoth, III. chap. vii. to x.
Rabbi Jehudah ha-Levi, in the book Cuzari, seems to have a different view. He likewise believes in the permanent character
of the Torah, but he modifies his view in accordance with his interpretation of the
words, “And thou shalt do according to the word which they—viz., the priests and the
judge that shall be in those days—will tell thee from that place which the Lord shall
choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they will teach thee” (Deut.
xvii. 9, 10). According to his view, these words [219]imply that from time to time prophets or inspired men, or the highest authority of
the nation, whilst the Shechinah was still filling the Temple, issued laws and orders, which had legal force, and
all were bound to obey them. But since the destruction of the Temple there has not
been any man or any court that had the authority to make new permanent laws. According
to Maimonides, however, there were no additions made to the Torah; the Rabbinical
laws are either temporary regulations or served as a means of ensuring the strict
observance of the Torah.
Albo, in criticising the principles of faith as laid down by Maimonides, objects also
to the Ninth Principle, and contends that it is not fundamental, since the belief
in the Divine origin of the Law does not necessarily imply the belief in its eternity.
But although the possibility of a second revelation superseding the first is admitted
in principle or theory, it does not follow that such revelation has in reality been
made. If any person asserts that he is sent by God to repeal the old laws or to alter
them, he must prove his Divine mission before he can be believed. We are fully convinced
of the Divine mission of Moses, and our conviction of the Divine mission of the new
prophet must at least be equally strong. The Divine character of the mission of Moses
was revealed to the Israelites by God Himself; and only such direct revelation could
satisfy us as to the trustworthiness of the new prophet (Ikkarim III. xix.).
R. Abraham ben David, in his book Emunah-ramah, finds in various passages of the Bible indications that the Torah was to remain
in force permanently. Thus Isaiah and Zechariah, speaking of the remote future, refer
respectively to the celebration of Sabbath and New-moon, and to the celebration of
Sukkoth. Again, in refuting the claims of Christians on behalf of Jesus, and of Mohammedans
on behalf of Mohammed, to a Divine mission to substitute a new covenant [220]for the old one, Rabbi Abraham argues thus: “The divinity of the old covenant, or
the Torah, has been admitted by both Jesus and Mohammed; we need not prove it. But
the Divine authority asserted by them for its abrogation or change is not admitted
by us; it must be proved; and since no proof has been given, it must be rejected”
(Fifth Principle, chap. ii.).
On the Tenth Principle, p. 148.
It is noteworthy that this principle is exceptionally supported by a Biblical verse.
The same may be noticed in the book Cuzari (V. xviii.), in the enumeration of the principles of faith according to the methods
of Mohammedan Theologians (Medabberim); the principle of God’s Omniscience is supported by a Biblical verse, only with
this difference, that in the Cuzari it is not exactly the principle of God’s Omniscience, but its proof derived from
the Creation, that is supported by a quotation from Ps. xciv. The reason of the anomaly
is this: Some of the opponents of this principle contend that it would be derogatory
to the greatness of God if He were to take notice of the doings of each individual
being. To this the reply is given: The Psalmist, who was far from saying anything
derogatory of God, declared that God knows the deeds and the thoughts of each individual.
The problem how to reconcile God’s Prescience and Omniscience with man’s Free-will
has of course engaged the attention of all Jewish theologians and philosophers, and,
though in different ways and words, they all assume that God’s knowledge of a thing
is by no means the cause of its existence. (See Cuzari, V. xx.; “Guide,” III. xx.; Saadiah, Emunoth, II. chap, ix.)
Perhaps a reconciliation is not necessary at all, there being no conflict. We should
not call it a defect in God if His Omniscience were restricted to things knowable;
a prescience [221]of things to be determined by man’s free-will is contradictory in itself, and illogical,
and to say that God would not be omniscient if He did not know them, is as absurd
as to say that God would not be omnipotent if He could not make twice two to be three.
On the Eleventh Principle, p. 150.
The subject of this creed has been the main thought of the lesson preached by the
prophets, of the hymns sung by the psalmists, and of the narratives written by the
sacred chroniclers, as has been illustrated above (p. 155) by Biblical quotations.
To these may be added (1.) the song haazinu, the professed object of which was to remind the Israelites of God’s Justice whenever
evil should befall them. The words which form the basis of the song, viz., “The Rock,
perfect is his work,” &c. (Deut. xxxii. 4), are also at present recited at funeral
rites, as צדוק הדין, an expression of our firm belief in God’s Justice. (2.) The prophet who laments
over the fall of Jerusalem declares: “Out of the mouth of the Most High do not come
forth the evil things and the good (i.e., man causes them by his evil or good deeds, which are the result of his own free
will and not of the Will of God). Why should man complain (of what has befallen him),
being master over his sins?” (Lam. iii. 38, 39).
In the Talmud the doctrine of God’s Justice is expressed thus: “Thy employer is trustworthy,
that he will pay thee the reward of thy deeds” (Aboth ii. 21). “The shop is open,
and the merchant gives on credit, and all who like may come and borrow; but the collectors
go constantly about, and exact payment whether the debtor is willing to pay or not,
for they have something to rely upon, and the judgment is a just judgment; and everything
is prepared for a banquet” (Aboth iii. 20). “God does not withhold ought of the desert
of any creature” (Pesachim, 118a).
[222]
It is, however, emphatically declared in the Talmud that the reward of good deeds
is given to the righteous in the future life, עולם הבא, “The reward for obedience to the Divine commandments is not to be expected in this
world” (Kiddushin, 39b). “The Law says with reference to the Divine precepts, ‘Which I command thee this day to do them;’ hence we infer that their performance is to take place this day, i.e., in this life, but their reward will be received in the future life” (Abodah-zarah,
3a).
“Rabbi Elazar ha-kappar used to say, ‘Those that have been born will die; those that
have died will come to life again; those that have come to life again will be judged.’
He said so in order that he himself might bear in mind, and tell others, and that
it might become generally known, that God, who has formed and created man’s heart
and understands all his doings, is the Judge, the Witness, and the Prosecutor; He
before whom there is no wrong, no forgetfulness, no partiality, and no bribery, will
one day judge. Let thy imagination not persuade thee that the grave is a refuge for
thee. For without thy consent hast thou been born, and without thy consent wilt thou
die, and without thy consent thou art brought to life again to account for thy deeds
before the King of kings, blessed be He” (Aboth iv. 22).
The immediate enjoyment of the reward is, however, not excluded. We read in the Law,
“Do this and thy days will be long;” and the Mishnah teaches, “These are the good
acts, the fruit of which man enjoys in this life, whilst the full reward awaits him
in the world to come: honouring father and mother, the practice of charity, peace-making
between man and man, and above all the study of the Law” (Mishnah, Peah. i. 1).
The faithful Israelite is not discouraged at the sight of the successes of the wicked;
on the contrary, he believes: “If to those who break the Divine laws such kindness
is shown [223]by God, what must be His goodness to those who obey Him!” (Midrash Yalkut on Isaiah
viii. 1). As regards the troubles of the good, our Sages teach that the good will
receive their reward “in proportion to their suffering.” Yet pious men do not seek
trouble and pain merely for the prospect of future compensation; on the contrary,
they avail themselves of every possible means to secure relief, and would even renounce
in their agony all compensation in the future world, in order to secure release from
pain in the present (Babyl. Talm. Berachoth, 5a).
As the life of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden was free from care and trouble,
and such a life was the ideal of human hopes and wishes, the Garden-Eden, גן עדן (lit., “the garden of pleasure”), became the symbol of man’s happiness in its perfection,
such as will fall to the share of the good and the righteous. On the other hand, the
valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem, was a place of horror and disgust; a place where
at one time children were burnt to Moloch, and where later the refuse of the city
was cast. Dwelling in the valley of Hinnom (גיהנום) became the symbol of the punishment to be inflicted on the wicked. Gan-eden or Paradise,
and Gehinnom or Hell, are thus mere figures to express our idea of the existence of
a future retribution, and must not be taken literally as names of certain places.
The detailed descriptions of Paradise and hell as given in books both profane and
religious are nothing but the offspring of man’s imagination.
The question has been asked, How long shall the punishment of the wicked last? Will
it be eternal? and if so, is it compatible with God’s goodness? This and similar questions
do not concern us in the least. Our task is to do what the Lord has commanded us to
do, and to trust, as regards the future, in Him, who knows best to combine goodness
and [224]justice. We must here bear in mind that “God’s thoughts are not ours.”
Equally ignorant are we as to the cause of the suffering and of the death of each
individual; but of this we are certain, if death is punishment, that every one dies
for his own sin. This theory is so frequently repeated in the Bible that it is surprising
how the theory of Vicarious Death and Vicarious Atonement could be considered as harmonising
with the teaching of the Bible. We are taught that God visits the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation; but at the
same time we are told that the children are only punished if they repeat the sins
of their fathers, and even then only for their own sins (comp. p. 251). It has been
asserted that Isaiah in chap. liii. assumes the principle of vicarious atonement.
That this is not the case we can easily see if we turn from the Anglican Version to
the original Hebrew, and translate it literally and in accordance with the context.
Isaiah, in describing the future glory of the servant of the Lord (= Israel), tells
us what those people who oppress Israel will then feel, and how they will give expression
to their feeling of shame and regret, saying, “Surely he hath borne griefs caused
by us, and carried sorrows caused by us: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of
God, and afflicted. But he was wounded through our transgressions, bruised through
our iniquities” (comp. Family Bible, Anglican Version, revised by M. Friedländer).
Sin-offerings were brought, but not as a vicarious atonement, although the sinner
might well have felt that he himself deserved the treatment endured by the sacrifice.
The sin-offering could not have been a vicarious atonement, as it was not offered
when the sin was committed knowingly. Maimonides explains the various laws concerning
sin-offering as based on the principle that the sacrifices serve as the means of reminding
us more vividly [225]of our sins, and of their evil consequences (The Guide, III. xlvi.; comp. Mic. vi.
6–8).
On the Twelfth Principle, p. 155.
A belief in Messiah, although not directly taught, is assumed in the Mishnah as existing;
and the days of Messiah (ימות המשיח) are spoken of as an event that admits of no doubt (comp. Mishnah Berachoth, i. 5).
That this belief was in reality taught by the religious heads of the Jewish community
is clearly shown by the introduction into the Amidah of a prayer25 for the speedy appearance of Messiah.
The belief in the coming of Messiah in some future time has been, like the belief
in the Unity of God, the source of vexatious disputations between Jews and non-Jews.
Mohammedans and Christians tried by all means in their power to convince the Jews
that the Anointed whose advent was prophesied by the Prophets had already appeared,
the former pointing to Mohammed, the latter to Jesus, as the person realising those
predictions. The Biblical passages adduced as evidence prove nothing of the kind.
E.g., the three names, Sinai, Seir, and Paran, in Deut. xxxiii. 2, were interpreted by
Mohammedans to refer to three revelations through Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed; and
Mohammed being mentioned last, his revelation was to be the final one. It is not necessary
to contradict such reasoning; one need only read the text in order to see the absurdity
of the argument. Christians quoted passages from Isaiah which had no reference whatever
to Messiah in evidence of the Messianity of Jesus. Children born in the days of Isaiah
(vii. 14; viii. 18), whose names had reference to good or evil events of the time,
were wrongly interpreted as referring to the birth of Jesus; the sufferings and final
relief of the [226]servant of the Lord, that is, Israel (chaps. lii. and liii.), were applied to Jesus;
the Psalmist who sings of victories which God will grant to David (cx.) is made to
declare the divinity of Jesus.
Commentators and philosophers have taken notice of these arguments and refuted them.
Of the many works on these topics a few may be named: “Nitsachon” (נצחון), by Lipmann Mühlhausen (1400), “Strengthening of Faith” (חזוק אמונה), by Isaak ben Abraham Troki (1594), “Vindiciæ Judæorum,” by Manasseh ben Israel (1650).
In refuting arguments brought by Christians and Mohammedans against Jews and Judaism,
and rejecting the Messianic claims of Jesus and Mohammed, Jews are ready to acknowledge
the good work done by the religions founded by these men, Christians and Mohammedans,
in combating idolatry and spreading civilisation. Maimonides says as follows:—“The
King Messiah will in some future time come, restore the kingdom of David to its former
power, build the Temple, bring together the scattered of Israel, and all the ancient
laws will again be in force: sacrifices will be offered, and years of release and
Jubilees will be kept as prescribed in the Law. Whoever does not believe in him, or
does not hope for his coming, shows a want of faith not only in the Prophets, but
also in the Law; for the Law testifies concerning him in the words: ‘And the Lord
thy God will again bring back thy captivity, show mercy to thee, and again gather
thee, &c. If thy outcasts be at the end of the heavens, thence will the Lord gather
thee,’ &c, ‘and the Lord will bring thee,’ &c. (Deut. xxx. 3–5), &c.
“You must not imagine that Messiah must prove his Messianity by signs and miracles,
doing something unexpected, bringing the dead to life, or similar things, &c. The
principal thing is this: the statutes and precepts of our Torah remain for ever, and
nothing can be added to them nor ought [227]taken from them. If, therefore, a descendant of David earnestly studies the Law, observes,
like David his father, what the Law, both the written and the oral, enjoins, causes
all Israelites to act similarly, exhorts those who are lax in the performance of the
commandments, and fights the wars of the Lord: he may possibly be Messiah. If he succeeds,
builds the Temple in its place, and gathers the outcasts of Israel, he is certainly
Messiah; and if he does not succeed, or is killed in war, it is certain that he is
not the Messiah promised in the Law; he is like all the noble and good kings of the
House of David who have died; and the Almighty only caused him to rise in order to
try us thereby, as it is said, ‘And of the wise some will stumble, and through them
the people will be tested, purified, and made white, till the time of the end comes;
for there is yet a vision for an appointed time’ (Dan. xi. 35). Also Jesus, the Nazarene,
who imagined that he would be Messiah, and was killed through the court of law, is
alluded to in the Book of Daniel, as it is said, ‘And the sons of the transgressors
among thy people will rise, in order to establish a vision, and will stumble’ (ibid. xi. 14). Can there be a greater stumbling than this? All the prophets said that Messiah
will be a redeemer and a saviour to the Israelites, will bring together their outcasts,
and will strengthen their obedience to the Divine precepts, but he (Jesus) caused
destruction by the sword to Israel, the dispersion of those left, and their humiliation;
he changed the Law, and misled many people to worship a being beside God. But the
thoughts of the Creator of the universe cannot be understood by any human being, for
the ways of men are not His ways, nor their thoughts His thoughts; for all the events
connected with Jesus and with Mohammed, that rose after him, served only to pave the
way for the King Messiah, who will reform all mankind and lead them to the unanimous
service of God, as it is said, ‘For [228]then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that all may call by the name of
God, and serve him unanimously’ (Zeph. iii. 9). How can this be done? Almost all people
have through them—Jesus and Mohammed—become acquainted with the idea of Messiah, with
the words of the Torah and the Divine precepts. Through them the knowledge of the
Bible spread even unto the remotest islands and unto many nations ‘uncircumcised’
in heart and uncircumcised in flesh. They seek to justify their disobedience to the
precepts of the Torah; some of them say that these precepts are Divine, but are not
in force at present, and were never intended to be permanent laws; others maintain
that they must not be taken literally, as they are mere symbols, the meaning of which
has already been explained by Messiah. But when the true King Messiah will rise, he
will prosper, be high and exalted; all will then at once know that it was falsehood
what their fathers have inherited, and that their prophets and their teachers have
misled them.
“Do not imagine that in the days of Messiah the course of Nature will be altered in
any way, or that any new creation will take place. When Isaiah said, ‘The wolf will
dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid,’ he merely employed
allegorical and figurative speech; and he meant to say that the Israelite will dwell
in safety together with his enemy, who has been as cruel to him as wolves and leopards,
&c.; all will join the true religion; they will not rob, nor commit any violence,
&c., and in the days of Messiah the meaning of the allegories will be clearly known.
“Our Sages said that there will be no other difference between the present time and
the days of Messiah but the independence of the people of Israel.
“It appears from the literal meaning of the prophecies that the Messianic period will
be preceded by the war of Gog and [229]Magog, and that before the war a prophet will appear to guide the Israelites, and
to direct their hearts to repentance. Comp. ‘Behold, I will send you Elijah,’26 &c. (Mal. iii. 23). Elijah will not come to declare unclean that which is clean,
or clean that which is unclean; nor to disqualify persons who are believed to be qualified
for joining the congregation of the Lord, or to qualify persons who are believed to
be disqualified; but he will come to establish peace on earth, as it is said, ‘He
shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children’27 (Ibid. 24).
“Some of our Sages believe that Elijah will come before Messiah, but of all these
and similar things no man knows how they will come to pass; they are unexplained in
the Prophets, and our Sages have no tradition about them; they only adopt what they
believe to be the meaning of the Biblical passages which refer to this subject. Hence
the difference of opinion. At all events, the order and the detail of these events
do not form an essential portion of our creed; we must not take too much notice of
Agadoth and Midrashim speaking on these and similar themes. We must not attribute
great importance to them, for they do not lead to the fear or the love of God. We
must also abstain from calculating the time of the coming of Messiah, &c. All we have
to do is to believe in the coming of Messiah, to wait and hope.
“It is not because they desired to have dominion over all lands and nations, and be
honoured by all people, or because they desired to have plenty to eat and drink, and
other pleasures, that the wise men and the prophets longed for the Messianic days,
but because they would then be at leisure to study the Law and its teaching without
being [230]interrupted by any oppressor, and would thus make themselves worthy of the life in
the world to come (עולם הבא).
“There will not be in those days any famine, war, jealousy, or quarrel, because the
good things will be in plenty, and even luxuries will be found everywhere; all will
only busy themselves with trying to know the Lord. Therefore the Israelites will be
great sages, knowing things which are at present hidden; they will obtain a knowledge
of their Creator as far as is possible by human understanding; ‘For the earth is full
with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters that cover the sea’ ” (Maim., Mishneh-torah
xiv.; Hilchoth Melachim xi.–xii.).
The war of Gog and Magog against the Holy Land referred to by Maimonides is described
by the prophet Ezekiel (chaps. xxxviii., xxxix.) as preceding the complete restoration
of Israel. Saadiah has a different view of this war. The punishment of Israel in exile
is to come to an end at a fixed time, or as soon as the Israelites by earnest and
thorough repentance show themselves worthy of Divine grace. In that case no war of
Gog and Magog will be waged against them. But if the Israelites should allow the approach
of the time fixed for the redemption without having given signs of repentance and
improvement, great troubles will be brought upon them, which will forcibly remind
them of the necessity of returning to God; they will come together under a leader,
Messiah ben Joseph, under whose leadership they will fight against their enemies,
but will be beaten, and Messiah ben Joseph himself will be killed. Then Messiah ben
David will appear, and with him the period of glory, of permanent peace and prosperity,
and of the worship of the One God by all nations. The idea of a double Messiah, a
warlike and a peaceful, an unsuccessful and a successful, is not expressed in any
of the prophecies in the Bible, and seems to be of a later origin. Maimonides is [231]silent about Messiah ben Joseph; so also Albo in Ikkarim, and Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi in the book Cuzari. Albo discusses the question about Messiah in chap. xlii. of the fourth section of
Ikkarim. He refutes the opinion of those who maintain that the Messianic prophecies refer
to the reign of Hezekiah or to the restoration of Israel under Zerubbabel and Ezra.
The condition of the Israelites in the reign of Hezekiah did not resemble the state
of prosperity and glory and universal peace as depicted in the Messianic prophecies;
the fulfilment of these prophecies is still hoped for, and our hope is founded on
our belief in the truthfulness of the Word of God. (Comp. Saadiah, Em. ve-deoth, VIII.
iii.).
On the Thirteenth Principle, p. 16
The belief in the Resurrection of the Dead has been formulated in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin
x. i) as an essential creed: “He who says that the belief in the Resurrection of the
Dead is not implied in the Law has no portion in the world to come.” There is no doubt
that the Almighty has the power to give fresh life to the body in which life has been
extinct. We set no limits to the Omnipotence of God. But it is different if we ask
whether it is the Will of God to give new life to the dust and ashes of the dead,
and to restore the soul to the dead body in which it has dwelt before. Maimonides
substitutes the Immortality of the Soul for the Resurrection of the Dead, and has
been vehemently attacked by those who had a different opinion. He defended his view
in an essay called מאמר תחיית המתים, “On the Resurrection of the Dead,” in which he attempts to prove that the Agadoth
and Midrashim in depicting the future life employed figurative language, but in reality
meant only a spiritual life, without any material enjoyment.
Saadiah defends the literal interpretation of “Resurrection [232]of the Dead” (Emunoth ve-deoth, VII.), and believes that the event will take place at the time of the final redemption
(גאולה אחרונה). Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi, in Cuzari, though mentioning this principle, seems to understand it as identical with the Immortality
of the Soul. The king, who was at first surprised at the scarcity of references to
the future life in our prayers, confessed his complete satisfaction, after having
heard the exposition of our prayers by the Jewish scholar. “I see,” he says, “that
I was in error; those who pray to have the Divine light vouchsafed to them during
lifetime, who long to see it with their own eyes, and to attain to the degree of prophecy,
they certainly seek something better even than the future life, and they who attain
it may be sure that they will also enjoy the blessing of the future life; for if the
soul of a man, troubled by the wants of the body, is nevertheless cleaving to the
Divine glory, how much more may this be the case after the soul has left this body!”
(III. 20).
[233]
