{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_32722/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_32722","id":"gutenberg_32722","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32722","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Judaism -- Doctrines"],"text":"Jewish Theology\n\n Systematically and Historically Considered\n\n By\n\n Dr. K. Kohler\n\n President\n\n Hebrew Union College\n\n New York\n\n The Macmillan Company\n\n 1918\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nDedication\nPreface\nIntroductory\n Chapter I. The Meaning of Theology\n Chapter II. What is Judaism?\n Chapter III. The Essence of the Religion of Judaism\n Chapter IV. The Jewish Articles of Faith\nPart I. God\n A. God As He Makes Himself Known To Man\n Chapter V. Man\u2019s Consciousness of God and Belief in God\n Chapter VI. Revelation, Prophecy, and Inspiration\n Chapter VII. The Torah\u2014the Divine Instruction\n Chapter VIII. God\u2019s Covenant\n B. The Idea Of God In Judaism\n Chapter IX. God and the Gods\n Chapter X. The Name of God\n Chapter XI. The Existence of God\n Chapter XII. The Essence of God\n Chapter XIII. The One and Only God\n Chapter XIV. God\u2019s Omnipotence and Omniscience\n Chapter XV. God\u2019s Omnipresence and Eternity\n Chapter XVI. God\u2019s Holiness\n Chapter XVII. God\u2019s Wrath and Punishment\n Chapter XVIII. God\u2019s Long-suffering and Mercy\n Chapter XIX. God\u2019s Justice\n Chapter XX. God\u2019s Love and Compassion\n Chapter XXI. God\u2019s Truth and Faithfulness\n Chapter XXII. God\u2019s Knowledge and Wisdom\n Chapter XXIII. God\u2019s Condescension\n C. God In Relation To The World\n Chapter XXIV. The World and its Master\n Chapter XXV. Creation As the Act of God\n Chapter XXVI. The Maintenance and Government of the World\n Chapter XXVII. Miracles and the Cosmic Order\n Chapter XXVIII. Providence and the Moral Government of the World\n Chapter XXIX. God and the Existence of Evil\n Chapter XXX. God and the Angels\n Chapter XXXI. Satan and the Spirits of Evil\n Chapter XXXII. God and the Intermediary Powers\nPart II. Man\n Chapter XXXIII. Man\u2019s Place in Creation\n Chapter XXXIV. The Dual Nature of Man\n Chapter XXXV. The Origin and Destiny of Man\n Chapter XXXVI. God\u2019s Spirit in Man\n Chapter XXXVII. Free Will and Moral Responsibility\n Chapter XXXVIII. The Meaning of Sin\n Chapter XXXIX. Repentance Or the Return To God\n Chapter XL. Man, the Child of God\n Chapter XLI. Prayer and Sacrifice\n Chapter XLII. The Nature and Purpose of Prayer\n Chapter XLIII. Death and the Future Life\n Chapter XLIV. The Immortal Soul of Man\n Chapter XLV. Divine Retribution: Reward and Punishment.\n Chapter XLVI. The Individual and the Race\n Chapter XLVII. The Moral Elements of Civilization\nPart III. Israel And The Kingdom Of God\n Chapter XLVIII. The Election of Israel\n Chapter XLIX. The Kingdom of God and the Mission of Israel\n Chapter L. The Priest-people and its Law of Holiness\n Chapter LI. Israel, the People of the Law, and its World Mission\n Chapter LII. Israel, the Servant of the Lord, Martyr and Messiah Of the\n Nations\n Chapter LIII. The Messianic Hope\n Chapter LIV. Resurrection, a National Hope\n Chapter LV. Israel and the Heathen Nations\n Chapter LVI. The Stranger and the Proselyte\n Chapter LVII. Christianity and Mohammedanism, the Daughter-Religions Of\n Judaism\n Chapter LVIII. The Synagogue and its Institutions\n Chapter LIX. The Ethics of Judaism and the Kingdom of God\nList Of Abbreviations\nIndex\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDEDICATION\n\n\nTo The Memory\n\nOf\n\nEDWARD L. HEINSHEIMER\n\nTHE LAMENTED PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF\n\nTHE HEBREW UNION COLLEGE\n\nIN WHOM ZEAL FOR THE HIGH IDEALS\nOF JUDAISM AND PATRIOTIC DEVOTION\nTO OUR BLESSED COUNTRY WERE\nNOBLY EMBODIED\n\nIn Friendship And\nAffection\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nIn offering herewith to the English-reading public the present work on\nJewish Theology, the result of many years of research and of years of\nactivity as President and teacher at the Hebrew Union College of\nCincinnati, I bespeak for it that fairness of judgment to which every\npioneer work is entitled. It may seem rather strange that no such work has\nhitherto been written by any of the leading Jewish scholars of either the\nconservative or the progressive school. This can only be accounted for by\nthe fact that up to modern times the Rabbinical and philosophical\nliterature of the Middle Ages sufficed for the needs of the student, and a\nsystematic exposition of the Jewish faith seemed to be unnecessary.\nBesides, a real demand for the specific study of Jewish theology was\nscarcely felt, inasmuch as Judaism never assigned to a creed the prominent\nposition which it holds in the Christian Church. This very fact induced\nMoses Mendelssohn at the beginning of the new era to declare that Judaism\n\u201ccontained only truths dictated by reason and no dogmatic beliefs at all.\u201d\nMoreover, as he was rather a deist than a theist, he stated boldly that\nJudaism \u201cis not a revealed religion but a revealed law intended solely for\nthe Jewish people as the vanguard of universal monotheism.\u201d By taking this\nlegalistic view of Judaism in common with the former opponents of the\nMaimonidean articles of faith\u2014which, by the way, he had himself translated\nfor the religious instruction of the Jewish youth\u2014he exerted a\ndeteriorating influence upon the normal development of the Jewish faith\nunder the new social conditions. The fact is that Mendelssohn emancipated\nthe modern Jew from the thraldom of the Ghetto, but not Judaism. In the\nMendelssohnian circle the impression prevailed, as we are told, that\nJudaism consists of a system of forms, but is substantially no religion at\nall. The entire Jewish renaissance period which followed,\ncharacteristically enough, made the cultivation of the so-called science\nof Judaism its object, but it neglected altogether the whole field of\nJewish theology. Hence we look in vain among the writings of Rappaport,\nZunz, Jost and their followers, the entire Breslau school, for any attempt\nat presenting the contents of Judaism as a system of faith. Only the\npioneers of Reform Judaism, Geiger, Holdheim, Samuel Hirsch, Formstecher,\nLudwig Philippson, Leopold Stein, Leopold Loew, and the Reform theologian\n_par excellence_ David Einhorn, and likewise, Isaac M. Wise in America,\nmade great efforts in that direction. Still a system of Jewish theology\nwas wanting. Accordingly when, at the suggestion of my dear departed\nfriend, Dr. Gustav Karpeles, President of the Society for the Promotion of\nthe Science of Judaism in Berlin, I undertook to write a compendium\n(Grundriss) of Systematic Jewish Theology, which appeared in 1910 as Vol.\nIV in a series of works on Systematic Jewish Lore (Grundriss der\nGesammtwissenschaft des Judenthums), I had no work before me that might\nhave served me as pattern or guide. Solomon Schechter\u2019s valuable studies\nwere in the main confined to Rabbinical Theology. As a matter of fact I\naccepted the task only with the understanding that it should be written\nfrom the view-point of historical research, instead of a mere dogmatic or\ndoctrinal system. For in my opinion the Jewish religion has never been\nstatic, fixed for all time by an ecclesiastical authority, but has ever\nbeen and still is the result of a dynamic process of growth and\ndevelopment. At the same time I felt that I could not omit the mystical\nelement which pervades the Jewish religion in common with all others. As\nour prophets were seers and not philosophers or moralists, so divine\ninspiration in varying degrees constituted a factor of Synagogal as well\nas Scriptural Judaism. Revelation, therefore, is to be considered as a\ncontinuous force in shaping and reshaping the Jewish faith. The religious\ngenius of the Jew falls within the domain of ethnic psychology concerning\nwhich science still gropes in the dark, but which progressive Judaism is\nbound to recognize in its effects throughout the ages.\n\nIt is from this standpoint, taken also by the sainted founder of the\nHebrew Union College, Isaac M. Wise, that I have written this book. At the\nsame time I endeavored to be, as it behooves the historian, just and fair\nto Conservative Judaism, which will ever claim the reverence we owe to our\ncherished past, the mother that raised and nurtured us.\n\nWhile a work of this nature cannot lay claim to completeness, I have\nattempted to cover the whole field of Jewish belief, including also such\nsubjects as no longer form parts of the religious consciousness of the\nmodern Jew. I felt especially called upon to elucidate the historical\nrelations of Judaism to the Christian and Mohammedan religions and dwell\non the essential points of divergence from them. If my language at times\nhas been rather vigorous in defense of the Jewish faith, it was because I\nwas forced to correct and refute the prevailing view of the Christian\nworld, of both theologians and others, that Judaism is an inferior\nreligion, clannish and exclusive, that it is, in fact, a cult of the Old\nTestament Law.\n\nIt was a matter of great personal satisfaction to me that the German work\non its appearance met with warm appreciation in the various theological\njournals of America, England, and France, as well as of Germany, including\nboth Jewish and Christian. I was encouraged and urged by many \u201csoon to\nmake the book accessible to wider circles in an English translation.\u201d My\nfriend, Dr. Israel Abrahams of Cambridge, England, took such interest in\nthe book that he induced a young friend of his to prepare an English\nversion. While this did not answer the purpose, it was helpful to me in\nmaking me feel that, instead of a literal translation, a thorough revision\nand remolding of the book was necessary in order to present it in an\nacceptable English garb. In pursuing this course, I also enlarged the book\nin many ways, especially adding a new chapter on Jewish Ethics, which, in\nconnection with the idea of the Kingdom of God, appeared to me to form a\nfitting culmination of Jewish theology. I have thus rendered it\npractically a new work. And here I wish to acknowledge my great\nindebtedness to my young friend and able pupil, Rabbi Lee J. Levinger, for\nthe valuable aid he has rendered me and the painstaking labor he has\nkindly and unselfishly performed in going over my manuscript from\nbeginning to end, with a view to revising the diction and also suggesting\nreferences to more recent publications in the notes so as to bring it up\nto date.\n\nI trust that the work will prove a source of information and inspiration\nfor both student and layman, Jew and non-Jew, and induce such as have\nbecome indifferent to, or prejudiced against, the teachings of the\nSynagogue, or of Reform Judaism in particular, to take a deeper insight\ninto, and look up with a higher regard to the sublime and eternal verities\nof Judaism.\n\n\u201cGive to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser; teach a righteous man, and\nhe will increase in learning.\u201d\n\nCINCINNATI, November, 1917.\n\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY\n\n\n\n\nChapter I. The Meaning of Theology\n\n\n1. The name Theology, \u201cthe teaching concerning God,\u201d is taken from Greek\nphilosophy. It was used by Plato and Aristotle to denote the knowledge\nconcerning God and things godly, by which they meant the branch of\nPhilosophy later called Metaphysics, after Aristotle. In the Christian\nChurch the term gradually assumed the meaning of systematic exposition of\nthe creed, a distinction being made between _Rational_, or _Natural\nTheology_, on the one hand, and _Dogmatic Theology_, on the other.(1) In\ncommon usage Theology is understood to be the presentation of one specific\nsystem of faith after some logical method, and a distinction is made\nbetween _Historical_ and _Systematic Theology_. The former traces the\nvarious doctrines of the faith in question through the different epochs\nand stages of culture, showing their historical process of growth and\ndevelopment; the latter presents these same doctrines in comprehensive\nform as a fixed system, as they have finally been elaborated and accepted\nupon the basis of the sacred scriptures and their authoritative\ninterpretation.\n\n2. Theology and Philosophy of Religion differ widely in their character.\nTheology deals exclusively with a specific religion; in expounding one\ndoctrinal system, it starts from a positive belief in a divine revelation\nand in the continued working of the divine spirit, affecting also the\ninterpretation and further development of the sacred books. Philosophy of\nReligion, on the other hand, while dealing with the same subject matter as\nTheology, treats religion from a general point of view as a matter of\nexperience, and, as every philosophy must, without any foregone\nconclusion. Consequently it submits the beliefs and doctrines of religion\nin general to an impartial investigation, recognizing neither a divine\nrevelation nor the superior claims of any one religion above any other,\nits main object being to ascertain how far the universal laws of human\nreason agree or disagree with the assertions of faith.(2)\n\n3. It is therefore incorrect to speak of a Jewish religious philosophy.\nThis has no better right to exist than has Jewish metaphysics or Jewish\nmathematics.(3) The Jewish thinkers of the Spanish-Arabic period who\nendeavored to harmonize revelation and reason, utilizing the Neo-Platonic\nphilosophy or the Aristotelian with a Neo-Platonic coloring, betray by\ntheir very conceptions of revelation and prophecy the influence of\nMohammedan theology; this was really a graft of metaphysics on theology\nand called itself the \u201cdivine science,\u201d a term corresponding exactly with\nthe Greek \u201ctheology.\u201d The so-called Jewish religious philosophers adopted\nboth the methods and terminology of the Mohammedan theologians, attempting\nto present the doctrines of the Jewish faith in the light of philosophy,\nas truth based on reason. Thus they claimed to construct a Jewish theology\nupon the foundation of a philosophy of religion.\n\nBut neither they nor their Mohammedan predecessors succeeded in working\nout a complete system of theology. They left untouched essential elements\nof religion which do not come within the sphere of rational verities, and\ndid not give proper appreciation to the rich treasures of faith deposited\nin the Biblical and Rabbinical literature. Nor does the comprehensive\ntheological system of Maimonides, which for centuries largely shaped the\nintellectual life of the Jew, form an exception. Only the mystics, Bahya\nat their head, paid attention to the spiritual side of Judaism, dwelling\nat length on such themes as prayer and repentance, divine forgiveness and\nholiness.\n\n4. Closer acquaintance with the religious and philosophical systems of\nmodern times has created a new demand for a Jewish theology by which the\nJew can comprehend his own religious truths in the light of modern\nthought, and at the same time defend them against the aggressive attitude\nof the ruling religious sects. Thus far, however, the attempts made in\nthis direction are but feeble and sporadic; if the structure is not to\nstand altogether in the air, the necessary material must be brought\ntogether from its many sources with painstaking labor.(4) The special\ndifficulty in the task lies in the radical difference which exists between\nour view of the past and that of the Biblical and medieval writers. All\nthose things which have heretofore been taken as facts because related in\nthe sacred books or other traditional sources, are viewed to-day with\ncritical eyes, and are now regarded as more or less colored by human\nimpression or conditioned by human judgment. In other words, we have\nlearned to distinguish between _subjective_ and _objective_ truths,(5)\nwhereas theology by its very nature deals with truth as absolute. This\nmakes it imperative for us to investigate historically the leading idea or\nfundamental principle underlying a doctrine, to note the different\nconceptions formed at various stages, and trace its process of growth. At\ntimes, indeed, we may find that the views of one age have rather taken a\nbackward step and fallen below the original standard. The progress need\nnot be uniform, but we must still trace its course.\n\n5. We must recognize at the outset that Jewish theology cannot assume the\ncharacter of _apologetics_, if it is to accomplish its great task of\nformulating religious truth as it exists in our consciousness to-day. It\ncan no more afford to ignore the established results of modern linguistic,\nethnological, and historical research, of Biblical criticism and\ncomparative religion, than it can the undisputed facts of natural science,\nhowever much any of these may conflict with the Biblical view of the\ncosmos. Apologetics has its legitimate place to prove and defend the\ntruths of Jewish theology against other systems of belief and thought, but\ncannot properly defend either Biblical or Talmudic statements by methods\nincompatible with scientific investigation. Judaism is a religion of\n_historical_ growth, which, far from claiming to be the final truth, is\never regenerated anew at each turning point of history. The fall of the\nleaves at autumn requires no apology, for each successive spring testifies\nanew to nature\u2019s power of resurrection.\n\nThe object of a systematic theology of Judaism, accordingly, is to single\nout the essential forces of the faith. It then will become evident how\nthese fundamental doctrines possess a vitality, a strength of conviction,\nas well as an adaptability to varying conditions, which make them potent\nfactors amidst all changes of time and circumstance. According to\nRabbinical tradition, the broken tablets of the covenant were deposited in\nthe ark beside the new. In like manner the truths held sacred by the past,\nbut found inadequate in their expression for a new generation, must be\nplaced side by side with the deeper and more clarified truths of an\nadvanced age, that they may appear together as the _one_ divine truth\nreflected in different rays of light.\n\n6. Jewish theology differs radically from Christian theology in the\nfollowing three points:\n\n_A._ The theology of Christianity deals with articles of faith formulated\nby the founders and heads of the Church as conditions of _salvation_, so\nthat any alteration in favor of free thought threatens to undermine the\nvery plan of salvation upon which the Church was founded. Judaism\nrecognizes only such articles of faith as were adopted by the people\nvoluntarily as expressions of their religious consciousness, both without\nexternal compulsion and without doing violence to the dictates of reason.\nJudaism does not know salvation by faith in the sense of Paul, the real\nfounder of the Church, who declared the blind acceptance of belief to be\nin itself meritorious. It denies the existence of any irreconcilable\nopposition between faith and reason.\n\n_B._ Christian theology rests upon a _formula of confession_, the\nso-called Symbolum of the Apostolic Church,(6) which alone makes one a\nChristian. Judaism has no such formula of confession which renders a Jew a\nJew. No ecclesiastical authority ever dictated or regulated the belief of\nthe Jew; his faith has been voiced in the solemn liturgical form of\nprayer, and has ever retained its freshness and vigor of thought in the\nconsciousness of the people. This partly accounts for the antipathy toward\nany kind of dogma or creed among Jews.\n\n_C._ The creed is a _conditio sine qua non_ of the Christian Church. To\ndisbelieve its dogmas is to cut oneself loose from membership. Judaism is\nquite different. The Jew is _born_ into it and cannot extricate himself\nfrom it even by the renunciation of his faith, which would but render him\nan apostate Jew. This condition exists, because the racial community\nformed, and still forms, the basis of the religious community. It is\nbirth, not confession, that imposes on the Jew the obligation to work and\nstrive for the eternal verities of Israel, for the preservation and\npropagation of which he has been chosen by the God of history.\n\n7. The truth of the matter is that the aim and end of Judaism is not so\nmuch the salvation of the soul in the hereafter as the salvation of\nhumanity in history. Its theology, therefore, must recognize the history\nof human progress, with which it is so closely interwoven. It does not,\ntherefore, claim to offer the final or absolute truth, as does Christian\ntheology, whether orthodox or liberal. It simply points out the way\nleading to the highest obtainable truth. Final and perfect truth is held\nforth as the ideal of all human searching and striving, together with\nperfect justice, righteousness, and peace, to be attained as the very end\nof history.\n\nA systematic theology of Judaism must, accordingly, content itself with\npresenting Jewish doctrine and belief in relation to the most advanced\nscientific and philosophical ideas of the age, so as to offer a\ncomprehensive view of life and the world (\u201cLebens- und Weltanschauung\u201d);\nbut it by no means claims for them the character of finality. The\nunfolding of Judaism\u2019s truths will be completed only when all mankind has\nattained the heights of Zion\u2019s mount of vision, as beheld by the prophets\nof Israel.(7)\n\n\n\n\nChapter II. What is Judaism?\n\n\n1. It is very difficult to give an exact definition of Judaism because of\nits peculiarly complex character.(8) It combines two widely differing\nelements, and when they are brought out separately, the aspect of the\nwhole is not taken sufficiently into account. Religion and race form an\ninseparable whole in Judaism. The Jewish people stand in the same relation\nto Judaism as the _body_ to the _soul_. The national or racial body of\nJudaism consists of the remnant of the tribe of Judah which succeeded in\nestablishing a new commonwealth in Jud\u00e6a in place of the ancient\nIsraelitish kingdom, and which survived the downfall of state and temple\nto continue its existence as a separate people during a dispersion over\nthe globe for thousands of years, forming ever a cosmopolitan element\namong all the nations in whose lands it dwelt. Judaism, on the other hand,\nis the religious system itself, the vital element which united the Jewish\npeople, preserving it and regenerating it ever anew. It is the spirit\nwhich endowed the handful of Jews with a power of resistance and a fervor\nof faith unparalleled in history, enabling them to persevere in the mighty\ncontest with heathenism and Christianity. It made of them a nation of\nmartyrs and thinkers, suffering and struggling for the cause of truth and\njustice, yet forming, consciously or unconsciously, a potent factor in all\nthe great intellectual movements which are ultimately to win the entire\ngentile world for the purest and loftiest truths concerning God and man.\n\n2. Judaism, accordingly, does not denote the Jewish nationality, with its\npolitical and cultural achievements and aspirations, as those who have\nlost faith in the religious mission of Israel would have it. On the other\nhand, it is not a nomistic or legalistic religion confined to the Jewish\npeople, as is maintained by Christian writers, who, lacking a full\nappreciation of its lofty world-wide purpose and its cosmopolitan and\nhumanitarian character, claim that it has surrendered its universal\nprophetic truths to Christianity. Nor should it be presented as a religion\nof pure _Theism_, aiming to unite all believers in one God into a Church\nUniversal, of which certain visionaries dream. Judaism is nothing less\nthan a message concerning the _One and holy God_ and _one, undivided\nhumanity_ with a world-uniting _Messianic goal_, a message intrusted by\ndivine revelation to the Jewish people. Thus Israel is its prophetic\nharbinger and priestly guardian, its witness and defender throughout the\nages, who is never to falter in the task of upholding and unfolding its\ntruths until they have become the possession of the whole human race.\n\n3. Owing to this twofold nature of a universal religious truth and at the\nsame time a mission intrusted to a specially selected nation or race,\nJudaism offers in a sense the sharpest contrasts imaginable, which render\nit an enigma to the student of religion and history, and make him often\nincapable of impartial judgment. On the one hand, it shows the most\ntenacious adherence to forms originally intended to preserve the Jewish\npeople in its priestly sanctity and separateness, and thereby also to keep\nits religious truths pure and free from encroachments. On the other hand,\nit manifests a mighty impulse to come into close touch with the various\ncivilized nations, partly in order to disseminate among them its sublime\ntruths, appealing alike to mind and heart, partly to clarify and deepen\nthose truths by assimilating the wisdom and culture of these very nations.\nThus the spirit of separatism and of universalism work in opposite\ndirections. Still, however hostile the two elements may appear, they\nemanate from the same source. For the Jewish people, unlike any other\ncivilization of antiquity, entered history with the proud claim that it\npossessed a truth destined to become some day the property of mankind, and\nits three thousand years of history have verified this claim.\n\nIsrael\u2019s relation to the world thus became a double one. Its priestly\nworld-mission gave rise to all those laws and customs which were to\nseparate it from its idolatrous surroundings, and this occasioned the\ncharge of hostility to the nations. The accusation of Jewish misanthropy\noccurred as early as the Balaam and Haman stories. As the separation\ncontinued through the centuries, a deep-seated Jew-hatred sprang up, first\nin Alexandria and Rome, then becoming a consuming fire throughout\nChristendom, unquenched through the ages and bursting forth anew, even\nfrom the midst of would-be liberals. In contrast to this, Israel\u2019s\nprophetic ideal of a humanity united in justice and peace gave to history\na new meaning and a larger outlook, kindling in the souls of all truly\ngreat leaders and teachers, seers and sages of mankind a love and longing\nfor the broadening of humanity which opened new avenues of progress and\nliberty. Moreover, by its conception of man as the image of God and its\nteaching of righteousness as the true path of life, Israel\u2019s Law\nestablished a new standard of human worth and put the imprint of Jewish\nidealism upon the entire Aryan civilization.\n\nOwing to these two opposing forces, the one centripetal, the other\ncentrifugal, Judaism tended now inward, away from world-culture, now\noutward toward the learning and the thought of all nations; and this makes\nit doubly difficult to obtain a true estimate of its character. But, after\nall, these very currents and counter-currents at the different eras of\nhistory kept Judaism in continuous tension and fluctuation, preventing its\nstagnation by dogmatic formulas and its division by ecclesiastical\ndissensions. \u201cBoth words are the words of the living God\u201d became the maxim\nof the contending schools.(9)\n\n4. If we now ask what period we may fix as the beginning of Judaism, we\nmust by no means single out the decisive moment when Ezra the Scribe\nestablished the new commonwealth of Jud\u00e6a, based upon the Mosaic book of\nLaw, and excluding the Samaritans who claimed to be the heirs of ancient\nIsrael. This important step was but the climax, the fruitage of that\nreligious spirit engendered by the Judaism of the Babylonian exile. The\nCaptivity had become a refining furnace for the people, making them cling\nwith a zeal unknown before to the teachings of the prophets, now offered\nby their disciples, and to the laws, as preserved by the priestly guilds;\nso the religious treasures of the few became the common property of the\nmany, and were soon regarded as \u201cthe inheritance of the whole congregation\nof Jacob.\u201d As a matter of fact, Ezra represents the culmination rather\nthan the starting point of the great spiritual reawakening, when he came\nfrom Babylon with a complete Code of Law, and promulgated it in the Holy\nCity to a worshipful congregation.(10) It was Judaism, winged with a new\nspirit, which carried the great unknown seer of the Exile to the very\npinnacle of prophetic vision, and made the Psalmists ring forth from the\nharp of David the deepest soul-stirring notes of religious devotion and\naspiration that ever moved the hearts of men. Moreover, all the great\ntruths of prophetic revelation, of legislative and popular wisdom, were\nthen collected and focused, creating a sacred literature which was to\nserve the whole community as the source of instruction, consolation, and\nedification. The powerful and unique institutions of the Synagogue,\nintended for common instruction and devotion, are altogether creations of\nthe Exile, and replaced the former _priestly_ Torah by the Torah _for the\npeople_. More wonderful still, the priestly lore of ancient Babylon was\ntransformed by sublime monotheistic truths and utilized in the formation\nof a sacred literature; it was placed before the history of the Hebrew\npatriarchs, to form, as it were, an introduction to the Bible of humanity.\n\nJudaism, then, far from being the late product of the Torah and tradition,\nas it is often considered, was actually the creator of the Law.\nTransformed and unfolded in Babylonia, it created its own sacred\nliterature and shaped it ever anew, filling it always with its own spirit\nand with new thoughts. It is by no means the petrifaction of the Mosaic\nlaw and the prophetic teachings, as we are so often told, but a continuous\nprocess of unfolding and regeneration of its great religious truth.\n\n5. True enough, traditional or orthodox Judaism does not share this view.\nThe idea of gradual development is precluded by its conception of divine\nrevelation, by its doctrine that both the oral and the written Torah were\ngiven at Sinai complete and unchangeable for all time. It makes allowance\nonly for special institutions begun either by the prophets, by Ezra and\nthe Men of the Great Synagogue, his associates, or by the masters of the\nLaw in succeeding centuries. Nevertheless, tradition says that the Men of\nthe Great Synagogue themselves collected and partly completed the sacred\nbooks, except the five books of Moses, and that the canon was made under\nthe influence of the holy spirit. This holy spirit remained in force also\nduring the creative period of Talmudism, sanctioning innovations or\nalterations of many kinds.(11) Modern critical and historical research has\ntaught us to distinguish the products of different periods and stages of\ndevelopment in both the Biblical and Rabbinical sources, and therefore\ncompels us to reject the idea of a uniform origin of the Law, and also of\nan uninterrupted chain of tradition reaching back to Moses on Sinai.\nTherefore we must attach still more importance to the process of\ntransformation which Judaism had to undergo through the centuries.(12)\n\nJudaism manifested its wondrous power of _assimilation_ by renewing itself\nto meet the demands of the time, first under the influence of the ancient\ncivilizations, Babylonia and Persia, then of Greece and Rome, finally of\nthe Occidental powers, molding its religious truths and customs in ever\nnew forms, but all in consonance with its own genius. It adopted the\nBabylonian and Persian views of the hereafter, of the upper and the nether\nworld with their angels and demons; so later on it incorporated into its\nreligious and legal system elements of Greek and Egyptian gnosticism,\nGreek philosophy, and methods of jurisprudence from Egypt, Babylon, and\nRome. In fact, the various parties which arose during the second Temple\nbeside each other or successively\u2014Sadducees and Pharisees, Essenes and\nZealots\u2014represent, on closer observation, the different stages in the\nprocess of assimilation which Judaism had to undergo. In like manner, the\nHellenistic, Apocryphal and Apocalyptic literature, which was rejected and\nlost to sight by traditional Judaism, and which partly fills the gap\nbetween the Bible and the Talmudic writings, casts a flood of light upon\nthe development of the Halakah and the Haggadah. Just as the book of\nEzekiel, which was almost excluded from the Canon on account of its\ndivergence from the Mosaic Law, has been helpful in tracing the\ndevelopment of the Priestly Code,(13) so the Sadduceean book of Ben\nSira(14) and the Zealotic book of Jubilees(15)\u2014not to mention the various\nApocalyptic works\u2014throw their searchlight upon pre-Talmudic Judaism.\n\n6. Instead of representing Judaism\u2014as the Christian theologians do under\nthe guise of scientific methods\u2014as a nomistic religion, caring only for\nthe external observance of the Law, it is necessary to distinguish two\nopposite fundamental tendencies; the one expressing the spirit of\nlegalistic nationalism, the other that of ethical or prophetic\nuniversalism. These two work by turn, directing the general trend in the\none or the other direction according to circumstances. At one time the\ncenter and focus of Israel\u2019s religion is the Mosaic Law, with its\nsacrificial cult in charge of the priesthood of Jerusalem\u2019s Temple; at\nanother time it is the Synagogue, with its congregational devotion and\npublic instruction, its inspiring song of the Psalmist and its prophetic\nconsolation and hope confined to no narrow territory, but opened wide for\na listening world. Here it is the reign of the _Halakah_ holding fast to\nthe form of tradition, and there the free and fanciful _Haggadah_, with\nits appeal to the sentiments and views of the people. Here it is the\nspirit of _ritualism_, bent on separating the Jews from the influence of\nforeign elements, and there again the spirit of _rationalism_, eager to\ntake part in general culture and in the progress of the outside world.\n\nThe liberal views of Maimonides and Gersonides concerning miracle and\nrevelation, God and immortality were scarcely shared by the majority of\nJews, who, no doubt, sided rather with the mystics, and found their\nmouthpiece in Abraham ben David of Posquieres, the fierce opponent of\nMaimonides. An impartial Jewish theology must therefore take cognizance of\nboth sides; it must include the mysticism of Isaac Luria and Sabbathai\nHorwitz as well as the rationalism of Albo and Leo da Modena. Wherever is\nvoiced a new doctrine or a new view of life and life\u2019s duty, which yet\nbears the imprint of the Jewish consciousness, there the well-spring of\ndivine inspiration is seen pouring forth its living waters.\n\n7. Even the latest interpretation of the Law, offered by a disciple who is\nrecognized for true conscientiousness in religion, was revealed to Moses\non Sinai, according to a Rabbinical dictum.(16) Thus is exquisitely\nexpressed the idea of a continuous development of Israel\u2019s religious\ntruth. As a safeguard against arbitrary individualism, there was the\nprinciple of loyalty and proper regard for tradition, which is aptly\ntermed by Professor Lazarus a \u201chistorical continuity.\u201d(17) The Midrashic\nstatement is quite significant that other creeds founded on our Bible can\nonly adhere to the letter, but the Jewish religion possesses the key to\nthe deeper meaning hidden and presented in the _traditional_\ninterpretation of the Scriptures.(18) That is, for Judaism Holy Scripture\nin its literal sense is not the final word of God; the Bible is rather a\nliving spring of divine revelation, to be kept ever fresh and flowing by\nthe active force of the spirit. To sum up: Judaism, far from offering a\nsystem of beliefs and ceremonies fixed for all time, is as multifarious\nand manifold in its aspects as is life itself. It comprises all phases and\ncharacteristics of both a national and a world religion.\n\n\n\n\nChapter III. The Essence of the Religion of Judaism\n\n\n1. We have seen how difficult it is to define Judaism clearly and\nadequately, including its manifold tendencies and institutions. Still it\nis necessary that we reach a full understanding of the essence of Judaism\nas it manifested itself in all periods of its history,(19) and that we\nsingle out the fundamental idea which underlies its various forms of\nexistence and its different movements, both intellectual and spiritual.\nThere can be no disputing the fact that the central idea of Judaism and\nits life purpose is the doctrine of the One Only and Holy God, whose\nkingdom of truth, justice and peace is to be universally established at\nthe end of time. This is the main teaching of Scripture and the hope\nvoiced in the liturgy; while Israel\u2019s mission to defend, to unfold and to\npropagate this truth is a corollary of the doctrine itself and cannot be\nseparated from it. Whether we regard it as Law or a system of doctrine, as\nreligious truth or world-mission, this belief pledged the little tribe of\nJudah to a warfare of many thousands of years against the hordes of\nheathendom with all their idolatry and brutality, their deification of man\nand their degradation of deity to human rank. It betokened a battle for\nthe pure idea of God and man, which is not to end until the principle of\ndivine holiness has done away with every form of life that tends to\ndegrade and to disunite mankind, and until Israel\u2019s Only One has become\nthe unifying power and the highest ideal of all humanity.\n\n2. Of this great world-duty of Israel only the few will ever become fully\nconscious. As in the days of the prophets, so in later periods, only a\n\u201csmall remnant\u201d was fully imbued with the lofty ideal. In times of\noppression the great multitude of the people persisted in a conscientious\nobservance of the Law and underwent suffering without a murmur. Yet in\ntimes of liberty and enlightenment this same majority often neglects to\nassimilate the new culture to its own superior spirit, but instead eagerly\nassimilates itself to the surrounding world, and thereby loses much of its\nintrinsic strength and self-respect. The pendulum of thought and sentiment\nswings to and fro between the national and the universal ideals, while\nonly a few maturer minds have a clear vision of the goal as it is to be\nreached along both lines of development. Nevertheless, Judaism is in a\ntrue sense a religion of the people. It is free from all priestly tutelage\nand hierarchical interference. It has no ecclesiastical system of belief,\nguarded and supervised by men invested with superior powers. Its teachers\nand leaders have always been men from among the people, like the prophets\nof yore, with no sacerdotal privilege or title; in fact, in his own\nhousehold each father is the God-appointed teacher of his children.(20)\n\n3. Neither is Judaism the creation of a single person, either prophet or a\nman with divine claims. It points back to the patriarchs as its first\nsource of revelation. It speaks not of the God of Moses, of Amos and\nIsaiah, but of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, thereby declaring the\nJewish genius to be the creator of its own religious ideas. It is\ntherefore incorrect to speak of a \u201cMosaic,\u201d \u201cHebrew,\u201d or \u201cIsraelitish,\u201d\nreligion. The name _Judaism_ alone expresses the preservation of the\nreligious heritage of Israel by the tribe of Judah, with a loyalty which\nwas first displayed by Judah himself in the patriarchal household, and\nwhich became its characteristic virtue in the history of the various\ntribes. Likewise the rigid measures of Ezra in expelling all foreign\nelements from the new commonwealth proved instrumental in impressing\nloyalty and piety upon Jewish family life.\n\n4. As it was bound up with the life of the Jewish people, Judaism remained\nforever in close touch with the world. Therefore it appreciated adequately\nthe boons of life, and escaped being reduced to the shadowy form of\n\u201cotherworldliness.\u201d(21) It is a religion of _life_, which it wishes to\nsanctify by duty rather than by laying stress on the hereafter. It looks\nto the _deed_ and the purity of the _motive_, not to the empty creed and\nthe blind belief. Nor is it a religion of _redemption_, contemning this\nearthly life; for Judaism repudiates the assumption of a radical power of\nevil in man or in the world. Faith in the ultimate triumph of the good is\nessential to it. In fact, this perfect confidence in the final victory of\ntruth and justice over all the powers of falsehood and wrong lent it both\nits wondrous intellectual force and its high idealism, and adorned its\nadherents with the martyr\u2019s crown of thorns, such as no other human brow\nhas ever borne.\n\n5. _Christianity_ and _Islam_, notwithstanding their alienation from\nJudaism and frequent hostility, are still daughter-religions. In so far as\nthey have sown the seeds of Jewish truth over all the globe and have done\ntheir share in upbuilding the Kingdom of God on earth, they must be\nrecognized as divinely appointed emissaries and agencies. Still Judaism\nsets forth its doctrine of God\u2019s unity and of life\u2019s holiness in a far\nsuperior form than does Christianity. It neither permits the deity to be\ndegraded into the sphere of the sensual and human, nor does it base its\nmorality upon a love bereft of the vital principle of justice. Against the\nrigid monotheism of Islam, which demands blind submission to the stern\ndecrees of inexorable fate, Judaism on the other hand urges its belief in\nGod\u2019s paternal love and mercy, which educates all the children of men,\nthrough trial and suffering, for their high destiny.\n\n6. Judaism denies most emphatically the right of Christianity or any other\nreligion to arrogate to itself the title of \u201cthe absolute religion\u201d or to\nclaim to be \u201cthe finest blossom and the ripest fruit of religious\ndevelopment.\u201d As if any mortal man at any time or under any condition\ncould say without presumption: \u201cI am the Truth\u201d or \u201cNo one cometh unto the\nFather but by me.\u201d(22) \u201cWhen man was to proceed from the hands of his\nMaker,\u201d says the Midrash, \u201cthe Holy One, Blessed be His name, cast truth\ndown to the earth, saying, \u2018Let truth spring forth from the earth, and\nrighteousness look down from heaven.\u2019 \u201d(23) The full unfolding of the\nreligious and moral life of mankind is the work of countless generations\nyet to come, and many divine heralds of truth and righteousness have yet\nto contribute their share. In this work of untold ages, Judaism claims\nthat it has achieved and is still achieving its full part as the prophetic\nworld-religion. Its law of righteousness, which takes for its scope the\nwhole of human life, in its political and social relations as well as its\npersonal aspects, forms the foundation of its ethics for all time; while\nits hope for a future realization of the Kingdom of God has actually\nbecome the aim of human history. As a matter of fact, when the true object\nof religion is the hallowing of life rather than the salvation of the\nsoul, there is little room left for sectarian exclusiveness, or for a\nheaven for believers and a hell for unbelievers. With this broad outlook\nupon life, Judaism lays claim, not to perfection, but to perfectibility;\nit has supreme capacity for growing toward the highest ideals of mankind,\nas beheld by the prophets in their Messianic visions.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV. The Jewish Articles of Faith\n\n\n1. In order to reach a clear opinion, whether or not Judaism has articles\nof faith in the sense of Church dogmas, a question so much discussed since\nthe days of Moses Mendelssohn, it seems necessary first to ascertain what\nfaith in general means to the Jew.(24) Now the word used in Jewish\nliterature for faith is _Emunah_, from the root _Aman_, to be firm; this\ndenotes firm reliance upon God, and likewise firm adherence to him, hence\nboth _faith_ and _faithfulness_. Both Scripture and the Rabbis demanded\nconfiding trust in God, His messengers, and His words, not the formal\nacceptance of a prescribed belief.(25) Only when contact with the\nnon-Jewish world emphasized the need for a clear expression of the belief\nin the unity of God, such as was found in the Shema,(26) and when the\nproselyte was expected to declare in some definite form the fundamentals\nof the faith he espoused, was the importance of a concrete _confession_\nfelt.(27) Accordingly we find the beginnings of a formulated belief in the\nsynagogal liturgy, in the _Emeth we __ Yatzib_(28) and the _Alenu_,(29)\nwhile in the Haggadah Abraham is represented both as the exemplar of a\nhero of faith and as the type of a missionary, wandering about to lead the\nheathen world towards the pure monotheistic faith.(30) While the Jewish\nconcept of faith underwent a certain transformation, influenced by other\nsystems of belief, and the formulation of Jewish doctrines appeared\nnecessary, particularly in opposition to the Christian and Mohammedan\ncreeds, still belief never became the essential part of religion,\nconditioning salvation, as in the Church founded by Paul. For, as pointed\nout above, Judaism lays all stress upon conduct, not confession; upon a\nhallowed life, not a hollow creed.\n\n2. There is no Biblical nor Rabbinical precept, \u201cThou shalt believe!\u201d\nJewish thinkers felt all the more the need to point out as fundamentals or\nroots of Judaism those doctrines upon which it rests, and from which it\nderives its vital force. To the rabbis, the \u201croot\u201d of faith is the\nrecognition of a divine Judge to whom we owe account for all our\ndoings.(31) The recital of the _Shema_, which is called in the Mishnah\n\u201caccepting the yoke of God\u2019s sovereignty,\u201d and which is followed by the\nsolemn affirmation, \u201cTrue and firm belief is this for us\u201d(32) (_Emeth we\nYatzib_ or _Emeth we Emunah_), is, in fact, the earliest form of the\nconfession of faith.(33) In the course of time this confession of belief\nin the unity of God was no longer deemed sufficient to serve as basis for\nthe whole structure of Judaism; so the various schools and authorities\nendeavored to work out in detail a series of fundamental doctrines.\n\n3. The Mishnah, in Sanhedrin, X, 1, which seems to date back to the\nbeginnings of Pharisaism, declares the following three to have no share in\nthe world to come: he who denies the resurrection of the dead; he who says\nthat the Torah\u2014both the written and the oral Law\u2014is not divinely revealed;\nand the Epicurean, who does not believe in the moral government of the\nworld.(34) We find here (in reverse order, owing to historical\nconditions), the beliefs in Revelation, Retribution, and the Hereafter\nsingled out as the three fundamentals of Rabbinical Judaism. Rabbi\nHananel, the great North African Talmudist, about the middle of the tenth\ncentury, seems to have been under the influence of Mohammedan and Karaite\ndoctrines, when he speaks of four fundamentals of the faith: God, the\nprophets, the future reward and punishment, and the Messiah.(35)\n\n4. The doctrine of the One and Only God stands, as a matter of course, in\nthe foreground. Philo of Alexandria, at the end of his treatise on\nCreation, singles out five principles which are bound up with it, viz.: 1,\nGod\u2019s existence and His government of the world; 2, His unity; 3, the\nworld as His creation; 4, the harmonious plan by which it was established;\nand 5, His Providence. Josephus, too, in his apology for Judaism written\nagainst Apion,(36) emphasizes the belief in God\u2019s all-encompassing\nProvidence, His incorporeality, and His self-sufficiency as the Creator of\nthe universe.\n\nThe example of Islam, which had very early formulated a confession of\nfaith of speculative character for daily recitation,(37) influenced first\nKaraite and then Rabbanite teachers to elaborate the Jewish doctrine of\nOne Only God into a philosophic creed. The Karaites modeled their creed\nafter the Mohammedan pattern, which gave them ten articles of faith; of\nthese the first three dwelt on: 1, creation out of nothing; 2, the\nexistence of God, the Creator; 3, the unity and incorporeality of God.(38)\n\nAbraham ben David (_Ibn Daud_) of Toledo sets forth in his \u201cSublime Faith\u201d\nsix essentials of the Jewish faith: 1, the existence; 2, the unity; 3, the\nincorporeality; 4, the omnipotence of God (to this he subjoins the\nexistence of angelic beings); 5, revelation and the immutability of the\nLaw; and 6, divine Providence.(39) Maimonides, the greatest of all\nmedieval thinkers, propounded thirteen articles of faith, which took the\nplace of a creed in the Synagogue for the following centuries, as they\nwere incorporated in the liturgy both in the form of a credo (_Ani\nMaamin_) and in a poetic version. His first five articles were: 1, the\nexistence; 2, the unity; 3, the incorporeality; 4, the eternity of God;\nand 5, that He alone should be the object of worship; to which we must add\nhis 10th, divine Providence.(40) Others, not satisfied with the purely\nmetaphysical form of the Maimonidean creed, accentuated the doctrines of\ncreation out of nothing and special Providence.(41)\n\nThis speculative form of faith, however, has been most severely denounced\nby Samuel David Luzzatto (1800-1865) as \u201cAtticism\u201d;(42) that is, the\nHellenistic or philosophic tendency to consider religion as a purely\nintellectual system, instead of the great dynamic force for man\u2019s moral\nand spiritual elevation. He holds that Judaism, as the faith transmitted\nto us from Abraham, our ancestor, must be considered, not as a mere\nspeculative mode of reasoning, but as a moral life force, manifested in\nthe practice of righteousness and brotherly love. Indeed, this view is\nsupported by modern Biblical research, which brings out as the salient\npoint in Biblical teaching the ethical character of the God taught by the\nprophets, and shows that the essential truth of revelation is not to be\nfound in a metaphysical but in an ethical monotheism. At the same time,\nthe fact must not be overlooked that the Jewish doctrine of God\u2019s unity\nwas strengthened in the contest with the dualistic and trinitarian beliefs\nof other religions, and that this unity gave Jewish thought both lucidity\nand sublimity, so that it has surpassed other faiths in intellectual power\nand in passion for truth. The Jewish conception of God thus makes _truth_,\nas well as _righteousness_ and _love_, both a moral duty for man and a\nhistorical task comprising all humanity.\n\n5. The second fundamental article of the Jewish faith is divine\nrevelation, or, as the Mishnah expresses it, the belief that the Torah\nemanates from God (_min ha shamayim_). In the Maimonidean thirteen\narticles, this is divided into four: his 6th, belief in the prophets; 7,\nin the prophecy of Moses as the greatest of all; 8, in the divine origin\nof the Torah, both the written and the oral Law; and 9, its immutability.\nThe fundamental character of these, however, was contested by Hisdai\nCrescas and his disciples, Simon Duran and Joseph Albo.(43) As a matter of\nfact, they are based not so much upon Rabbinical teaching as upon the\nprevailing views of Mohammedan theology,(44) and were undoubtedly dictated\nby the desire to dispute the claims of Christianity and Islam that they\nrepresented a higher revelation. Our modern historical view, however,\nincludes all human thought and belief; it therefore rejects altogether the\nassumption of a supernatural origin of either the written or the oral\nTorah, and insists that the subject of prophecy, revelation, and\ninspiration in general be studied in the light of psychology and\nethnology, of general history and comparative religion.\n\n6. The third fundamental article of the Jewish faith is the belief in a\nmoral government of the world, which manifests itself in the reward of\ngood and the punishment of evil, either here or hereafter. Maimonides\ndivides this into two articles, which really belong together, his 10th,\nGod\u2019s knowledge of all human acts and motives, and 11, reward and\npunishment. The latter includes the hereafter and the last Day of\nJudgment, which, of course, applies to all human beings.\n\n7. Closely connected with retribution is the belief in the resurrection of\nthe dead, which is last among the thirteen articles. This belief, which\noriginally among the Pharisees had a national and political character, and\nwas therefore connected especially with the Holy Land (as will be seen in\nChapter LIV below), received in the Rabbinical schools more and more a\nuniversal form. Maimonides went so far as to follow the Platonic view\nrather than that of the Bible or the Talmud, and thus transformed it into\na belief in the continuity of the soul after death. In this form, however,\nit is actually a postulate, or corollary, of the belief in retribution.\n\n8. The old hope for the national resurrection of Israel took in the\nMaimonidean system the form of a belief in the coming of the Messiah\n(article 12), to which, in the commentary on the Mishnah, he gives the\ncharacter of a belief in the restoration of the Davidic dynasty. Joseph\nAlbo, with others, disputes strongly the fundamental character of this\nbelief; he shows the untenability of Maimonides\u2019 position by referring to\nmany Talmudic passages, and at the same time he casts polemical side\nglances upon the Christian Church, which is really founded on Messianism\nin the special form of its Christology.(45) Jehuda ha Levi, in his\n_Cuzari_, substitutes for this as a fundamental doctrine the belief in the\nelection of Israel for its world-mission.(46) It certainly redounds to the\ncredit of the leaders of the modern Reform movement that they took the\nelection of Israel rather than the Messiah as their cardinal doctrine,\nagain bringing it home to the religious consciousness of the Jew, and\nplacing it at the very center of their system. In this way they reclaimed\nfor the Messianic hope the universal character which was originally given\nit by the great seer of the Exile.(47)\n\n9. The thirteen articles of Maimonides, in setting forth a Jewish _Credo_,\nformed a vigorous opposition to the Christian and Mohammedan creeds; they\ntherefore met almost universal acceptance among the Jewish people, and\nwere given a place in the common prayerbook, in spite of their\ndeficiencies, as shown by Crescas and his school. Nevertheless, we must\nadmit that Crescas shows the deeper insight into the nature of religion\nwhen he observes that the main fallacy of the Maimonidean system lies in\nfounding the Jewish faith on _speculative knowledge_, which is a matter of\nthe intellect, rather than _love_ which flows from the heart, and which\nalone leads to piety and goodness. True love, he says, requires the belief\nneither in retribution nor in immortality. Moreover, in striking contrast\nto the insistence of Maimonides or the immutability of the Mosaic Law,\nCrescas maintains the possibility of its continuous progress in accordance\nwith the intellectual and spiritual needs of the time, or, what amounts to\nthe same thing, the continuous perfectibility of the revealed Law\nitself.(48) Thus the criticism of Crescas leads at once to a radically\ndifferent theology than that of Maimonides, and one which appeals far more\nto our own religious thought.\n\n10. Another doctrine of Judaism, which was greatly underrated by medieval\nscholars, and which has been emphasized in modern times only in contrast\nto the Christian theory of original sin, is that man was created in the\nimage of God. Judaism holds that the soul of man came forth pure from the\nhand of its Maker, endowed with freedom, unsullied by any inherent evil or\ninherited sin. Thus man is, through the exercise of his own free will,\ncapable of attaining to an ever higher degree his mental, moral, and\nspiritual powers in the course of history. This is the Biblical idea of\nGod\u2019s spirit as immanent in man; all prophetic truth is based upon it; and\nthough it was often obscured, this theory was voiced by many of the\nmasters of Rabbinical lore, such as R. Akiba and others.(49)\n\n11. Every attempt to formulate the doctrines or articles of faith of\nJudaism was made, in order to guard the Jewish faith from the intrusion of\nforeign beliefs, never to impose disputed beliefs upon the Jewish\ncommunity itself. Many, indeed, challenged the fundamental character of\nthe thirteen articles of Maimonides. Albo reduced them to three, viz.: the\nbelief in God, in revelation, and retribution; others, with more\narbitrariness than judgement, singled out three, five, six, or even more\nas principal doctrines;(50) while rigid conservatives, such as Isaac\nAbravanel and David ben Zimra, altogether disapproved the attempt to\nformulate articles of faith. The former maintained that every word in the\nTorah is, in fact, a principle of faith, and the latter(51) pointed in the\nsame way to the 613 commandments of the Torah, spoken of by R. Simlai the\nHaggadist in the third century.(52)\n\nThe present age of historical research imposes the same necessity of\nrestatement or reformulation upon us. We must do as Maimonides did,\u2014as\nJews have always done,\u2014point out anew the really fundamental doctrines,\nand discard those which have lost their holdup on the modern Jew, or which\nconflict directly with his religious consciousness. If Judaism is to\nretain its prominent position among the powers of thought, and to be\nclearly understood by the modern world, it must again reshape its\nreligious truths in harmony with the dominant ideas of the age.\n\nMany attempts of this character have been made by modern rabbis and\nteachers, most of them founded upon Albo\u2019s three articles. Those who\npenetrated somewhat more deeply into the essence of Judaism added a fourth\narticle, the belief in Israel\u2019s priestly mission, and at the same time,\ninstead of the belief in retribution, included the doctrine of man\u2019s\nkinship with God, or, if one may coin the word, his _God-childship_.(53)\nFew, however, have succeeded in working out the entire content of the\nJewish faith from a modern viewpoint, which must include historical,\ncritical, and psychological research, as well as the study of comparative\nreligion.\n\n12. The following tripartite plan is that of the present attempt to\npresent the doctrines of Judaism systematically along the lines of\nhistorical development:\n\nI. GOD\n\n_a._ Man\u2019s consciousness of God, and divine revelation.\n\n_b._ God\u2019s spirituality, His unity, His holiness, His perfection.\n\n_c._ His relation to the world: Creation and Providence.\n\n_d._ His relation to man: His justice, His love and mercy.\n\nII. MAN\n\n_a._ Man\u2019s God-childship; his moral freedom and yearning for God.\n\n_b._ Sin and repentance; prayer and worship; immortality, reward and\npunishment.\n\n_c._ Man and humanity: the moral factors in history.\n\nIII. ISRAEL AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD\n\n_a._ The priest-mission of Israel, its destiny as teacher and martyr among\nthe nations, and its Messianic hope.\n\n_b._ The Kingdom of God: the nations and religions of the world in a\ndivine plan of universal salvation.\n\n_c._ The Synagogue and its institutions.\n\n_d._ The ethics of Judaism and the Kingdom of God.\n\n\n\n\n\nPART I. GOD\n\n\n\n\nA. God As He Makes Himself Known To Man\n\n\n\nChapter V. Man\u2019s Consciousness of God and Belief in God\n\n\n1. Holy Writ employs two terms for religion, both of which lay stress upon\nits moral and spiritual nature: _Yirath Elohim_\u2014\u201cfear of God\u201d\u2014and _Daath\nElohim_\u2014\u201cknowledge or consciousness of God.\u201d Whatever the fear of God may\nhave meant in the lower stages of primitive religion, in the Biblical and\nRabbinical conceptions it exercises a wholesome moral effect; it stirs up\nthe conscience and keeps man from wrongdoing. Where fear of God is\nlacking, violence and vice are rife;(54) it keeps society in order and\nprompts the individual to walk in the path of duty. Hence it is called\n\u201cthe beginning of wisdom.\u201d(55) The divine revelation of Sinai accentuates\nas its main purpose \u201cto put the fear of God into the hearts of the people,\nlest they sin.\u201d(56)\n\n2. God-consciousness, or \u201cknowledge of God,\u201d signifies an inner experience\nwhich impels man to practice the right and to shun evil, the recognition\nof God as the moral power of life. \u201cBecause there is no knowledge of God,\u201d\ntherefore do the people heap iniquity upon iniquity, says Hosea, and he\nhopes to see the broken covenant with the Lord renewed through\nfaithfulness grounded on the consciousness of God.(57) Jeremiah also\ninsists upon \u201cthe knowledge of God\u201d as a moral force, and, like Hosea, he\nanticipates the renewal of the broken covenant when \u201cthe Lord shall write\nHis law upon the heart\u201d of the people, and \u201cthey shall all know Him from\nthe least of them unto the greatest of them.\u201d(58) Wherever Scripture\nspeaks of \u201cknowledge of God,\u201d(59) it always means the moral and spiritual\nrecognition of the Deity as life\u2019s inmost power, determining human\nconduct, and by no means refers to mere intellectual perception of the\ntruth of Jewish monotheism, which is to refute the diverse forms of\npolytheism. This misconception of the term \u201cknowledge of God,\u201d as used in\nthe Bible, led the leading medieval thinkers of Judaism, especially the\nschool of Maimonides, and even down to Mendelssohn, into the error of\nconfusing religion and philosophy, as if both resulted from pure reason.\nIt is man\u2019s moral nature rather than his intellectual capacity, that leads\nhim \u201cto know God and walk in His ways.\u201d(60)\n\n3. It is mainly through the _conscience_ that man becomes conscious of\nGod. He sees himself, a moral being, guided by motives which lend a\npurpose to his acts and his omissions, and thus feels that this purpose of\nhis must somehow be in accord with a higher purpose, that of a Power who\ndirects and controls the whole of life. The more he sees purpose ruling\nindividuals and nations, the more will his God-consciousness grow into the\nconviction that there is but One and Only God, who in awful grandeur holds\ndominion over the world. This is the developmental process of religious\ntruth, as it is unfolded by the prophets and as it underlies the historic\nframework of the Bible. In this light Jewish monotheism appears as the\nripe fruitage of religion in its universal as well as its primitive form\nof God-consciousness, as the highest attainment of man in his eternal\nseeking after God. Polytheism, on the other hand, with its idolatrous and\nimmoral practices, appeared to the prophets and lawgivers of Israel to be,\nnot a competing religion, but simply a falling away from God. They felt it\nto be a loss or eclipse of the genuine God-consciousness. The object of\nrevelation, therefore, is to lead back all mankind to the God whom it had\ndeserted, and to restore to all men their primal consciousness of God,\nwith its power of moral regeneration.\n\n4. In the same degree as this God-consciousness grows stronger, it\ncrystallizes into _belief_ in God, and culminates in _love_ of God. As\nstated above,(61) in Judaism belief\u2014_Emunah_\u2014never denotes the acceptance\nof a creed. It is rather the confiding trust by which the frail mortal\nfinds a _firm_ hold on God amidst the uncertainties and anxieties of life,\nthe search for His shelter in distress, the reliance on His ever-ready\nhelp when one\u2019s own powers fail. The believer is like a little child who\nfollows confidingly the guidance of his father, and feels safe when near\nhis arm. In fact, the double meaning of _Emunah_, faith and faithfulness,\nsuggests man\u2019s child-like faith in the paternal faithfulness of God. The\npatriarch Abraham is presented in both Biblical and Rabbinical writings as\nthe pattern of such a faith,(62) and the Jewish people likewise are\ncharacterized in the Talmud as \u201cbelievers, sons of believers.\u201d(63) The\nMidrash extols such life-cheering faith as the power which inspires true\nheroism and deeds of valor.(64)\n\n5. The highest triumph of God-consciousness, however, is attained in\n_love_ of God such as can renounce cheerfully all the boons of life and\nundergo the bitterest woe without a murmur. The book of Deuteronomy\ninculcates love of God as the beginning and the end of the Law,(65) and\nthe rabbis declare it to be the highest type of human perfection. In\ncommenting upon the verse, \u201cThou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy\nheart, with all thy soul, and with all thy might,\u201d they say: \u201cLove the\nLaw, even when thy life is demanded as its price, nay, even with the last\nbreath of thy body, with a heart that has no room for dissent, amid every\nvisitation of destiny!\u201d(66) They point to the tragic martyrdom of R. Akiba\nas an example of such a love sealed by death. In like manner they refer\nthe expression, \u201cthey that love Thee,\u201d(67) to those who bear insults\nwithout resentment; who hear themselves abused without retort; who do good\nunselfishly, without caring for recognition; and who cheerfully suffer as\na test of their fortitude and their love of God.(68) Thus throughout all\nRabbinical literature love of God is regarded as the highest principle of\nreligion and as the ideal of human perfection, which was exemplified by\nJob, according to the oldest Haggadah, and, according to the Mishnah, by\nAbraham.(69) Another interpretation of the verse cited from Deuteronomy\nreads, \u201cLove God in such a manner that thy fellow-creatures may love Him\nowing to thy deeds.\u201d(70)\n\nAll these passages and many others(71) show what a prominent place the\nprinciple of love occupied in Judaism. This is, indeed, best voiced in the\nSong of Songs:(72) \u201cFor love is strong as death; the flashes thereof are\nflashes of fire, a very flame of the Lord. Many waters cannot quench that\nlove, neither can the floods drown it.\u201d It set the heart of the Jew aglow\nduring all the centuries, prompting him to sacrifice his life and all that\nwas dear to him for the glorification of his God, to undergo for his faith\na martyrdom without parallel in history.\n\n\n\nChapter VI. Revelation, Prophecy, and Inspiration\n\n\n1. Divine revelation signifies two different things: first, God\u2019s\nself-revelation, which the Rabbis called _Gilluy Shekinah_, \u201cthe\nmanifestation of the divine Presence,\u201d and, second, the revelation of His\nwill, for which they used the term _Torah min ha Shamayim_, \u201cthe Law as\nemanating from God.\u201d(73) The former appealed to the child-like belief of\nthe Biblical age, which took no offense at anthropomorphic ideas, such as\nthe descent of God from heaven to earth, His appearing to men in some\nvisible form, or any other miracle; the latter appears to be more\nacceptable to those of more advanced religious views. Both conceptions,\nhowever, imply that the religious truth of revelation was communicated to\nman by a special act of God.\n\n2. Each creative act is a mystery beyond the reach of human observation.\nIn all fields of endeavor the flashing forth of genius impresses us as the\nwork of a mysterious force, which acts upon an elect individual or nation\nand brings it into close touch with the divine. In the religious genius\nespecially is this true; for in him all the spiritual forces of the age\nseem to be energized and set into motion, then to burst forth into a new\nreligious consciousness, which is to revolutionize religious thought and\nfeeling. In a child-like age when the emotional life and the imagination\npredominate, and man\u2019s mind, still receptive, is overwhelmed by mighty\nvisions, the Deity stirs the soul in some form perceptible to the senses.\nThus the \u201cseer\u201d assumes a trance-like state where the Ego, the\nself-conscious personality, is pushed into the background; he becomes a\npassive instrument, the mouthpiece of the Deity; from Him he receives a\nmessage to the people, and in his vision he beholds God who sends him.\nThis appearance of God upon the background of the soul, which reflects Him\nlike a mirror, is Revelation.(74)\n\n3. The states of the soul when men see such visions of the Deity\npredominate in the beginnings of all religions. Accordingly, Scripture\nascribes such revelations to non-Israelites as well as to the patriarchs\nand prophets of Israel,\u2014to Abimelek and Laban, Balaam, Job, and\nEliphaz.(75) Therefore the Jewish prophet is not distinguished from the\nrest by the capability to receive divine revelation, but rather by the\nintrinsic nature of the revelation which he receives. His vision comes\nfrom a moral God. The Jewish genius perceived God as the moral power of\nlife, whether in the form expressed by Abraham, Moses, Elijah, or by the\nliterary prophets, and all of these, coming into touch with Him, were\nlifted into a higher sphere, where they received a new truth, hitherto\nhidden from man. In speaking through them, God appeared actually to have\nstepped into the sphere of human life as its moral Ruler. This\nself-revelation of God as the Ruler of man in righteousness, which must be\nviewed in the life of any prophet as a providential act, forms the great\nhistorical sequence in the history of Israel, upon which rests the Jewish\nreligion.(76)\n\n4. The divine revelation in Israel was by no means a single act, but a\nprocess of development, and its various stages correspond to the degrees\nof culture of the people. For this reason the great prophets also depended\nlargely upon dreams and visions, at least in their consecration to the\nprophetic mission, when one solemn act was necessary. After that the\nmessage itself and its new moral content set the soul of the prophet\nastir. Not the vision or its imagery, but the new truth itself seizes him\nwith irresistible force, so that he is carried away by the divine power\nand speaks as the mouthpiece of God, using lofty poetic diction while in a\nstate of ecstacy. Hence he speaks of God in the _first_ person. The\nhighest stage of all is that where the prophet receives the divine truth\nin the form of pure thought and with complete self-consciousness.\nTherefore the Scripture says of Moses and of no other, \u201cThe Lord spoke to\nMoses face to face, as a man speaks to another.\u201d(77)\n\n5. The story of the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai is in reality the\nrevelation of God to the people of Israel as part of the great world-drama\nof history. Accordingly, the chief emphasis is laid upon the miraculous\nelement, the descent of the Lord to the mountain in fire and storm, amid\nthunder and lightning, while the Ten Words themselves were proclaimed by\nMoses as God\u2019s herald.(78) As a matter of fact, the first words of the\nnarrative state its purpose, the consecration of the Jewish people at the\noutset of their history to be a nation of prophets and priests.(79)\nTherefore the rabbis lay stress upon the acceptance of the Law by the\npeople in saying: \u201cAll that the Lord sayeth we shall do and hearken.\u201d(80)\nFrom a larger point of view, we see here the dramatized form of the truth\nof Israel\u2019s _election_ by divine Providence for its historic religious\nmission.\n\n6. The rabbis ascribed the gifts of prophecy to pagans as well as\nIsraelites at least as late as the erection of the Tabernacle, after which\nthe Divine Presence dwelt there in the midst of Israel.(81) They say that\neach of the Jewish prophets was endowed with a peculiar spiritual power\nthat corresponded with his character and his special training, the\nhighest, of course, being Moses, whom they called \u201cthe father of the\nprophets.\u201d(82)\n\nThe medieval Jewish thinkers, following the lead of Mohammedan\nphilosophers or theologians, regard revelation quite differently, as an\n_inner_ process in the mind of the prophet. According to their mystical or\nrationalistic viewpoint, they describe it as the result of the divine\nspirit, working upon the soul either from within or from without. These\ntwo standpoints betray either the Platonic or the Aristotelian\ninfluence.(83) Indeed, the rabbis themselves showed traces of\nneo-Platonism when they described the ecstatic state of the prophets, or\nwhen they spoke of the divine spirit speaking through the prophet as\nthrough a vocal instrument, or when they made distinctions between seeing\nthe Deity \u201cin a bright mirror\u201d or \u201cthrough a dark glass.\u201d(84)\n\nThe view most remote from the simple one of the Bible is the rationalistic\nstandpoint of Maimonides, who, following altogether in the footsteps of\nthe Arabic neo-Aristotelians, assumed that there were different degrees of\nprophecy, depending upon the influence exerted upon the human intellect by\nthe sphere of the Highest Intelligence. He enumerates eleven such grades,\nof which Moses had the highest rank, as he entered into direct\ncommunication with the supreme intellectual sphere. Still bolder is his\nexplanation of the revelation on Sinai. He holds that the first two words\nwere understood by the people directly as logical evidences of truth, for\nthey enunciated the philosophical doctrines of the existence and unity of\nGod, whereas the other words they understood only as sounds without\nmeaning, so that Moses had to interpret them.(85) In contrast to this\namazing rationalism of Maimonides is the view of Jehuda ha Levi, who\nasserts that the gift of prophecy became the specific privilege of the\ndescendants of Abraham after their consecration as God\u2019s chosen people at\nSinai, and that the holy soil of Palestine was assigned to them as the\nhabitation best adapted to its exercise.(86) The other attempt of some\nrationalistic thinkers of the Middle Ages to have a \u201csound created for the\npurpose\u201d(87) of uttering the words \u201cI am the Lord thy God,\u201d rather than\naccepting the anthropomorphic Deity, merits no consideration whatever.\n\n7. It is an indisputable fact of history that the Jewish people, on\naccount of its peculiar religious bent, was predestined to be the people\nof revelation. Its leading spirits, its prophets and psalmists, its\nlaw-givers and inspired writers differ from the seers, singers, and sages\nof other nations by their unique and profound insight into the moral\nnature of the Deity. In striking contrast is the progress of thought in\nGreece, where the awakening of the ethical consciousness caused a rupture\nbetween the culture of the philosophers and the popular religion, and led\nto a final decay of the political and social life. The prophets of Israel,\nhowever, the typical men of genius of their people, gradually brought\nabout an advance of popular religion, so that they could finally present\nas their highest ideal the God of the fathers, and make the knowledge of\nHis will the foundation of the law of holiness, by which they desired to\nregulate the entire conduct of man. Thus, religion was no longer confined\nby the limits of nationality, but was transformed into a spiritual force\nfor all mankind, to lead through a revelation of the One and Holy God\ntoward the highest morality.\n\n8. The development of thought brought the God-seeking spirits to the\ndesire to know His will, or, in Scriptural language, His ways, in order to\nattain holiness in their pursuit. The natural consequence was the gradual\nreceding of the power of imagination which had made the enraptured seer\nbehold God Himself in visions. As the Deity rose more and more above the\nrealm of the visible, the newly conceived truth was realized as coming to\nthe sacred writer through the spirit of God or an angel. _Inspiration_\ntook the place of _revelation_. This, however, still implies a passive\nattitude of the soul carried away by the truth it receives from on high.\nThis supernatural element disappears gradually and passes over into sober,\nself-conscious thought, in which the writer no longer thinks of God as the\nEgo speaking through him, but as an outside Power spoken of in the third\nperson.\n\nA still lower degree of inspiration is represented by those writings which\nlack altogether the divine afflatus, and to which is ascribed a share of\nthe holy spirit only through general consensus of opinion. Often this\nimprint of the divine is not found in them by the calm judgment of a later\ngeneration, and the exact basis for the classification of such writings\namong the holy books is sometimes difficult to state. We can only conclude\nthat in the course of time they were regarded as holy by that very spirit\nwhich was embodied in the Synagogue and its founders, \u201cthe Men of the\nGreat Synagogue,\u201d who in their work of canonizing the Sacred Scriptures\nwere believed to have been under the influence of the holy spirit.(88)\n\n9. Except for the five books of Moses, the idea of a mechanical\ninspiration of the Bible is quite foreign to Judaism. Not until the second\nChristian century did the rabbis finally decide on such questions as the\ninspiration of certain books among the Hagiographa or even among the\nProphets, or whether certain books now excluded from the canon were not of\nequal rank with the canonical ones.(89) In fact, the influence of the holy\nspirit was for some time ascribed, not only to Biblical writers, but also\nto living masters of the law.(90) The fact is that divine influence cannot\nbe measured by the yardstick or the calendar. Where it is felt, it bursts\nforth as from a higher world, creating for itself its proper organs and\nforms. The rabbis portray God as saying to Israel, \u201cNot I in My higher\nrealm, but you with your human needs fix the form, the measure, the time,\nand the mode of expression for that which is divine.\u201d(91)\n\n10. While Christianity and Islam, its daughter-religions, must admit the\nexistence of a prior revelation, Judaism knows of none. It claims its own\nprophetic truth as _the_ revelation, admits the title Books of Revelation\n(Bible) only for its own sacred writings, and calls the Jewish nation\nalone the People of Revelation. The Church and the Mosque achieved great\nthings in propagating the truths of the Sinaitic revelation among the\nnations, but added to it no new truths of an essential nature. Indeed,\nthey rather obscured the doctrines of God\u2019s unity and holiness. On the\nother hand, the people of the Sinaitic revelation looked to it with a view\nof ever revitalizing the dead letter, thus evolving ever new rules of life\nand new ideas, without ever placing new and old in opposition, as was done\nby the founder of the Church. Each generation was to take to heart the\nwords of Scripture as if they had come \u201cthis very day\u201d out of the mouth of\nthe Lord.(92)\n\n\n\nChapter VII. The Torah\u2014the Divine Instruction\n\n\n1. During the Babylonian Exile the prophetic word became the source of\ncomfort and rejuvenation for the Jewish people. Now in its place Ezra the\nScribe made the Book of the Law of Moses the pivot about which the entire\nlife of the people was to revolve. By regular readings from it to the\nassembled worshipers, he made it the source of common instruction. Instead\nof the priestly Law, which was concerned only with the regulation of the\nritual life, the Law became the people\u2019s book of instruction, a Torah for\nall alike,(93) while the prophetic books were made secondary and were\nemployed by the preacher at the conclusion of the service as \u201cwords of\nconsolation.\u201d(94) Upon the Pentateuch was built up the divine service of\nthe Synagogue as well as the whole system of communal life, with both its\nlaw and ethics. The prophets and other sacred books were looked upon only\nas means of \u201copening up\u201d or illustrating the contents of the Torah. These\nother parts of the _Mikra_ (\u201cthe collection of books for public reading\u201d)\nwere declared to be inferior in holiness, so that, according to the\nRabbinical rule, they were not even allowed to be put into the same scroll\nas the Pentateuch.(95) Moreover, neither the number, order, nor the\ndivision of the Biblical books was fixed. The Talmud gives 24, Josephus\nonly 22.(96) Tradition claims a completely divine origin only for the\nPentateuch or Torah, while the rabbis often point out the human element in\nthe other two classes of the Biblical collection.(97)\n\n2. The traditional belief in the divine origin of the Torah includes not\nonly every word, but also the accepted interpretation of each letter, for\nboth written and oral law are ascribed to the revelation to Moses on Mt.\nSinai, to be transmitted thence from generation to generation. Whoever\ndenies the divine origin of either the written or the oral law is declared\nto be an unbeliever who has no share in the world to come, according to\nthe Tannaitic code, and consequently according to Maimonides(98) also. But\nhere arises a question of vital importance: What becomes of the Torah as\nthe divine foundation of Judaism under the study of modern times? Even\nconservative investigators, such as Frankel, Graetz, and Isaac Hirsch\nWeiss, not to mention such radicals as Zunz and Geiger, admit the gradual\nprogress and growth of this very system of law, both oral and written. And\nif different historical conditions have produced the development of the\nlaw itself, we must assume a number of human authors in place of a single\nact of divine revelation.(99)\n\n3. But another question of equal importance confronts us here, the meaning\nof Torah. Originally, no doubt, Torah signified the instruction given by\nthe priests on ritual or juridical matters. Out of these decisions arose\nthe written laws (_Toroth_), which the priesthood in the course of time\ncollected into codes. After a further process of development they appeared\nas the various books of Moses, which were finally united into _the Code_\nor _Torah_. This Torah was the foundation of the new Judean commonwealth,\nthe \u201cheritage of the congregation of Jacob.\u201d(100) The priestly Torah,\nlightly regarded during the prophetic period, was exalted by post-exilic\nJudaism, so that the Sadducean priesthood and their successors, the\nrabbis, considered strict observance of the legal form to be the very\nessence of religion. Is this, then, the true nature of Judaism? Is it\nreally\u2014as Christian theologians have held ever since the days of Paul, the\ngreat antagonist of Judaism\u2014mere nomism, a religion of law, which demanded\nformal compliance with its statutes without regard to their inner value?\nOr shall we rather follow Rabbi Simlai, the Haggadist, who first\nenumerated the 613 commandments of the Torah (mandatory and prohibitive),\nconsidering that their one aim is the higher _moral law_, in that they are\nall summed up by a few ethical principles, which he finds in the 15th\nPsalm, Isaiah XXXIII, 15; Micah VI, 8; Isaiah LVI, 1; and Amos V, 4?(101)\n\n4. All these questions have but one answer, a reconciling one, Judaism has\nthe two factors, the priest with his regard for the law and the prophet\nwith his ethical teaching; and the Jewish Torah embodies both aspects, law\nand doctrine. These two elements became more and more correlated, as the\ndifferent parts of the Pentateuch which embodied them were molded together\ninto the one scroll of the Law. In fact, the prophet Jeremiah, in\ndenouncing the priesthood for its neglect of the principles of justice,\nand rebuking scathingly the people for their wrongdoing, pointed to the\ndivine law of righteousness as the one which should be written upon the\nhearts of men.(102) Likewise, in the book of Deuteronomy, which was the\nproduct of joint activity by prophet and priest, the Law was built upon\nthe highest moral principle, the love of God and man. In a still larger\nsense the Pentateuch as a whole contains priestly law and universal\nreligion intertwined. In it the eternal verities of the Jewish faith,\nGod\u2019s omnipotence, omniscience, and moral government of the world, are\nconveyed in the historical narratives as an introduction to the law.\n\n5. Thus the Torah as the expression of Judaism was never limited to a mere\nsystem of law. At the outset it served as a book of instruction concerning\nGod and the world and became ever richer as a source of knowledge and\nspeculation, because all knowledge from other sources was brought into\nrelation with it through new modes of interpretation. Various systems of\nphilosophy and theology were built upon it. Nay more, the Torah became\ndivine Wisdom itself,(103) the architect of the Creator, the beginning and\nend of creation.(104)\n\nWhile the term Torah thus received an increasingly comprehensive meaning,\nthe rabbis, as exponents of orthodox Judaism, came to consider the\nPentateuch as the only book of revelation, every letter of which emanated\ndirectly from God. The other books of the Bible they regarded as due only\nto the indwelling of the holy spirit, or to the presence of God, the\n_Shekinah_. Moreover, they held that changes by the prophets and other\nsacred writers were anticipated, in essentials, in the Torah itself, and\nwere therefore only its expansions and interpretations. Accordingly, they\nare frequently quoted as parts of the Torah or as \u201cwords of\ntradition.\u201d(105)\n\n6. Orthodox Judaism, then, accepted as a fundamental doctrine the view\nthat both the Mosaic Law and its Rabbinical interpretation were given by\nGod to Moses on Mt. Sinai. This viewpoint is contradicted by all our\nknowledge and our whole mode of thinking, and thus both our historical and\nreligious consciousness constrain us to take the position of the prophets.\nTo them and to us the real Torah is the unwritten moral law which\nunderlies the precepts of both the written law and its oral\ninterpretation. From this point of view, Moses, as the first of the\nprophets, becomes the first mediator of the divine legislation, and the\noriginal Decalogue is seen to be the starting point of a long process of\ndevelopment, from which grew the laws of righteousness and holiness that\nwere to rule the life of Israel and of mankind.(106)\n\n7. The time of composition of the various parts of the Pentateuch,\nincluding the Decalogue, must be decided by independent critical and\nhistorical research. It is sufficient for us to know that since the time\nof Ezra the foundation of Judaism has been the completed Torah, with its\ntwofold aspect as _law_ and as _doctrine_. As _law_ it contributed to the\nmarvelous endurance and resistance of the Jewish people, inasmuch as it\nimbued them with the proud consciousness of possessing a law superior to\nthat of other nations, one which would endure as long as heaven and\nearth.(107) Furthermore, it permeated Judaism with a keen sense of duty\nand imprinted the ideal of holiness upon the whole of life. At the same\ntime it gave rise also to ritualistic piety, which, while tenaciously\nclinging to the traditional practice of the law, fostered hair-splitting\ncasuistry and caused the petrifaction of religion in the codified Halakah.\nAs _doctrine_ it impressed its ethical and humane idealism upon the\npeople, lifting them far above the narrow confines of nationality, and\nmaking them a nation of thinkers. Hence their eagerness for their mission\nto impart the wisdom stored in their writings to all humanity as its\nhighest boon and the very essence of divine wisdom.\n\n\n\nChapter VIII. God\u2019s Covenant\n\n\n1. Judaism has one specific term for religion, representing the moral\nrelation between God and man, namely, _Berith_, covenant. The covenant was\nconcluded by God with the patriarchs and with Israel by means of\nsacrificial blood, according to the primitive custom by which tribes or\nindividuals became \u201cblood brothers,\u201d when they were both sprinkled with\nthe sacrificial blood or both drank of it.(108) The first covenant of God\nwas made after the flood, with Noah as the representative of mankind; it\nwas intended to assure him and all coming generations of the perpetual\nmaintenance of the natural order without interruption by flood, and at the\nsame time to demand of all mankind the observance of certain laws, such as\nnot to shed, or eat, blood. Here at the very beginning of history religion\nis taken as the universal basis of human morality, so developing at the\noutset the fundamental principle of Judaism that it rests upon a religion\nof humanity, which it desires to establish in all purity. As the universal\nidea of man forms thus its beginning, so Judaism will attain its final\ngoal only in a divine covenant comprising all humanity. Both the rabbis\nand the Hellenistic writers consider the covenant of Noah with its\nso-called Noahitic commandments as unwritten laws of humanity. In fact,\nthey are referred to Adam also, so that religion appears in its essence as\nnothing else than a covenant of God with all mankind.(109)\n\n2. Accordingly, Judaism is a special basis of relationship between God and\nIsrael. Far from superseding the universal covenant with Noah, or\nconfining it to the Jewish people, this covenant aims to reclaim all\nmembers of the human family for the wider covenant from which they have\nrelapsed. God chose for this purpose Abraham as the one who was faithful\nto His moral law, and made a special covenant with him for all his\ndescendants, that they might foster justice and righteousness, at first\nwithin the narrow sphere of the nation, and then in ever-widening circles\nof humanity.(110) Yet the covenant with Abraham was only the precursor of\nthe covenant concluded with Israel through Moses on Mt. Sinai, by which\nthe Jewish people were consecrated to be the eternal guardians of the\ndivine covenant with mankind, until the time when it shall encompass all\nthe nations.(111)\n\n3. In this covenant of Sinai, referred to by the prophet Elijah, and\nafterward by many others, the free moral relationship of man to God is\nbrought out; this forms the characteristic feature of a revealed religion\nin contradistinction to natural religion. In paganism the Deity formed an\ninseparable part of the nation itself; but through the covenant God became\na free moral power, appealing for allegiance to the spiritual nature of\nman. This idea of the covenant suggested to the prophet Hosea the analogy\nwith the conjugal relation,(112) a conception of love and loyalty which\nbecame typical of the tender relation of God to Israel through the\ncenturies. In days of direst woe Jeremiah and the book of Deuteronomy\ninvested this covenant with the character of indestructibility and\ninviolability.(113) God\u2019s covenant with Israel is everlasting like that\nwith the heaven and the earth; it is ever to be renewed in the hearts of\nthe people, but never to be replaced by a new covenant. Upon this eternal\nrenewal of the covenant with God rests the unique history of Judaism, its\nwondrous preservation and regeneration throughout the ages. Paul\u2019s\ndoctrine of a new covenant to replace the old(114) conflicts with the very\nidea of the covenant, and even with the words of Jeremiah.\n\n4. The Israelitish nation inherited from Abraham, according to the\npriestly Code, the rite of _circumcision_ as a \u201csign of the\ncovenant,\u201d(115) but under the prophetic influence, with its loathing of\nall sacrificial blood, the _Sabbath_ was placed in the foreground as \u201cthe\nsign between God and Israel.\u201d(116) In ancient Israel and in the Judean\ncommonwealth the Abrahamitic rite formed the initiation into the\nnationality for aliens and slaves, by which they were made full-fledged\nJews. With the dispersion of the Jewish people over the globe, and the\ninfluence of Hellenism, Judaism created a propaganda in favor of a\nworld-wide religion of \u201cGod-fearing\u201d men pledged to the observance of the\nNoahitic or humanitarian laws. Rabbinism in Palestine called such a one\n_Ger Toshab_\u2014sojourner, or semi-proselyte; while the full proselyte who\naccepted the Abrahamitic rite was called _Ger Zedek_, or proselyte of\nrighteousness.(117) Not only the Hellenistic writings, but also the\nPsalms, the liturgy, and the older Rabbinical literature give evidence of\nsuch a propaganda,(118) but it may be traced back as far as\nDeutero-Isaiah, during the reign of Cyrus. His outlook toward a Jewish\nreligion which should be at the same time a religion of all the world, is\nevident when he calls Israel \u201ca mediator of the covenant between God and\nthe nations,\u201d a \u201clight to the peoples,\u201d\u2014a regenerator of humanity.(119)\n\n5. This hope of a universal religion, which rings through the Psalms, the\nWisdom books and the Hellenistic literature, was soon destined to grow\nfaint. The perils of Judaism in its great struggles with the Syrian and\nRoman empires made for intense nationalism, and the Jewish covenant shared\nthis tendency. The early Christian Church, the successor of the missionary\nactivity of Hellenistic Judaism, labored also at first for the Noahitic\ncovenant.(120) Pauline Christianity, however, with a view to tearing down\nthe barrier between Jew and Gentile, proclaimed a new covenant, whose\ncentral idea is belief in the atoning power of the crucified son of\nGod.(121) Indeed, one medieval Rabbinical authority holds that we are to\nregard Christians as semi-proselytes, as they practically observe the\nNoahitic laws of humanity.(122)\n\n6. Progressive Judaism of our own time has the great task of\nre-emphasizing Israel\u2019s world-mission and of reclaiming for Judaism its\nplace as the priesthood of humanity. It is to proclaim anew the prophetic\nidea of God\u2019s covenant with humanity, whose force had been lost, owing to\ninner and outer obstacles. Israel, as the people of the covenant, aims to\nunite all nations and classes of men in the divine covenant. It must\noutlast all other religions in its certainty that ultimately there can be\nbut the one religion, uniting God and man by a single bond.(123)\n\n\n\n\nB. The Idea Of God In Judaism\n\n\n\nChapter IX. God and the Gods\n\n\n1. Judaism centers upon its sublime and simple conception of God. This\nlifts it above all other religions and satisfies in unique measure the\nlonging for truth and inner peace amidst the futility and incessant\nchanges of earthly existence. This very conception of God is in striking\ncontrast to that of most other religions. The God of Judaism is not one\ngod among many, nor one of many powers of life, but is _the One_ and holy\nGod beyond all comparison. In Him is concentrated all power and the\nessence of all things; He is the Author of all existence, the Ruler of\nlife, who lays down the laws by which man shall live. As the prophet says\nto the heathen world: \u201cThe gods that have not made the heavens and the\nearth, these shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens....\nNot like these is the portion of Jacob; for He is the Former of all\nthings.... The Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the\neverlasting King; at His wrath the earth trembleth, and the nations are\nnot able to abide His indignation.\u201d(124)\n\n2. This lofty conception of the Deity forms the essence of Judaism and was\nits shield and buckler in its lifelong contest with the varying forms of\nheathenism. From the very first the God of Judaism declared war against\nthem all, whether at any special time the prevailing form was the worship\nof many gods, or the worship of God in the shape of man, the perversion of\nthe purity of God by sensual concepts, or the division of His unity into\ndifferent parts or personalities. The Talmudic saying is most striking:\n\u201cFrom Sinai, the Mount of revelation of the only God, there came forth\n_Sinah_, the hostility of the nations toward the Jew as the banner-bearer\nof the pure idea of God.\u201d(125) Just as day and night form a natural\ncontrast, divinely ordained, so do the monotheism of Israel and the\npolytheism of the nations constitute a spiritual contrast which can never\nbe reconciled.\n\n3. The pagan gods, and to some extent the triune God of the Christian\nChurch, semi-pagan in origin also, are the outcome of the human spirit\u2019s\ngoing astray in its search for God. Instead of leading man upwards to an\nideal which will encompass all material and moral life and lift it to the\nhighest stage of holiness, paganism led to depravity and discord. The\nunrelenting zeal displayed by prophet and law-giver against idolatry had\nits chief cause in the immoral and inhuman practices of the pagan\nnations\u2014Canaan, Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon\u2014in the worship of their\ndeities.(126) The deification of the forces of nature brutalized the moral\nsense of the pagan world; no vice seemed too horrible, no sacrifice too\natrocious for their cults. Baal, or Moloch, the god of heaven, demanded in\ntimes of distress the sacrifice of a son by the father. Astarte, the\ngoddess of fecundity, required the \u201challowing\u201d of life\u2019s origin, and this\nwas done by the most terrible of sexual orgies. Such abominations exerted\ntheir seductive influence upon the shepherd tribes of Israel in their new\nhome in Canaan, and thus aroused the fiercest indignation of prophet and\nlaw-giver, who hurled their vials of wrath against those shocking rites,\nthose lewd idols, and those who \u201cwhored after them.\u201d(127) If Israel was to\nbe trained to be the priest people of the Only One in such an environment,\ntolerance of such practices was out of the question. Thus in the Sinaitic\nlaw God is spoken of as \u201cthe jealous God\u201d(128) who punishes unrelentingly\nevery violation of His laws of purity and holiness.\n\n4. The same sharp contrast of Jewish ethical and spiritual monotheism\nremained also when it came in contact with the Gr\u00e6co-Syrian and Roman\nculture. Here, too, the myths and customs of the cult and the popular\nreligion offended by their gross sensuality the chaste spirit of the\nJewish people. Indeed, these were all the more dangerous to the purity of\nsocial life, as they were garbed with the alluring beauty of art and\nphilosophy.(129) The Jew then felt all the more the imperative duty to\ndraw a sharp line of demarcation between Judaism with its chaste and\nimageless worship and the lascivious, immoral life of paganism.\n\n5. This wide gulf which yawned between Israel\u2019s One and holy God and the\ndivinities of the nations was not bridged over by the Christian Church\nwhen it appeared on the stage of history and obtained world-dominion. For\nChristianity in its turn succeeded by again dragging the Deity into the\nworld of the senses, adopting the pagan myths of the birth and death of\nthe gods, and sanctioning image worship. In this way it actually created a\nChristian plurality of gods in place of the Gr\u00e6co-Roman pantheon; indeed,\nit presented a divine family after the model of the Egyptian and\nBabylonian religions,(130) and thus pushed the ever-living God and Father\nof mankind into the background. This tendency has never been explained\naway, even by the attempts of certain high-minded thinkers among the\nChurch fathers. Judaism, however, insists, as ever, upon the words of the\nDecalogue which condemn all attempts to depict the Deity in human or\nsensual form, and through all its teachings there is echoed forth the\nvoice of Him who spoke through the seer of the Exile: \u201cI am the Lord, that\nis My name, and My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise to\ngraven images.\u201d(131)\n\n6. When Moses came to Pharaoh saying, \u201cThus speaketh JHVH the God of\nIsrael, send off My people that they may serve Me,\u201d Pharaoh\u2014so the Midrash\ntells\u2014took his list of deities to hand, looked it over, and said, \u201cBehold,\nhere are enumerated the gods of the nations, but I cannot find thy God\namong them.\u201d To this Moses replied, \u201cAll the gods known and familiar to\nthee are mortal, as thou art; they die, and their tomb is shown. The God\nof Israel has nothing in common with them. He is the living, true, and\neternal God who created heaven and earth; no people can withstand His\nwrath.\u201d(132) This passage states strikingly the difference between the God\nof Judaism and the gods of heathendom. The latter are but deified powers\nof nature, and being parts of the world, themselves at one with nature,\nthey are subject to the power of time and fate. Israel\u2019s God is enthroned\nabove the world as its moral and spiritual Ruler, the only Being whom we\ncan conceive as self-existent, as indivisible as truth itself.\n\n7. As long as the pagan conception prevailed, by which the world was\ndivided into many divine powers, there could be no conception of the idea\nof a moral government of the universe, of an all-encompassing purpose of\nlife. Consequently the great thinkers and moralists of heathendom were\nforced to deny the deities, before they could assert either the unity of\nthe cosmos or a design in life. On the other hand, it was precisely this\nrecognition of the moral nature of God, as manifested both in human life\nand in the cosmic sphere, which brought the Jewish prophets and sages to\ntheir pure monotheism, in which they will ultimately be met by the great\nthinkers of all lands and ages. The unity of God brings harmony into the\nintellectual and moral world; the division of the godhead into different\npowers or personalities leads to discord and spiritual bondage. Such is\nthe lesson of history, that in polytheism, dualism, or trinitarianism one\nof the powers must necessarily limit or obscure another. In this manner\nthe Christian Trinity led mankind in many ways to the lowering of the\nsupreme standard of truth, to an infringement on justice, and to\ninhumanity to other creeds, and therefore Judaism could regard it only as\na compromise with heathenism.\n\n8. Judaism assumed, then, toward paganism an attitude of rigid exclusion\nand opposition which could easily be taken for hostility. This prevailed\nespecially in the legal systems of the Bible and the rabbis, and was\nintended primarily to guard the monotheistic belief from pagan pollution\nand to keep it intact. Neither in the Deuteronomic law nor in the late\ncodes of Maimonides and Joseph Caro is there any toleration for idolatrous\npractices, for instruments of idol-worship, or for idolaters.(133) This\nattitude gave the enemies of the Jew sufficient occasion for speaking of\nthe Jewish God as hating the world, as if only national conceit underlay\nthe earnest rigor of Jewish monotheism.\n\n9. As a matter of fact, since the time of the prophets Judaism has had no\nnational God in any exclusive sense. While the Law insists upon the\nexclusive worship of the one God of Israel, the narratives of the\nbeginnings in the Bible have a different tenor. They take the lofty\nstandpoint that the heathen world, while worshiping its many divinities,\nhad merely lost sight of the true God after whom the heart ever longs and\nsearches. This implies that a kernel of true piety underlies all the error\nand delusion of paganism, which, rightly guided, will lead back to the God\nfrom whom mankind had strayed. The Godhead, divided into gods\u2014as is hinted\neven in the Biblical name, _Elohim_\u2014must again become the one God of\nhumanity. Thus the Jew holds that all worship foreshadows the search for\nthe true God, and that all humanity shall at one time acknowledge Him for\nwhom they have so long been searching. Surely the Psalms express, not\nnational narrowness, but ardent love for humanity when they hail the God\nof Israel, the Maker of heaven and earth, as the world\u2019s great King, and\ntell how He will judge the nations in justice, while the gods of the\nnations will be rejected as \u201cvanities.\u201d(134) Nor does the divine service\nof the Jew bear the stamp of clannishness. For more than two thousand\nyears the central point in the Synagogue liturgy every morning and evening\nhas been the battle-cry, \u201cHear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is\nOne.\u201d And so does the conclusion of every service, the _Alenu_, the solemn\nprayer of adoration, voice the grand hope of the Jew for the future, that\nthe time may speedily come when \u201cbefore the kingdom of Almighty all\nidolatry shall vanish, and all the inhabitants of the earth perceive that\nunto Him alone every knee must bend, and all flesh recognize Him alone as\nGod and King.\u201d(135)\n\n\n\nChapter X. The Name of God\n\n\n1. Primitive men attached much importance to names, for to them the name\nof a thing indicated its nature, and through the name one could obtain\nmastery over the thing or person named. Accordingly, the name of God was\nconsidered to be the manifestation of His being; by invoking it man could\nobtain some of His power; and the place where that name was called became\nthe seat of His presence. Therefore the name must be treated with the same\nreverential awe as the Deity Himself. None dare approach the Deity, nor\nmisuse the Name. The pious soul realized the nearness of the Deity in\nhearing His name pronounced. Finally, the different names of God reflect\nthe different conceptions of Him which were held in various periods.(136)\n\n2. The Semites were not like the Aryan nations, who beheld the essence of\ntheir gods in the phenomena of nature such as light, rain, thunder, and\nlightning,\u2014and gave them corresponding names and titles. The more intense\nreligious emotionalism of the Semites(137) perceived the Godhead rather as\na power working from within, and accordingly gave it such names as _El_\n(\u201cthe Mighty One\u201d), _Eloha_ or _Pahad_ (\u201cthe Awful One\u201d), or _Baal_ (\u201cthe\nMaster\u201d). _Elohim_, the plural form of _Eloha_, denoted originally the\ngodhead as divided into a number of gods or godly beings, that is,\npolytheism. When it was applied to God, however, it was generally\nunderstood as a _unity_, referring to one undivided Godhead, for Scripture\nregarded monotheism as original with mankind. While this view is\ncontradicted by the science of comparative religion, still the ideal\nconception of religion, based on the universal consciousness of God,\npostulates one God who is the aim of all human searching, a fact which the\nterm Henotheism fails to recognize.(138)\n\n3. For the patriarchal age, the preliminary stage in the development of\nthe Jewish God-idea, Scripture gives a special name for God, _El\nShaddai_\u2014\u201cthe Almighty God.\u201d This probably has a relation to _Shod_,\n\u201cstorm\u201d or \u201chavoc\u201d and \u201cdestruction,\u201d but was interpreted as supreme Ruler\nover the celestial powers.(139) The name by which God revealed Himself to\nMoses and the prophets as the God of the covenant with Israel is JHVH\n(Jahveh). This name is inseparably connected with the religious\ndevelopment of Judaism in all its loftiness and depth. During the period\nof the Second Temple this name was declared too sacred for utterance,\nexcept by the priests in certain parts of the service, and for mysterious\nuse by specially initiated saints. Instead, _Adonai_\u2014\u201cthe Lord\u201d\u2014was\nsubstituted for it in the Biblical reading, a usage which has continued\nfor over two thousand years. The meaning of the name in pre-Mosaic times\nmay be inferred from the fiery storms which accompanied each theophany in\nthe various Scriptural passages, as well as from the root havah, which\nmeans \u201cthrow down\u201d and \u201coverthrow.\u201d(140)\n\nTo the prophets, however, the God of Sinai, enthroned amid clouds of storm\nand fire, moving before His people in war and peace, appeared rather as\nthe God of the Covenant, without image or form, unapproachable in His\nholiness. As the original meaning of JHVH had become unintelligible, they\ninterpreted the name as \u201cthe ever present One,\u201d in the sense of _Ehyeh\nasher Ehyeh_, \u201cI shall be whatever (or wherever) I am to be\u201d; that is, \u201cI\nam ever ready to help.\u201d Thus spoke God to Moses in revealing His name to\nhim at the burning bush.(141)\n\n4. The prophetic genius penetrated more and more into the nature of God,\nrecognising Him as the Power who rules in justice, mercy, and holiness.\nThis process brought them to identify JHVH, the God of the covenant, with\nthe One and only God who overlooks all the world from his heavenly\nhabitation, and gives it plan and purpose. At the same time, all the\nprophets revert to the covenant on Sinai in order to proclaim Israel as\nthe herald and witness of God among the nations. In fact, the God of the\ncovenant proclaimed His universality at the very beginning, in the\nintroduction to the Decalogue: \u201cYe shall be Mine own peculiar possession\nfrom among all peoples, for all the earth is Mine. And ye shall be unto Me\na kingdom of priests and a holy nation.\u201d(142) In other words,\u2014you have the\nspecial task of mediator among the nations, all of which are under My\ndominion.\n\n5. In the Wisdom literature and the Psalms the God of the covenant is\nsubordinated to the universality of JHVH as Creator and Ruler of the\nworld. In a number of the Psalms and in some later writings the very name\nJHVH was avoided probably on account of its particularistic tinge. It was\nsurrounded more and more with a certain mystery. Instead, God as the\n\u201cLord\u201d is impressed on the consciousness and adoration of men, in all His\nsublimity and in absolute unity. The \u201cName\u201d continues its separate\nexistence only in the mystic lore. The name _Jehovah_, however, has no\nplace whatsoever in Judaism. It is due simply to a misreading of the vowel\nsigns that refer to the word _Adonai_, and has been erroneously adopted in\nthe Christian literature since the beginning of the sixteenth\ncentury.(143)\n\n6. Perhaps the most important process of spiritualization which the idea\nof God underwent in the minds of the Jewish people was made when the name\nJHVH as the proper name of the God of the covenant was given up and\nreplaced by _Adonai_\u2014\u201cthe Lord.\u201d As long as the God of Israel, like other\ndeities, had His proper name, he was practically one of them, however\nsuperior in moral worth. As soon as He became _the_ Lord, that is, the\nonly real God over all the world, a distinctive proper noun was out of\nplace. Henceforth the name was invested with a mysterious and magic\ncharacter. It became ineffable, at least to the people at large, and its\npronunciation sinful, except by the priests in the liturgy. In fact, the\nlaw was interpreted so as directly to forbid this utterance.(144) Thus\nJHVH is no longer the national God of Israel. The Talmud guards against\nthe very suspicion of a \u201cJudaized God\u201d by insisting that every benediction\nto Him as \u201cGod the Lord\u201d must add \u201cKing of the Universe\u201d rather than the\nformula of the Psalms, \u201cGod of Israel.\u201d(145)\n\n7. The Midrash makes a significant comment on the words of the Shema: \u201cWhy\ndo the words, \u2018the Lord is our God\u2019 precede the words, \u2018the Lord is One\u2019?\nDoes not the particularism of the former conflict with the universalism of\nthe latter sentence? No. The former expresses the idea that the Lord is\n\u2018our God\u2019 just so far as His name is more intertwined with our history\nthan with that of any other nation, and that we have the greater\nobligation as His chosen people. Wherever Scripture speaks of the God of\nIsrael, it does not intend to limit Him as the universal God, but to\nemphasize Israel\u2019s special duty as His priest-people.\u201d(146)\n\n8. Likewise is the liturgical name \u201cGod of our fathers\u201d far from being a\nnationalistic limitation. On the contrary, the rabbis single out Abraham\nas the missionary, the herald of monotheism in its march to\nworld-conquest. For his use of the term, \u201cthe God of heaven and the God of\nthe earth\u201d(147) they offer a characteristic explanation: \u201cBefore Abraham\ncame, the people worshiped only the God of heaven, but Abraham by winning\nthem for his God brought Him down and made Him also the God of the\nearth.\u201d(148)\n\n9. Reverence for the Deity caused the Jew to avoid not only the utterance\nof the holy Name itself, but even the common use of its substitute\n_Adonai_. Therefore still other synonyms were introduced, such as \u201cMaster\nof the universe,\u201d \u201cthe Holy One, blessed be He,\u201d \u201cthe Merciful One,\u201d \u201cthe\nOmnipotence\u201d (_ha Geburah_),(149) \u201cKing of the kings of kings\u201d (under\nPersian influence\u2014as the Persian ruler called himself the King of\nKings);(150) and in Hasidean circles it became customary to invoke God as\n\u201cour Father\u201d and \u201cour Father in heaven.\u201d(151) The rather strange\nappellations for God, \u201cHeaven\u201d(152) and (dwelling) \u201cPlace\u201d (_ha Makom_)\nseem to originate in certain formulas of the oath. In the latter name the\nrabbis even found hints of God\u2019s omnipresence: \u201cAs\nspace\u2014_Makom_\u2014encompasses all things, so does God encompass the world\ninstead of being encompassed by it.\u201d(153)\n\n10. The rabbis early read a theological meaning into the two names JHVH\nand _Elohim_, taking the former as the divine attribute of _mercy_ and the\nlatter as that of _justice_.(154) In general, however, the former name was\nexplained etymologically as signifying eternity, \u201cHe who is, who was, and\nwho shall be.\u201d Philo shows familiarity with the two attributes of justice\nand mercy, but he and other Alexandrian writers explained JHVH and _Ehyeh_\nmetaphysically, and accordingly called God, \u201cthe One who is,\u201d that is, the\nSource of all existence. Both conceptions still influence Jewish exegesis\nand account for the term \u201cthe Eternal\u201d sometimes used for \u201cthe Lord.\u201d\n\n\n\nChapter XI. The Existence of God\n\n\n1. For the religious consciousness, God is not to be demonstrated by\nargument, but is a fact of inner and outer experience. Whatever the origin\nand nature of the cosmos may be according to natural science, the soul of\nman follows its natural bent, as in the days of Abraham, to look through\nnature to the Maker, Ordainer, and Ruler of all things, who uses the\nmanifold world of nature only as His workshop, and who rules it in freedom\nas its sovereign Master. The entire cosmic life points to a Supreme Being\nfrom whom all existence must have arisen, and without whom life and\nprocess would be impossible. Still even this mode of thought is influenced\nand determined by the prevalent monotheistic conceptions.\n\nFar more original and potent in man is the feeling of limitation and\ndependency. This brings him to bow down before a higher Power, at first in\nfear and trembling, but later in holy awe and reverence. As soon as man\nattains self-consciousness and his will acquires purpose, he encounters a\nwill stronger than his own, with which he often comes into conflict, and\nbefore which he must frequently yield. Thus he becomes conscious of\nduty\u2014of what he ought and ought not to do. This is not, like earlier\nlimitations, purely physical and working from without; it is moral and\noperates from within. It is the sense of duty, or, as we call it,\n_conscience_, the sense of right and wrong. This awakened very early in\nthe race, and through it God\u2019s voice has been perceived ever since the\ndays of Adam and of Cain.(155)\n\n2. According to Scripture, man in his natural state possesses the\ncertainty of God\u2019s existence through such inner experience. Therefore the\nBible contains no command to _believe_ in God, nor any logical\ndemonstration of His existence. Both the Creation stories and those of the\nbeginnings of mankind assume as undisputed the existence of God as the\nCreator and Judge of the world. Arguments appealing to reason were\nresorted to only in competition with idolatry, as in Deuteronomy,\nJeremiah, and Deutero-Isaiah, and subsequently by the Haggadists in\nlegends such as those about Abraham. Nor does the Bible consider any who\ndeny the existence of God;(156) only much later, in the Talmud, do we hear\nof those who \u201cdeny the fundamental principle\u201d of the faith. The doubt\nexpressed in Job, Koheleth, and certain of the Psalms, concerns rather the\njustice of God than His existence. True, Jeremiah and the Psalms(157)\nmention some who say \u201cThere is no God,\u201d but these are not atheists in our\nsense of the word; they are the impious who deny the moral order of life\nby word or deed. It is the villain (_Nabal_), not the \u201cfool\u201d who \u201csays in\nheart, there is no God.\u201d Even the Talmud does not mean the real atheist\nwhen speaking of \u201cthe denier of the fundamental principle,\u201d but the man\nwho says, \u201cThere is neither a judgment nor a Judge above and beyond.\u201d(158)\nIn other words, the \u201cdenier\u201d is the same as the Epicurean (Apicoros), who\nrefuses to recognize the moral government of the world.(159)\n\n3. After the downfall of the nation and Temple, the situation changed\nthrough the contemptuous question of the nations, \u201cWhere is your God?\u201d\nThen the necessity became evident of proving that the Ruler of nations\nstill held dominion over the world, and that His wondrous powers were\nshown more than ever before through the fact of Israel\u2019s preservation in\ncaptivity. This is the substance of the addresses of the great seer of the\nExile in chapters XL to LIX of Isaiah, in which he exposes the gods of\nheathendom to everlasting scorn, more than any other prophet before or\nafterward. He declares these deities to be vanity and naught, but\nproclaims the Holy One of Israel as the Lord of the universe. He hath\n\u201cmeted out the heavens with the span,\u201d and \u201cweighed the mountains in\nscales, and the hills in a balance.\u201d Before Him \u201cthe nations are as a drop\nof the bucket,\u201d and \u201cthe inhabitants of the earth as grasshoppers.\u201d \u201cHe\nbringeth out the hosts of the stars by number, and calleth them all by\nname,\u201d \u201cHe hath assigned to the generations of men their lot from the\nbeginning, and knoweth at the beginning what will be their end.\u201d(160)\nMeasured by such passages as these and such as Psalms VIII, XXIV, XXXIII,\nCIV, and CXXXIX, where God is felt as a living power, all philosophical\narguments about His existence seem to be strange fires on the altar of\nreligion. The believer can do without them, and the unbeliever will hardly\nbe convinced by them.\n\n4. Upon the contact of the Jew with Greek philosophy doubt arose in many\nminds, and belief entered into conflict with reason. But even then, the\ndefense of the faith was still carried on by reasoning along the lines of\ncommon sense.(161) Thus the regularity of the sun, moon, and stars,\u2014all\nworshiped by the pagans as deities\u2014was considered a proof of God\u2019s\nomnipotence and rule of the universe, a proof which the legend ascribes to\nAbraham in his controversy with Nimrod.(162) In like manner, the\napocryphal Book of Wisdom(163) says that true wisdom, as opposed to the\nfolly of heathenism, is \u201cto reason from the visible to the Invisible One,\nand from the cosmos, the great work of art, to the Supreme Artificer.\u201d\n\n5. Philo was the first who tried to refute the \u201catheistic\u201d views of\nmaterialists and pantheists by adducing proofs of God\u2019s existence from\nnature and the human intellect. In the former he pointed out order as\nevidence of the wisdom underlying the cosmos, and in the latter the power\nof self-determination as shadowing forth a universal mind which determines\nthe entire universe.(164) Still, with his mystical attitude, Philo\nrealized that the chief knowledge of God is through intuition, by the\ninner experience of the soul.\n\n6. Two proofs taken from nature owe their origin to Greek philosophy.\nAnaxagoras and Socrates, from their theory of design in nature, deduced\nthat there is a universal intelligence working for higher aims and\npurposes. This so-called _teleological_ proof, as worked out in detail by\nPlato, was the unfailing reliance of subsequent philosophers and\ntheologians.(165) Plato and Aristotle, moreover, from the continuous\nmotion of all matter, inferred a prime cause, an unmoved mover. This is\nthe so-called _cosmological_ proof, used by different schools in varying\nforms.(166) It occupies the foremost place in the systems of the Arabic\nAristotelians, and consequently is dominant among the Jewish philosophers,\nthe Christian scholastics, and in the modern philosophic schools down to\nKant. It is based upon the old principle of causality, and therefore takes\nthe mutability and relativity of all beings in the cosmos as evidence of a\nBeing that is immutable, unconditioned, and absolutely necessary, causa\nsui, the prime cause of all existence.\n\n7. The Mohammedan theologians added a new element to the discussion. In\ntheir endeavor to prove that the world is the work of a Creator, they\npointed as evidence to the multiformity and composite structure, the\ncontingency and dependency of the cosmos; thus they concluded that it must\nhave been created, and that its Creator must necessarily be the one,\nabsolute, and all-determining cause. This proof is used also by Saadia and\nBahya ben Joseph.(167) Its weakness, however, was exposed by Ibn Sina and\nAlfarabi among the Mohammedans, and later by Abraham ibn Daud and\nMaimonides, their Jewish successors as Aristotelians. These proposed a\nsubstitute argument. From the fact that the existence of all cosmic beings\nis merely possible,\u2014that is, they may exist and they may not exist,\u2014these\nthinkers concluded that an absolutely necessary being must exist as the\ncause and condition of all things, and this absolutely unconditioned yet\nall-conditioning being is God, the One who _is_.(168) Of course, the God\nso deduced and inferred is a mere abstraction, incapable of satisfying the\nemotional craving of the heart.\n\n8. While the cosmological proof proceeds from the transitory and imperfect\nnature of the world, the _ontological_ proof, first proposed by Anselm of\nCanterbury, the Christian scholastic of the XI century, and further\nelaborated by Descartes and Mendelssohn, proceeds from the human\nintellect. The mind conceives the idea of God as an absolutely perfect\nbeing, and, as there can be no perfection without existence, the\nconclusion is that this idea must necessarily be objectively true. Then,\nas the idea of God is innate in man, God must necessarily exist,\u2014and for\nproof of this they point to the Scriptural verse, \u201cThe fool hath said in\nhis heart, there is no God,\u201d and other similar passages. In its improved\nform, this argument uses the human concept of an infinitely perfect God as\nevidence, or, at least, as postulate that such a Being exists beyond the\nfinite world of man.(169)\n\nAnother argument, rather na\u00efve in character, which was favored by the\nStoics and adopted by the Church fathers, is called _de consensu gentium_,\nand endeavored to prove the reality of God\u2019s existence from the\nuniversality of His worship. It speaks well for the sound reasoning of the\nJewish thinkers that they refused to follow the lead of the Mohammedans in\nthis respect, and did not avail themselves of an argument which can be\nused just as easily in support of a plurality of gods.(170)\n\n9. All these so-called proofs were invalidated by Immanuel Kant, the great\nphilosopher of K\u00f6nigsberg, whose critical inquiry into the human intellect\nshowed that the entire sum of our knowledge of objects and also of the\nformulation of our ideas is based upon our limited mode of apperception,\nwhile the reality or essence, \u201cthe thing in itself,\u201d will ever remain\nbeyond our ken. If this is true of physical objects, it is all the more\ntrue of God, whom we know through our minds alone and not at all through\nour five senses. Accordingly, he shows that all the metaphysical arguments\nhave no basis, and that we can know God\u2019s existence only through _ethics_,\nas a postulate of our moral nature. The inner consciousness of our moral\nobligation, or duty, implies a moral order of life, or moral law; and\nthis, in turn, postulates the existence of God, the Ruler of life, who\nassigns to each of us his task and his destiny.(171)\n\n10. It is true that God is felt and worshiped first as the supreme power\nin the world, before man perceives Him as the highest ideal of morality.\nTherefore man will never cease looking about him for vestiges of divinity\nand for proofs of his intuitive knowledge of God. The wondrous order,\nharmony, and signs of design in nature, as well as the impulse of the\nreason to search for the unity of all things, corroborate this innate\nbelief in God. Still more do the consciousness of duty in the\nindividual\u2014conscience\u2014and the progress of history with its repeated\nvindication of right and defeat of wrong proclaim to the believer\nunmistakably that the God of justice reigns. But no proof, however\nconvincing, will ever bring back to the skeptic or unbeliever the God he\nhas lost, unless his pangs of anguish or the void within fill his desolate\nworld anew with the vivifying thought of a living God.\n\n11. Among all the Jewish religious philosophers the highest rank must be\naccorded to Jehudah ha Levi, the author of the _Cuzari_,(172) who makes\nthe historical fact of the divine revelation the foundation of the Jewish\nreligion and the chief testimony of the existence of God. As a matter of\nfact, reason alone will not lead to God, except where religious intuition\nforms, so to speak, the ladder of heaven, leading to the realm of the\nunknowable. Philosophy, at best, can only demonstrate the existence of a\nfinal Cause, or of a supreme Intelligence working toward sublime purposes;\npossibly also a moral government of the world, in both the physical and\nthe spiritual life. Religion alone, founded upon divine revelation, can\nteach man to find a God, to whom he can appeal in trust in his moments of\ntrouble or of woe, and whose will he can see in the dictates of conscience\nand the destiny of nations. Reason must serve as a _corrective_ for the\ncontents of revelation, scrutinizing and purifying, deepening and\nspiritualizing ever anew the truths received through intuition, but it can\nnever be the final source of truth.\n\n12. The same method must apply also to modern thought and research, which\nsubstituted historical methods for metaphysics in both the physical and\nintellectual world, and which endeavors to trace the origin and growth of\nboth objects and ideas in accordance with fixed laws. The process of\nevolution, our modern key with which to unlock the secrets of nature,\npoints most significantly to a Supreme Power and Energy. But this energy,\nentering into the cosmic process at its outset, causing its motion and its\ngrowth, implies also an end, and thus again we have the Supreme\nIntelligence reached through a new type of teleology.(173) But all these\nconceptions, however they may be in harmony with the Jewish belief in\ncreation and revelation, can at best supplement it, but can certainly\nneither supplant nor be identified with it.\n\n\n\nChapter XII. The Essence of God\n\n\n1. An exquisite Oriental fable tells of a sage who had been meditating\nvainly for days and weeks on the question, What is God? One day, walking\nalong the seashore, he saw some children busying themselves by digging\nholes in the sand and pouring into them water from the sea. \u201cWhat are you\ndoing there?\u201d he asked them, to which they replied, \u201cWe want to empty the\nsea of its water.\u201d \u201cOh, you little fools,\u201d he exclaimed with a smile, but\nsuddenly his smile vanished in serious thought. \u201cAm I not as foolish as\nthese children?\u201d he said to himself. \u201cHow can I with my small brain hope\nto grasp the infinite nature of God?\u201d\n\nAll efforts of philosophy to define the essence of God are futile. \u201cCanst\nthou by searching find out God?\u201d Zophar asks of his friend Job.(174) Both\nPhilo and Maimonides maintain that we can know of God only that He _is_;\nwe can never fathom His innermost being or know what He is. Both find this\nunknowability of God expressed in the words spoken to Moses: \u201cIf I\nwithdraw My hand, thou shall see My back\u2014that is, the effects of God\u2019s\npower and wisdom\u2014but My face\u2014the real essence of God\u2014thou shalt not\nsee.\u201d(175)\n\n2. Still, a divinity void of all essential qualities fails to satisfy the\nreligious soul. Man demands to know what God is\u2014at least, what God is to\nhim. In the first word of the Decalogue God speaks through His people\nIsrael to the religious consciousness of all men at all times, beginning,\n\u201cI am the Lord, _thy_ God.\u201d This word _I_ lifts God at once above all\nbeings and powers of the cosmos, in fact, above all other existence, for\nit expresses His unique self-consciousness. This attribute above all is\npossessed by no being in the world of nature, and only by man, who is the\nimage of his Maker. According to the Midrash, all creation was hushed when\nthe Lord spoke on Sinai, \u201c_I_ am the Lord.\u201d(176) God is not merely the\nsupreme Being, but also the supreme Self-consciousness. As man, in spite\nof all his limitations and helplessness, still towers high above all his\nfellow creatures by virtue of his free will and self-conscious action, so\nGod, who knows no bounds to His wisdom and power, surpasses all beings and\nforces of the universe, for He rules over all as the one completely\nself-conscious Mind and Will. In both the visible and invisible realms He\nmanifests Himself as the absolutely free Personality, moral and spiritual,\nwho allots to every thing its existence, form, and purpose. For this\nreason Scripture calls Him \u201cthe living God and everlasting King.\u201d(177)\n\n3. Judaism, accordingly, teaches us to recognize God, above all, as\nrevealing Himself in self-conscious activity, as determining all that\nhappens by His absolutely free will, and thus as showing man how to walk\nas a free moral agent. In relation to the world, His work or workshop, He\nis the self-conscious Master, saying \u201cI am that which I am\u201d; in relation\nto man, who is akin to Him as a self-conscious rational and moral being,\nHe is the living Fountain of all that knowledge and spirituality for which\nmen long, and in which alone they may find contentment and bliss.\n\nThus the God of Judaism, the world\u2019s great _I Am_, forms a complete\ncontrast, not only to the lifeless powers of nature and destiny, which\nwere worshiped by the ancient pagans, but also to the God of modern\npaganism, a God divested of all personality and self-consciousness, such\nas He is conceived of by the new school of Christian theology, with its\npantheistic tendency. I refer to the school of Ritschl, which strives to\nrender the myth of the man-god philosophically intelligible by teaching\nthat God reaches self-consciousness only in the perfect type of man, that\nis, Christ, while otherwise He is entirely immanent, one with the world.\nAll the more forcibly does Jewish monotheism insist upon its doctrine that\nGod, in His continual self-revelation, is the supermundane and\nself-conscious Ruler of both nature and history. \u201cI am the Lord, that is\nMy name, and My glory will I not give to another,\u201d\u2014so says the God of\nJudaism.(178)\n\n4. The Jewish God-idea, of course, had to go through many stages of\ndevelopment before it reached the concept of a transcendental and\nspiritual god. It was necessary first that the Decalogue and the Book of\nthe Covenant prohibit most stringently polytheism and every form of\nidolatry, and second that a strictly imageless worship impress the people\nwith the idea that Israel\u2019s God was both invisible and incorporeal.(179)\nYet a wide step still intervened from that stage to the complete\nrecognition of God as a purely spiritual Being, lacking all qualities\nperceptible to the senses, and not resembling man in either his inner or\nhis outer nature. Centuries of gradual ripening of thought were still\nnecessary for the growth of this conception. This was rendered still more\ndifficult by the Scriptural references to God in His actions and His\nrevelations, and even in His motives, after a human pattern. Israel\u2019s\nsages required centuries of effort to remove all anthropomorphic and\nanthropopathic notions of God, and thus to elevate Him to the highest\nrealm of spirituality.(180)\n\n5. In this process of development two points of view demand consideration.\nWe must not overlook the fact that the perfectly clear distinction which\nwe make between the sensory and the spiritual does not appeal to the\nchild-like mind, which sees it rather as external. What we call\ntranscendent, owing to our comprehension of the immeasurable universe, was\nformerly conceived only as far remote in space or time. Thus God is spoken\nof in Scripture as dwelling in heaven and looking down upon the\ninhabitants of the earth to judge them and to guide them.(181) According\nto Deuteronomy, God spoke from heaven to the people about Mt. Sinai, while\nExodus represents Him as coming down to the mountain from His heavenly\nheights to proclaim the law amid thunder and lightning.(182) The\nBabylonian conception of heaven prevailed throughout the Middle Ages and\ninfluenced both the mystic lore about the heavenly throne and the\nphilosophic cosmology of the Aristotelians, such as Maimonides. Yet\nScripture offers also another view, the concept of God as the One\nenthroned on high, whom \u201cthe heavens and the heaven\u2019s heavens cannot\nencompass.\u201d(183)\n\nThe fact is that language still lacked an expression for pure spirit, and\nthe intellect freed itself only gradually from the restrictions of\nprimitive language to attain a purer conception of the divine. Thus we\nattain deeper insight into the spiritual nature of God when we read the\ninimitable words of the Psalmist describing His omnipresence,(184) or that\nother passage: \u201cHe that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed\nthe eye, shall He not see? He that chastiseth the nations, shall He not\ncorrect, even He that teaches man knowledge?\u201d(185)\n\nThe translators and interpreters of the Bible felt the need of eliminating\neverything of a sensory nature from God and of avoiding anthropomorphism,\nthrough the influence of Greek philosophy. This spiritualization of the\nGod idea was taken up again by the philosophers of the Spanish-Arabic\nperiod, who combated the prevailing mysticism. Through them Jewish\nmonotheism emphasized its opposition to every human representation of God,\nespecially the God-Man of the Christian Church.\n\n6. On the other hand, we must bear in mind that we naturally ascribe to\nGod a human personality, whether we speak of Him as the Master-worker of\nthe universe, as the all-seeing and all-hearing Judge, or the\ncompassionate and merciful Father. We cannot help attributing human\nqualities and emotions to Him the moment we invest Him with a moral and\nspiritual nature. When we speak of His punitive justice, His unfailing\nmercy, or His all-wise providence, we transfer to Him, imperceptibly, our\nown righteous indignation at the sight of a wicked deed, or our own\ncompassion with the sufferer, or even our own mode of deliberation and\ndecision. Moreover, the prophets and the Torah, in order to make God plain\nto the people, described Him in vivid images of human life, with anger and\njealousy as well as compassion and repentance, and also with the organs\nand functions of the senses,\u2014seeing, hearing, smelling, speaking, and\nwalking.\n\n7. The rabbis are all the more emphatic in their assertions that the Torah\nmerely intends to assist the simple-minded, and that unseemly expressions\nconcerning Deity are due to the inadequacy of language, and must not be\ntaken literally.(186) \u201cIt is an act of boldness allowed only to the\nprophets to measure the Creator by the standard of the creature,\u201d says the\nHaggadist, and again, \u201cGod appeared to Israel, now as a heroic warrior,\nnow as a venerable sage imparting knowledge, and again as a kind dispenser\nof bounties, but always in a manner befitting the time and circumstance,\nso as to satisfy the need of the human heart.\u201d(187) This is strikingly\nillustrated in the following dialogue: \u201cA heretic came to Rabbi Meir\nasking, \u2018How can you reconcile the passage which reads, \u201cDo I not fill\nheaven and earth, says the Lord,\u201d with the one which relates that the Lord\nappeared to Moses between the cherubim of the ark of the covenant?\u2019\nWhereupon Rabbi Meir took two mirrors, one large and the other small, and\nplaced them before the interrogator. \u2018Look into this glass,\u2019 he said, \u2018and\ninto that. Does not your figure seem different in one than in the other?\nHow much more will the majesty of God, who has neither figure nor form, be\nreflected differently in the minds of men! To one it will appear according\nto his narrow view of life, and to the other in accordance with his larger\nmental horizon.\u2019 \u201d(188)\n\nIn like manner Rabbi Joshua ben Hanania, when asked sarcastically by the\nEmperor Hadrian to show him his God, replied: \u201cCome and look at the sun\nwhich now shines in the full splendor of noonday! Behold, thou art\ndazzled. How, then, canst thou see without bewilderment the majesty of Him\nfrom whom emanates both sun and stars?\u201d(189) This rejoinder, which was\nfamiliar to the Greeks also, is excelled by the one of Rabban Gamaliel II\nto a heathen who asked him \u201cWhere does the God dwell to whom you daily\npray?\u201d \u201cTell me first,\u201d he answered, \u201cwhere does your soul dwell, which is\nso close to thee? Thou canst not tell. How, then, can I inform thee\nconcerning Him who dwells in heaven, and whose throne is separated from\nthe earth by a journey of 3500 years?\u201d \u201cThen do we not do better to pray\nto gods who are near at hand, and whom we can see with our eyes?\u201d\ncontinued the heathen, whereupon the sage struck home, \u201cWell, you may see\nyour gods, but they neither see nor help you, while our God, Himself\nunseen, yet sees and protects us constantly.\u201d(190) The comparison of the\ninvisible soul to God, the invisible spirit of the universe, is worked out\nfurther in the Midrash to Psalm CIII.\n\n8. From the foregoing it is clear that, while Judaism insists on the\nDeity\u2019s transcending all finite and sensory limitations, it never lost the\nsense of the close relationship between man and his Maker. Notwithstanding\nChristian theologians to the contrary, the Jewish God was never a mere\nabstraction.(191) The words, \u201cI am the Lord thy God,\u201d betoken the intimate\nrelation between the redeemed and the heavenly Redeemer, and the song of\ntriumph at the Red Sea, \u201cThis is my God, I will extol Him,\u201d\ntestifies\u2014according to the Midrash\u2014that even the humblest of God\u2019s chosen\npeople were filled with the feeling of His nearness.(192) In the same way\nthe warm breath of union with God breathes through all the writings, the\nprayers, and the whole history of Judaism. \u201cFor what great nation is there\nthat hath God so nigh unto them as the Lord our God is, whenever we call\nupon Him?\u201d exclaims Moses in Deuteronomy, and the rabbis, commenting upon\nthe plural form used here, _Kerobim_, = \u201cnigh,\u201d remark: \u201cGod is nigh to\neveryone in accordance with his special needs.\u201d(193)\n\n9. Probably the rabbis were at their most profound mood in their saying,\n\u201cGod\u2019s greatness lies in His condescension, as may be learned from the\nTorah, the Prophets, and the Writings. To quote only Isaiah also: \u2018Thus\nsaith the High and Lofty One, I dwell in high and holy places, with him\nthat is of a contrite and humble spirit.\u2019(194) For this reason God\nselected as the place of His revelation the humble Sinai and the lowly\nthornbush.\u201d(195) In fact, the absence of any mediator in Judaism\nnecessitates the doctrine that God\u2014with all His transcendent majesty\u2014is at\nthe same time \u201can ever present helper in trouble,\u201d(196) and that His\nomnipotence includes care for the greatest and the smallest beings of\ncreation.(197)\n\n10. The doctrine that God is above and beyond the universe, transcending\nall created things, as well as time and space, might lead logically to the\nview of the deist that He stands outside of the world, and does not work\nfrom within. But this inference has never been made even by the boldest of\nJewish thinkers. The Psalmist said, \u201cWho is like the Lord our God, that\nhath His seat on high, that humbleth Himself to behold what is in heaven\nand on earth?\u201d(198)\u2014words which express the deepest and the loftiest\nthought of Judaism. Beside the all-encompassing Deity no other divine\npower or personality can find a place. God is in all; He is over all; He\nis both immanent and transcendent. His creation was not merely setting\ninto motion the wheels of the cosmic fabric, after which He withdrew from\nthe world. The Jew praises Him for every scent and sight of nature or of\nhuman life, for the beauty of the sea and the rainbow, for every flash of\nlightning that illumines the darkened clouds and every peal of thunder\nthat shakes the earth. On every such occasion the Jew utters praise to\n\u201cHim who daily renews the work of creation,\u201d or \u201cHim who in everlasting\nfaithfulness keepeth His covenant with mankind.\u201d Such is the teaching of\nthe men of the Great Synagogue,(199) and the charge of the Jewish God idea\nbeing a barren and abstract transcendentalism can be urged only by the\nblindness of bigotry.(200)\n\n11. The interweaving of the ideas of God\u2019s immanence and transcendency is\nshown especially in two poems embodied in the songs of the Synagogue, Ibn\nGabirol\u2019s \u201cCrown of Royalty\u201d and the \u201cSongs of Unity\u201d for each day of the\nweek, composed by Samuel ben Kalonymos, the father of Judah the Pious of\nRegensburg. Here occur such sentences as these: \u201cAll is in God and God is\nin all\u201d; \u201cSufficient unto Himself and self-determining, He is the\never-living and self-conscious Mind, the all-permeating, all-impelling,\nand all-accomplishing Will\u201d; \u201cThe universe is the emanation of the\nplenitude of God, each part the light of His infinite light, flame of His\neternal empyrean\u201d; \u201cThe universe is the garment, the covering of God, and\nHe the all-penetrating Soul.\u201d(201) All these ideas were borrowed from\nneo-Platonism, and found a conspicuous place in Ibn Gabirol\u2019s philosophy,\nlater influencing the Cabbalah.\n\nSimilarly the appellation, _Makom_, \u201cSpace,\u201d is explained by both Philo\nand the rabbis as denoting \u201cHim who encompasses the world, but whom the\nworld cannot encompass.\u201d(202) An utterance such as this, well-nigh\npantheistic in tone, leads directly to theories like those of Spinoza or\nof David Nieto, the well-known London Rabbi, who was largely under\nSpinozistic influence(203) and who still was in accord with Jewish\nthought. Certainly, as long as Jewish monotheism conceives of God as\nself-conscious Intellect and freely acting Will, it can easily accept the\nprinciple of divine immanence.\n\n12. We accept, then, the fact that man, child-like, invests God with human\nqualities,\u2014a view advanced by Abraham ben David of Posquieres in\nopposition to Maimonides.(204) Still, the thinkers of Judaism have ever\nlabored to divest the Deity of every vestige of sensuousness, of likeness\nto man, in fact, of every limitation to action or to free will. Every\nconception which merges God into the world or identifies Him with it and\nthus makes Him subject to necessity, is incompatible with the Jewish idea\nof God, which enthrones Him above the universe as its free and sovereign\nMaster. \u201cAm I a God near at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off?\nCan any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the\nLord. Do I not fill heaven and earth?\u201d(205) \u201cTo whom will you liken Me,\nthat I should be equal?\u201d(206)\n\n\n\nChapter XIII. The One and Only God\n\n\n1. From the very beginning no Jewish doctrine was so firmly proclaimed and\nso heroically defended as the belief in the One and Only God. This\nconstitutes the essence and foundation of Judaism. However slowly the\npeople learned that there could be no gods beside the One God, and that\nconsequently all the pagan deities were but \u201cnaught and vanity,\u201d the\nJudaism of the Torah starts with the proclamation of the Only One, and\nlater Judaism marches through the nations and ages of history with a\nnever-silent protest against polytheism of every kind, against every\ndivision of the Godhead into parts, powers, or persons.\n\n2. It is perfectly clear that divine pedagogy could not well have demanded\nof a people immature and untrained in religion, like Israel in the\nwilderness period, the immediate belief in the only one God and in none\nelse. Such a belief is the result of a long mental process; it is attained\nonly after centuries of severe struggle and crisis. Instead of this, the\nDecalogue of Sinai demanded of the people that they worship only the God\nof the Covenant who had delivered them from Egypt to render them His\npeople.(207) But, as they yielded more and more to the seductive worship\nof the gods of the Canaanites and their other neighbors, the law became\nmore rigid in prohibiting such idolatrous practices, and the prophets\npoured forth their unscathing wrath against the \u201cstiff-necked people\u201d and\nendeavored by unceasing warnings and threats to win them for the pure\ntruth of monotheism.(208)\n\n3. The God of Sinai proclaims Himself in the Decalogue as a \u201cjealous God,\u201d\nand not in vain. He cannot tolerate other gods beside Himself. Truth can\nmake no concession to untruth, nor enter into any compromise with it\nwithout self-surrender. A pagan religion could well afford to admit\nforeign gods into its pantheon without offending the ruling deities of the\nland. On the contrary, their realm seemed rather to be enlarged by the\naddition. It was also easy to blend the cults of deities originally\ndistinct and unite many divinities under a composite name, and by this\nprocess create a system of worship which would either comprise the gods of\nmany lands or even merge them into one large family. This was actually the\nstate of the various pagan religions at the time of the decline of\nantiquity. But such a procedure could never lead towards true monotheism.\nIt lacks the conception of an inner unity, without which its followers\ncould not grasp the true idea of God as the source and essence of all\nlife, both physical and spiritual. Only the One God of revelation made the\nworld really one. In Him alone heaven and earth, day and night, growth and\ndecay, the weal and woe of individuals and nations, appear as the work of\nan all-ruling Power and Wisdom, so that all events in nature and history\nare seen as parts of one all-comprising plan.(209)\n\n4. It is perfectly true that a wide difference of view exists between the\nprohibition of polytheism and idolatry in the Decalogue and the\nproclamation in Deuteronomy of the unity of God, and, still more, between\nthe law of the Pentateuch and the prophetic announcement of the day when\nIsrael\u2019s God \u201cshall be King of the whole earth, and His name shall be\nOne.\u201d(210) Yet Judaism is based precisely upon this higher view. The very\nfirst pages of Genesis, the opening of the Torah, as well as the exilic\nportions of Isaiah which form the culmination of the prophets, and the\nPsalms also, prove sufficiently that at their time monotheism was an axiom\nof Judaism. In fact, heathenism had become synonymous with both\nimage-worship and belief in many gods beside the Only One of Israel, and\naccordingly had lost all hold upon the Jewish people. The heathen gods\nwere given a place in the celestial economy, but only as subordinate\nrulers or as the guardian angels of the nations, and always under the\ndominion of God on high.(211)\n\n5. Later, in the contest against Gr\u00e6co-Egyptian paganism, the doctrine of\nGod\u2019s unity was emphasized in the Alexandrian propaganda literature, of\nwhich only a portion has been preserved for us. Here antagonism in the\nmost forcible form is expressed against the delusive cults of paganism,\nand exclusive worship claimed for \u201cthe unseen, yet all-seeing God, the\nuncreated Creator of the world.\u201d(212) The Rabbinical Haggadah contains but\ndim reminiscences of the extensive propaganda carried on previous to\nHillel, the Talmudic type of the propagandist. Moreover, this period\nfostered free inquiry and philosophical discussion, and therefore the\ndoctrine of unity emerged more and more from simple belief to become a\nmatter of reason. The God of truth put to flight the gods of falsehood.\nHence many gentiles espoused the cause of Judaism, becoming \u201cGod-fearing\nmen.\u201d(213)\n\n6. In this connection it seems necessary to point out the difference\nbetween the God of the Greek philosophers\u2014Xenophanes and Anaxagoras, Plato\nand Aristotle\u2014and the God of the Bible. In abandoning their own gods, the\nGreek philosophers reached a deistic view of the cosmos. As their study of\nscience showed them plan and order everywhere, they concluded that the\nuniverse is governed by an all-encompassing Intelligence, a divine power\nentirely distinct from the capricious deities of the popular religion.\nReflection led them to a complete rupture with their religious belief. The\nBiblical belief in God underwent a different process. After God had once\nbeen conceived of, He was held up as the ideal of morality, including both\nrighteousness and holiness. Then this doctrine was continuously elucidated\nand deepened, until a stage was reached where a harmony could be\nestablished between the teachings of Moses and the wisdom of Plato and\nAristotle. To the noble thinkers of Hellas truth was an object of supreme\ndelight, the highest privilege of the sage. To the adherents of Judaism\ntruth became the holiest aim of life for the entire people, for which all\nwere taught to battle and to die, as did the Maccabean heroes and Daniel\nand his associates, their prototypes.\n\n7. A deeper meaning was attached to the doctrine of God\u2019s unity under\nPersian rule, in contact with the religious system of Zoroaster. To the\nPersians life was a continual conflict between the principles of good and\nof evil, until the ultimate victory of good shall come. This dualistic\nview of the world greatly excels all other heathen religious systems,\ninsofar as it assigns ethical purpose to the whole of life. Yet the great\nseer of the Exile opposes this system in the name of the God of Judaism,\nspeaking to Cyrus, the king of Persia; \u201cI am the Lord and there is none\nelse; beside Me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou dost not\nknow Me, in order that the people shall know from the rising of the sun\nand from the west that there is none beside Me. I form the light and\ncreate darkness; I make peace and also create evil, I am the Lord that\ndoeth these things.\u201d(214) This declaration of pure monotheism is\nincompatible with dualism in both the physical and the moral world; it\nregards evil as being mere semblance without reality, an opposing force\nwhich can be overcome and rendered a source of new strength for the\nvictory of the good. \u201cOut of the mouth of the Most High cometh there not\nthe evil and the good?\u201d(215)\n\n8. The division of the world into rival realms of good and evil powers, of\nangelic and demoniacal forces, which originated in ancient Chaldea and\nunderlies the Zoroastrian dualism, finally took hold of Judaism also.\nStill this was not carried to such an extent that Satan, the supreme ruler\nof the demon world, was given a dominion equal to that of God, or\ninterfering with it, so as to impair thereby the principle of monotheism,\nas was done by the Church later on. As a matter of fact, at the time of\nnascent Christianity the leaders of the Synagogue took rigid measures\nagainst those heretics (_Minim_) who believed in two divine powers,(216)\nbecause they recognized the grave danger of moral degeneracy in this\nGnostic dualism. In the Church it led first to the deification of Christ\n(_i.e._ the Messiah) as the vanquisher of Satan; afterwards, owing to a\ncompromise with heathenism, the Trinity was adopted to correspond with the\nthree-fold godhead,\u2014father, mother, and son,\u2014the place of the mother deity\nbeing taken by the Holy Ghost, which was originally conceived as a female\npower (the Syrian _Ruha_ being of the feminine gender).(217)\n\n9. The churchmen have attempted often enough to harmonize the dualism or\ntrinitarianism of Christianity with the monotheism of the Bible. Still\nJudaism persists in considering such an infringement upon the belief in\nIsrael\u2019s one and only God as really a compromise with heathenism. \u201cA Jew\nis he who opposes every sort of polytheism,\u201d says the Talmud.(218)\n\n10. The medieval Jewish thinkers therefore made redoubled efforts to\nexpress with utmost clearness the doctrine of God\u2019s unity. In this effort\nthey received special encouragement from the example of the leaders of\nIslam, whose victorious march over the globe was a triumph for the one God\nof Abraham over the triune God of Christianity. A great tide of\nintellectual progress arose, lending to the faith of the Mohammedans and\nsubsequently also to that of the Jews an impetus which lasted for\ncenturies. The new thought and keen research of that period had a lasting\ninfluence upon the whole development of western culture. An alliance was\neffected between religion and philosophy, particularly by the leading\nJewish minds, which proved a liberating and stimulating force in all\nfields of scientific investigation. Thus the pure idea of monotheism\nbecame the basis for modern science and the entire modern world-view.(219)\n\n11. The Mohammedan thinkers devoted their attention chiefly to elucidating\nand spiritualizing the God idea, beginning as early as the third century\nof Islamism, so to interpret the Koran as to divest God of all\nanthropomorphic attributes and to stress His absolute unity, uniqueness,\nand the incomparability of His oneness. Soon they became familiar with\nneo-Platonic and afterward with Aristotelian modes of speculation through\nthe work of Syrian and Jewish translators. With the help of these they\nbuilt up a system of theology which influenced Jewish thought also, first\nin Karaite and then in Rabbanite circles.(220) Thus sprang up successively\nthe philosophical systems of Saadia, Jehuda ha Levi, Ibn Gabirol, Bahya,\nIbn Daud, and Maimonides. The philosophical hymns and the articles of\nfaith, both of which found a place in the liturgy of the Synagogue, were\nthe work of their followers. The highest mode of adoring God seemed to be\nthe elaboration of the idea of His unity to its logical conclusion, which\nsatisfied the philosophical mind, though often remote from the\nunderstanding of the multitude. For centuries the supreme effort of Jewish\nthought was to remove Him from the possibility of comparison with any\nother being, and to abolish every conception which might impair His\nabsolute and simple unity. This mental activity filled the dwellings of\nIsrael with light, even when the darkness of ignorance covered the lands\nof Christendom, dispelled only here and there by rays of knowledge\nemanating from Jewish quarters.(221)\n\n12. The proofs of the unity of God adduced by Mohammedan and Jewish\nthinkers were derived from the rational order, design, and unity of the\ncosmos, and from the laws of the mind itself. These aided in endowing\nJudaism with a power of conviction which rendered futile the conversionist\nefforts of the Church, with its arguments and its threats. Israel\u2019s only\nOne proved to be the God of truth, high and holy to both the mind and the\nheart. The Jewish masters of thought rendered Him the highest object of\ntheir speculation, only to bow in awe before Him who is beyond all human\nken; the Jewish martyrs likewise cheerfully offered up their lives in His\nhonor; and thus all hearts echoed the battle-cry of the centuries, \u201cHear O\nIsrael, the Lord our God, the Lord is One,\u201d and all minds were illumined\nby the radiant hope, \u201cThe Lord will be King of the earth; on that day the\nLord shall be One, and His name shall be One.\u201d\n\n13. Under all conditions, however, the doctrine of unity remained free\nfrom outward compulsion and full of intrinsic vigor and freshness. There\nwas still room for differences of opinion, such as whether God\u2019s life,\npower, wisdom, and unity are attributes\u2014distinct from His being, and\nqualifying it,\u2014or whether they are inherent in His nature, comprising His\nvery essence. This controversy aimed to determine the conception of God,\neither by Aristotelian rationalism, as represented by Maimonides, or by\nthe positive religious assumptions of Crescas and others.\n\nThis is Maimonides\u2019 statement of the unity: \u201cGod is one; that is, He is\nunlike any other unit, whether made one in point of numbers or species, or\nby virtue of composition, separation, and simplification. He is one in\nHimself, there being no multiplicity in Him. His unity is beyond all\ndefinition.\u201d(222)\n\nIbn Gabirol in his \u201cCrown of Royalty\u201d puts the same thought into poetic\nform: \u201cOne art Thou; the wise wonder at the mystery of Thy unity, not\nknowing what it is. One art Thou; not like the one of dimension or number,\nas neither addition nor change, neither attribute nor quality affects Thy\nbeing. Thou art God, who sustainest all beings by Thy divinity, who\nholdest all creatures in Thy unity. Thou art God, and there is no\ndistinction between Thy unity, Thy eternity, and Thy being. All is\nmystery, and however the names may differ, they all tell that Thou art but\none.\u201d(223)\n\n14. Side by side with this rationalistic trend, Judaism always contained a\ncurrent of mysticism. The mystics accepted literally the anthropomorphic\npictures of the Deity in the Bible, and did not care how much they might\naffect the spirituality and unity of God. The philosophic schools had\ncontended against the anthropomorphic views of the older mystics, and thus\nhad brought higher views of the Godhead to dominance; but when the\nrationalistic movement had spent its force, the reaction came in the form\nof the Cabbalah, the secret lore which claimed to have been \u201ctransmitted\u201d\n(according to the meaning of the word) from a hoary past. The older system\nof thought had stripped the Deity of all reality and had robbed religion\nof all positiveness; now, in contrast, the soul demanded a God of\nrevelation through faith in whom might come exaltation and solace.(224)\n\nNevertheless the Maimonidean articles of faith were adopted into the\nliturgy because of their emphasis on the absolute unity and indivisibility\nof God, by which they constituted a vigorous protest against the Christian\ndogma. Judaism ever found its strength in God the only One, and will find\nHim ever anew a source of inspiration and rejuvenation.\n\n\n\nChapter XIV. God\u2019s Omnipotence and Omniscience\n\n\n1. Among all the emotions which underlie our God-consciousness the\nforemost is the realization of our own weakness and helplessness. This\nmakes us long for One mightier than ourselves, for the Almighty whose acts\nare beyond comparison. The first attribute, therefore, with which we\nfeeble mortals invest our Deity is omnipotence. Thus the pagan ascribes\nsupreme power over their different realms to his various deities. Hence\nthe name for God among all the Semites is _El_\u2014\u201cthe Powerful One.\u201d(225)\nJudaism claims for God absolute and unlimited power over all that is. It\ndeclares Him to be the source and essence of all strength, the almighty\nCreator and Ruler of the universe. All that exists is His creation; all\nthat occurs is His achievement. He is frequently called by the rabbis _ha\nGeburah_, the Omnipotence.(226)\n\n2. The historical method of study seems to indicate that various cosmic\npotencies were worshiped in primitive life either singly or collectively\nunder the name of _Elohim_, \u201cdivine powers,\u201d or _Zibeoth Elohim_, \u201chosts\nof divine powers.\u201d With the acceptance of the idea of divine omnipotence,\nthese were united into a confederacy of divine forces under the dominion\nof the one God, the \u201cLord of Hosts.\u201d Still these powers of heaven, earth\nand the deep by no means at once surrendered their identity. Most of them\nbecame angels, \u201cmessengers\u201d of the omnipotent God, or \u201cspirits\u201d roaming in\nthe realms where once they ruled, while a few were relegated as monsters\nto the region of superstition. The heathen deities, which persisted for a\nwhile in popular belief, were also placed with the angels as \u201cheavenly\nrulers\u201d of their respective lands or nations about the throne of the Most\nHigh. At all events, Israel\u2019s God was enthroned above them all as Lord of\nthe universe. In fact, the Alexandrian translators and some of the rabbis\nactually explained in this sense the Biblical names _El Shaddai_ and\n_J.H.V.H. Zebaoth_.(227) The medieval philosophers, however, took a\nbackward step away from the Biblical view when, under the influence of\nNeoplatonism, they represented the angels and the spirits of the stars as\nintermediary forces.(228)\n\n3. According to the Bible, both the Creation and the order of the universe\ntestify to divine omnipotence. God called all things into existence by His\nalmighty word, unassisted by His heavenly messengers. He alone stretched\nout the heavens, set bounds to the sea, and founded the earth on pillars\nthat it be not moved; none was with Him to partake in the work. This is\nthe process of creation according to the first chapter of Genesis and the\nfortieth chapter of Isaiah. So He appears throughout the Scriptures as\n\u201cthe Doer of wonders,\u201d \u201cwhose arm never waxes short\u201d to carry out His\nwill. \u201cHe fainteth not, neither is He weary.\u201d His dominion extends over\nthe sea and the storm, over life and death, over high and low.\nIntermediary forces participating in His work are never mentioned. They\nare referred to only in the poetic description of creation in the book of\nJob: \u201cWhere wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?... When\nthe morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for\njoy.\u201d(229)\n\nProof of God\u2019s supreme power was found particularly in history, either in\nHis miraculous changing of the natural order, or in His defeat of the\nmighty hostile armies which bade Him defiance.(230) Often the heathen\ndeities or the celestial powers are introduced as dramatic figures to\ntestify to the triumph of the divine omnipotence, as when the Lord is said\nto \u201cexecute judgment against the gods of Egypt\u201d or when \u201cthe stars in\ntheir courses fought against Sisera.\u201d(231)\n\n4. God\u2019s power is limited only by His own volition. \u201cHe doeth what He\nwilleth.\u201d(232) In man the will and the power for a certain act are far\napart, and often directly conflicting. Not so with God, for the very idea\nof God is perfection, and His will implies necessarily the power to\naccomplish the desired end. His will is determined only by such factors as\nHis knowledge and His moral self-restraint.\n\n5. Therefore the idea of God\u2019s omnipotence must be coupled with that of\nHis omniscience. Both His power and His knowledge are unlike man\u2019s in\nbeing without limitation. When we repeat the Biblical terms of an\nall-seeing, all-hearing, and all-knowing God, we mean in the first\ninstance that the limitation of space does not exist for Him. He beholds\nthe extreme parts of the earth and observes all that happens under the\nheavens; nothing is hidden from His sight. He not only sees the deeds of\nmen, He also searches their thoughts. Looking into their hearts, He knows\nthe word, ere it is upon the tongue. Looking into the future, he knows\nevery creature, ere it enters existence. \u201cThe darkness and the light are\nalike to Him.\u201d With one glance He surveys all that is and all that\nhappens.(233) He is, as the rabbis express it, \u201cthe all-seeing Eye and the\nall-hearing Ear.\u201d(234)\n\nIn like manner the distinctions of time disappear before Him. The entire\npast is unrolled before His sight; His book records all that men do or\nsuffer, even their tears;(235) and there is no forgetfulness with Him. The\nremotest future also is open before Him, for it is planned by Him, and in\nit He has allotted to each being its days and its steps.(236) Yea, as He\nbeholds events ere they transpire, so He reveals the secrets of the future\nto His chosen ones, in order to warn men of the judgments that threaten\nthem.(237)\n\n6. The idea of divine omniscience could ripen only gradually in the minds\nof the people. The older and more child-like conception still remains in\nthe stories of the Deluge and the Tower of Babel, where God descended from\nheaven to watch the doings of men, and repented of what He had done.(238)\nObviously the idea of divine omniscience took hold of the people as a\nresult of the admonitions of the prophets.\n\n7. Philosophical inquiry into the ideas of the divine omnipotence and\nomniscience, however, discloses many difficulties. The Biblical assertion\nthat nothing is impossible to God will not stand the test as soon as we\nask seriously whether God can make the untrue true,\u2014as making two times\ntwo to equal five\u2014or whether He can declare the wrong to be right.\nObviously He cannot overturn the laws of mathematical truth or of moral\ntruth, without at the same time losing His nature as the Source and\nEssence of all truth. Nor can He abrogate the laws of nature, which are\nreally His own rules for His creation, without detracting from both His\nomniscience and the immutability of His will. This question will be\ndiscussed more fully in connection with miracles, in chapter XXVII.\n\nTogether with the problem of the divine omniscience arises the difficulty\nof reconciling this with our freedom of will and our moral responsibility.\nWould not His foreknowledge of our actions in effect determine them? This\ndifficulty can only be solved by a proper conception of the freedom of the\nwill, and will be discussed in that connection in chapter XXXVII.\n\nAltogether, we must guard against applying our human type of knowledge to\nGod. Man, limited by space and time, obtains his knowledge of things and\nevents by his senses, becoming aware of them separately as they exist\neither beside each other or in succession. With God all knowledge is\ncomplete; there is no growth of knowledge from yesterday to to-day, no\nknowledge of only a part instead of the whole of the world. His\nomniscience and omnipotence are bound up with His omnipresence and\neternity. \u201cFor My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My\nways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are\nMy ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.\u201d(239)\n\n\n\nChapter XV. God\u2019s Omnipresence and Eternity\n\n\n1. As soon as man awakens to a higher consciousness of God, he realizes\nthe vast distance between his own finite being limited by space and time,\nand the Infinite Being which rules everywhere and unceasingly in lofty\ngrandeur and unlimited power. His very sense of being hedged in by the\nbounds and imperfections of a finite existence makes him long for the\ninfinite God, unlimited in might, and brings to him the feeling of awe\nbefore His greatness. But this conception of God as the omnipresent and\neverlasting Spirit, as distinct from any created being, is likewise the\nresult of many stages of growing thought.\n\n2. The primitive mind imagines God as dwelling in a lofty place, whence He\nrules the earth beneath, descending at times to take part in the affairs\nof men, to tarry among them, or to walk with them.(240) The people adhered\nlargely to this conception during the Biblical period, as they considered\nas the original seat of the Deity, first Paradise, later on Sinai or Zion,\nand finally the far-off heavens. It required prophetic vision to discern\nthat \u201cthe heavens and the heavens\u2019 heavens do not encompass God\u2019s\nmajesty,\u201d expressed also in poetic imagery that \u201cthe heaven is My throne\nand the earth My footstool.\u201d(241) The classic form of this idea of the\ndivine omnipresence is found in the oft-quoted passage from Psalm\nCXXXIX.(242)\n\n3. The dwelling places of God are to give way the moment His omnipresence\nis understood as penetrating the universe to such an extent that nothing\nescapes His glance nor lies without His dominion.(243) They are then\ntransformed into places where He had manifested His Name, His Glory, or\nHis Presence (\u201cCountenance,\u201d in the Hebrew). In this way certain\nemanations or powers of God were formed which could be located in a\ncertain space without impairing the divine omnipresence. These\nintermediary powers will be the theme of chapter XXXII.\n\nThe following dialogue illustrates this stage of thought: A heretic once\nsaid sarcastically to Gamaliel II, \u201cYe say that where ten persons assemble\nfor worship, there the divine majesty (_Shekinah_) descends upon them; how\nmany such majesties are there?\u201d To which Gamaliel replied: \u201cDoes not the\none orb of day send forth a million rays upon the earth? And should not\nthe majesty of God, which is a million times brighter than the sun, be\nreflected in every spot on earth?\u201d(244)\n\n4. Nevertheless a conception of pure spirit is very difficult to attain,\neven in regard to God. The thought of His omnipresence is usually\ninterpreted by imagining some ethereal substance which expands infinitely,\nas Ibn Ezra and Saadia before him were inclined to do,(245) or by\npicturing Him as a sort of all-encompassing Space, in accordance with the\nrabbis.(246) The New Testament writers and the Church fathers likewise\nspoke of God as Spirit, but really had in mind, for the most part, an\nethereal substance resembling light pervading cosmic space. The\noften-expressed belief that man may see God after death rests upon this\nconception of God as a substance perceptible to the mind.(247)\n\nA higher standpoint is taken by a thinker such as Ibn Gabirol, who finds\nGod\u2019s omnipresence in His all-pervading will and intellect.(248) But this\ntype of divine omnipresence is rather divine immanence. The religious\nconsciousness has a quite different picture of God, a self-conscious\nPersonality, ever near to man, ever scanning his acts, his thoughts, and\nhis motives. Here philosophy and religion part company. The former must\nabstain from the assumption of a divine personality; the latter cannot do\nwithout it. The God of religion must partake of the knowledge and the\nfeelings of His worshiper, must know his every impulse and idea, and must\nfeel with him in his suffering and need. God\u2019s omnipresence is in this\nsense a postulate of religion.\n\n5. The second earthly and human limitation is that of time. Confined by\nspace and time, man casts his eyes upward toward a Being who shall be\ninfinite and eternal. Whatever time begets, time swallows up again.\nTransitoriness is the fate of all things. Everything which enters\nexistence must end at last. \u201cAlso heaven and earth perish and wax old like\na garment. Only God remains forever the same, and His years have no end.\nHe is from everlasting to everlasting, the first and the last.\u201d So speak\nprophet and psalmist, voicing a universal thought(249); and our liturgical\npoet sings:\n\n\n \u201cThe Lord of all did reign supreme\n Ere yet this world was made and formed;\n When all was finished by His will,\n Then was His name as King proclaimed.\n\n \u201cAnd should these forms no more exist,\n He still will rule in majesty;\n He was, He is, He shall remain,\n His glory never shall decrease.\u201d(250)\n\n\n6. But the idea of God\u2019s eternity also presents certain difficulties to\nthe thinking mind. As Creator and Author of the universe, God is the First\nCause, without beginning or end, the Source of all existence; as Ruler and\nMaster of the world, He maintains all things through all eternity; though\nheaven and earth \u201cwax old like a garment,\u201d He outlasts them all. Now, if\nHe is to manifest these powers from everlasting to everlasting, He must\never remain the same. Consequently, we must add immutability as a\ncorollary of eternity, if the latter is to mean anything. It is not enough\nto state that God is without beginning and without end; the essential part\nof the doctrine is His transcendence above the changes and conditions of\ntime. We mortals cannot really entertain a conception of eternity; our\nnearest approach to it is an endless succession of periods of time, a\nceaseless procession of ages and eons following each other. Endless time\nis not at all the same as timelessness. Therefore eternity signifies\ntranscendence above all existence in time; its real meaning is\n_supermundaneity_.(251)\n\n7. This seems the best way to avoid the difficulty which seemed almost\ninsuperable to the medieval thinkers, how to reconcile a Creation at a\ncertain time and a Creator for whom time does not exist. In the effort to\nsolve the difficulty, they resorted to the Platonic and Aristotelian\ndefinition of time as the result of the motions of the heavenly bodies;\nthus they declared that time was created simultaneously with the world.\nThis is impossible for the modern thinker, who has learned from Kant to\nregard time and space, not as external realities, but as human modes of\napperception of objects. So the contrast between the transient character\nof the world and the eternity of God becomes all the greater with the\nincreasing realization of the vast gap between the material world and the\ndivine spirit.\n\nAt this point arises a still greater difficulty. The very idea of creation\nat a certain time becomes untenable in view of our knowledge of the\nnatural process; the universe itself, it seems to us, extends over an\ninfinity of space and time. Indeed, the modern view of evolution in place\nof creation has the grave danger of leading to pantheism, to a conception\nof the cosmos which sees in God only an eternal energy (or substance)\ndevoid of free volition and self-conscious action.(252) We can evade the\ndifficulty only by assuming God\u2019s transcendence, and this can be done in\nsuch a way as not to exclude His immanence, or\u2014what is the same thing\u2014His\nomnipresence.\n\n8. Both God\u2019s omnipresence and His eternity are intended only to raise Him\nfar above the world, out of the confines of space and time, to represent\nHis sublime loftiness as the \u201cRock of Ages,\u201d as holding worlds without\nnumber in \u201cHis eternal arms.\u201d \u201cNothing can be hidden from Him who has\nreared the entire universe and is familiar with every part of it, however\nremote.\u201d(253)\n\n\n\nChapter XVI. God\u2019s Holiness\n\n\n1. Judaism recognizes two distinct types of divine attributes. Those which\nwe have so far considered belong to the metaphysical group, which chiefly\nengage the attention of the philosopher. They represent God as a\ntranscendental Being who is ever beyond our comprehension, because our\nfinite intellect can never grasp the infinite Spirit. They are not\ndescriptions, but rather inferences from the works of the Master of the\nworld to the Master himself. But there are other divine attributes which\nwe derive from our own moral nature, and which invest our whole life with\na higher moral character. Instead of arising from the external necessity\nwhich governs nature in its causes and effects, these rest upon our\nassumption of inner freedom, setting the aims for all that we achieve.\nThis moral nature is realized to some extent even by the savage, when he\ntrembles before his deity in pangs of conscience, or endeavors to\npropitiate him by sacrifices. Still, Judaism alone fully realized the\nmoral nature of the Deity; this was done by investing the term \u201choliness\u201d\nwith the idea of moral perfection, so that God became the ideal and\npattern of the loftiest morality. \u201cBe ye holy, for I the Lord your God am\nholy.\u201d(254)\u2014This is the central and culminating idea of the Jewish\nlaw.(255)\n\n2. Holiness is the essence of all moral perfection; it is purity unsullied\nby any breath of evil. True holiness can be ascribed only to Divinity,\nabove the realm of the flesh and the senses. \u201cThere is none holy but the\nLord, for there is none beside Thee,\u201d says Scripture.(256) Whether man\nstands on a lower or higher level of culture, he has in all his plans and\naspirations some ideal of perfection to which he may never attain, but\nwhich serves as the standard for his actions. The best of his doings falls\nshort of what he ought to do; in his highest efforts he realizes the\npotentiality of better things. This ideal of moral perfection works as the\nmotive power of the will in setting for it a standard; it establishes\nhuman freedom in place of nature\u2019s compulsion, but such an ideal can\nemanate only from the moral power ruling life, which we designate as the\ndivine Holiness.\n\n3. Scripture says of God that He \u201cwalketh in holiness,\u201d(257) and\naccordingly morality in man is spoken of as \u201cwalking in the ways of\nGod.\u201d(258) \u201cWalk before Me and be perfect!\u201d says God to Abraham.(259)\nMoses approached God with two petitions,\u2014the one, \u201cShow me Thy ways that I\nmay know Thee!\u201d the other, \u201cShow me, I pray Thee, Thy glory!\u201d In response\nto the latter God said, \u201cNo man can see Me and live\u201d, but the former\npetition was granted in that the Lord revealed Himself in His moral\nattributes.(260) These alone can be understood and emulated by man; in\nregard to the so-called metaphysical attributes God will ever remain\nbeyond human comprehension and emulation.\n\n4. In order to serve as vehicle for the expression of the highest moral\nperfection, the Biblical term for holiness, _Kadosh_, had to undergo a\nlong process of development, obscuring its original meaning. The history\nof this term gives us the deepest insight into the working of the Jewish\ngenius towards the full revelation of the God of holiness. At first the\nword _Kadosh_(261) seems to have denoted unapproachableness in the sense\nin which fire is unapproachable, that is, threatening and consuming. This\nfiery nature was ascribed by primitive man to all divine beings. Hence the\nangels are termed \u201cthe holy ones\u201d in Scripture.(262) According to both\npriestly practice and popular belief, the man who approached one of these\nholy ones with hand or foot, or even with his gaze, was doomed to\ndie.(263) Out of such crude conceptions evolved the idea of God\u2019s majesty\nas unapproachable in the sense of the sublime, banishing everything\nprofane from its presence, and visiting with punishment every violation of\nits sanctity. The old conception of the fiery appearance of the Deity\nserved especially as a figurative expression of the moral power of God,\nwhich manifests itself as a \u201cconsuming fire,\u201d(264) exterminating evil, and\nmaking man long for the good and the true, for righteousness and love.\n\n5. The divine attribute of holiness has accordingly a double meaning. On\nthe one hand, it indicates spiritual loftiness transcending everything\nsensual, which works as a purging power of indignation at evil, rebuking\ninjustice, impurity and falsehood, and punishing transgression until it is\nremoved from the sight of God. On the other hand, it denotes the\ncondescending mercy of God, which, having purged the soul of wrong, wins\nit for the right, and which endows man with the power of perfecting\nhimself, and thus leads him to the gradual building up of the kingdom of\ngoodness and purity on earth. This ethical conception of holiness, which\nemanates from the moral nature of God, revealed to the prophetic genius of\nIsrael, must not be confused with the old Semitic conception of priestly\nor ritual holiness. Ritual holiness is purely external, and is\ntransferable to persons and things, to times and places, according to\ntheir relation to the Deity. Hence the various cults applied the term\n\u201choly\u201d to the most abominable forms of idolatry and impure worship.(265)\nThe Mosaic law condemned all these as violations of the holiness of\nIsrael\u2019s God, but could not help sanctioning many ordinances and rites of\npriestly holiness which originated in ancient Semitic usages. Hence the\ntwo conceptions of holiness, the priestly or external and the prophetic or\nethical, became interwoven in the Mosaic code to such an extent as to\nimpair the standard of ethical holiness stressed by the prophets, the\nunique and lofty possession of Judaism. Hence the letter of the Law caused\na deplorable confusion of ideas, which was utilized by the detractors of\nJudaism. The liberal movement of modern Judaism, in pointing to the\nprophetic ideals as the true basis of the Jewish faith, is at the same\ntime dispelling this ancient confusion of the two conceptions of holiness.\n\n6. The Levitical holiness adheres outwardly to persons and things and\nconsists in their separation or their reservation from common use. In\nstriking contrast to this, the holiness which Judaism attributes to God\ndenotes the highest ethical purity, unattainable to flesh and blood, but\ndesigned for our emulation.\n\nThe contemplation of the divine holiness is to inspire man with fear of\nsin and to exert a healthful influence upon his conduct. Thus God became\nthe hallowing power in Judaism and its institutions, truly the \u201cHoly One\nof Israel\u201d according to the term of Isaiah and his great exilic successor,\nthe so-called Deutero-Isaiah.(266) Thus His holiness invested His people\nwith special sanctity and imposed upon it special obligations. In the\nwords of Ezekiel, God became the \u201cSanctifier of Israel.\u201d(267)\n\nThe rabbis penetrated deeply into the spirit of Scripture, at the same\ntime that they adhered strictly to its letter. While they clung\ntenaciously to the ritual holiness of the priestly codes, they recognized\nthe ideal of holiness which is so sharply opposed in every act and thought\nto the demoralizing cults of heathenism.(268)\n\n7. Accordingly, holiness is not the metaphysical concept which Jehuda ha\nLevi considers it,(269) but the principle and source of all ethics, the\nspirit of absolute morality, lending purpose and value to the whole of\nlife. As long as men do good or shun evil through fear of punishment or\nhope for reward, whether in this life or the hereafter, so long will ideal\nmorality remain unattained, and man cannot claim to stand upon the ground\nof divine holiness. The holy God must penetrate and control all of\nlife\u2014such is the essence of Judaism. The true aim of human existence is\nnot salvation of the soul,\u2014a desire which is never quite free from\nselfishness,\u2014but holiness emulating God, striving to do good for the sake\nof the good without regard to recompense, and to shun evil because it is\nevil, aside from all consequences.(270)\n\n8. The fact is that holiness is a religious term, based upon divine\nrevelation, not a philosophical one resting upon speculative reasoning. It\nis a postulate of our moral nature that all life is governed by a holy\nWill to which we must submit willingly, and which makes for the good. How\nvolition and compulsion are with God one and the same, how the good exists\nin God without the bad, or holiness and moral purpose without unholy or\nimmoral elements, how God can be exactly opposite to all we know of\nman,\u2014this is a question which philosophy is unable to answer. In fact,\nholiness is best defined negatively, as the \u201cnegation of all that man from\nhis own experience knows to be unholy.\u201d These words of the Danish\nphilosopher Rauwenhoff are made still clearer by the following\nobservations: \u201cThe strength in the idea of holiness lies exactly in its\nnegative character. There is no comparison of higher or lesser degree\npossible between man\u2019s imperfections and God\u2019s perfect goodness. Instead,\nthere is an absolute contrast between mankind which, even in its noblest\ntypes, must wrestle with the power of evil, and God, in whom nothing can\nbe imagined which would even suggest the possibility of any moral\nshortcoming or imperfection.\u201d(271) As the prophet says, \u201cThou art too pure\nof eyes to look complacently upon evil,\u201d(272) and according to the\nPsalmist, \u201cWho shall ascend into the mountain of the Lord, and who shall\nstand in His holy place? He that hath clean hands and a pure heart.\u201d(273)\n\n9. The idea of holiness became the pre\u00ebminent feature of Judaism, so that\nthe favorite name for God in Rabbinical literature was \u201cthe Holy One,\nblessed be He,\u201d and the acme of all ceremonial and moral laws alike was\nfound in \u201cthe Hallowing of His name.\u201d(274) If the rabbis as followers of\nthe Priestly Code were compelled to lay great stress upon ritual holiness,\nthey yet beheld in it the means of moral purification. They never lost\nsight of the prophetic principle that moral purity is the object of all\nhuman life, for \u201cthe holy God is sanctified through righteousness.\u201d(275)\n\n\n\nChapter XVII. God\u2019s Wrath and Punishment\n\n\n1. Scripture speaks frequently of the anger and zeal of God and of His\navenging sword and judgment, so as to give the impression that \u201cthe Old\nTestament God is a God of wrath and vengeance.\u201d As a matter of fact, these\nattributes are merely emanations of His holiness, the guide and incentive\nto moral action in man. The burning fire of the divine holiness aims to\nawaken the dormant seeds of morality in the human soul and to ripen them\ninto full growth. Whenever we to-day would speak of pangs of conscience,\nof bitter remorse, Scripture uses figurative language and describes how\nGod\u2019s wrath is kindled against the wrongdoing of the people, and how fire\nblazes forth from His nostrils to consume them in His anger. The nearer\nman stands to nature, the more tempestuous are the outbursts of his\npassion, and the more violent is the reaction of his repentance. Yet this\nvery reaction impresses him as though wrought from outside or above by the\noffended Deity. Thus the divine wrath becomes a means of moral education,\nexactly as the parents\u2019 indignation at the child\u2019s offenses is part of his\ntraining in morality.\n\n2. Thus the first manifestation of God\u2019s holiness is His indignation at\nfalsehood and violence, His hatred of evil and wrongdoing. The longer men\npersist in sin, the more does He manifest Himself as \u201cthe angry God,\u201d as a\n\u201cconsuming fire\u201d which destroys evil with holy zeal.(276) The husbandman\ncannot expect the good harvest until he has weeded out the tares from the\nfield; so God, in educating man, begins by purging the soul from all its\nevil inclinations, and this zeal is all the more unsparing as the good is\nfinally to triumph in His eternal plan of universal salvation. We must\nbear in mind that Judaism does not personify evil as a power hostile to\nGod, hence the whole problem is only one of purifying the human soul.\nBefore the sun of God\u2019s grace and mercy is to shine, bearing life and\nhealing for all humanity, His wrath and punitive justice must ever burst\nforth to cleanse the world of its sin. For as long as evil continues\nunchecked, so long cannot the divine holiness pour forth its\nall-forbearing goodness and love.\n\n3. On this account the first revelation of God on Sinai was as \u201ca jealous\nGod, who visiteth the sins of the fathers upon the children and the\nchildren\u2019s children until the third and fourth generation.\u201d So the\nprophets, from Moses to Malachi, speak ever of God\u2019s anger, which comes\nwith the fury of nature\u2019s unchained forces, to terrify and overwhelm all\nliving beings.(277) Thus Scripture considers all the great catastrophes of\nthe hoary past,\u2014flood, earthquakes, and the rain of fire and brimstone\nthat destroys cities\u2014as judgments of the divine anger on sinful\ngenerations. Wickedness in general causes His displeasure, but His wrath\nis provoked especially by violations of the social order, by desecrations\nof His sanctuary, or attacks on His covenant, and His anger is kindled for\nthe poor and helpless, when they are oppressed and deprived of their\nrights.(278)\n\n4. Thus the divine holiness was felt more and more as a moral force, and\nthat which appeared in pre-prophetic times to be an elemental power of the\ncelestial ire became a refining flame, purging men of dross as in a\ncrucible. \u201cI will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger,\u201d says the\nprophet, \u201cfor I am God and not man, the Holy One in the midst of thee, and\nI will not come in fury.\u201d(279) So sings the Psalmist, \u201cHis anger is but\nfor a moment; His favor for a life-time.\u201d(280) In the same spirit the\nrabbis interpreted the verse of the Decalogue, \u201cThe sin of the fathers is\nvisited upon the children and children\u2019s children only if they continue to\nact as their fathers did, and are themselves haters of God.\u201d(281)\n\nThe fact is that Israel in Canaan had become addicted to all the vices of\nidolatry, and if they were to be trained to moral purity and to loyalty to\nthe God of the Covenant, they must be taught fear and awe before the flame\nof the divine wrath. Only after that could the prophet address himself to\nthe conscience of the individual, saying:\n\n\n \u201cWho among us shall dwell with the devouring fire?\n Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?\n He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly;\n He that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands\n from holding of bribes,\n That stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his\n eyes from looking upon evil;\n He shall dwell on high; his place of defense shall be the\n munitions of rocks;\n His bread shall be given, his water shall be sure.\n Thine eyes shall see the King in His beauty; they shall behold a\n land stretching afar.\u201d(282)\n\n\nHere we behold the fiery element of the divine holiness partly depicted as\na reality and partly spiritualized. The last of the prophets compares the\ndivine wrath to a melting furnace, which on the Day of Judgment is to\nconsume evildoers as stubble, while to those who fear the Lord He shall\nappear as the sun of righteousness with healing on its wings.(283)\n\n5. The idea as expressed by the prophets, then, was that God\u2019s anger will\nvisit the wicked, and particularly the ungodly nations of heathendom, and\nthat He shall judge all creatures in fire.(284) This was significantly\naltered under Persian influence, when the Jew began to regard the world to\ncome as promising to the righteous greater bliss than the present one.\nThen the day of divine wrath meant doom eternal for evil-doers, who were\nto fall into the fiery depths of Gehenna, \u201ctheir worm is never to die and\ntheir fire never to be quenched.\u201d(285) This became the prevailing view of\nthe rabbis, of the Apocalyptics and also of the New Testament and the\nChurch literature.(286) The Jewish propaganda in the Hellenistic\nliterature, however, combined the fire of Gehenna with the Stoic, or\npagan, view of a general world-conflagration, and announced a general\ndoomsday for the heathen world, unless they be converted to the belief in\nIsrael\u2019s one and holy God, and ceased violating the fundamental (Noachian)\nlaws of humanity.(287)\n\n6. A higher view of the punitive anger of God is taken by Beruriah, the\nnoble wife of R. Meir,(288)\u2014if, indeed, the wife of the saintly Abba\nHelkiah did not precede her(289)\u2014in suggesting a different reading of the\nBiblical text, as to make it offer the lesson: \u201cnot the sinners shall\nperish from the earth, but the sins.\u201d From a more philosophical viewpoint\nboth Juda ha Levi and Maimonides hold that the anger which we ascribe to\nGod is only the transference of the anger which we actually feel at the\nsight of evildoing. Similarly, when we speak of the consuming fire of\nhell, we depict the effect which the fear of God must have on our inner\nlife, until the time shall come when we shun evil as ungodly and love the\ngood because it is both good and God-like.(290)\n\n\n\nChapter XVIII. God\u2019s Long-suffering and Mercy\n\n\n1. In one of the little known apocryphal writings, the Testament of\nAbraham, a beautiful story is told of the patriarch. Shortly before his\ndeath, the archangel Michael drove him along the sky in the heavenly\nchariot. Looking down upon the earth, he saw companies of thieves and\nmurderers, adulterers, and other evil-doers pursuing their nefarious\npractices, and in righteous indignation he cried out: \u201cOh would to God\nthat fire, destruction, and death should instantly befall these\ncriminals!\u201d No sooner had he spoken these words than the doom he\npronounced came upon those wicked men. But then spoke the Lord God to the\nheavenly charioteer Michael: \u201cStop at once, lest My righteous servant\nAbraham in his just indignation bring death upon all My creatures, because\nthey are not as righteous as he. He has not learned to restrain his\nanger.\u201d(291) Thus, indeed, the wrath kindled at the sight of wrongdoing\nwould consume the sinner at once, were it not for another quality in God,\ncalled in Scripture _long-suffering_. By this He restrains His anger and\ngives the sinner time to improve his ways. Though every wicked deed\nprovokes Him to immediate punishment, yet He shows compassion upon the\nfeeble mortal. \u201cEven in wrath He remembereth compassion.\u201d(292) \u201cHe hath no\ndelight in the death of the sinner, but that he shall return from his ways\nand live.\u201d(293) The divine holiness does not merely overwhelm and consume;\nits essential aim is the elevation of man, the effort to endow him with a\nhigher life.\n\n2. It is perfectly true that a note of rigor and of profound earnestness\nruns through the pages of Holy Writ. The prophets, law-givers, and\npsalmists speak incessantly of how guilt brings doom upon the lands and\nnations. As the father who is solicitous of the honor of his household\npunishes unrelentingly every violation of morality within it, so the Holy\nOne of Israel watches zealously over His people\u2019s loyalty to His covenant.\nHis glorious name, His holy majesty cannot be violated with immunity from\nHis dreaded wrath. There is nothing of the joyous abandon which was\npredominant in the Greek nature and in the Olympian gods. The ideal of\nholiness was presented by the God of Israel, and all the doings of men\nappeared faulty beside it.\n\nBut its power of molding character is shown by Judaism at this very point,\nin that it does not stop at the condemnation of the sinner. It holds forth\nthe promise of God\u2019s forbearance to man in his shortcomings, due to His\ncompassion on the weakness of flesh and blood. He waits for man, erring\nand stumbling, until by striving and struggling he shall attain a higher\nstate of purity. This is the bright, uplifting side of the Jewish idea of\nthe divine holiness. In this is the innermost nature of God disclosed. In\nfear and awe of Him who is enthroned on high, \u201cbefore whom even the angels\nare not pure,\u201d man, conscious of his sinfulness, sinks trembling into the\ndust before the Judge of the whole earth. But the grace and mercy of the\nlong-suffering Ruler lift him up and imbue him with courage and strength\nto acquire a new life and new energy. Thus the oppressive burden of guilt\nis transformed into an uplifting power through the influence of the holy\nGod.\n\n3. The predominance in God of mildness and mercy over punitive anger is\nexpressed most strikingly in the revelation to Moses, when he had\nentreated God to let him see His ways. The people had provoked God\u2019s anger\nby their faithlessness in the worship of the golden calf, and He had\nthreatened to consume them, when Moses interceded in their behalf. Then\nthe Lord passed by him, and proclaimed: \u201cThe Lord, the Lord, God, merciful\nand gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping\nmercy unto the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression\nand sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity\nof the fathers upon the children and upon the children\u2019s children, unto\nthe third and unto the fourth generation.\u201d(294) Such a passage shows\nclearly the progress in the knowledge of God\u2019s nature. For Abraham and the\ntraditions of the patriarchs God was the righteous Judge, punishing the\ntransgressors. He is represented in the same way in the Decalogue on\nSinai.(295) Was this to be the final word? Was Israel chosen by God as His\ncovenant people, only to encounter the full measure of His just but\nrelentless anger and to be consumed at once for the violation of this\ncovenant? Therefore Moses wrestled with his God. Filled with compassionate\nlove for his people, he is willing to offer his life as their ransom. And\nshould God himself lack this fullness of love and pity, of which even a\nhuman being is capable? Then, as from a dark cloud, there flashed suddenly\nupon him the light of a new revelation; he became aware of the higher\ntruth, that above the austerity of God\u2019s avenging anger prevails the\ntender forgiveness of His mercy; that beyond the consuming zeal of His\npunitive justice shines the sun-like splendor of His grace and love. The\nrabbis find the expression of mercy especially in the name JHVH (_i.e._\n\u201cthe One who shall ever be\u201d) which is significantly placed here at the\nhead of the divine attributes. Indeed, only He who is the same from\neverlasting to everlasting, and to whom to-morrow is like yesterday, can\nshow forbearance to erring man, because in whatsoever he has failed\nyesterday he may make good to-morrow.\n\n4. Like Moses, the master of the prophets, so the prophet Hosea also\nlearned in hard spiritual struggle to know the divine attribute of mercy\nand lovingkindness. His own wife had proved faithless, and had broken the\nmarital covenant; still his love survived, so that he granted her\nforgiveness when she was forsaken, and took her back to his home. Then, in\nhis distress at the God-forsaken state of Israel through her\nfaithlessness, he asked himself: \u201cWill God reject forever the nation which\nHe espoused, because it broke the covenant? Will not He also grant\nforgiveness and mercy?\u201d The divine answer came to him out of the depths of\nhis own compassionate soul. Upon the crown of God\u2019s majesty which Amos had\nbeheld all effulgent with justice and righteousness, he placed the most\nprecious gem, reflecting the highest quality of God\u2014His gracious and\nall-forgiving love.(296) Whether the priority in this great truth belongs\nto Hosea or Moses is a question for historical Bible research to answer,\nbut it is of no consequence to Jewish theology.\n\n5. Certainly Scripture represents God too much after human fashion, when\nit ascribes to him changes of mood from anger to compassion, or speaks of\nHis repentance.(297) But we must bear in mind that the prophets obtained\ntheir insight into the ways of God by this very process of transferring\ntheir own experience to the Deity. And on the other hand, we are told that\n\u201cGod is not a man that He should lie, neither the son of man that He\nshould repent.\u201d(298) All these anthropomorphic pictures of God were later\navoided by the ancient Biblical translators by means of paraphrase, and by\nthe philosophers by means of allegory.(299)\n\n6. According to the Midrashic interpretation of the passage from the\nPentateuch quoted above, Moses desired to ascertain whether God ruled the\nworld with His justice or with His mercy, and the answer was: \u201cBehold, I\nshall let My _goodness_ pass before thee. For I owe nothing to any of My\ncreatures, but My actions are prompted only by My grace and good will,\nthrough which I give them all that they possess.\u201d(300) According to\nJudaism justice and mercy are intertwined in God\u2019s government of the\nworld; the former is the pillar of the cosmic structure, and the latter\nthe measuring line. No mortal could stand before God, were justice the\nonly standard; but we subsist on His mercy, which lends us the boons of\nlife without our meriting them. That which is not good in us now is to\nbecome good through our effort toward the best. God\u2019s grace underlies this\npossibility.\n\nAccordingly, the divine holiness has two aspects, the overwhelming wrath\nof His justice and the uplifting grace of His long-suffering. Without\njustice there could be no fear of God, no moral earnestness; without mercy\nonly condemnation and perdition would remain. As the rabbis tell us, both\njustice and mercy had their share in the creation of man, for in man both\ngood and bad appear and struggle for supremacy. All generations need the\ndivine grace that they may have time and opportunity for improvement.(301)\n\n7. Thus this conception of grace is far deeper and worthier of God than is\nthat of Paulinian Christianity; for grace in Paul\u2019s sense is arbitrary in\naction and dependent upon the acceptance of a creed, therefore the very\nreverse of impartial justice. In Judaism divine grace is not offered as a\nbait to make men believe, but as an incentive to moral improvement. The\nGod of holiness, who inflicts wounds upon the guilty soul by bitter\nremorse, offers also healing through His compassion. Justice and mercy are\nnot two separate powers or persons in the Deity, as with the doctrine of\nthe Church; they are the two sides of the same divine power. \u201cI am the\nLord before sin was committed, and I am the Lord after sin is\ncommitted\u201d\u2014so the rabbis explain the repetition of the name JHVH in the\nrevelation to Moses.(302)\n\n\n\nChapter XIX. God\u2019s Justice\n\n\n1. The unshakable faith of the Jewish people was ever sustained by the\nconsciousness that its God is a God of justice. The conviction that He\nwill not suffer wrong to go unpunished was read into all the stories of\nthe hoary past. The Babylonian form of these legends in common with all\nancient folk-lore ascribes human calamity to blind fate or to the caprice\nof the gods, but the Biblical narratives assume that evil does not befall\nmen undeserved, and therefore always ascribe ruin or death to human\ntransgression. So the Jewish genius beheld in the destruction of Sodom and\nGomorrah a divine judgment upon the depraved inhabitants, and derived from\nit a lesson for the household of Abraham that they should \u201ckeep the way of\nthe Lord to do righteousness and justice.\u201d(303) The fundamental principle\nof Judaism throughout the ages has been the teaching of the patriarch that\n\u201cthe Judge of all the earth cannot act unjustly,\u201d(304) even though the\nvarying events of history force the problem of justice upon the attention\nof Jeremiah,(305) the Psalmists,(306) the author of the book of Job,(307)\nand the Talmudical sages.(308) \u201cRighteousness and justice are the\nfoundations of Thy throne\u201d(309)\u2014this is the sum and substance of the\nreligious experience of Israel. At the same time man realizes how far from\nhis grasp is the divine justice: \u201cThy righteousness is like the mighty\nmountains; Thy judgments are like the great deep.\u201d(310)\n\n2. The Master-builder of the moral world made justice the supporting\npillar of the entire creation. \u201cHe is The Rock, His work is perfect, for\nall His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just\nand right is He.\u201d(311) There can be no moral world order without a\nretributive justice, which leaves no infringement of right unpunished,\njust as no social order can exist without laws to protect the weak and to\nenforce general respect. The God of Judaism rules over mankind as Guardian\nand Vindicator of justice; no wrong escapes His scrutinizing gaze. This\nfundamental doctrine invested history, of both the individual and the\nnation, with a moral significance beyond that of any other religious or\nethical system.\n\nWhatever practice or sense of justice may exist among the rest of mankind,\nit is at best a glimpse of that divine righteousness which leads us on and\nbecomes a mighty force compelling us, not only to avoid wrongdoing, but to\ncombat it with all the passion of an indignant soul and eradicate it\nwherever possible. Though in our daily experience justice may be sadly\nlacking, we still cling to the moral axiom that God will lead the right to\nvictory and will hurl iniquity into the abyss. As the sages remark in the\nMidrash: \u201cHow could short-sighted and short-lived man venture to assert,\n\u2018All His ways are just,\u2019 were it not for the divine revelation by which\nthe eyes of Moses were opened, so that he could gaze into the very depths\nof life?\u201d(312) That is, the idea of divine justice is revealed, not in the\nworld as it is, but in the world as it should be, the ideal cosmos which\nlives in the spirit.\n\n3. It cannot be denied that justice is recognized as a binding force even\nby peoples on a low cultural plane, and the Deity is generally regarded as\nthe guardian of justice, exactly as in Judaism. This fact is shown by the\nuse of the oath in connection with judicial procedure among many nations.\nBoth Roman jurisprudence and Greek ethics declare justice to be the\nfoundation of the social life. Nevertheless the Jewish ideal of justice\ncannot be identified with that of the law and the courts. The law is part\nof the social system of the State, by which the relations of individuals\nare determined and upheld. The maintenance of this social order, of the\n_status quo_, is considered justice by the law, whatever injustice to\nindividuals may result. But the Jewish idea of justice is not reactionary;\nit owes to the prophets its position as the dominating principle of the\nworld, the peculiar essence of God, and therefore the ultimate ideal of\nhuman life. They fought for right with an insistence which vindicated its\nmoral significance forever, and in scathing words of indignation which\nstill burn in the soul they denounced oppression wherever it appeared. The\ncrimes of the mighty against the weak, they held, could not be atoned for\nby the outward forms of piety. Right and justice are not simply matters\nfor the State and the social order, but belong to God, who defends the\ncause of the helpless and the homeless, \u201cwho executes the judgment of the\nfatherless and the widow,\u201d \u201cwho regardeth not persons, nor taketh\nbribes.\u201d(313) Iniquity is hateful to Him; it cannot be covered up by pious\nacts, nor be justified by good ends. \u201cJustice is God\u2019s.\u201d(314) Thus every\nviolation of justice, whether from sordid self-seeking or from tender\ncompassion, is a violation of God\u2019s cause; and every vindication of\njustice, every strengthening of the power of right in society, is a\ntriumph of God.\n\n4. Accordingly, the highest principle of ethics in Judaism, the cardinal\npoint in the government of the world, is not love, but _justice_. Love has\nthe tendency to undermine the right and to effeminize society. Justice, on\nthe other hand, develops the moral capacity of every man; it aims not\nmerely to avoid wrong, but to promote and develop the right for the sake\nof the perfect state of morality. True justice cannot remain a passive\nonlooker when the right or liberty of any human being is curtailed, but\nstrains every effort to prevent violence and oppression. It battles for\nthe right, until it has triumphed over every injustice. This practical\nconception of right can be traced through all Jewish literature and\ndoctrine; through the laws of Moses, to whom is ascribed the maxim: \u201cLet\nthe right have its way, though it bore holes through the rock\u201d,(315)\nthrough the flaming words of the prophets;(316) through the Psalmists, who\nspoke such words as these: \u201cThou art not a God who hath pleasure in\nwickedness; evil shall not sojourn with Thee. The arrogant shall not stand\nin Thy sight; Thou hatest all workers of iniquity.\u201d(317)\n\nNor does justice stop with the prohibition of evil. The very arm that\nstrikes down the presumptuous transgressor turns to lift up the meek and\nendow him with strength. Justice becomes a positive power for the right;\nit becomes _Zedakah_, righteousness or true benevolence, and aims to\nreadjust the inequalities of life by kindness and love. It engenders that\ndeeper sense of justice which claims the right of the weak to protection\nby the arm of the strong.\n\n5. Hence comes the truth of Matthew Arnold\u2019s striking summary of Israel\u2019s\nLaw and Prophets in his \u201cLiterature and Dogma,\u201d as \u201cThe Power, not\nourselves, that maketh for righteousness.\u201d Still, when we trace the\ndevelopment of this central thought in the soul of the Jewish people, we\nfind that it arose from a peculiar mythological conception. The God of\nSinai had manifested Himself in the devastating elements of nature\u2014fire,\nstorm, and hail; later, the prophetic genius of Israel saw Him as a moral\npower who destroyed wickedness by these very phenomena in order that right\nshould prevail. At first the covenant-God of Israel hurls the plagues of\nheaven upon the hostile Egyptians and Canaanites, the oppressors of His\npeople. Afterward the great prophets speak of the Day of JHVH which would\ncome at the end of days, when God will execute His judgment upon the\nheathen nations by pouring forth all the terrors of nature upon them. The\nnatural forces of destruction are utilized by the Ruler of heaven as means\nof moral purification. \u201cFor by fire will the Lord contend.\u201d(318)\n\nIn this process the sense of right became progressively refined, so that\nGod was made the Defender of the cause of the oppressed, and the holiest\nof duties became the protection of the forsaken and unfortunate. Justice\nand right were thus lifted out of the civil or forensic sphere into that\nof divine holiness, and the struggle for the down-trodden became an\nimperative duty. Judaism finds its strength in the oft-repeated doctrine\nthat the moral welfare of the world rests upon justice. \u201cThe King\u2019s\nstrength is that he loveth justice,\u201d says the Psalmist, and commenting\nupon this the Midrash says, \u201cNot might, but right forms the foundation of\nthe world\u2019s peace.\u201d(319)\n\n6. Social life, therefore, must be built upon the firm foundation of\njustice, the full recognition of the rights of all individuals and all\nclasses. It can be based neither upon the formal administration of law nor\nupon the elastic principle of love, which too often tolerates, or even\napproves certain types of injustice. Judaism has been working through the\ncenturies to realize the ideal of justice to all mankind; therefore the\nJew has suffered and waited for the ultimate triumph of the God of\njustice. God\u2019s kingdom of justice is to be established, not in a world to\ncome, but in the world that now is, in the life of men and nations. As the\nGerman poet has it, \u201cDie Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht\u201d (the history\nof the world is the world\u2019s tribunal of justice).\n\n7. The recognition of God as the righteous Ruler implies a dominion of\nabsolute justice which allows no wrongdoing to remain unpunished and no\nmeritorious act to remain unrewarded. The moral and intellectual maturity\nof the people, however, must determine how they conceive retribution in\nthe divine judgment. Under the simple conditions of patriarchal life, when\ncommon experience seemed to be in harmony with the demands of divine\njustice, when the evil-doer seemed to meet his fate and the worthy man to\nenjoy his merited prosperity, reward and punishment could well be\nexpressed by the Bible in terms of national prosperity and calamity. The\nprophets, impressed by the political and moral decline of their era,\nannounced for both Israel and the other nations a day of judgment to come,\nwhen God will manifest Himself as the righteous Ruler of the world. In\nfact, those great preachers of righteousness announced for all time the\ntruth of a _moral government of the world_, with terror for the\nmalefactors and the assurance of peace and salvation for the righteous.\n\u201cHe will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with equity\u201d\nbecomes a song of joyous confidence and hope on the lips of the\nPsalmist.(320) This final triumph of justice does not depend, as Christian\ntheologians assert, on the mere outward conformity of Israel to the\nlaw.(321) On the contrary, it offers to the innocent sufferer the hope\nthat \u201chis right shall break forth as light,\u201d while \u201cthe wicked shall be\nput to silence in darkness.\u201d(322) We must admit, indeed, that the Biblical\nidea of retribution still has too much of the earthly flavor, and often\nlacks true spirituality. The explanation of this lies in the desire of the\nexpounders of Judaism that _this_ world should be regarded as the\nbattle-ground between the good and the bad, that the victory of the good\nis to be decided _here_, and that the idea of justice should not assume\nthe character of other-worldliness.\n\n8. It is true that neither the prophets, such as Jeremiah, nor the sages,\nsuch as the authors of Job and Koheleth, actually solved the great enigma\nwhich has baffled all nations and ages, the adjustment of merit and\ndestiny by divine righteousness. Yet even a doubter like Job does not\ndespair of his own sense of justice, and wrestles with his God in the\neffort to obtain a deeper insight. Still the great mass of people are not\nsatisfied with an unfulfilled yearning and seeking. The various religions\nhave gradually transferred the final adjustment of merit and destiny to\nthe hereafter; the rewards and punishments awaiting man after death have\nbeen depicted glaringly in colors taken from this earthly life. It is not\nsurprising that Judaism was influenced by this almost universal view. The\nmechanical form of the principle of justice demands that \u201cwith the same\nmeasure one metes out, it shall be meted out to him,\u201d(323) and this could\nnot be found either in human justice or in human destiny. Therefore the\npopular mind naturally turned to the world to come, expecting there that\njust retribution which is lacking on earth.\n\nOnly superior minds could ascend to that higher ethical conception where\ncompensation is no longer expected, but man seeks the good and happiness\nof others and finds therein his highest satisfaction. As Ben Azzai\nexpresses it, \u201cThe reward of virtue is virtue, and the punishment of sin\nis sin.\u201d(324) At this point justice merges into divine holiness.\n\n9. The idea of divine justice exerted its uplifting force in one more way\nin Judaism. The recognition of God as the righteous Judge of the\nworld\u2014_Zidduk ha Din_(325)\u2014is to bring consolation and endurance to the\nafflicted, and to remove from their hearts the bitter sting of despair and\ndoubt. The rabbis called God \u201cthe Righteous One of the universe,\u201d(326) as\nif to indicate that God himself is meant by the Scriptural verse, \u201cThe\nrighteous is an everlasting foundation of the world.\u201d(327)\n\nFar remote from Judaism, however, is the doctrine that God would consign\nan otherwise righteous man to eternal doom, because he belongs to another\ncreed or another race than that of the Jew. Wherever the heathens are\nspoken of as condemned at the last judgment, the presumption based upon\ncenturies of sad experience was that their lives were full of injustice\nand wickedness. Indeed, milder teachers, whose view became the accepted\none, maintained that truly righteous men are found among the heathen, who\nhave therefore as much claim upon eternal salvation as the pious ones of\nIsrael.(328)\n\n\n\nChapter XX. God\u2019s Love and Compassion\n\n\n1. As justice forms the basis of human morality, with kindness and\nbenevolence as milder elements to mitigate its sternness, so, according to\nthe Jewish view, mercy and love represent the milder side of God, but by\nno means a higher attribute counteracting His justice. Love can supplement\njustice, but cannot replace it. The sages say:(329) \u201cWhen the Creator saw\nthat man could not endure, if measured by the standard of strict justice,\nHe joined His attribute of mercy to that of justice, and created man by\nthe combined principle of both.\u201d The divine compassion with human frailty,\nfelt by both Moses and Hosea, manifests itself in God\u2019s mercy. Were it not\nfor the weakness of the flesh, justice would have sufficed. But the divine\nplan of salvation demands redeeming love which wins humanity step by step\nfor higher moral ends. The educational value of this love lies in the fact\nthat it is a gift of grace, bestowed on man by the fatherly love of God to\nward off the severity of full retribution. His pardon must conduce to a\ndeeper moral earnestness.(330) \u201cFor with Thee there is forgiveness that\nThou mayest be feared.\u201d(331) R. Akiba says: \u201cThe world is judged by the\ndivine attribute of goodness.\u201d(332)\n\n2. As a matter of course, in the Biblical view God\u2019s mercy was realized at\nfirst only with regard to Israel and was afterward extended gradually to\nhumanity at large. The generation of the flood and the inhabitants of\nSodom perished on account of their guilt, and only the righteous were\nsaved. This attitude holds throughout the Bible until the late book of\nJonah, with its lesson of God\u2019s forgiveness even for the heathen city of\nNineveh after due repentance. In the later Psalms the divine attributes of\nmercy are expanded and applied to all the creatures of God.(333) According\nto the school of Hillel, whenever the good and evil actions of any man are\nfound equal in the scales of justice, God inclines the balances toward the\nside of mercy.(334) Nay more, in the words of Samuel, the Babylonian\nteacher, God judges the nations by the noblest types they produce.(335)\n\nThe ruling Sadducean priesthood insisted on the rigid enforcement of the\nlaw. The party of the pious, the _Hasidim_, however,\u2014according to the\nliturgy, the apocryphal and the rabbinical literature,\u2014appealed to the\nmercy of God in song and prayer, acknowledging their failings in humility,\nand made kindness and love their special objects in life. Therefore with\ntheir ascendancy the divine attributes of mercy and compassion were\naccentuated. God himself, we are told, was heard praying: \u201cOh that My\nattribute of mercy may prevail over My attribute of justice, so that grace\nalone may be bestowed upon My children on earth.\u201d(336) And the second word\nof the Decalogue was so interpreted that God\u2019s mercy\u2014which is said to\nextend \u201cto the thousandth generation\u201d\u2014is five hundred times as powerful as\nHis punitive justice,\u2014which is applied \u201cto the third and fourth\ngeneration.\u201d(337)\n\n3. Divine mercy shows itself in the law, where compassion is enjoined on\nall suffering creatures. Profound sympathy with the oppressed is echoed in\nthe ancient law of the poor who had to give up his garment as a pledge:\n\u201cWhen he crieth unto Me, I shall hear, for I am gracious.\u201d(338) In the old\nBabylonian code, might was the arbiter of right,(339) but the unique\ngenius of the Jew is shown in adapting this same legal material to its\nimpulse of compassion. The cry of the innocent sufferer, of the forsaken\nand fatherless, rises up to God\u2019s throne and secures there his right\nagainst the oppressor. Thus in the Mosaic law and throughout Jewish\nliterature God calls himself \u201cthe Judge of the widow,\u201d \u201cthe Father of the\nfatherless,\u201d(340) \u201ca Stronghold to the needy.\u201d(341) He calls the poor, \u201cMy\npeople,\u201d(342) and, as the rabbis say, He loves the persecuted, not the\npersecutors.(343)\n\n4. Even to dumb beasts God extends His mercy. This Jewish tenderness is an\ninheritance from the shepherd life of the patriarchs, who were eager to\nquench the thirst of the animals in their care before they thought of\ntheir own comfort.(344) This sense of sympathy appears in the Biblical\nprecepts as to the overburdened beast,(345) the ox treading the corn,(346)\nand the mother-beast or mother-bird with her young,(347) as well as the\nTalmudic rule first to feed the domestic animals and then sit down to the\nmeal.(348) This has remained a characteristic trait of Judaism. Thus, in\nconnection with the verse of the Psalm, \u201cHis tender mercies are over all\nHis works,\u201d(349) it is related of Rabbi Judah the Saint, the redactor of\nthe Mishnah, that he was afflicted with pain for thirteen years, and gave\nas reason that he once struck and kicked away a calf which had run to him\nmoaning for protection; he was finally relieved, after he had taught his\nhousehold to have pity even on the smallest of creatures.(350) In fact,\nRabban Gamaliel, his grandfather, had taught before him: \u201cWhosoever has\ncompassion on his fellow-creatures, on him God will have compassion.\u201d(351)\nThe sages often interpret the phrase \u201cTo walk in the way of the Lord\u201d\u2014that\nis, \u201cAs the Holy One, blessed be He, is merciful, so be ye also\nmerciful.\u201d(352)\n\n5. Thus the rabbis came to regard _love_ as the innermost part of God\u2019s\nbeing. _God loves mankind_, is the highest stage of consciousness of God,\nbut this can be attained only by the closest relation of the human soul to\nthe Most High, after severe trials have softened and humanized the spirit.\nIt is not accidental that Scripture speaks often of God\u2019s goodness, mercy,\nand grace, but seldom mentions His love. Possibly the term _ahabah_ was\nused at first for sensuous love and therefore was not employed for God so\noften as the more spiritual _hesed_, which denotes kind and loyal\naffection.(353) However, Hosea used this term for his own love for his\nfaithless wife, and did not hesitate to apply it also to God\u2019s love for\nHis faithless people, which he terms \u201ca love of free will.\u201d(354) His\nexample is followed by Jeremiah, most tender of the prophets, who gave the\nclassic expression to the everlasting love of God for Israel, His beloved\nson.(355) This divine love, spiritually understood, forms the chief topic\nof the Deuteronomic addresses.(356) In this book God\u2019s love appears as\nthat of a father for his son, who lavishes gifts upon him, but also\nchastises him for his own good.(357) The mind opened more and more to\nregard the trials sent by God as means of ennobling the character,(358)\nand the men of the Talmudic period often speak of the afflictions of the\nsaints as \u201cvisitations of the divine love.\u201d(359)\n\n6. The sufferings of Israel in particular were taken to be trials of the\ndivine love.(360) God\u2019s love for Israel, \u201cHis first-born son,\u201d(361) is not\npartial, but from the outset aims to train him for his world mission. The\nSong of Moses speaks of the love of the Father for His son \u201cwhom He found\nin the wilderness\u201d;(362) and this is requited by the bridal love of Israel\nwith which the people \u201cwent after God in the wilderness.\u201d(363) It is this\nlove of God, according to Akiba\u2019s interpretation of the Song of Songs,\nwhich \u201call the waters could not quench,\u201d \u201ca love as strong as death.\u201d(364)\nThis love raised up a nation of martyrs without parallel in history,\nalthough the followers of the so-called Religion of Love fail to give it\nthe credit it deserves and seem to regard it as a kind of hatred for the\nrest of mankind.(365) Whenever the paternal love of God is truly felt and\nunderstood it must include all classes and all souls of men who enter into\nthe relation of children to God. Wherever emphasis is laid upon the\nspecial love for Israel, it is based upon the love with which the chosen\npeople cling to the Torah, the word of God, upon the devotion with which\nthey surrender their lives in His cause.(366)\n\n7. Still, Judaism does not proclaim love, absolute and unrestricted, as\nthe divine principle of life. That is left to the Church, whose history\nalmost to this day records ever so many acts of lovelessness. Love is\nunworthy of God, unless it is guided by justice. Love of good must be\naccompanied by hate of evil, or else it lacks the educative power which\nalone makes it beneficial to man.\n\nGod\u2019s love manifests itself in human life as an educative power. R. Akiba\nsays that it extends to all created in God\u2019s image, although the knowledge\nof it was vouchsafed to Israel alone.(367) This universal love of God is a\ndoctrine of the apocryphal literature as well. \u201cThou hast mercy upon all\n... for Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest nothing which Thou\nhast made.... But Thou sparest all, for they are Thine, O Lord, Lover of\nsouls,\u201d says the Book of Wisdom;(368) and when Ezra the Seer laments the\ncalamity that has befallen the people, God replies, \u201cThinkest thou that\nthou lovest My creatures more than I?\u201d(369)\n\n8. Among the mystics divine love was declared to be the highest creative\nprinciple. They referred the words of the Song of Songs,\u2014\u201cThe midst\nthereof is paved with love,\u201d(370) to the innermost palace of heaven, where\nstands the throne of God.(371) Among the philosophers Crescas considered\nlove the active cosmic principle rather than intellect, the principle of\nAristotle, because it is love which is the impulse for creation.(372) This\nconception of divine love received a peculiarly mystic color from Juda\nAbravanel, a neo-Platonist of the sixteenth century, known as Leo\nHebraeus. He says: \u201cGod\u2019s love must needs unfold His perfection and\nbeauty, and reveal itself in His creatures, and love for these creatures\nmust again elevate an imperfect world to His own perfection. Thus is\nengendered in man that yearning for love with which he endeavors to\nemulate the divine perfection.\u201d(373) Both Crescas and Leo Hebraeus thus\ngave the keynote for Spinoza\u2019s \u201cIntellectual love\u201d as the cosmic\nprinciple,(374) and this has been echoed even in such works as Schiller\u2019s\ndithyrambs on \u201cLove and Friendship\u201d in his \u201cPhilosophic Letters.\u201d(375)\nStill this neo-Platonic view has nothing in common with the theological\nconception of love. In Judaism God is conceived as a loving Father, who\npurposes to lead man to happiness and salvation. In other words, the\ndivine love is an essentially moral attribute of God, and not a\nmetaphysical one.\n\n9. If we wish to speak of a power that permeates the cosmos and turns the\nwheel of life, it is far more correct to speak of God\u2019s creative\ngoodness.(376) According to Scripture, each day\u2019s creation bears the\ndivine approval: \u201cIt is good.\u201d(377) Even the evil which man experiences\nserves a higher purpose, and that purpose makes for the good. Misfortune\nand death, sorrow and sin, in the great economy of life are all turned\ninto final good. Accordingly, Judaism recognizes this divine goodness not\nonly in every enjoyment of nature\u2019s gifts and the favors of fortune, but\nalso in sad and trying experiences, and for all of these it provides\nspecial formulas of benediction.(378) The same divine goodness sends joy\nand grief, even though shortsighted man fails to see the majestic Sun of\nlife which shines in unabated splendor above the clouds. Judaism was\noptimistic through all its experiences just because of this implicit faith\nin God\u2019s goodness. Such faith transforms each woe into a higher welfare,\neach curse into actual blessing; it leads men and nations from oppression\nto ever greater freedom, from darkness to ever brighter light, and from\nerror to ever higher truth and righteousness. Divine love may have pity\nupon human weakness, but it is divine goodness that inspires and quickens\nhuman energy. After all, love cannot be the dominant principle of life.\nMan cannot love all the time, nor can he love all the world; his sense of\njustice demands that he hate wickedness and falsehood. We must apply the\nsame criterion to God. But, on the other hand, man can and should _do\ngood_ and _be good_ continually and to all men, even to the most unworthy.\nTherefore God becomes the pattern and ideal of an all-encompassing\ngoodness, which is never exhausted and never reaches an end.\n\n\n\nChapter XXI. God\u2019s Truth and Faithfulness\n\n\n1. In the Hebrew language truth and faithfulness are both derived from the\nsame root; _aman_, \u201cfirmness,\u201d is the root idea of _emeth_, \u201ctruth,\u201d and\n_emunah_, \u201cfaithfulness.\u201d Man feels insecurity and uncertainty among the\nvarying impressions and emotions which affect his will; therefore he turns\nto the immovable Rock of life, calls on Him as the Guardian and Witness of\ntruth, and feels confident that He will vindicate every promise made in\nHis sight. He is the God by whom men swear\u2014_Elohe amen_;(379) nay, who\nswears by Himself, saying, \u201cAs true as that I live.\u201d(380) He is the\nsupreme Power of life, \u201cthe God of faithfulness, in whom there is no\niniquity.\u201d(381) The heavens testify to His faithfulness; He is the\ntrustworthy God, whose essence is truth.(382)\n\n2. Here, too, as with other attributes, the development of the idea may be\ntraced step by step. At first it refers to the God of the covenant with\nIsrael, who made a covenant with the fathers and keeps it with the\nthousandth generation of their descendants. He shows His mercy to those\nwho love Him and keep His commandments. The idea of God\u2019s faithfulness to\nHis covenant is thus extended gradually from the people to the cosmos, and\nthe heavens are called upon to witness to the faithfulness of God\nthroughout the realm of life. Thus in both the Psalms and the liturgy God\nis praised as the One who is faithful in His word as in His work.(383)\n\n3. From this conception of faithfulness arose two other ideas which\nexerted a powerful influence upon the whole spiritual and intellectual\nlife of the Jew. The God of faithfulness created a people of faithfulness\nas His own, and Israel\u2019s God of truth awakened in the nation a passion for\ntruth unrivaled by any other religious or philosophical system. Like a\nsilver stream running through a valley, the conviction runs through the\nsacred writings and the liturgy that the promise made of yore to the\nfathers will be fulfilled to the children. As each past deliverance from\ndistress was considered a verification of the divine faithfulness, so each\nhope for the future was based upon the same attribute. \u201cHe keepeth His\nfaith also to those who sleep in the dust.\u201d These words of the second of\nthe Eighteen Benedictions clearly indicate that even the belief in the\nhereafter rested upon the same fundamental belief.\n\nOn the other hand, the same conception formed the keynote of the idea of\nthe divine truthfulness. The primitive age knew nothing of the laws of\nnature with which we have become familiar through modern science. But the\npious soul trusts the God of faithfulness, certain that He who has created\nthe heaven and the earth is true to His own word, and will not allow them\nto sink back into chaos. One witness to this is the rainbow, which He has\nset up in the sky as a sign of His covenant.(384) The sea and the stars\nalso have a boundary assigned to them which they cannot transgress.(385)\nThus to the unsophisticated religious soul, with no knowledge of natural\nscience, the world is carried by God\u2019s \u201ceverlasting arms\u201d(386) and His\nfaithfulness becomes token and pledge of the immutability of His will.\n\n4. At this point the intellect grasps an idea of intrinsic and\nindestructible truth, which has its beginning and its end in God, the Only\nOne. \u201cThe gods of the nations are all vanity and deceit, the work of men;\nIsrael\u2019s God is the God of truth, the living God and everlasting\nKing.\u201d(387) With this cry has Judaism challenged the nations of the world\nsince the Babylonian exile. Its own adherents it charged to ponder upon\nthe problems of life and the nature of God, until He would appear before\nthem as the very essence of truth, and all heathenish survivals would\nvanish as mist. God is truth, and He desires naught but truth, therefore\nhypocrisy is loathsome to him, even in the service of religion. With this\nunderlying thought Job, the bold but honest doubter, stands above his\nfriends with their affected piety. _God is truth_\u2014this confession of\nfaith, recited each morning and evening by the Jew, gave his mind the\npower to soar into the highest realms of thought, and inspired his soul to\noffer life and all it holds for his faith. \u201cGod is the everlasting truth,\nthe unchangeable Being who ever remains the same amid the fluctuations and\nchanges of all other things.\u201d This is the fundamental principle upon which\nJoseph Ibn Zaddik and Abraham Ibn Daud, the predecessors of Maimonides,\nreared their entire philosophical systems, which were Aristotelian and yet\nthoroughly Jewish.(388)\n\nMystic lore, always so fond of the letters of the alphabet and their\nhidden meanings, noted that the letters of _Emeth_\u2014_aleph_, _mem_ and\n_tav_\u2014are the first, the middle, and the last letters of the alphabet, and\ntherefore concluded that God made truth the beginning, the center, and the\nend of the world.(389) Josephus also, no doubt in accordance with the same\ntradition, declares that God is \u201cthe beginning, the center, and the end of\nall things.\u201d(390) A corresponding rabbinical saying is: \u201cTruth is the seal\nof God.\u201d(391)\n\n\n\nChapter XXII. God\u2019s Knowledge and Wisdom\n\n\n1. The attempt to enumerate the attributes of God recalls the story\nrelated in the Talmud(392) of a disciple who stepped up to the reader\u2019s\ndesk to offer prayer, and began to address the Deity with an endless list\nof attributes. When his vocabulary was almost exhausted, Rabbi Haninah\ninterrupted him with the question, \u201cHast thou now really finished telling\nthe praise of God?\u201d Mortal man can never know what God really is. As the\npoet-philosopher says: \u201cCould I ever know Him, I would be He.\u201d(393) But we\nwant to ascertain what God is _to us_, and for this very reason we cannot\nrest with the negative attitude of Maimonides, who relies on the\nPsalmist\u2019s verse, \u201cSilence is praise to Thee.\u201d(394) We must obtain as\nclear a conception of the Deity as we possibly can with our limited\npowers.\n\nTo the divine attributes already mentioned we must add another which in a\nsense is the focus of them all. This is the knowledge and wisdom of God,\nthe omniscience which renders Him all-knowing and all-wise. Through this\nall the others come into self-consciousness. We ascribe wisdom to the man\nwho sets right aims for his actions and knows the means by which to attain\nthem, that is, who can control his power and knowledge by his will and\nbend them to his purpose. In the same manner we think of wisdom in view of\nthe marvelous order, design, and unity which we see in the natural and the\nmoral world. But this wisdom must be all-encompassing, comprising time and\neternity, directing all the forces and beings of the world toward the goal\nof ideal perfection.(395) It makes no difference where we find this\nlesson. The Book of Proverbs singles out the tiny ant as an example of\nwondrous forethought;(396) the author of Job dwells on the working\ntogether of the powers of earth and heaven to maintain the cosmic\nlife;(397) modern science, with its deeper insight into nature, enables us\nto follow the interaction of the primal chemical and organic forces, and\nto follow the course of evolution from star-dust and cell to the structure\nof the human eye or the thought-centers of the brain. But in all these\nalike our conclusion must be that of the Psalmist: \u201cO Lord, how manifold\nare Thy works, in wisdom hast Thou made them all.\u201d(398)\n\n2. Accordingly, if we are to speak in human terms, we may consider God\u2019s\nwisdom the element which determines His various\nmotive-powers,\u2014omniscience, omnipotence, and goodness,\u2014to tend toward the\nrealization of His cosmic plan. Or we may call it the active intellect\nwith which God works as Creator, Ordainer, and Ruler of the universe. The\nBiblical account of creation presupposes this wisdom, as it portrays a\nlogical process, working after a definite plan, proceeding from simpler to\nmore complex forms and culminating in man. Biblical history likewise is\nbased upon the principle of a divinely prearranged plan, which is\nespecially striking in such stories as that of Joseph.(399)\n\n3. At first the divine wisdom was supposed to rest in part on specially\ngifted persons, such as Joseph, Solomon, and Bezalel. As Scripture has it,\n\u201cThe Lord giveth wisdom, out of His mouth cometh knowledge and\nunderstanding.\u201d(400) Later the obscure destiny of the nation appears as\nthe design of an all-wise Ruler to the great prophets and especially to\nIsaiah, the high-soaring eagle among the seers of Israel.(401) With the\nprogressive expansion of the world before them, the seers and sages saw a\nsublime purpose in the history of the nations, and felt more and more the\nsupreme place of the divine wisdom as a manifestation of His greatness.\nThus the great seer of the Exile never tires of illumining the world-wide\nplan of the divine wisdom.(402)\n\n4. A new development ensued under Babylonian and Persian influence at the\ntime when the monotheism of Israel became definitely universal. The divine\nwisdom, creative and world-sustaining, became the highest of the divine\nattributes and was partially hypostatized as an independent cosmic power.\nIn the twenty-eighth chapter of the Book of Job wisdom is depicted as a\nmagic being, far remote from all living beings of earth, beyond the reach\nof the creatures of the lowest abyss, who aided the Creator with counsel\nand knowledge in measuring and weighing the foundations of the world. The\ndescription seems to be based upon an ancient Babylonian conception\u2014which\nhas parallels elsewhere\u2014of a divine Sybil dwelling beneath the ocean in\n\u201cthe house of wisdom.\u201d(403) Here, however, the mythological conception is\ntransformed into a symbolic figure. In the eighth chapter of Proverbs the\ndescription of divine wisdom is more in accordance with Jewish monotheism;\nwisdom is \u201cthe first of God\u2019s creatures,\u201d \u201ca master-workman\u201d who assisted\nHim in founding heaven and earth, a helpmate and playmate of God, and at\nthe same time the instructor of men and counselor of princes, inviting all\nto share her precious gifts. This conception is found also in the\napocryphal literature,\u2014in Ben Sira, the book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of\nBaruch, and the Hellenistic Book of Wisdom.(404)\n\nFrom this period two different currents of thought appeared. The one\nrepresented wisdom as an independent being distinct from God, and this\nfinally became merged, under Platonic influence, into the views of\nneo-Platonism, Gnosticism, and the Christian dogma. The other identified\nthe divine wisdom with the Torah, and therefore it is the Torah which\nserved God as counselor and mediator at the Creation and continues as\ncounselor in the management of the world. This view led back to strict\nmonotheism, so that the cosmology of the rabbis spoke alternately of the\ndivine wisdom and the Torah as the instruments of God at Creation.(405)\n\n5. The Jewish philosophers of the Middle Ages, such as Saadia, Gabirol,\nand Jehuda ha Levi, followed the Mohammedan theologians in enumerating\nGod\u2019s wisdom among the attributes constituting His essence, together with\nHis omnipotence, His will, and His creative energy. But they would not\ntake wisdom or any other attribute as a separate being, with an existence\noutside of God, which would either condition Him or admit a division of\nHis nature.(406) \u201cGod himself is wisdom,\u201d says Jehuda ha Levi, referring\nto the words of Job: \u201cHe is wise in heart.\u201d(407) And Ibn Gabirol sings in\nhis \u201cCrown of Royalty\u201d:\n\n\n \u201cThou art wise, and the wisdom of Thy fount of life floweth from\n Thee;\n And compared with Thy wisdom man is void of understanding;\n Thou art wise, before anything began its existence;\n And wisdom has from times of yore been Thy fostered child;\n Thou art wise, and out of Thy wisdom didst Thou create the world,\n Life the artificer that fashioneth whatsoever delighteth\n him.\u201d(408)\n\n\n\nChapter XXIII. God\u2019s Condescension\n\n\n1. An attribute of great importance for the theological conception of God,\none upon which both Biblical and rabbinical literature laid especial\nstress, is His condescension and humility. The Psalmist says(409): \u201cThy\ncondescension hath made me great,\u201d which is interpreted in the Midrash\nthat the Deity stoops to man in order to lift him up to Himself. A\nfamiliar saying of R. Johanan is(410): \u201cWherever Scripture speaks of the\ngreatness of God, there mention is made also of His condescension. So when\nthe prophet begins, \u2018Thus saith the High and Lofty One that inhabiteth\neternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place,\u2019 he adds\nthe words, \u2018With him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit.\u2019(411)\nOr when the Deuteronomist says: \u2018For the Lord your God, the great God, the\nmighty and the awful,\u2019 he concludes, \u2018He doth execute justice for the\nfatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger.\u2019(412) And again the\nPsalmist: \u2018Extol Him that rideth upon the skies, whose name is the Lord, a\nFather of the fatherless and a Judge of the widows.\u2019 \u201d(413) \u201cDo you deem\nit unworthy of God that He should care for the smallest and most\ninsignificant person or thing in the world\u2019s household?\u201d asks Mendelssohn\nin his _Morgenstunden_. \u201cIt certainly does not detract from the dignity of\na king to be seen fondling his child as a loving father,\u201d and he quotes\nthe verse of the Psalm, \u201cWho is like unto the Lord our God, that is\nenthroned on high, that looketh down low upon heaven and upon the\nearth.\u201d(414)\n\n2. This truth has a religious depth which no philosophy can set forth.\nOnly the God of Revelation is near to man in his frailty and need, ready\nto hear his sighs, answer his supplication, count his tears, and relieve\nhis wants when his own power fails. The philosopher must reject as futile\nevery attempt to bring the incomprehensible essence of the Deity within\nthe compass of the human understanding. The religious consciousness,\nhowever, demands that we accentuate precisely those attributes of God\nwhich bring Him nearest to us. If reason alone would have the decisive\nvoice in this problem, every manifestation of God to man and every\nreaching out of the soul to Him in prayer would be idle fancy and\nself-deceit. It is true that the Biblical conception was simple and\nchild-like enough, representing God as descending from the heavens to the\nearth. Still Judaism does not accept the cold and distant attitude of the\nphilosopher; it teaches that God as a spiritual power does condescend to\nman, in order that man may realize his kinship with the Most High and rise\never nearer to his Creator. The earth whereon man dwells and the human\nheart with its longing for heaven, are not bereft of God. Wherever man\nseeks Him, there He is.\n\n3. Rabbinical Judaism is very far from the attitude assigned to it by\nChristian theologians,(415) of reducing the Deity to an empty\ntranscendental abstraction and loosening the bond which ties the soul to\nits Maker. On the contrary, it maintains these very relations with a\nfirmness which betokens its soundness and its profound psychological\ntruth. In this spirit a Talmudic master interprets the Deuteronomic verse:\n\u201cFor what great nation is there that hath God so nigh unto them, as the\nLord our God is whensoever we call upon Him?\u201d(416) saying that \u201ceach will\nrealize the nearness of God according to his own intellectual and\nemotional disposition, and thus enter into communion with Him.\u201d According\nto another Haggadist the verse of the Psalm, \u201cThe voice of the Lord\nresoundeth with power,\u201d(417) teaches how God reveals Himself, not with His\nown overwhelming might, but according to each man\u2019s individual power and\ncapacity. The rabbis even make bold to assert that whenever Israel\nsuffers, God suffers with him; as it is written, \u201cI will be with him in\ntrouble.\u201d(418)\n\n4. As a matter of fact, all the names which we apply to God in speech or\nin prayer, even the most sublime and holy ones, are derived from our own\nsensory experience and cannot be taken literally. They are used only as\nvehicles to bring home to us the idea that God\u2019s nearness is our highest\ngood. Even the material world, which is perceptible to our senses, must\nundergo a certain inner transformation before it can be termed science or\nphilosophy, and becomes the possession of the mind. It requires still\nfurther exertions of the imagination to bring within our grasp the world\nof the spirit, and above all the loftiest of all conceptions, the very\nbeing of God. Yet it is just this Being of all Beings who draws us\nirresistibly toward Himself, whose nearness we perceive in the very depths\nof our intellectual and emotional life. Our \u201csoul thirsteth after God, the\nliving God,\u201d and behold, He is nigh, He takes possession of us, and we\ncall Him _our_ God.\n\n5. The Haggadists expressed this intimate relation of God to man, and\nspecifically to Israel, by bold and often na\u00efve metaphors. They ascribe to\nGod special moments for wrath and for prayer, a secret chamber where he\nweeps over the distress of Israel, a prayer-mantle (tallith) and\nphylacteries which He wears like any of the leaders of the community, and\neven lustrations which He practices exactly like mortals.(419) But such\nfanciful and extravagant conceptions were never taken seriously by the\nrabbis, and only partisan and prejudiced writers, entirely lacking in a\nsense of humor, could point to such passages to prove that a theology of\nthe Synagogue carried out a \u201cJudaization of God.\u201d(420)\n\n\n\n\nC. God In Relation To The World\n\n\n\nChapter XXIV. The World and its Master\n\n\n1. In using the term world or _universe_ we include the totality of all\nbeings at once, and this suggests a stage of knowledge where polytheism is\npractically overcome. Among the Greeks, Pythagoras is said to have been\nthe first to perceive \u201ca beautiful order of things\u201d in the world, and\ntherefore to call it _cosmos_.(421) Primitive man saw in the world\ninnumerable forces continually struggling with each other for supremacy.\nWithout an ordering mind no order, as we conceive it, can exist. The old\nBabylonian conception prevalent throughout antiquity divided the world\ninto three realms, the celestial, terrestrial, and the nether world, each\nof which had its own type of inhabitants and its own ruling divinities.\nYet these various divine powers were at war with each other, and\nultimately they, too, must submit to a blind fate which men and gods alike\ncould read in the stars or other natural phenomena.\n\nWith the first words of the Bible, \u201cIn the beginning God created the\nheavens and the earth,\u201d Judaism declared the world to be a unity and God\nits Creator and Master. Heathenism had always beheld in the world certain\nblind forces of nature, working without plan or purpose and devoid of any\nmoral aims. But Judaism sees in the world the work of a supreme Intellect\nwho fashioned it according to His will, and who rules in freedom, wisdom,\nand goodness. \u201cHe spoke, and it was; He commanded, and it stood.\u201d(422)\nNature exists only by the will of God; His creative _fiat_ called it into\nexistence, and it ceases to be as soon as it has fulfilled His plan.\n\n2. That which the scientist terms nature\u2014the cosmic life in its eternal\nprocess of growth and reproduction\u2014is declared by Judaism to be God\u2019s\ncreation. Ancient heathen conceptions deified nature, indeed, but they\nknew only a cosmogony, that is, a process of birth and growth of the\nworld. In this the gods participate with all other beings, to sink back\nagain at the close of the drama into fiery chaos,\u2014the so-called \u201ctwilight\nof the gods.\u201d Here the deity constitutes a part of the world, or the world\na part of the deity, and philosophic speculation can at best blend the two\ninto a pantheistic system which has no place for a self-conscious,\ncreative mind and will. In fact, the universe appears as an ever growing\nand unfolding deity, and the deity as an ever growing and unfolding\nuniverse. Modern science more properly assumes a self-imposed limitation;\nit searches for the laws underlying the action and interaction of natural\nforces and elements, thus to explain in a mechanistic way the origin and\ndevelopment of all things, but it leaves entirely outside of its domain\nthe whole question of a first cause and a supreme creative mind. It\ncertainly can pass no opinion as to whether or not the entire work of\ncreation was accomplished by the free act of a Creator. Revelation alone\ncan speak with unfaltering accents: \u201cIn the beginning God created heaven\nand earth.\u201d However we may understand, or imagine, the beginning of the\nnatural process, the formation of matter and the inception of motion, we\nsee above the confines of space and time the everlasting God, the\nabsolutely free Creator of all things.\n\n3. No definite theological dogma can define the order and process of the\ngenesis of the world; this is rather a scientific than a religious\nquestion. The Biblical documents themselves differ widely on this point,\nwhether one compares the stories in the first two chapters of Genesis, or\ncontrasts both of them with the poetical descriptions in Job and the\nPsalms.(423) And these divergent accounts are still less to be reconciled\nwith the results of natural science. In the old Babylonian cosmography, on\nwhich the Biblical view is based, the earth, shaped like a disk, was\nsuspended over the waters of the ocean, while above it was the solid vault\nof heaven like a ceiling. In this the stars were fixed like lamps to light\nthe earth, and hidden chambers to store up the rain. The sciences of\nastronomy, physics, and geology have abolished these childlike conceptions\nas well as the story of a six-day creation, where vegetation sprang from\nthe earth even before the sun, moon, and stars appeared in the firmament.\n\nThe fact is that the Biblical account is not intended to depreciate or\nsupersede the facts established by natural science, but solely to\naccentuate those religious truths which the latter disregards.(424) These\nmay be summed up in the following three doctrines:\n\n4. First. Nature, with all its immeasurable power and grandeur, its\nwondrous beauty and harmony, is not independent, but is the work, the\nworkshop, and the working force of the great Master. His spirit alone is\nthe active power; His will must be carried out. It is true that we cannot\nconceive the universe otherwise than as infinite in time and space,\nbecause both time and space are but human modes of apperception. In fact,\nwe cannot think of a Creator without a creation, because any potentiality\nor capacity without execution would imply imperfection in God.\nNevertheless we must conceive of God as the designing and creating\nintellect of the universe, infinitely transcending its complex mechanism,\nwhose will is expressed involuntarily by each of the created beings. He\nalone is the living God; He has lent existence and infinite capacity to\nthe beings of the world; and they, in achieving their appointed purpose,\naccording to the poet\u2019s metaphor, \u201cweave His living garment.\u201d The Psalmist\nalso sings in the same key:\n\n\n \u201cOf old Thou didst lay the foundations of the earth;\n And the heavens are the work of Thy hands;\n They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure;\n Yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment.\n As a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall pass away;\n But Thou art the selfsame, and Thy years shall have no end.\u201d(425)\n\n\n5. Second. The numberless beings and forces of the universe comprise a\nunity, working according to one plan, subserving a common purpose, and\npursuing in their development and interaction the aim which God\u2019s wisdom\nassigned them from the beginning. However hostile the various elements may\nbe toward each other, however fierce the universal conflict, \u201cthe struggle\nfor existence,\u201d still over all the discord prevails a higher concord, and\nthe struggle of nature\u2019s forces ends in harmony and peace. \u201cHe maketh\npeace in His high places.\u201d(426) Even the highest type of heathenism, the\nPersian, divided the world into mutually hostile principles, light and\ndarkness, good and evil. But Judaism proclaims God as the Creator of both.\nNo force is left out of the universal plan; each contributes its part to\nthe whole. Consequently the very progress of natural science confirms more\nand more the principle of the divine Unity. The researches of science are\never tending toward the knowledge of universal laws of growth, culminating\nin a scheme of universal evolution. Hence this supports and confirms\nJewish monotheism, which knows no power of evil antagonistic to God.\n\n6. Third. The world is good, since goodness is its creator and its final\naim. True enough, nature, bent with \u201ctooth and claw\u201d upon annihilating one\nor another form of existence, is quite indifferent to man\u2019s sense of\ncompassion and justice. Yet in the wise, though inscrutable plan of God\nshe does but serve the good. We see how the lower forms of life ever serve\nthe higher, how the mineral provides food for the vegetable, while the\nanimal derives its food from the vegetable world and from lower types of\nanimals. Thus each becomes a means of vitality for a higher species. So by\nthe continuous upward striving of man the lower passions, with their evil\ntendencies, work more and more toward the triumph of the good. Man unfolds\nhis God-likeness; he strives to\n\n\n \u201cMove upward, working out the beast,\n And let the ape and tiger die.\u201d\n\n\n7. The Biblical story of Creation expresses the perfect harmony between\nGod\u2019s purpose and His work in the words, \u201cAnd behold, it was good\u201d spoken\nat the end of each day\u2019s Creation, and \u201cbehold, it was very good\u201d at the\ncompletion of the whole. A world created by God must serve the highest\ngood, while, on the contrary, a world without God would prove to be \u201cthe\nworst of all possible worlds,\u201d as Schopenhauer, the philosopher of\npessimism, quite correctly concludes from his premises. The world-view of\nJudaism, which regards the entire economy of life as the realization of\nthe all-encompassing plan of an all-wise Creator, is accordingly an\nenergizing optimism, or, more precisely, meliorism. This view is voiced by\nthe rabbis in many significant utterances, such as the maxim of R. Akiba,\n\u201cWhatsoever the Merciful One does, is for the good,\u201d(427) or that of his\nteacher, Nahum of Gimzo, \u201cThis, too, is for the good.\u201d(428) His disciple,\nR. Meir, inferred from the Biblical verse, \u201cGod saw all that He had made,\nand behold, it was very good,\u201d that \u201cdeath, too, is good.\u201d(429) Others\nconsidered that suffering and even sin are included in this verse, because\nevery apparent evil is necessary that we may struggle and overcome it for\nthe final victory of the good.(430) As an ancient Midrash says: \u201cGod is\ncalled a God of faith and faithfulness, because it was His faith in the\nworld that caused Him to bring it into existence.\u201d(431)\n\n\n\nChapter XXV. Creation As the Act of God\n\n\n1. \u201cThus shall ye say unto them: The gods that have not made the heavens\nand the earth, these shall perish from the earth, and from under the\nheavens. He that hath made the earth by His power, that hath established\nthe world by His wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by His\nunderstanding ... the Lord God is the true God.\u201d(432) With this\ndeclaration of war against heathenism, the prophet drew the line, once for\nall, between the uncreated, transcendent God and the created, perishable\nuniverse. It is true that Plato spoke of primordial and eternal matter and\nAristotle of an eternally rotating celestial sphere, and that even\nBiblical exegetes, such as Ibn Ezra,(433) inferred from the Creation story\nthe existence of primeval chaotic matter. Yet, on the whole, the Jewish\nidea of God has demanded the assumption that even this primitive matter\nwas created by God, or, as most thinkers have phrased it, that God created\nthe world _out of nothing_. This doctrine was voiced as early as the\nMaccabean period in the appeal made by the heroic mother to the youngest\nof her seven sons.(434) In the same spirit R. Gamaliel II scornfully\nrejects the suggestion of a heretic that God used primeval substances\nalready extant in creating the world.(435)\n\n2. Of course, thinking people will ever be confronted by the problem how a\ntranscendental God could call into existence a world of matter, creating\nit within the limits of space and time, without Himself becoming involved\nin the process. It would seem that He must by the very act subject Himself\nto the limitations and mutations of the universe. Hence some of the\nancient Jewish teachers came under the influence of Babylonian and\nEgyptian cosmogonies in their later Hellenistic forms, and resorted to the\ntheory of intermediary forces. Some of these adopted the Pythagorean\nconception of the mysterious power of letters and numbers, which they\ncommunicated to the initiated as secret lore, with the result that the\nsuspicion of heresy rested largely upon \u201cthose who knew,\u201d the so-called\nGnostics.\n\nThe difficulty of assuming a creation at a fixed period of time was met in\nmany different ways. It is interesting to note that R. Abbahu of C\u00e6sarea\nin the fourth century offered the explanation: \u201cGod caused one world after\nanother to enter into existence, until He produced the one of which He\nsaid: \u2018Behold, this is good.\u2019 \u201d(436) Still this opinion seems to have been\nexpressed by even earlier sages, as it is adopted by Origen, a Church\nfather of the third century, who admitted his great debt to Jewish\nteachers.(437)\n\nThe medieval Jewish philosophers evaded the difficulty by the Aristotelian\nexpedient of connecting the concept of time with the motion of the\nspheres. Thus time was created with the celestial world, and timelessness\nremained an attribute of the uncreated God.(438) Such attempts at\nharmonization prove the one point of importance to us,\u2014which, indeed, was\nfrankly stated by Maimonides,\u2014that we cannot accept literally the Biblical\naccount of the creation.\n\nThe modern world has been lifted bodily out of the Babylonian and\nso-called Ptolemaic world, with its narrow horizon, through the labors of\nsuch men as Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Lyall, and Darwin. We live in a\nworld immeasurable in terms of either space or time, a world where\nevolution works through eons of time and an infinite number of stages.\nSuch a world gives rise to concepts of the working of God in nature\ntotally different from those of the seers and sages of former generations,\nideas of which those thinkers could not even dream. To the mind of the\nmodern scientist the entire cosmic life, extending over countless millions\nof years, forming starry worlds without end, is moved by energy arising\nwithin. It is a continuous flow of existence, a process of formation and\nre-formation, which can have no beginning and no end. How is this\nevolutionist view to be reconciled with the belief in a divine act of\ncreation? This is the problem which modern theology has set itself,\nperhaps the greatest which it must solve.\n\nUltimately, however, the problem is no more difficult now than it was to\nthe first man who pondered over the beginnings of life in the childhood of\nthe world. The same answer fits both modes of thought, with only a\ndifferent process of reasoning. Whether we count the world\u2019s creation by\ndays or by millions of years, the truth of the first verse of Genesis\nremains: \u201cIn the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.\u201d In our\ntheories the whole complicated world-process is but the working out of\nsimple laws. This leads back as swiftly and far more surely than did the\nprimitive cosmology to an omnipotent and omniscient creative Power,\ndefining at the very outset the aim of the stupendous whole, and carrying\nits comprehensive plan into reality, step by step. We who are the products\nof time cannot help applying the relation of time to the work of the\nCreator; time is so interwoven with our being that a modern evolutionist,\nBergson, considers it the fundamental element of reality. Thus it is\nnatural that we should think of God as setting the first atoms and forces\nof the universe into motion somewhere and somehow, at a given moment.\nThrough this act, we imagine, the order prevailing through an infinitude\nof space and time was established for the great fabric of life. To earlier\nthinkers such an act of a supermundane and immutable God appeared as a\nsingle act. The idea of prime importance in all this is the free activity\nof the Creator in contradistinction to the blind necessity of nature, the\nunderlying theory of all pagan or unreligious philosophy.(439) The world\nof God, which is the world of morality, and which leads to man, the image\nof God, must be based upon the free, purposive creative act of God.\nWhether such an act was performed once for all or is everlastingly\nrenewed, is a quite secondary matter for religion, however important it\nmay be to philosophy, or however fundamental to science. In our daily\nmorning prayers, which refer to the daily awakening to a life seemingly\nnew, God is proclaimed as \u201cHe who reneweth daily the work of\ncreation.\u201d(440)\n\n\n\nChapter XXVI. The Maintenance and Government of the World\n\n\n1. For our religious consciousness the doctrine of divine maintenance and\ngovernment of the world is far more important than that of creation. It\nopposes the view of deism that God withdrew from His creation, indifferent\nto the destiny of His creatures. He is rather the ever-present Mind and\nWill in all the events of life. The world which He created is maintained\nby Him in its continuous activity, the object of His incessant care.\n\n2. Scripture knows nothing of natural law, but presents the changing\nphenomena of nature as special acts of God and considers the natural\nforces His messengers carrying out His will. \u201cHe opens the windows of\nheaven to let the rain descend upon the earth.\u201d(441) \u201cHe leads out the\nhosts of the stars according to their number and calleth them by\nname.\u201d(442) He makes the sun rise and set. \u201cHe says to the snow: Fall to\nthe earth!\u201d(443) and calls to the wind to blow and to the lightning to\nflash.(444) He causes the produce of the earth and the drought which\ndestroys them. \u201cHe opens the womb to make beasts and men bring forth their\nyoung;\u201d \u201cHe shuts up the womb to make them barren.\u201d(445) \u201cHe also provides\nthe food for all His creatures in due season, even for the young ravens\nwhen they cry.\u201d(446) His breath keeps all alive. \u201cHe withdraweth their\nbreath, and they perish, and return to their dust. He sendeth forth His\nspirit, they are created; He reneweth the face of the earth.\u201d(447) We are\ntold also that God assigns to each being its functions, telling the earth\nto bring forth fruit,(448) the sea not to trespass its boundary,(449) the\nstars and the seas to maintain their order.(450) To each one He hath set a\nmeasure, a law which they dare not transgress. God\u2019s wisdom works in them;\nthey all are subject to His rule.\n\n3. This conclusion betokens an obvious improvement upon the earlier and\nmore childlike view. It recognizes that there is an order in the universe\nand all under divine supervision. Thus Jeremiah speaks of a covenant of\nGod with heaven and earth, and of the laws which they must obey,(451) and\nin Genesis the rainbow is represented as a sign of the covenant of peace\nmade by God with the whole earth.(452) As God \u201cmaketh peace in the heavens\nabove,\u201d(453) He establishes order in the world. As the various powers of\nnature are invested with a degree of independence, God\u2019s sovereignty\nmanifests itself in the regularity with which they interact and\nco\u00f6perate.(454) The lore of the mystics speaks even of an oath which God\nadministered upon His holy Name to the heavens and the stars, the sea and\nthe abyss, that they should never break their designated bounds or disturb\nthe whole order of creation.(455)\n\n4. Further progress is noted in the liturgy, in such expressions as that\n\u201cGod reneweth daily the work of creation,\u201d or \u201cHe openeth every morning\nthe gate of heaven to let the sun come out of its chambers in all its\nsplendor\u201d and \u201cat eventide He maketh it return through the portals of the\nwest.\u201d Again, \u201cHe reneweth His creative power in every phenomenon of\nnature and in every turn of the season;\u201d \u201cHe provideth every living being\nwith its sustenance.\u201d(456) Indeed, in the view of Judaism the maintenance\nof the entire household of nature is one continuous act of God which can\nneither be interrupted nor limited in time. God in His infinite wisdom\nworks forever through the same laws which were in force at the beginning,\nand which shall continue through all the realms of time and space.\n\nWe feeble mortals, of course, see but \u201cthe hem of His garment\u201d and hear\nonly \u201ca whisper of His voice.\u201d Still from the deeper promptings of our\nsoul we learn that science does not touch the inmost essence of the world\nwhen it finds a law of necessity in the realm of nature. The universe is\nmaintained and governed by a moral order. Moral objects are attained by\nthe forces of the elements, \u201cthe messengers of God who fulfilled His\nword.\u201d(457) Both the hosts of heaven and the creatures of the earth do His\nbidding; their every act, great or small, is as He has ordered. Yet of\nthem all man alone is made in God\u2019s image, and can work self-consciously\nand freely for a moral purpose. Indeed, as the rabbis express it, he has\nbeen called as \u201cthe co-worker with God in the work of creation.\u201d(458)\n\n5. The conception of a world-order also had to undergo a long development.\nThe theory of pagan antiquity, echoed in both Biblical and post-Biblical\nwritings, is that the world is definitely limited, with both a beginning\nand an end. As heaven and earth came into being, so they will wax old and\nshrink like a garment, while sun, moon, and stars will lose their\nbrightness and fall back into the primal chaos.(459) The belief in a\ncataclysmic ending of the world is a logical corollary of the belief in\nthe birth of the world. In striking contrast, the prophets hold forth the\nhope of a future regeneration of the world. God will create \u201ca new heaven\nand a new earth\u201d where all things will arise in new strength and\nbeauty.(460)\n\nThis hope, as all eschatology, was primarily related to the regeneration\nof the Jewish people. Accordingly, the rabbis speak of two worlds,(461)\nthis world and the world to come. They consider the present life only a\npreliminary of the world to come, in which the divine plan of creation is\nto be worked out for all humanity through the truths emanating from\nIsrael. This whole conception rested upon a science now superseded, the\ngeocentric view of the universe, which made the earth and especially man\nthe final object of creation. For us only a figurative meaning adheres to\nthe two worlds of the medieval belief, following each other after the\nlapse of a fixed period of time. On the one hand, we see one infinite\nfabric of life in this visible world with its millions of suns and\nplanets, among which our earth is only an insignificant speck in the sky.\nWith our limited understanding we endeavor to penetrate more and more into\nthe eternal laws of this illimitable cosmos. On the other hand, we hold\nthat there is a moral and spiritual world which comprises the divine\nideals and eternal objects of life. Both are reflected in the mind of man,\nwho enters into the one by his intellect and into the other by his\nemotions of yearning and awe. At the same time both are the manifestation\nof God, the Creator and Ruler of all.\n\n\n\nChapter XXVII. Miracles and the Cosmic Order\n\n\n 1. \u201cWho is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the mighty?\n Who is like unto Thee, glorious in holiness,\n Fearful in praises, doing wonders!\u201d(462)\n\n\nThus sang Israel at the Red Sea in words which are constantly re\u00ebchoed in\nour liturgy. Nothing impresses the religious sense of man so much as\nunusual phenomena in nature, which seem to interrupt the wonted course of\nevents and thus to reveal the workings of a higher Power. A miracle\u2014that\nis, a thing \u201cwondered\u201d at, because not understood\u2014is always regarded by\nScripture as a \u201csign\u201d(463) or \u201cproof\u201d(464) of the power of God, to whom\nnothing is impossible. The child-like mind of the past knew nothing of\nfixed or immutable laws of nature. Therefore the question is put in all\nsimplicity: \u201cIs anything too hard for the Lord?\u201d(465) \u201cIs the Lord\u2019s hand\nwaxed short?\u201d(466) \u201cOr should He who created heaven and earth not be able\nto create something which never was before?\u201d(467) Should \u201cHe who maketh a\nman\u2019s mouth, or makes him deaf, dumb, seeing or blind,\u201d(468) not be able\nalso to open the mouth of the dumb beast or the eyes of the blind? Should\nnot He who killeth and giveth life have the power also to call the dead\nback to life, if He sees fit? Should not He who openeth the womb for every\nbirth, be able to open it for her who is ninety years old? Or when a whole\nland is wicked, to shut the wombs of all its inhabitants that they may\nremain barren? Again, should not He who makes the sun come forth every\nmorning from the gates of the East and enter each night the portals of the\nWest, not be able to change this order once, and cause it to stand still\nin the midst of its course?(469)\n\nSo long as natural phenomena are considered to be separate acts of the\ndivine will, an unusual event is merely an extraordinary manifestation of\nthis same power, \u201cthe finger of God.\u201d The people of Biblical times never\nquestioned whether a miracle happened or could happen. Their concern was\nto see it as the work of the arm of God either for His faithful ones or\nagainst His adversaries.\n\n2. With the advance of thought, miracles began to be regarded as\ninterruptions of an established order of creation. The question then\narose, why the all-knowing Creator should allow deviations from His own\nlaws. As the future was present to Him at the outset, why did He not make\nprovision in advance for such special cases as He foresaw? This was\nexactly the remedy which the rabbis furnished. They declared that at\nCreation God provided for certain extraordinary events, so that a latent\nforce, established for the purpose at the beginning of the world, is\nresponsible for incidents which appeared at the time to be true\ninterferences with the world order. Thus God had made a special covenant,\nas it were, with the work of creation that at the appointed time the Red\nSea should divide before Israel; that sun and moon should stand still at\nthe bidding of Joshua; that fire should not consume the three youths,\nHananel, Mishael, and Azariah; that the sea-monster should spit forth\nJonah alive; together with other so-called miracles.(470) The same idea\noccasioned the other Haggadic saying that shortly before the completion of\nthe creation on the evening of the sixth day God placed certain miraculous\nforces in nature. Through them the earth opened to swallow Korah and his\nband, the rock in the wilderness gave water for the thirsty multitude, and\nBalaam\u2019s ass spoke like a human being; through them also the rainbow\nappeared after the flood, the manna rained from heaven, Aaron\u2019s rod burst\nforth with almond blossoms and fruit, and other wondrous events happened\nin their proper time.(471)\n\n3. Neither the rabbis nor the medieval Jewish thinkers expressed any doubt\nof the credibility of the Biblical miracles. The latter, indeed,\nrationalized miracles as well as other things, and considered some of them\nimaginary. Saadia accepts all the Biblical miracles except the speaking\nserpent in Paradise and the speaking ass of Balaam, considering these to\nbe parables rather than actual occurrences.(472) In general, both Jewish\nand Mohammedan theologians assumed that special forces hidden in nature\nwere utilized by the prophets and saints to testify to their divine\nmission. These powers were attained by their lofty intellects, which\nlifted them up to the sphere of the Supreme Intellect. All medieval\nattempts to solve the problem of miracles were based upon this curious\ncombination of Aristotelian cosmology and Mohammedan or Jewish\ntheology.(473) True, Maimonides rejects a number of miracles as contrary\nto natural law, and refers to the rabbinical saying that some of the\nmiraculous events narrated in Scripture were so only in appearance. Still\nhe claims for Moses, as the Mohammedans did for Mohammed, miraculous\npowers derived from the sphere of the Supreme Intellect. In a lengthy\nchapter on miracles Albo follows Maimonides,(474) while his teacher\nCrescas considers the Biblical miracles to be direct manifestations of the\ncreative activity of God.(475) Gersonides has really two opinions; in his\ncommentary he reduces all miracles to natural processes, but in his\nphilosophical work he adopts the view of Maimonides.(476) Jehuda ha Levi\nalone insisted on the miracles of the Bible as historic evidence of the\ndivine calling of the prophets.(477) To all the rest, the miracle is not\nperformed by God but by the divinely endowed man. God himself is no longer\nconceived of as changing the cosmic order. Both He and the world created\nby His will remain ever the same. Still, according to this theory, certain\nprivileged men are endowed with special powers by the Supreme Intellect,\nand by these they can perform miracles.\n\n4. It is evident that in all this the problem of miracles is not solved,\nnor even correctly stated. Both rabbinical literature and the Bible abound\nwith miracles about certain holy places and holy persons, which they never\nventure to doubt. But the rabbis were not miracle-workers like the Essenes\nand their Christian successors.(478) On the contrary, they sought to\nrepress the popular credulity and hunger for the miraculous, saying: \u201cThe\npresent generation is not worthy to have miracles performed for them, like\nthe former ones;\u201d(479) or \u201cThe providing of each living soul with its\ndaily food, or the recovery of men from a severe disease is as great a\nmiracle as any of those told in Scripture;\u201d(480) or again, \u201cOf how small\naccount is a person for whom the cosmic order must be disturbed!\u201d(481)\nThus when the wise men of Rome asked the Jewish sages: \u201cIf your God is\nomnipotent, as you claim, why does He not banish from the world the idols,\nwhich are so loathsome to Him?\u201d they replied: \u201cDo you really desire God to\ndestroy the sun, moon, and stars, because fools worship them? The world\ncontinues its regular course, and idolaters will not go unpunished.\u201d(482)\n\n5. In Judaism neither Biblical nor rabbinical miracles are to be accepted\nas proof of a doctrinal or practical teaching.(483) The Deuteronomic law\nexpressly states that false prophets can perform miracles by which they\nmislead the multitude.(484) We can therefore ascribe no intrinsic\nreligious importance to miracles. The fact is that miracles occur only\namong people who are ignorant of natural law and thus predisposed to\naccept marvels. They are the products of human imagination and credulity.\nThey have only a subjective, not an objective value. They are\npsychological, not physical facts.\n\nThe attitude of Maimonides and Albo toward Biblical miracles is especially\nsignificant. The former declares in his great Code:(485) \u201cIsrael\u2019s belief\nin Moses and his law did not rest on miracles, for miracles rather create\ndoubt in the mind of the believer. Faith must rest on its intrinsic truth,\nand this can never be subverted by miracles, which may be of a deceitful\nnature.\u201d Albo devotes a lengthy chapter to developing this idea still\nfurther, undoubtedly referring to the Church; he speaks of miracles\nwrought by both Biblical and Talmudic heroes, such as Onias the\nrain-maker, Nicodemus ben Gorion, Hanina ben Dosa, and Phinehas ben Jair,\nthe popular saints.(486) In modern times Mendelssohn, when challenged by\nthe Lutheran pastor Lavater either to accept the Christian faith or refute\nit, attacked especially the basic Christian faith in miracles. He stated\nboldly that \u201cmiracles prove nothing, since every religion bases its claims\non them and consequently the truth of one would disprove the convincing\nproof of the other.\u201d(487)\n\n6. Our entire modern mode of thinking demands the complete recognition of\nthe empire of law throughout the universe, manifesting the all-permeating\nwill of God. The whole cosmic order is _one_ miracle. No room is left for\nsingle or exceptional miracles. Only a primitive age could think of God as\naltering the order of nature which He had fixed, so as to let iron float\non water like wood to please one person here,(488) or to stop sun, star,\nor sea in their courses in order to help or harm mankind there.(489) It is\nmore important for us to inquire into the law of the mind by which the\nfact itself may differ from the peculiar form given it by a narrator. With\nour historical methods unknown to former ages, we cannot accept any story\nof a miracle without seeking its intrinsic historical accuracy. After all,\nthe miracle as narrated is but a human conception of what, under God\u2019s\nguidance, really happened.\n\nAccordingly, we must leave the final interpretation of the Biblical\nnarratives to the individual, to consider them as historical facts or as\nfigurative presentations of religious ideas. Even now some people will\nprefer to believe that the Ten Commandments emanated from God Himself in\naudible tones, as medieval thinkers maintained.(490) Some will adopt the\nold semi-rationalistic explanation that He created a voice for this\nspecial purpose. Others will hold it more worthy of God to communicate\ndirectly with man, from spirit to spirit, without the use of sensory\nmeans; these will therefore take the Biblical description as figurative or\nmythical. In fact, he who does not cling to the letter of the Scripture\nwill probably regard all the miracles as poetical views of divine\nProvidence, as child-like imagery expressing the ancient view of the\neternal goodness and wisdom of God. To us also God is \u201ca Doer of wonders,\u201d\nbut we experience His wonderworking powers in ourselves. We see wonders in\nthe acts of human freedom which rises superior to the blind forces of\nnature. The true miracle consists in the divine power within man which\naids him to accomplish all that is great and good.\n\n\n\nChapter XXVIII. Providence and the Moral Government of the World\n\n\n1. None of the precious truths of Judaism has become more indispensable\nthan the belief in divine Providence, which we see about us in ever new\nand striking forms. Man would succumb from fear alone, beholding the\ndangers about him on every side, were he not sustained by a conviction\nthat there is an all-wise Power who rules the world for a sublime purpose.\nWe know that even in direst distress we are guided by a divine hand that\ndirects everything finally toward the good. Wherever we are, we are\nprotected by God, who watches over the destinies of man as \u201cdoes the eagle\nwho hovers over her young and bears them aloft on her pinions.\u201d Each of us\nis assigned his place in the all-encompassing plan. Such knowledge and\nsuch faith as this comprise the greatest comfort and joy which the Jewish\nreligion offers. Both the narratives and the doctrines of Scripture are\nfilled with this idea of Providence working in the history of individuals\nand nations.(491)\n\n2. Providence implies first, _provision_, and second, _predestination_ in\naccordance with the divine plan for the government of the world. As God\u2019s\ndominion over the visible world appears in the eternal order of the\ncosmos, so in the moral world, where action arises from freely chosen\naims, God is Ruler of a moral government. Thus He directs all the acts of\nmen toward the end which He has set. Judaism is most sharply contrasted\nwith heathenism at this point. Heathenism either deifies nature or merges\nthe deity into nature. Thus there is no place for a God who knows all\nthings and provides for all in advance. Blind fate rules all the forces of\nlife, including the deities themselves. Therefore chance incidents in\nnature or the positions of the stars are taken as indications of destiny.\nHence the belief in oracles and divination, in the observation of flying\narrows and floating clouds, of the color and shape of the liver of\nsacrificial animals, and other signs of heaven and earth which were to\nhint at the future.(492)\n\nOn the other hand, Judaism sees in all things, not the fortuitous dealings\nof a blind and relentless fate, but the dispensations of a wise and benign\nProvidence. It knows of no event which is not foreordained by God. It\nsanctioned the decision by lot(493) and the appeal to the oracle (the Urim\nand Thummim)(494) only temporarily, during the Biblical period. But soon\nit recognized entirely the will of God as the Ruler of destiny, and the\npeople accepted the belief that \u201cthe days,\u201d \u201cthe destinies,\u201d and even \u201cthe\ntears\u201d of man are all written in His \u201cbook.\u201d(495) Thus they perceived God\nas \u201cHe who knows from the beginning what will be at the end.\u201d(496) The\nprophets, His messengers, could thus foretell His will. They perceive Him\nas the One who \u201ccreated the smith that brought forth the weapon for its\nwork, and created the master who uses it for destruction.\u201d(497) However\nthe foe may rage, he is but \u201cthe scourge in the hand of God,\u201d like \u201cthe\naxe in the hand of him who fells the tree.\u201d(498) No device of men or\nnations can withstand His will, for He turns all their doings to some good\npurpose and transforms every curse into a blessing.(499)\n\n3. Naturally this truth was first accepted in limited form, in the life of\ncertain individuals. The history of Joseph and of King David were used as\nillustrations to show how God protects His own. The experiences of the\npeople confirmed this belief and expanded it to apply to the nation. The\nwanderings of Israel through the wilderness and its entrance to the\npromised land were regarded as God\u2019s work for His chosen people. The\nprophets looked still further and saw the destinies of all nations,\nentering the foreground of history one by one, as the sign of divine\nProvidence, so that finally the entire history of mankind became a great\nplan of divine salvation, centered upon the truth intrusted to Israel.\n\nBeside this conception of _general_ Providence ruling in history, the idea\nof _special_ Providence arose in response to human longing. The belief in\nProvidence developed to a full conception of care for the world at large\nand for each individual in his peculiar destiny, a conviction that divine\nProvidence is concerned with the welfare of each individual, and that the\njoyous or bitter lot of each man forms a link in the moral government of\nthe world. The first clear statement of this comes from the prophet\nJeremiah in his wrestling and sighing: \u201cI know, O Lord, that the way of\nman is not in himself, it is not in man that walketh to direct his\nsteps.\u201d(500) Special Providence is discussed still more vividly and\ndefinitely in the book of Job. Later on it becomes a specific Pharisaic\ndoctrine, \u201cEverything is foreseen.\u201d(501) \u201cNo man suffers so much as the\ninjury of a finger unless it has been decreed in heaven.\u201d(502) A divine\npreordination decides a man\u2019s choice of his wife(503) and every other\nimportant step of his life.\n\n4. This theory of predestination, however, presents a grave difficulty\nwhen we consider it in relation to man\u2019s morality with its implication of\nself-determination. While this question of free will is treated fully in\nanother connection,(504) we may anticipate the thought at this point. The\nJewish conception of divine predestination makes as much allowance as\npossible for the moral freedom of man. This is shown in Talmudic sayings,\nsuch as \u201cEverything is within the power of God except the fear of\nGod,\u201d(505) or \u201cRepentance, prayer, and charity avert the evil\ndecree.\u201d(506) Thus Maimonides expressly states in his Code that the belief\nin predestination cannot be allowed to influence one\u2019s moral or religious\ncharacter. A man can decide by his own volition whether he shall become as\njust as Moses or as wicked as Jeroboam.(507)\n\n5. The service of the New Year brings out significantly the Jewish\nharmonization between the ideas of God\u2019s foreknowledge and man\u2019s moral\nfreedom. This festival, in the Bible called the Festival of the Blowing of\nthe Shofar, was transformed under Babylonian influence into the Day of\nDivine Judgment. But it is still in marked contrast to the Babylonian New\nYear\u2019s Day, when the gods were supposed to go to the House of the Tablets\nof Destiny in the deep to hear the decisions of fate.(508) The Jewish\nsages taught that on this day God, the Judge of the world, pronounces the\ndestinies of men and nations according to their deserts. They thus\nreplaced the heathen idea of blind fate by that of eternal justice as the\nformative power of life. Then, moved by a desire to mitigate the rigor of\nstern justice for the frail and failing mortal, they included also God\u2019s\nlong-suffering and mercy. These attributes are thus supposed to intercede,\nso that the final decision is left in suspense until the Day of Atonement,\nthe great day of pardon. Some Tannaitic teachers(509) find it more in\naccord with their view of God to say that He judges man every day, and\neven every hour.\n\nOf course, the philosophic mind can take this whole viewpoint in a\nfigurative sense alone. All the more must we recognize that this sublime\nreligious thought of God liberates morality from the various limitations\nof the ancient pagan conception of Deity and the more recent metaphysical\nview. In place of these it asserts that there is a moral government of the\nworld, which must be imitated in the moral and religious consciousness of\nthe individual.\n\n6. The belief in a moral government of the world answers another question\nwhich the medieval Jewish philosophers and their Mohammedan predecessors\nendeavored to solve, but without satisfying the religious sentiment, the\nchief concern of theology. Some of them maintain that God\u2019s foreknowledge\ndoes not determine human deeds.(510) Maimonides and his school, however,\nsay that it is impossible for us to comprehend the knowledge and power of\nGod, and that therefore such a question is outside the sphere of human\nknowledge. \u201cKnow that, just as God has made the elements of fire and air\nto rise upwards and water and earth to sink downward, so has He made man a\nfree, self-determining being, who acts of his own volition.\u201d(511) The\nMohammedans would often give up human freedom rather than the omniscience\nand all-determining power of God; but the Jewish thinkers, significantly,\nwith only the possible exception of Crescas,(512) laid stress upon the\ndivine nature which man attains through moral freedom, even at the risk of\nlimiting the omniscience of God.\n\n7. The philosophers failed, however, to emphasize sufficiently a point of\nhighest importance for religion, God\u2019s paternal care for all His\ncreatures. Indeed, God ceases to be God, if He has not included our every\nstep in His plan of creation, thus surrounding us with paternal love and\ntender care. Instead of the three blind fates of heathendom who spin and\ncut the threads of destiny without even knowing why, the divine Father\nhimself sits at the loom of time and apportions the lot of men according\nto His own wisdom and goodness. Such a belief in divine Providence is\ningrained in the soul, and reasoning alone will not suffice to attain it.\nTherefore even such great thinkers as Maimonides and Gersonides go astray\nas religious teachers when they follow Aristotelian principles in this\nvery intimate matter. They assume a general Providence aiming for the\npreservation of the species, but include a special Providence only so far\nas the recipient of it is endowed with reason and has thus approached the\ndivine Intellect. A Providence of this type, the result of human\nreasoning, is a mere illusion, as the pious thinker, Hasdai Crescas,\nclearly shows.(513) For the man who prays to God in anxiety or distress\nthis bears nothing but disappointment.\n\nThe Aristotelian conception of the world has this great truth, that there\nis no such thing as chance, that everything is foreseen and provided by\nthe divine wisdom. But religion must hold that the individual is an object\nof care by God, that \u201cnot a sparrow falls into the net without God\u2019s\nwill,\u201d(514) that \u201cevery hair on the head of man is counted and cared for\nin the heavenly order,\u201d(515) and that the most insignificant thing serves\nits purpose under the guidance of an all-wise God. We use figurative\nexpressions for the divine care, because we cannot grasp it entirely or\nliterally.\n\n8. The Bible in the Song of Moses compares divine Providence to the eagle\nspreading her protecting wings over her young and bearing them aloft, or\nurging them to soar along.(516) The rabbis elaborate this by referring to\nthe twofold care which the eagle thus bestows, as she watches over those\nwho are still tender and helpless, shielding them from the arrows below by\nbearing them on her wings, but inspiring the maturer and stronger ones to\nfly by her side.(517) In the same way Providence trains both individuals\nand generations for their allotted task. A little child requires incessant\ncare on the part of its mother, until it has learned how to eat, walk,\nspeak, and to decide for itself, but the wise parent gradually withdraws\nhis guiding hand so that the growing child may learn self-reliance and\nself-respect. The divine Father trains man thus through the childhood of\nhumanity. But no sooner does the divine spirit in man awaken to\nself-consciousness than he is thrown on his own resources to become the\nmaster of his own destiny. The divine power which, in the earlier stages,\nhad worked _for_ man, now works _with_ him and _within_ him. In the\nrabbinic phrase, he is now ready to be a \u201cco-worker with God in the work\nof creation.\u201d(518) Only at those grave moments when his own powers fail\nhim, he still feels in the humility of faith that his ancient God is still\nnear, \u201ca very present help in trouble,\u201d and that \u201cthe Guardian of Israel\nneither slumbereth nor sleepeth.\u201d(519)\n\nPhilosophy cannot tolerate the removal of the dividing line between the\ntranscendent God and finite man. Hence the relation of man\u2019s free will and\ndivine foresight cannot be solved by any process of reasoning. But when\nreligion proclaims a moral government of the world, then man, with his\nmoral and spiritual aims, attains a place in Creation akin to the Creator.\nOf course, so long as he is mentally a child and has no clear purpose,\nProvidence acts for him as it does for the animal with its marvelous\ninstinct. Through His chosen messengers God gives the people bread and\nwater, freedom and victory, instruction and law. The wondrous tales\ndescribing the divine protection of Israel in its early life may strike us\nas out of harmony with the laws of nature, but they are true portrayals of\nthe experience of the people. Whatever happened for their good in those\ndays had to be the work of God; they had not yet wakened to the power\nhidden in their own soul. Their heroes felt themselves to be divine\ninstruments, roused by His spirit to perform mighty deeds or to behold\nprophetic visions. It is God who battles through them. It is God who\nspeaks through them. Both their moral and spiritual guidance works from\nwithout and above. At this stage of life autonomy is neither felt nor\ndesired. When man awakens to moral self-consciousness and maturity, this\ninner change impresses him as an outer one; the change in him is\ninterpreted as a change in God. He feels that God has withdrawn behind His\neternal laws of nature and morality which work without direct\ninterference, and in his new sense of independence he thinks that he can\ndispense with the divine protection and forethought. As if mortal man can\never dispense with that Power which has endowed him with his capacity for\nworthy accomplishment! Thus in times of danger and distress man turns to\nGod for help; thus at every great turning point in the life of an\nindividual or nation the idea of an all-wise Providence imbues him with\nnew hope and new security. And in all these cases the great lesson of\nprovidential direction is typified in the history of Israel as related in\nthe Bible.\n\n10. The idea of Providence, indeed, belongs also to certain pagan\nphilosophers, who observed the great purposes of nature which the single\ncreature and the species are both to serve. The Stoics in particular made\na study of teleology, the system of purposive ends in nature. Philo\nadopted much from them in his treatise on Providence. Later the popular\nphilosophic group among the Mohammedans, the so-called \u201cBrothers of\nPurity,\u201d based their doctrines of God and His relation to the world on a\nteleological view of nature. In fact, the Jewish philosopher and moralist\nBahya ben Pakudah has embodied many of their ideas in his \u201cDuties of the\nHeart.\u201d(520)\n\nJewish folklore\u2014preserved in rabbinic literature\u2014has also attempted a\npopular explanation of the obscure ways of Providence, in strange events\nof nature as well as the great enigmas of human destiny. Thus the flight\nof David from Saul affords the lesson of the good purpose which may be\nserved by so insignificant a thing as a spider, or by so dreadful a state\nas insanity.(521) Vast numbers of the Jewish legends and fables deal with\nadversities which are turned into ultimate good by the working of an\nall-wise Providence.(522)\n\n\n\nChapter XXIX. God and the Existence of Evil\n\n\n1. A leading objection to the belief in divine Providence is the existence\nin this world of physical and moral evil. All living creatures are exposed\nto the influence of evil, according to their physical or moral\nconstitutions and the peculiar conditions of their existence. Heathenism\naccounts for the powers of darkness, pain and death by assuming the\nexistence of forces hostile to the heavenly powers of light and life, or\nof a primitive principle of evil, the counterpart of the divine beings.\nBut to those who believe in an almighty and all-benign Creator and Ruler\nof the universe, the question remains: Why do life and the love of life\nencounter so many hindrances? Why does God\u2019s world contain so much pain\nand bitterness, so much passion and sin? Should not Providence have\naverted such things? The answer of Judaism has already been stated here,\nbut we need further elaboration of the theme that there is no evil before\nGod, since a good purpose is served even by that which appears bad. In the\nlife of the human body pleasure and pain, the impetus to life and its\nrestraint and inhibition form a necessary contrast, making for health; so,\nin the moral order of the universe, each being who battles with evil\nreceives new strength for the unfolding of the good. The principle of\nholiness, which culminates in Israel\u2019s holy God, transforms and ennobles\nevery evil. As the Midrash explains, referring to Deut. XI, 26: \u201cIf thou\nbut seest that both good and evil are placed in thy hand, no evil will\ncome to thee from above, since thou knowest how to turn it into\ngood.\u201d(523)\n\n2. The conception of evil passed through a development parallel with that\nof the related conceptions which we have just reviewed. At first every\nmisfortune was considered to be inflicted by divine wrath as a punishment\nfor human misdeeds. Nations and individuals were thought to suffer for\nsome special moral cause; through suffering they were punished for past\nwrong, warned against its repetition in the future, and urged to\nrepentance and improvement of their conduct. Even death, the fate of all\nliving creatures, was regarded as a punishment which the first pair of\nhuman beings brought upon all their descendants through their\ntransgression of the divine command. The Talmudic sages clung to the view\nof the Paradise legend in the Bible, when they held that every death is\ndue to some sin committed by the individual.(524)\n\nThis view, which was shared by paganism, was accompanied by a higher\nconception, gradually growing in the thinking mind. As a father does not\npunish his child in anger, but in order to improve his conduct, so God\nchastens man in order to purify his moral nature. Good fortune tends to\nharden the heart; adversity often softens and sweetens it. In the crucible\nof suffering the gold of the human soul is purified from the dross. The\nevil strokes of destiny come upon the righteous, not because he deserves\nthem, but because his divine Friend is raising him to still higher tests\nof virtue. This standpoint, never reached even by the pious sufferer Job,\nis attained by rabbinic Judaism when it calls the visitations of the\nrighteous \u201ctrials of the divine love.\u201d(525) Thus evil, both physical and\nspiritual, receives its true valuation in the divine economy. Evil exists\nonly to be overcome by the good. In His paternal goodness God uses it to\neducate His children for a place in His kingdom.\n\n3. According to the direct words of Scripture good and evil, light and\ndarkness, emanate alike from the Creator. This is accentuated by the great\nseer of the Exile,(526) who protests against the Persian belief in a\ncreative principle of good and a destructive principle of evil. The\nrabbis, however, ascribe the origin of evil to man; they take as a\nnegation rather than a question the verse in Lam. III, 38: \u201cDo not evil\nand good come out of the mouth of the Most High?\u201d Thus they refer this to\nthe words of Deuteronomy, \u201cBehold, I have set before you this day life and\ngood, death and evil; choose thou life!\u201d(527)\n\nSuch medieval thinkers as Abraham Ibn Daud and Maimonides did not ascribe\nto evil any reality at all.(528) Evil to them is the negation of good,\njust as darkness is the negation of light, or poverty of riches. As evil\nexists only for man, man can overcome it by himself. Before God it has no\nessential existence. Unfortunately, such metaphysics does not equip man\nwith strength and courage to cope with either pain or sin. The same lack\nis evident in that modern form of pseudo-science which poses as a\nreligion, Christian Science, which has made propaganda so widely among\nboth Jews and non-Jews. Christian Science declares pain, sickness, and all\nevil to be merely the \u201cerror of mortal mind,\u201d which can all be dispelled\nby faith; such a view neither strengthens the soul for its real struggles\nnor convinces the mind by an appeal to facts.(529)\n\n4. Frail mortals as we are, we need the help of the living God. Thus only\ncan we overcome physical evil, knowing that He bears with us, feels with\nus, and transforms it finally into good. We need it also to overcome moral\nevil, in the consciousness that He has compassion upon the repentant\nsinner and gives him courage to follow the right path. The modern\nphilosophers of pessimism had the correct feeling in adopting the Hindu\nconception, and emphasizing the pain and misery of existence, repeating\nJob\u2019s ancient plaint over the hard destiny of mankind. The shallow\noptimism of the age would rather conceal the dark side of life and indulge\nin outbursts of self-sufficiency. Yet if we measure it only by a physical\nyardstick, life cannot be called a boon. Against shallow optimism we have\nthe testimony of every thorn and sting, every poisonous breath and every\ndestructive element in nature\u2019s household, as well as all vice and evil in\nthe world of man. The world does not appear good, unless we measure it by\nthe ideal of divine holiness. If God is the Father watching over the\nwelfare of every mortal, all things are good, because all serve a good\npurpose in His eternal plan. Every hindrance or pressure engenders new\npower; every sting acts as a spur to higher things. Short-sighted and\nshort-lived as is man, he forgets too easily that in the sight of God \u201ca\nthousand years are as a single day,\u201d world-epochs like \u201cwatches in the\nnight,\u201d and that the mills of divine justice grind on, \u201cslowly but\nexceeding small.\u201d But one belief illumines the darkness of destiny, and\nthat is that God stands ever at the helm, steering through every storm and\ntempest toward His sublime goal. In the moral striving of man we can but\nrealize that our every victory contributes toward the majestic work of\nGod.(530)\n\n\n\nChapter XXX. God and the Angels\n\n\n1. Judaism insists with unrelenting severity on the absolute unity and\nincomparability of God, so that no other being can be placed beside Him.\nConsequently, every mention of divine beings (_Elohim_ or _B\u2019ne Elohim_)\nin either the Bible or post-Biblical literature refers to subordinate\nbeings only. These spirits constitute the celestial court for the King of\nthe World.(531) All the forces of the universe are His servants,\nfulfilling His commands. Hence both the Hebrew and Greek terms for angel,\n_Malak_ and _angelos_, mean \u201cmessenger.\u201d These beings derive their\nexistence from God; some of them are merely temporary, so that without Him\nthey dissolve into nothing. Although Scripture uses the terms, \u201cGod of\ngods\u201d and \u201cKing of kings,\u201d still we cannot attribute any independent\nexistence to subordinate divine beings. In fact, Maimonides in his sixth\narticle of faith holds that worship of such beings is prohibited as\nidolatry by the second commandment.(532) Thus the unity of God lifts Him\nabove comparison with any other divine being. This is most emphatically\nexpressed in Deuteronomy: \u201cKnow this day, and lay it to thy heart, that\nthe Lord He is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath; there is\nnone else,\u201d(533) and \u201cSee now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god\nwith Me; I kill and make alive; I have wounded and I heal, and there is\nnone that can deliver out of My hand.\u201d(534) The same attitude is found in\nIsaiah: \u201cI am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretched forth the\nheavens alone, that spread abroad the earth by Myself\u201d \u201cI am the Lord and\nthere is none else; beside Me there is no god.\u201d(535) Such conceptions\nallow no place for angels or spirits.\n\n2. It was certainly not easy for prophet, lawgiver, or sage to dispel the\npopular belief in divine beings or powers, which primitive Judaism shared\nwith other ancient faiths. No sharp line was drawn at first between God\nand His accompanying angels, as we may infer from the story of the angels\nwho appeared to Abraham, and the similar incidents of Hagar and\nJacob.(536) The varying application of the term _Elohim_ to God and to the\nangels or gods is proof enough of the priority of polytheism, even in\nJudaism. The trees or springs, formerly seats of the ancient deities,\nspirits, or demons, were now the places for the appearance of angels,\nshorn of their independence, looking like fiery or shining human beings.\nPopular belief, however, perpetuated mythological elements, ascribing to\nthe angels higher wisdom and sometimes sensuality as well. Such a case is\nthe fragment preserved in Genesis telling of the union of sons of God to\nthe daughters of men, causing the generation of giants.(537) Obviously the\nold Babylonian \u201cmountain of the gods,\u201d with its food for the gods, became\nin the Paradise legend the garden of Eden, the seat of God;(538) and the\nPsalmist still speaks of the \u201cangels\u2019 food,\u201d which appeared as manna in\nthe wilderness.(539) On the whole, the sacred writers were most eager to\nallot to the angels a very subordinate position in the divine household.\nThey figure usually as hosts of beings, numbered by myriads, wrapped in\nlight or in fleeting clouds. They surround the throne or chariot of God;\nthey comprise His heavenly court or council; they sing His praise and obey\nHis call.\n\nScripture is quite silent about the creation of these angelic beings, as\non most purely speculative questions. At the very beginning of the world\nGod consults them when He is to create man after the image of the\ncelestial beings. For this is the original meaning of _Elohim_ in Gen. I,\n26 and 27 and V, 1: \u201cLet us make man in our image, after our likeness\u201d;\n\u201cAnd God created man in his own image, in the image of godly beings He\ncreated him.\u201d This view is echoed in Psalm VIII, verse 6: \u201cThou hast made\nhim a little lower than godly beings.\u201d In Job XXXVIII, 7, both the morning\nstars and the sons of God, or angels, \u201cshout together in joy\u201d when the\nLord laid the foundations of the earth.(540)\n\n3. In Biblical times\u2014which does not include the book of Daniel, a work of\nthe Maccabean time\u2014the angels and demons were not invested with proper\nnames or special functions. The Biblical system does not even distinguish\nclearly between good and evil spirits. The goat-like demons of the field\npopularly worshiped were merely survivals of pagan superstitions.(541)\n\nIn general the angels carry out good or evil designs according to their\ncommands from the Lord of Hosts. They are sent forth to destroy Sodom, to\nsave Lot, and to bring Abraham the good tidings of the birth of a\nson.(542) On one occasion the host of spirits protect the people of God;\non another they annihilate hostile powers by pestilence and plagues.(543)\nAt one time a multitude appear, led by a celestial chieftain; at another a\nsingle angel performs the miracle. In any case the destroying angel is not\na demon, but a messenger of the divine will. Originally some of these\nprimitive forces were dreaded or worshiped by the people, but all have\nbeen transformed into members of the celestial court and called to bear\nwitness to the dominion of the Omnipotent.\n\n4. The belief in angels served two functions in the development of\nmonotheism. On the one hand, it was a stage in the concentration of the\ndivine forces, beginning with polytheism, continuing through belief in\nangels, and culminating in the one and only God of heaven and earth. On\nthe other hand, certain sensuous elements in the vision of God by the\nseers had to be removed in the spiritualization of God, and it was found\neasiest to transform these into separate beings, related to Deity himself.\nThus the fiery appearance of God to the eye or the voice which was\nmanifested to the ear were often personified as angels of God. This very\nprocess made possible the purification of the God idea, as the sublime\nessence of the Deity was divested of physical and temporal elements, and\nGod was conceived more and more as a moral and spiritual personality.\nHence in Biblical passages the names of God and of the angel frequently\nalternate.(544) The latter is only a representative of the divine\npersonality\u2014in Scriptural terms, the presence or \u201cface\u201d of God. Therefore\nthe voice of the angel is to be obeyed as that of God himself, because His\nname is present in His representative. A similar meaning became attached\nlater on to the term _Shekinah_, the \u201cmajesty\u201d of God as beheld in the\ncloud of fire. This was spoken of in place of God that He might not be\nlowered into the earthly sphere. For further discussion of this subject,\nsee chapter XXXII, \u201cGod and Intermediary Powers.\u201d In fact, we note that\nthe post-exilic prophets all received their revelations, not from God, but\nthrough a special angel.(545) They no longer believed that God might be\nseen or heard by human powers, and therefore their visions had to be\ntranslated into rational thoughts by a mediating angel.\n\n5. Persian influence gave Jewish angelology and demonology a different\ncharacter. The two realms of the Persian system included vast hosts of\nbeneficent spirits under Ahura-Mazda (Ormuzd) and of demons under the\ndominion of Angro-mainyus (Ahriman). So in Judaism also different orders\nof angels arose, headed by archangels who bore special names. The number\nseven was adopted from the Persians, while both names and order were often\nchanged. All of them, however, were allotted special functions in the\ndivine household. The pagan deities and primitive spirits which still\npersisted in popular superstition were given a new lease of life. Each\nforce of nature was given a guardian spirit, just as in nature-worship;\nangels were appointed over fire, water, each herb, each fountain, and\nevery separate function of life. A patron angel was assigned to each of\nthe seventy nations of the world mentioned in the genealogy of Noah.(546)\n\nThus the celestial court grew in number and in splendor. A beginning was\nmade with the heavenly chariot-throne of Ezekiel, borne aloft by the four\nholy living creatures (the _hayoth_), surrounded by the fiery _Cherubim_,\nthe winged _Seraphim_, and the many-eyed _Ofanim_ (wheels).(547) This was\nelaborated by the addition of rows of surrounding angels, called \u201cangels\nof service,\u201d headed by the seven archangels. Of these the chief was\nMichael, the patron-saint of Israel, and the next Gabriel, who is\nsometimes even placed first. Raphael and Uriel are regularly mentioned,\nthe other three rarely, and not always by the same names. The _Irin_ of\nDaniel\u2014known as \u201cthe Watchers,\u201d but more precisely \u201cthe ever-watchful\nOnes\u201d\u2014are another of the ten classes of angels included. Below these are\nmyriads of inferior angels who serve them. Their classification by rank\nwas a favorite theme of the secret lore of the Essenes, partly preserved\nfor us in the apocalyptic literature and the liturgy. The Essenic saints\nendeavored to acquire miraculous powers through using the names of certain\nangels, and thus exorcising the evil spirits.\n\nThis secret lore seems to be patterned after the Zoroastrian or Mazdean\nsystem. It is noteworthy that the most prominent angelic figure is\n_Metatron_, the charioteer of the _Merkabah_ or chariot-throne on high,\nwhich is merely another form of _Mithras_, the Persian god of light, who\nacts as charioteer for Ahura Mazda.(548) Two other angels are mentioned as\nstanding behind the heavenly throne, _Akathriel_, \u201cthe crown-bearer of\nGod,\u201d and _Sandalphon_, \u201cthe twin brother\u201d = Synadelphon.\n\n6. A striking contrast exists between the simple habitation in the sky\ndepicted in the prophetic and Mosaic books, and the splendor of the\nheavenly spheres according to the rabbinical writings. The Oriental courts\nlent all their grandeur to the majestic throne of God, on which He was\nexalted above all earthly things. The immense space between was filled in\nby innumerable gradations of beings leading up to Him. There was no longer\na question how far these other beings shared the nature of God; His\ndominion was absolute. Still a new question, not known to the Bible,\narose, as to when the angelic world was created and out of what primordial\nelement. At first a logical answer was given, that the angels emanated\nfrom the element of fire. Later the schoolmen, trying to dispose of the\nangels as possible peers or rivals of the eternal God, ascribed their\ncreation to the second day, when the heaven was made as a vault over the\nearth, or to the fifth day, when the winged creatures arose.(549) On the\nwhole, the rabbis denied every claim of the angels to an independent or an\neternal existence. Just because they firmly believed in the existence of\nangels and even saw them from time to time, they felt bound to declare\ntheir secondary rank. Only the archangels were made from an eternal\nsubstance, while the others were continually being created anew out of the\nbreath of God or from the \u201criver of fire\u201d which flowed around His throne.\nThus even the realm of celestial spirits was merged into the stream of\nuniversal life which comes and goes, while God was left alone in matchless\nsovereignty, above all the fluctuations of time.\n\nOn the other hand, the rabbis opposed the Essenic idea of assigning to the\nangels an intermediary task between God and man, and deprecated as a pagan\ncustom the worship or invocation of angels. \u201cAddress your prayer to the\nMaster of life and not to His servants; He will hear you in every\ntrouble,\u201d says R. Judan.(550) Some of the teachers even declared that any\ngodly son of Israel excels the angels in power. It is certainly\nsignificant, as David Neumark has pointed out, that the Mishnah eliminates\nevery reference to the angels.(551)\n\n7. In spite of this, none of the medieval Jewish philosophers doubted the\nexistence of angels.(552) Indeed, there was no reason for them to do so,\nas they had managed to insert them into their philosophic systems as\nintermediary beings leading up to the Supreme Intelligence. All that was\nnecessary was to identify the angels of the Bible with the \u201cideas\u201d of\nPlato or the \u201crulers of the spheres,\u201d the \u201cseparate intelligences\u201d of\nAristotle. By this one step the existence of angels as cosmic powers was\nproved to be a logical necessity. The ten rulers of the spheres even\ncorresponded with the ten orders of angels in the cosmography of the\nJewish, Mohammedan, and Christian schoolmen. The only difference between\nthe Aristotelian and the rabbinical views was that the former held the\ncosmic powers to be eternal; the latter, that they were created.\n\nIn both Biblical and rabbinical literature the angels are usually\nconceived of as purely spiritual powers superior to man. Maimonides,\nhowever, following his rationalistic method, declared them to be simply\nproducts of the imagination, the hypostases of figurative expressions\nwhich were not meant to be taken literally. To him every force and element\nof nature is an angel or messenger of God. In this way the entire\nangelology of the Bible, including even Ezekiel\u2019s vision of the heavenly\nchariot (the _Merkabah_), in becoming a part of the Maimonidean system\nturns into natural philosophy pure and simple.(553) Of course, Saadia,\nJehuda ha Levi, and Gabirol do not share this rationalistic view. To them\nthe angels are either cosmic powers of an ethereal substance, endowed with\neverlasting life, or living beings created by God for special\npurposes.(554)\n\nThe later Cabbalistic lore extended the realm of the celestial spirits\nstill more, creating new names of angels for its mystical system and its\nmagical practices. Yet in this magic it subordinated the angels to man. In\nfact, it followed Saadia largely in this, making man the center and\npinnacle of the work of creation, in fact, the very mirror of the\nCreator.(555)\n\n8. For our modern viewpoint the existence of angels is a question of\npsychology rather than of theology. The old Babylonian world has vanished,\nwith its heaven as the dwelling place of God, its earth for man, and its\nnether world for the shades and demons. The world in which we live knows\nno above or beneath, no heaven or hell, no host of good and evil spirits\nmoving about to help or hurt man. It sees matter and energy working\neverywhere after the same immutable laws through an infinitude of space\nand time, a universe ever evolving new orbs of light, engendering and\ntransforming worlds without number and without end. There is no place in\ninfinite space for a heaven or for a celestial throne. A world of law and\nof process does not need a living ladder to lead from the earth below to\nGod on high. Though the stars be peopled with souls superior to ours,\nstill they cannot stand nearer to God than does man with his freedom, his\nmoral striving, his visions of the highest and the best. Through man\u2019s\nspiritual nature God, too, is recognized as a Spirit; through man\u2019s moral\nconsciousness God is conceived of as the Ruler of a moral world; but this\nsame process at once does away with the need for any other spirits or\ndivine powers beside Him. God alone has become the object of human\nlonging. Man feels akin to His God who is ever near; he learns to know Him\never better. He can dispense with the angelic hosts. As they return to the\nfiery stream of poetic imagination whence they emerged, nebulous figures\nof a glorious world that has vanished, man rises above angel and Seraph by\nhis own power to the dignity of a servant, nay, a child of God. Indeed, as\nthe rabbis said, the prophets, sages, and seers are the true messengers of\nGod, the angels who do His service.(556)\n\n\n\nChapter XXXI. Satan and the Spirits of Evil\n\n\n1. The great advantage of Judaism over other religious systems lies in its\nunified view of life, which it regards as a continuous conflict between\ngood and evil influences within man. As man succeeds in overcoming evil\nand achieving good, he asserts his own moral personality. Outside of man\nJudaism sees no real contrast between good and evil, since both have\nemanated from God, the Spirit of goodness. Judaism recognizes no primal\npower of evil plotting against God and defying Him, such as that of the\nPersian dualism. Nor does Judaism espouse the dualism of spirit and\nmatter, identifying matter with evil, from which the soul strives to free\nitself while confined in the prison house of the body. Such a conception\nis taught by Plato, probably under Oriental influence, and is shared by\nthe Hindu and Christian ascetics who torture themselves in order to\nsuppress bodily desire in their quest of a higher existence. The Jewish\nconception of the unity of God necessitates the unity of the world, which\nleaves no place for a cosmic principle of evil. In this Judaism dissents\nfrom modern philosophers also, such as John Stuart Mill and even Kant, who\nspeak of a radical evil in nature. No power of evil can exist in\nindependence of God.(557) As the Psalmist says: \u201cHis kingdom ruleth over\nall. Bless the Lord, ye angels of His, ye mighty in strength that fulfill\nHis word, hearkening unto the voice of His word.\u201d(558)\n\nThis increased the difficulty of the problem of the origin of evil. The\nanswer given by the general Jewish consciousness, expressed by both\nBiblical and rabbinical writers, is that evil comes from the free will of\nman, who is endowed with the power of rebelling against the will of God.\nThis idea is symbolized in the story of the fall of man. The serpent, or\ntempter, represents the evil inclination which arises in man with his\nfirst consciousness of freedom. So in Jewish belief Satan, the Adversary,\nis only an allegorical figure, representing the evil of the world, both\nphysical and moral. He was sent by God to test man for his own good, to\ndevelop him morally. He is \u201cthe spirit that ever wills evil, but achieves\nthe good,\u201d and therefore in the book of Job he actually comes before God\u2019s\nthrone as one of the angels.(559)\n\n2. In tracing the belief in demons we must draw a sharp distinction\nbetween popular views and systematic doctrine.(560) During the Biblical\nera the people believed in goat-like spirits roaming the fields and woods,\nthe deserts and ravines, whom they called _Seirim_\u2014hairy demons, or\nsatyrs,\u2014and to whom they sacrificed in fear and trembling.(561) As Ibn\nEzra ingeniously pointed out in his commentary, Azazel was originally a\ndesert demon dwelling in the ravines near Jerusalem, to whom a scapegoat\nwas offered at the opening of the year, a rite preserved in the Day of\nAtonement cult of the Mosaic Code.(562) In fact, in ancient Babylon,\nSyria, and Palestine diseases and accidents were universally ascribed to\nevil spirits of the wilderness or the nether world. The Bible occasionally\nmentions these evil spirits as punitive angels sent by God. In the more\npopular view, which is reflected by apocryphal and rabbinical literature,\nand which was influenced by both the Babylonian and Persian religions,\nthey appear in increasing numbers and with specific names. Each disease\nhad its peculiar demon. Desolate places, cemeteries, and the darkness of\nnight were all peopled by superstition with hosts of demons (_Shedim_), at\nwhose head was _Azazel_, _Samael_; _Beelzebub_, the Philistine god of\nflies and of illness;(563) _Belial_, king of the nether world;(564) or the\nPersian _Ashma Deva_ (Evil Spirit), under the Hebrew name of _Ashmodai_ or\n_Shemachzai_.(565) The queen of the demons was _Lilith_ or _Iggereth bath\nMahlath_, \u201cthe dancer on the housetops.\u201d(566)\n\nThe Essenes seem to have made special studies of both demonology and\nangelology, believing that they could invoke the good spirits and conjure\nthe evil ones, thus curing various diseases, which they ascribed to\npossession by demons. While these exorcisms are not so common in the\nTalmud as they are in the New Testament, there remain many indications\nthat such practices were followed by Jewish saints and believed by the\npeople. Often the rabbis seem to have considered them the work of \u201cunclean\nspirits,\u201d which they endeavored to overcome with the \u201cspirit of holiness,\u201d\nand particularly by the study of the Torah.(567)\n\n3. This answers implicitly the question of the origin of demons. Obviously\nthe belief in malevolent spirits is incompatible with the existence of an\nall-benign and all-wise Creator. Accordingly, two alternative explanations\nare offered in the rabbinical and apocalyptic writings. According to one,\nthe demons are half angelic and half animal beings, sharing intelligence\nand flight with the angels, sensuality with beasts and with men. Their\ndouble nature is ascribed to incompleteness, because they were created\nlast of all beings, and their creation was interrupted by the coming of\nthe Sabbath, putting an end to all creation.(568) According to the other\nview they are the offspring of the \u201cfallen angels,\u201d issuing from the union\nof the angels with the daughters of men as described in Gen. VI, 1 f.\nThese spread the virus of impurity over all the earth, causing carnal\ndesire and every kind of lewdness. The whole world of demons is regarded\nas alienated from God by the rebellion of the heavenly hosts, as if the\nfall of man by sin had its prototype in the celestial sphere.(569) A\nrabbinical legend, which corresponds with a Persian myth, ascribes the\norigin of demons to the intercourse of Adam with Lilith, the night\nspirit.(570) On the other hand, the archangel Samael is said to have cast\nlascivious glances at the beauty of Eve, and then to have turned into\nSatan the Tempter.(571) The Jewish systems of both angelology and\ndemonology, first worked out in the apocalyptic literature, were further\nelaborated by the Cabbalah.\n\nAngelology found a conspicuous place in the liturgy in connection with the\n_Kedushah_ Benediction and likewise in the liturgy and the theology of the\nChurch.(572)\n\nOn the other hand the belief in evil spirits and in Satan, the Evil One,\nremained rather a matter of popular credulity and never became a positive\ndoctrine of the Synagogue. True, the liturgy contained morning prayers\nwhich asked God for protection against the Evil One, and formulas invoking\nthe angels to shield one during the night from evil spirits.(573) But the\narch-fiend was never invested with power over the soul, depriving man of\nhis perfect freedom and divine sovereignty, as in the Christian Church.\n\n4. In the formation of the idea of the arch-fiend, Satan, we can observe\nthe interworking of several elements. The name Satan in no way indicates a\ndemon. It denotes simply the adversary, the one who offers hindrances. The\nname was thus applied to the accuser at court.(574) In Zechariah and in\nJob(575) Satan appears at the throne of God as the prosecutor, roaming\nabout the earth to espy the transgressions of men, seeking to lure them to\ntheir destruction. In the Books of Chronicles(576) Satan has become a\nproper name, meaning the Seducer.\n\nThe Serpent in the Paradise story is more completely a demon, although the\nlegend intends rather to account for man\u2019s morality, his distinction\nbetween good and evil. Satan was then identified with the serpent, who was\ncalled by the rabbis _Nahash ha Kadmoni_, \u201cthe primeval Serpent,\u201d after\nthe analogy of the serpent-like form of Ahriman. Thus Satan in the person\nof the serpent became the embodiment of evil, the prime cause of sin and\ndeath.(577) Possibly a part in this process was played by the Babylonian\nfigure of _Tihamat_, the dragon of _chaos_ (_Tehom_ in the Hebrew), with\nwhom the god Marduk wrestled for dominion over the world, and who has\nparallels in the Biblical Rahab and similar mythological figures.\n\nWe must not overlook such rabbinical legends as the one about how the\npoisonous breath of the serpent infected the whole human race, except\nIsrael who has been saved by the law at Sinai.(578) Occasionally we hear\nthat the Evil Spirit (_Yezer ha Ra_) will be slain by God(579) or by the\nMessiah.(580) These Haggadic sayings, however, were never accepted as\nnormative for religious belief. On the contrary, they were always in\ndispute, and many a Talmudic teacher minimized the fiendish character of\nSatan, who became a stimulus to moral betterment through the trials he\nimposes.(581) Philo, allegorizing the legends, turns the evil angels of\nthe Bible into wicked men.(582)\n\n5. As to demons in general, the Talmudists never doubted their existence,\nbut endeavored to minimize their importance. They changed the demon\n_Azazel_ into a geographical term by transposing the letters.(583) They\nexplained \u201cthe sons of God who came to the daughters of men to give birth\nto the giants of old\u201d as aristocratic Sethites who intermarried with\nlow-class families of the Cainites.(584) As to the rest, the entire belief\nin demons and ghosts was too deeply rooted in the folk mind to be\ncounteracted by the rabbis. Even lucid thinkers of the Middle Ages were\ncaught by these baneful superstitions, including Jehuda ha Levi, Crescas,\nand Nahmanides, the mystic.(585) Only a small group fought against this\noffshoot of fear and superstition, among them Saadia, Maimonides and his\nschool, Ibn Ezra, Gersonides, and Juda Ibn Balag. To Maimonides the demons\nmentioned in Mishnah and Talmud are only figurative expressions for\nphysical plagues. He considers the belief in demons equivalent to a belief\nin pagan deities. \u201cMany pious Israelites,\u201d he says,(586) \u201cbelieve in the\nreality of demons and witches, thinking that they should not be made the\nobject of worship and regard, for the reason that the Torah has prohibited\nit. But they fail to see that the Law commands us to banish all these\nthings from sight, because they are but falsehood and deceit, as is the\nwhole idolatry with which they are intrinsically connected.\u201d\n\n6. This sound view was disseminated by the rationalistic school in its\ncontest with the Cabbalah, and has exerted a wholesome influence upon\nmodern Judaism. Thus Satan is rejected by Jewish doctrine, while Luther\nand Calvin, the Reformers of the Christian Church, still believed in him.\nMilton\u2019s \u201cParadise Lost\u201d placed him in the very foreground of Christian\nbelief, and the leaders of the Protestant Churches, up to the present,\naccord him a prominent place in their scheme of salvation, as the opponent\nand counterpart of God. In his work on Christian dogmatics, David\nFriedrich Strauss observes acutely: \u201cThe whole (Christian) idea of the\nMessiah and his kingdom must necessarily have as its counterpart a kingdom\nof demons with a personal ruler at its head; without this it is no more\npossible than the north pole of the magnet would be without a south pole.\nIf Christ has come to destroy the works of the Devil, there would be no\nneed for him to come, unless there were a Devil. On the other hand, if the\nDevil is to be considered merely the personification of evil, then a\nChrist who would be only the personification of the ideal, but not a real\npersonality, would suffice equally.\u201d(587) At present Christian theologians\nand even philosophers have recourse to Platonic and Buddhist ideas, that\nevil is implanted in the world from which humanity must free itself, and\nthey thus present Christianity as the _religion of redemption par\nexcellence_.(588) Over against this, Judaism still maintains that there is\nno radical or primitive evil in the world. No power exists which is\nintrinsically hostile to God, and from which man must be redeemed.\nAccording to the Jewish conception, the goodness and glory of God fill\nboth heaven and earth, while holiness penetrates all of life, bringing\nmatter and flesh within the realm of the divine. Evil is but the contrast\nof good, as shade is but the contrast of light. Evil can be overcome by\neach individual, as he realizes his own solemn duty and the divine will.\nIts only existence is in the field of morality, where it is a test of\nman\u2019s freedom and power. Evil is within man, and against it he is to wage\nthe battles of life, until his victory signalizes the triumph of the\ndivine in his own nature.(589)\n\n\n\nChapter XXXII. God and the Intermediary Powers\n\n\n1. In addition to the angels who carried out God\u2019s will in the universe,\nthe Biblical and post-Biblical literature recognizes other divine powers\nwhich mediate between Him and the world of man. The more a seer or thinker\nbecame conscious of the spirituality and transcendency of God, the more he\nfelt the gulf between the infinite Spirit and the world of the senses. In\norder to bridge this gap, the Deity was replaced by one of His\nmanifestations which could appear and act in a world circumscribed by\nspace and time.(590) As we found in prophecy the direct revelation of God\ngiving way to a mediating angel, so either \u201cthe Glory\u201d or \u201cthe Name\u201d of\nJHVH takes the place of God himself. That is, instead of God\u2019s own being,\nHis reflected radiance or the power invested in His name descends from on\nhigh. The rabbis kept the direct revelation of God for the hallowed past\nor the desired future, but at the same time they needed a suitable term\nfor the presence of God; they therefore coined the word _Shekinah_\u2014\u201cthe\ndivine Condescension\u201d or \u201cPresence\u201d\u2014to be used instead of the Deity\nhimself. Thus the verse of the Psalm:(591) \u201cGod standeth in the\ncongregation of God,\u201d is translated by the Targum, \u201cThe divine Presence\n(_Shekinah_) resteth upon the congregation of the godly.\u201d Instead of the\nconclusion of the speech to Moses, \u201cLet them make Me a sanctuary, that I\nmay dwell among them,\u201d(592) the Targum has, \u201cAnd I shall let My Presence\n(_Shekinah_) dwell among them.\u201d Thus in the view of the rabbis _Shekinah_\nrepresents the visible part of the divine majesty, which descends from\nheaven to earth, and on the radiance of which are fed the spiritual\nbeings, both angels and the souls of the saints.(593) God himself was\nwrapped in light, whose brilliancy no living being, however lofty, could\nendure; but the _Shekinah_ or reflection of the divine glory might be\nbeheld by the elect either in their lifetime or in the hereafter. In this\nway the rabbis solved many contradictory passages of Scripture, some of\nwhich speak of God as invisible, while others describe man as beholding\nHim.(594)\n\n2. Just as the references to God\u2019s appearing to man suggested luminous\npowers mediating the vision of God, so the passages which represent God as\nspeaking suggest powers mediating the voice. Hence arose the conception of\nthe divine _Word_, invested with divine powers both physical and\nspiritual. The first act of God in the Bible is that He spoke, and by this\nword the world came into being. The _Word_ was thus conceived of as the\nfirst created being, an intermediary power between the Spirit of the world\nand the created world order. The word of God, important in the cosmic\norder, is still more so in the moral and spiritual worlds. The Word is at\ntimes a synonym of divine revelation to the men of the early generations\nor to Israel, the bearer of the Law. Hence the older Haggadah places\nbeside the _Shekinah_ the divine _Word_ (Hebrew, _Maamar_; Aramaic,\n_Memra_; Greek, _Logos_) as the intermediary force of revelation.\n\nContact with the Platonic and Stoic philosophies led gradually to a new\ndevelopment which appears in Philo. The Word or Logos becomes \u201cthe\nfirst-created Son of God,\u201d having a personality independent from God; in\nfact he is a kind of vice regent of God himself. From this it was but a\nshort step toward considering him a partner and peer of the Almighty, as\nwas done by the Church with its doctrine that the Word became flesh in\nChrist, the son of God.(595) In view of this the rabbinical schools gave\nup the idea of the personified Word, replacing it with the _Torah_ or the\n_Spirit of God_. The older term was retained only in liturgical formulas,\nsuch as: \u201cWho created the heavens by His Word,\u201d or, \u201cWho by His Word\ncreated the twilight and by Wisdom openeth the gates of heaven.\u201d(596)\n\n3. As has been shown above,(597) Wisdom is described in the Bible as the\nfirst of all created beings, the assistant and counselor of God in the\nwork of creation. Then we see that Ben Sira identifies Wisdom with the\nTorah.(598) Thus the Torah, too, was raised to a cosmic power, the sum and\nsubstance of all wisdom. In fact, the Torah, like the Logos of Plato, was\nregarded as comprising the ideas or prototypes of all things as in a\nuniversal plan. The Torah is the divine pattern for the world. In such a\nconnection _Torah_ is far from meaning the Law, as Weber asserts.(599) It\nmeans rather the heavenly book of instruction which contains all the\nwisdom of the ages, and which God himself used as guide at the Creation.\nGod is depicted as an architect with His plan drafted before He began the\nerection of the edifice,\u2014a conception which avoids all danger of deifying\nthe Logos.\n\n4. Several other conceptions, however, do not belong at all to the\nintermediary powers, where Weber places them.(600) This applies to\n_Metatron_ (identical with the Persian Mithras),(601) whom the mystic lore\ncalls the charioteer of the heavenly throne-chariot, represented by the\nrabbis as the highest of the angels, leader of the heavenly hosts, and\nvice-regent of God. That no cosmic power was ascribed to him is proved by\nthe very fact of his identification with Enoch, whom the pre-Talmudic\nHaggadah describes as taken up into heaven and changed into an angel of\nthe highest rank, standing near God\u2019s throne.(602)\n\n5. The only real mediator between God and man is the _Spirit of God_,\nwhich is mentioned in connection with both the creation and divine\nrevelation. In the first chapter of Genesis the Spirit of God is described\nas hovering over the gloom of chaos like the mother bird over the egg,\nready to hatch out the nascent world.(603) God breathed His spirit into\nthe body of man, to make him also god-like.(604) The prophet likewise is\ninspired by the spirit of God to see visions and to hear the divine\nmessage.(605) Thus the spirit of God has two aspects; it is the cosmic\nprinciple which imbues primal matter with life; it is a link between the\nsoul of man and God on high. The view of Ezekiel was but one step from\nthis, to conceive the spirit as a personal being, and place him beside God\nas an angel.\n\nThe prophets and psalmists, feeling the spirit of God upon them,\nconsidered it an emanation of the Deity. Still, a profounder insight soon\ndisapproved the severance of the Spirit of God from God himself, as if He\nwere not altogether _spirit_. Therefore the accepted term came to be the\n_Holy Spirit_.(606) In this form, however, his personality became more\ndistinct and his separate existence more defined. Henceforth he is the\nmessenger of God, performing miracles or causing them, speaking in the\nplace of God, or defending His people Israel. Nay, more, the Holy Spirit\nis supposed to have dictated the words of Scripture to the sacred writers,\nand to have inspired the Men of the Great Synagogue in collecting the\nsacred writings into a canon.(607)\n\nMoreover, the workings of the Holy Spirit continued long after the\ncompletion of the Biblical canon. All the chief institutions of the\nSynagogue originally claimed that they were prompted by the Holy Spirit,\nresting upon the leaders of the community. This claim was basic to the\nauthority of tradition and the continuity of the authority of Jewish lore.\nIt seems, however, that certain abuses were caused by miracle-workers who\ndisseminated false doctrines under the alleged inspiration of the Holy\nSpirit. Therefore the rabbis restricted such claims to ancient times and\ninsisted more strongly than ever upon the preservation of the traditional\nlore. For a time a substitute was found in the _Bath Kol_ (\u201cEcho\u201d or\n\u201cWhisper of a heavenly voice\u201d), but this also was soon discredited by the\nschools.(608) Obviously the rabbis desired to avert the deification of\neither the Holy Spirit or the Word. Sound common sense was their norm for\ninterpreting the truth of the divine revelation. In other words, they\nrelied on God alone as the living force in the development of Judaism.\n\n6. But some sort of mediation was ascribed to several other spiritual\nforces. First, the _Name_ of God often takes the place of God\nhimself.(609) When the name of the Deity was called over some hallowed\nspot, the worshipers felt that the presence of God also was bound up with\nthe sacred place.(610)\n\n\u201cMy name is in him,\u201d says God of the angel whom He sends to lead the\npeople.(611) The invocation of the name was believed to have an actual\ninfluence upon the Deity. Furthermore, since God is frequently represented\nas swearing by His own name,(612) this ineffable name was invested with\nmagic powers, as if God himself dwelt therein.(613) Thus it came to be\nused as a talisman by the popular saints.(614) Indeed, God is described as\nconjuring the depths of the abyss by His holy name, lest they overflow\ntheir boundaries.(615) Moreover, the Name, like the Word, or Logos, was\nregarded as a creative power, so that we are told that before the world\nwas created there were only God and His holy Name.(616) Owing to the\nintroduction of _Adonai_ (the Lord) for JHVH, the pronunciation of the\nName fell into oblivion and the Name itself became a mystery; therefore\nits cosmic element also was lost and it dropped into the sphere of mystic\nand philosophical speculation.\n\n7. Another attribute of God which received some attention, owing to the\nfrequent mention of the omnipotence of God in the Bible, was _ha Geburah_\n(the Power). A familiar rabbinic expression is: \u201cWe have heard from the\nmouth of the Power,\u201d that is, from the divine omnipotence.(617) Two\nfundamental principles were early perceived in the moral order of the\nworld: the punitive justice and compassion of God. These were taken as the\nmeanings of the two most common Biblical names of God, _JHVH_ and\n_Elohim_. Elohim, being occasionally used in dispensing justice,(618) was\nthought to signify God in His capacity as Judge of the whole earth, and\nhence as the divine Justice. JHVH, on the other hand, meant the divine\nmercy, as it was used in the revelation of the long-suffering and merciful\nGod to Moses after the sin of Israel before the golden calf.(619) Thus\nboth the rabbis and Philo(620) often speak of these two attributes,\njustice and mercy, as though they constituted independent beings,\ndeliberating with God as to what He should do. The Midrash tells in a\nparable how before the creation of man, Justice, Mercy, Truth, and Peace\nwere called in by God as His counselors to deliberate whether or no man\nshould be created.(621)\n\n8. One Haggadah concludes from the passage about Creation in Proverbs,\nthat there are three creative powers, Wisdom, Understanding, and\nKnowledge.(622) Another derives from Scripture seven creative principles:\nKnowledge, Understanding, Might, Grace and Mercy, Justice and Rebuke;(623)\nand seven attributes which do service before God\u2019s throne: Wisdom,\nJudgment and Justice, Grace and Mercy, Truth and Peace.(624) By combining\nthese lists of three and seven this was finally enlarged to ten, which\nbecame the basis for the entire mystic lore. Thus the Babylonian master\nRab enumerates ten creative principles: Wisdom, Understanding, and\nKnowledge, Might and Power, Rebuke, Justice and Righteousness, Love and\nMercy.(625) It is hard to say whether the ten attributes of the Haggadah\nare at all connected with the ten _Sefiroth_ (cosmic forces or circles) of\nthe Cabbalah. These last are hardly the creation of pure monotheism, but\nrather emanations from the infinite, conceived after the pattern of\nheathen ideas.(626)\n\n9. The assumption of all these intermediaries aimed chiefly to\nspiritualize the conception of God and to elevate Him above all\nchild-like, anthropomorphic views, so that He becomes a free Mind ruling\nthe whole universe. At the same time, it became natural to ascribe\nmaterial substance to these intermediaries. As they filled the chasm\nbetween the supermundane Deity and the world of the senses, they had to\nshare the nature of both matter and mind. Hence the Shekinah and the Holy\nSpirit are described by both the rabbis and the medieval philosophers as a\nfine, luminous, or ethereal substance.(627) The entire ancient and\nmedieval systems were modeled after the idea of a ladder leading up, step\nby step, from the lowest to the highest sphere; God, the Most High, being\nat the same time above the highest rung of the ladder and yet also a part\nof the whole.\n\n10. Our modern system of thought holds the relation of God to nature and\nman to be quite different from all this. To our mind God is the only moral\nand spiritual power of life. He is mirrored in the moral and spiritual as\nwell as intellectual nature of man, and therefore is near to the human\nconscience, owing to the divine forces within man himself. Not the world\nwithout, but the world within leads us to God and tells us what God is.\nHence we need no intermediary beings, and they all evaporate before our\nmental horizon like mist, pictures of the imagination without objective\nreality. Ibn Ezra says in the introduction to his commentary on the Bible\nthat the human reason is the true intermediating angel between God and\nman, and we hold this to be true of both the intellect and the conscience.\nFor the theologian and the student of religion to-day the center of\ngravity of religion is to be sought in psychology and anthropology. In all\nhis upward striving, his craving and yearning for the highest and the\nbest, in his loftiest aspirations and ideals, man, like Isaiah the\nprophet, can behold only the hem of God\u2019s garment; he seeks God above him,\nbecause he feels Him within himself. He must pass, however, through the\nvarious stages of growth, until his self-knowledge leads to the knowledge\nof the God before whom he kneels in awe. Then finally he feels Him as his\nFather, his Educator in the school of life, the Master of the universal\nplan in which the individual also has a place in building up the divine\nkingdom of truth, justice, and holiness on earth. For centuries he groped\nfor God, until he received a Book to serve as \u201ca lamp to his feet and a\nlight to his path,\u201d to interpret to him his longing and his craving.\nIsrael\u2019s Book of Books must ever be re-read and re-interpreted by Israel,\nthe keeper of the book, through ages yet to come. Well may we say: the\nmediator between God and the world is _man_, the son of God; the mediator\nbetween God and humanity is _Israel_, the people of God.\n\n\n\n\n\nPART II. MAN\n\n\n\n\nChapter XXXIII. Man\u2019s Place in Creation\n\n\n1. The doctrine concerning man is inseparably connected with that about\nGod. Heathenism formed its deities after the image of man; they were\nmerely human beings of a larger growth. Judaism, on the contrary, asserts\nthat God is beyond comparison with mankind; He is a purely spiritual being\nwithout form or image, and therefore utterly unlike man. On the other\nhand, man has a divine nature, as he was made in the image of God,\nfashioned after His likeness. The highest and deepest in man, his mental,\nmoral, and spiritual life, is the reflection of the divine nature\nimplanted within him, a force capable of ever greater development toward\nperfection. This unique distinction among all creatures gives man the\nhighest place in all creation.\n\n2. The superiority of the human race is expressed differently in various\npassages in Scripture. According to the first chapter of Genesis the whole\nwork of creation finds its culmination in man, whose making is introduced\nby a solemn appeal of God to the hosts of heaven: \u201cLet us make man in our\nimage, after our likeness.\u201d(628) This declaration proclaimed that man was\nthe completion and the climax of the physical creation, as well as the\nbeginning of a new order of creation, a world of moral aims and purposes,\nof self-perfection and self-control. In the world of man all life is\nplaced at the service of a higher ideal, after the divine pattern.\n\nThe second chapter of Genesis depicts man\u2019s creation differently. Here he\nappears as the first of created beings, leading a life of perfect\ninnocence in the garden of divine bliss. Before him God brings all the\nnewly created beings that he may give them a name and a purpose. But the\nSerpent enters Paradise as tempter, casting the seed of discord into the\nhearts of the man and the woman. As they prove too feeble to resist\ntemptation, they can no longer remain in the heavenly garden in their\nformer happy state. Only the memory of Paradise remains, a golden dream to\ncast hope over the life of struggle and labor into which they enter. The\nidea of the legend is that man\u2019s proper place is not among beings of the\nearth, but he can reach his lofty destiny only by arduous struggle with\nthe world of the senses and a constant striving toward the divine. The\nsame idea is expressed more directly in the eighth Psalm:\n\n\n \u201cWhat is man, that Thou art mindful of him?\n And the son of man, that Thou thinkest of him?\n Yet Thou hast made him but little lower than the godly beings\n (Elohim)\n And hast crowned him with glory and honor.\n Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands;\n Thou hast put all things under his feet.\u201d\n\n\n3. According to the Haggadists,(629) before the fall man excelled even the\nangels in appearance and wisdom, so that they were ready to prostrate\nthemselves before him. Only when God caused a deep sleep to fall upon man,\nthey recognized his frailty and kinship with other beings of the earth.\nThe idea expressed in this legend resembles the one implied in the legend\nof Paradise, viz. man has a twofold nature. With his heavenly spirit he\ncan soar freely to the highest realm of thought, above the station of the\nangels; yet his earthly frame holds him ever near the dust. It is this\nvery contrast that constitutes his greatness, for it makes him a citizen\nof two worlds, one perishable, the other eternal. He is the highest result\nof Creation, the pride of the Creator.(630) Thus he was appointed God\u2019s\nvice-regent on earth by the words spoken to the first man and woman: \u201cBe\nfruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have\ndominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over\nevery living thing that creepeth upon the earth.\u201d(631) The rabbis add a\nstriking comment upon the word _R\u2019du_, which is used here for \u201chave\ndominion\u201d but which may also mean, \u201cgo down.\u201d They say: \u201cThe choice is\nleft in man\u2019s own hand. If you maintain your heaven-born dignity, you will\nhave dominion over all things; if not, you will descend to the level of\nthe brute creation.\u201d(632)\n\n4. An ancient Mishnah derives a significant lesson from the story of the\ncreation of man(633): \u201cBoth the vegetable and animal worlds were created\nin multitudes. Man alone was created as a single individual in order that\nhe may realize that he constitutes a world in himself, and carries within\nhim the true value of life. Hence each human being is entitled to say:\n\u2018The whole world was created for my sake.\u2019 He who saves a single human\nlife is as one who saves a whole world, and he who destroys a single human\nlife is as one who destroys a whole world.\u201d\n\n5. While it is man\u2019s spiritual side which is the image of God, yet he\nderives all his powers and faculties from earthly life, just as a tree\ndraws its strength from the soil in which it is rooted. Judaism does not\nconsider the soul the exclusive seat of the divine, as opposed to the\nbody. In fact, Judaism admits no complete dualism of spirit and matter,\nhowever striking some aspects of their contrast may be. The whole human\npersonality is divine, just so far as it asserts its freedom and molds its\nmotives toward a divine end. In recognition of this fact Hillel claimed\nreverence for the human body as well as mind, comparing it to the homage\nrendered to the statue of a king, for man is made in the image of God, the\nKing of all the world.(634) Thus the Greek idea that man is a _microcosm_,\na world in miniature, reflecting the cosmos on a smaller scale, was\nexpressed in the Tannaitic schools as well.(635) The stamp of divinity is\nborne by man in his entire heaven-aspiring nature, as he strives to\nelevate the very realm of the senses into the sphere of morality and\nholiness.\n\n6. In this respect the Jewish view parts from that of Plato and the Hindu\nphilosophers. These divide man into a pure celestial soul and an impure\nearthly body and hold that the physical life is tainted by sin, while the\nspirit is divine only in so far as it frees itself from its prison house\nof flesh. Judaism, on the other hand, emphasizes the unified character of\nman, by which he can bend all his faculties and functions to a godlike\nmastery over the material world. This appears first in his upright posture\nand heavenward glance, which proclaim him master over the whole animal\nworld cowering before him in lowly dread. His whole bodily structure\ncorresponds to this, with its constant growth, its wondrous symmetry, and\nthe unique flexibility of the hands, with which he can perform ever new\nand greater achievements. Above all, we see the nobility of man in his\nhigh forehead and receding jaw, which contrast so strikingly with the\nstructure of most animals and even with many of the lower races. Indeed,\nprimitive man could scarcely imagine a nobler pattern by which to model\nhis deity than the figure of a man.\n\n7. In fact, the Biblical verse, \u201cGod created man after the image of the\ndivine beings\u201d (_elohim_), was originally taken literally, in the sense\nthat angels posed as models for the creation of man.(636) The phrase was\nreferred to the spiritual, god-like nature of man only when the difference\nbetween material and spiritual things became better understood, and man\nobtained a clearer knowledge of himself. Man grew to feel that his craving\nfor the perfect, whether in the field of truth and right, or of beauty, is\nthe force which lifts him, in spite of all his limitations, into the realm\nof the divine. His soaring imagination and ceaseless longing for\nperfection disclose before his eyes a partial vista of the infinite. The\nhuman spirit carries mortal man above the confines of time and space into\nthose boundless realms where God resides in lonely majesty.(637)\n\nMan did not emanate perfect from the hand of the Creator, but ready for an\never greater perfection. Being the last of all created beings, as the\nMidrash says, he can be put to shame by the smallest insect, which is\nprior to him. Yet before the beginning of creation a light shone upon his\nspirit that has illumined his achievements through untold\ngenerations.(638)\n\n8. The resemblance of man to God is attributed also to his free will and\nself-consciousness, by which he claims moral dignity and mastery over all\nthings.(639) Still, all these superior qualities which we call human are\nnot ready-made endowments, free gifts bestowed by God; they are simply\npotentialities which may be gradually developed. Man must strive to attain\nthe place destined for him in the scheme of creation by the exertion of\nhis own will and the unfolding of the powers that lie within him. The\nimpulse toward self-perfection, which is constantly stimulated by the\ndesire to overcome obstacles and to extend one\u2019s power, knowledge, and\npossessions, forms the kernel of the divine in man. This is the \u201cspirit in\nman, and the breath of the Almighty, that giveth them understanding.\u201d(640)\nThus the teaching of modern science, of the gradual ascent of man through\nall the stages of animal life, does not impair the lofty position in\ncreation which Judaism has assigned him. Plant and animal are what they\nhave always been, children of the earth; man with his heaven-aspiring soul\nis the image of his Creator, a child of God. Giver of name and purpose to\nall things about him, he ranks above the angels; he \u201cmarches on while all\nthe rest stand still.\u201d(641)\n\n\n\n\nChapter XXXIV. The Dual Nature of Man\n\n\n1. According to Jewish doctrines, man is formed by a union of two natures:\nthe flesh, which he shares with all the animals, and the spirit, which\nrenders him a child of God. The former is rooted in the earth and is\nearthward bent; the latter is a \u201cbreath from God\u201d and strives to unfold\nthe divine in man until he attains the divine image. This discord brings a\ntremendous internal conflict, leading from one historic stage to another,\nachieving ever higher things, intellectual, moral, and spiritual, until at\nlast the whole earth is to be a divine kingdom, the dwelling-place of\ntruth, goodness, and holiness.\n\n2. According to the Biblical view man consists of flesh (_basar_) and\nspirit (_ruah_). The term flesh is used impartially of all animals, hence\nthe Biblical term \u201call flesh\u201d(642) includes both man and beast. The body\nbecomes a living being by being penetrated with the \u201cbreath of life\u201d\n(_ruah hayim_), at whose departure the living body turns at once into a\nlifeless clod. This breath of life is possessed by the animal as well as\nby man, as both of them breathe the air. Hence in ancient tongues \u201cbreath\u201d\nand \u201csoul\u201d are used as synonyms, as the Hebrew _nefesh_ and _neshamah_,\nthe Latin _anima_ and _spiritus_, the Greek _pneuma_ and _psyche_. A\ndifferent primitive belief connected the soul with the blood, noting that\nman or beast dies when the hot life-blood flows out of the body, so that\nwe read in the Bible, \u201cthe blood is the soul.\u201d(643) In this the soul is\nidentified with the life, while the word _ruah_, denoting the moving force\nof the air, is used more in the sense of spirit or soul as distinct from\nthe body.\n\nThus both man and beast possess a soul, _nefesh_. The soul of man is\nmerely distinguished by its richer endowment, its manifold faculties by\nwhich it is enabled to move forward to higher things. Thus the animal soul\nis bound for all time to its destined place, while the divine spirit in\nman makes him a free creative personality, self-conscious and god-like.\nFor this reason the creation of man forms a special act in the account in\nGenesis. Both the plant and animal worlds rose at God\u2019s bidding from the\nsoil of mother earth, and the soul of the animal is limited in origin and\ngoal by the earthly sphere. The creation of man inaugurates a new world.\nGod is described as forming the body of man from the dust of the earth and\nthen breathing His spirit into the lifeless frame, endowing it with both\nlife and personality. The whole man, both body and soul, has thus the\npotentiality of a higher and nobler life.\n\n3. Accordingly Scripture does not have a thorough-going dualism, of a\ncarnal nature which is sinful and a spiritual nature which is pure. We are\nnot told that man is composed of an impure earthly body and a pure\nheavenly soul, but instead that the whole of man is permeated by the\nspirit of God. Both body and soul are endowed with the power of continuous\nself-improvement. In order to see the great superiority of the Jewish view\nover the heathen one, we need only study the old Babylonian legend\npreserved by Berosus. In this the deity made man by mixing earth with some\nof its own life-blood, thus endowing the human soul with higher powers. In\nthe Bible the difference between man and beast does not lie in the blood,\nalthough the blood is still thought to be the life. The distinction of man\nis in the spirit, _ruah_, which emanates from God and penetrates both body\nand soul, lifting the whole man into a higher realm and making him a free\nmoral personality.\n\nStill the Bible makes no clear distinction between the three terms,\n_nefesh_, _neshamah_, and _ruah_.(644) Philo first distinguished between\nthree different substances of the soul, but his theory was the Platonic\none, for which he simply used the three Biblical names.(645) The Jewish\nphilosophers of the Middle Ages, beginning with Saadia, took the same\nattitude, even though they realized more or less that the division of the\nsoul into three substances has no Scriptural warrant.(646) In rabbinical\nliterature this division is scarcely known, and there is little mention of\neither the animal soul, _nefesh_, or the vital spark, _ruah_. Instead the\nword _neshamah_ is used for the human _psyche_ as the higher spiritual\nsubstance, and the contrast to it is not the Biblical _basar_, flesh, but\nthe Aramaic _guph_, body.(647) This bears a trace of Persian dualism, with\nits strong contrast between the earthly body and the heavenly soul.\n\n4. In fact, rabbinical Judaism does not recognize any relationship between\nthe soul of the animal and that of man, but claims that man has a special\ntype of existence. The Midrash tells(648) that God formed Adam\u2019s body so\nas to reach from earth to heaven, and then caused the soul to enter it. In\nthe same way God implants the soul into the embryo before its birth and\nwhile in the womb. Before this the soul had a bird-like existence in an\nimmense celestial cage (_guph_ = _columbarium_), and when it leaves the\nbody in death, it again takes its flight toward heaven. There its conduct\non earth will reap a reward in the garden of eternal bliss or a punishment\nin the infernal regions. The belief in the pre\u00ebxistence of the soul was\nshared by the rabbis with the apocryphal authors and Philo.(649)\n\nHowever, rabbinical Judaism never followed Philo so far in the footsteps\nof Plato as to consider the body or the flesh the source of impurity and\nsin, or \u201cthe prison house of the soul.\u201d This view is fundamental in the\nPaulinian system of other-worldliness. For the rabbis the sensuous desire\nof the body (_yezer_) is a tendency toward sin, but never a compulsion.\nThe weakness of the flesh may cause a straying from the right path, but\nman can turn the desires of the flesh into the service of the good. He can\nalways assert his divine power of freedom by opposing the evil inclination\n(_yezer ha ra_) with the good inclination (_yezer ha tob_) to overcome\nit.(650) In fact, the rabbis are so far from acknowledging the existence\nof a compulsion of evil in the flesh, that they point to the history of\ngreat men as proof that the highest characters have the mightiest passions\nin their souls, and that their greatness consists in the will by which\nthey have learned to control themselves.(651)\n\n5. In the light of modern science the whole theory separating body and\nsoul falls to the ground, and the one connecting man more closely with the\nanimal world is revived. In this connection we think of the idea which\nmedieval thinkers adopted from Plato and Aristotle, that there is a\nsubstance of souls\u2014_nefesh hahiyonith_\u2014which forms the basic life-force of\nmen and animals. Physiology and psychology reveal the interaction and\ndependence of body and soul in the lowest forms of animal life as well as\nin the higher forms, including man. The beginnings of the human mind must\nbe sought once for all in the animal, just as the origin of the animal\nreaches back into the plant world. Indeed, Aristotle anticipates the\ndiscoveries of modern science, placing the vegetative and animal souls\nbeside the spirit of man. Thus motion and sensibility form the lower\nboundary-line of the animal kingdom, and self-consciousness and\nself-determination are the criteria of humanity.\n\nYet this very self-conscious freedom which forms man\u2019s personality, his\n_ego_, lifts him into a realm of free action under higher motives,\ntranscending nature\u2019s law of necessity, and therefore not falling within\nthe domain of natural science. Dust-born man, notwithstanding his earthly\nlimitations, in spite of his kinship to mollusk and mammal, enters the\nrealm of the divine spirit. In the Midrash the rabbis remark that man\nshares the nature of both animals and angels.(652) Admitting this, we feel\nthat he is tied neither to heaven nor to the earth, but free to lift\nhimself above all creatures or sink below them all.\n\n6. Endowed with this dual nature, man stands in the very center of the\nuniverse, and God esteems him \u201cequal in value to the entire creation,\u201d as\nRabbi Nehemiah says of a single human soul.(653) Rabbi Akiba stresses the\nimage of God in humanity when he says: \u201cBeloved is man, for he is created\nin God\u2019s image, and it was a special token of love that he became\nconscious of it. Beloved is Israel, for they are called the children of\nGod, and it was a special token of love that they became conscious of\nit.\u201d(654) The Midrash compares man to God in exquisite manner: \u201cJust as\nGod permeates the world and carries it, unseen yet seeing all, enthroned\nwithin as the Only One, the Perfect, and the Pure, yet never to be reached\nor found out; so the soul penetrates and carries the body, as the _one_\npure and luminous being which sees and holds all things, while itself\nunseen and unreached.\u201d(655) The conception of the soul is here divested of\nevery sensory attribute, and portrayed as a divine force within the body.\nThis conception, which was accepted by the medieval philosophers, is\nthoroughly consistent with our view of the world. The soul it is which\nmirrors both the material and spiritual worlds and holds them in mutual\nrelation through its own power. It is at the same time swayed upward and\ndownward by its various cravings, heavenly and earthly, and this very\ntension constitutes the dual nature of the human soul.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XXXV. The Origin and Destiny of Man\n\n\n1. Of all created beings man alone possesses the power of\nself-determination; he assigns his destiny to himself. While he endeavors\nto find the object of all other things and even of his own existence in\nthe world, he finds his own purpose within himself. Star and stone, plant\nand beast fulfill their purpose in the whole plan of creation by their\nexistence and varied natures, and are accordingly called \u201cgood\u201d as they\nare. Man, however, realizes that he must accomplish his purpose by his\nmanner of life and the voluntary exertion of his own powers. He is \u201cgood\u201d\nonly as far as he fulfills his destiny on earth. He is not good by mere\nexistence, but by his conduct. Not what he is, but what he ought to be\ngives value to his being. He is good or bad according to the direction of\nhis will and acts by the imperative: \u201cI ought\u201d or \u201cI ought not,\u201d which\ncomes to him in his conscience, the voice of God calling to his soul.\n\n2. The problem of human destiny is answered by Judaism with the idea that\nGod is the ideal and pattern of all morality. The answer given, then, is\n\u201cTo walk in the ways of God, to be righteous and just,\u201d as He is.(656) The\nprophet Micah expressed it in the familiar words: \u201cIt has been told thee,\nO man, what is good, and what the Lord doth require of thee: Only to do\njustly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.\u201d(657)\nAccordingly the Bible considers men of the older generations the\nprototypes of moral conduct, \u201crighteous men who walked with God.\u201d Such men\nwere Enoch, Noah, and above all Abraham, to whom God said: \u201cI am God\nAlmighty; walk before Me, and be thou whole-hearted. And I will make My\ncovenant between thee and Me.\u201d(658) The rabbis singled out Abraham as the\ntype of a perfect man on account of his love of righteousness and peace;\ncontrasting him with Adam who sinned, they beheld him as \u201cthe great man\namong the heroes of the ancient times.\u201d They even considered him the type\nof true humanity, in whom the object of creation was attained.(659)\n\n3. This moral consciousness, however, which tells man to walk in the ways\nof God and be perfect, is also the source of shame and remorse. With such\nan ideal man must feel constantly that he falls short, that he is not what\nhe ought to be. Only the little child, who knows nothing as yet of good\nand evil, can preserve the joy of life unmarred. Similarly, primitive man,\nbeing ignorant of guilt, could pass his days without care or fear. But as\nsoon as he becomes conscious of guilt, discord enters his soul, and he\nfeels as if he had been driven from the presence of God.\n\nThis feeling is allegorized in the Paradise legend. The garden of bliss,\nhalf earthly, half heavenly, which is elsewhere called the \u201cmountain of\nGod,\u201d(660) a place of wondrous trees, beasts, and precious stones, whence\nthe four great rivers flow, is the abode of divine beings. The first man\nand woman could dwell in it only so long as they lived in harmony with God\nand His commandments. As soon as the tempter in the shape of the serpent\ncalled forth a discord between the divine will and human desire, man could\nno longer enjoy celestial bliss, but must begin the dreary earthly life,\nwith its burdens and trials.\n\n4. This story of the fall of the first man is an allegorical description\nof the state of childlike innocence which man must leave behind in order\nto attain true strength of character. It is based upon a view common to\nall antiquity of a descent of the race; that is: first came the golden\nage, when man led a life of ease and pleasure in company with the gods;\nthen an age of silver, another of brass, and finally the iron age, with\nits toil and bitter woe. Thus did evil deeds and wild passions increase\namong men. This view fails utterly to recognize the value of labor as a\ncivilizing force making for progress, and it contradicts the modern\nhistorical view. The prophets of Israel placed the golden age at the end,\nnot the beginning of history, so that the purpose of mankind was to\nestablish a heavenly kingdom upon the earth. In fact, the fall of man is\nnot referred to anywhere in Scripture and never became a doctrine, or\nbelief, of Judaism. On the contrary, the Hellenistic expounders of the\nBible take it for granted that the story is an allegory, and the book of\nProverbs understands the tree of life symbolically, in the verse: \u201cShe\n(the Torah) is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her.\u201d(661)\n\n5. Still the rabbis in Talmud and Midrash accepted the legend in good\nfaith as historical(662) and took it literally as did the great English\npoet:\n\n\n \u201cThe fruit\n Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste\n Brought death into the world, and all our woe,\n With loss of Eden.\u201d\n\n\nIn fact, they even followed the Persian dualism with its evil principle,\nthe primeval serpent, or the Babylonian legend of the sea-monster Tiamat,\nand regarded the serpent in Paradise as a demon. He was identified with\nSatan, the arch-fiend, and later with evil in general, the _yezer ha\nra_.(663) Thus the belief arose that the poisonous breath of the serpent\ninfected all generations, causing death even of the sinless.(664) The\napocrypha also held that the envy of Satan brought death into the\nworld.(665) This prepared for the dismal church doctrine of original sin,\nthe basis of Paul\u2019s teachings, which demanded a blood atonement for\ncurse-laden humanity, and found it after the pagan pattern in the\nvicarious sacrifice of a dying god.(666)\n\nAgainst such perversion of the simple Paradise story the sound common\nsense of the Jewish people rebelled. While the early Talmudists\noccasionally mention the poisoning of the human race by the serpent, they\nfind an antidote for the Jewish people in the covenant with Abraham or\nthat of Sinai.(667) One cannot, however, discern the least indication of\nbelief in original sin, either as inherent in the human race or inherited\nby them. Nor does the liturgy express any such idea, especially for the\nDay of Penitence, when it would certainly be mentioned if the conception\nfound any place in Jewish doctrine. On the contrary, the prevailing\nthought of Judaism is that of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel,(668) that \u201cEach man\ndies by his own sin,\u201d that every soul must bear only the consequences of\nhis own deeds. The rabbis even state that no man dies unless he has\nbrought it upon himself by his own sin, and mention especially certain\nexceptions to this rule, such as the four saintly men who died without\nsin,(669) or certain children whose death was due to the sin of their\nparents.(670) They could never admit that the whole human race was so\ncorrupted by the sin of the first man that it is still in a state of\nsinfulness.\n\n6. Of course, the rabbinical schools took literally the Biblical story of\nthe fall of man and laid the chief blame upon woman, who fell a prey to\nthe wiles of the serpent. This is done even by Ben Sira, who says: \u201cWith\nwoman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all must die.\u201d(671) So\nthe Talmud says that due to woman, man, the crown, light, and life of\ncreation, lost his purity, his luster, and his immortality.(672) The\nBiblical verse, \u201cThey did eat, and the eyes of them both were opened,\u201d is\ninterpreted by Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai and Rabbi Akiba as \u201cThey saw the\ndire consequences of their sin upon all coming generations.\u201d(673) The fall\nof man is treated most elaborately in the same spirit in the two\napocalyptic books written after the destruction of the Second Temple, the\nApocalypse of Baruch and the IV Book of Esdras.(674) The incompatibility\nof divine love with the sufferings of man and of the Jewish people on\naccount of the sin of the first man is solved by an appeal to the final\nDay of Judgment, and the striking remark is added that, after all, \u201ceach\nis his own Adam and is held responsible for his own sin.\u201d We cannot deny\nthat these two books contain much that is near the Paulinian view of\noriginal sin. It seems, however, that the Jewish teachers were put on\ntheir guard by the emphasis of this pessimistic dogma by the nascent\nChurch, and did their best to give a different aspect to the story of the\nfirst sin. Thus they say: \u201cIf Adam had but shown repentance, and done\npenance after he committed his sin, he would have been spared the death\npenalty.\u201d(675) Moreover, they actually represent Adam and Eve as patterns\nof repentant sinners, who underwent severe penance and thus obtained the\npromise of divine mercy and also of final resurrection.(676) Instead of\ntransmitting the heritage of sin to coming generations, the first man is\nfor them an example of repentance. So do the Haggadists tell us quite\ncharacteristically that God merely wanted to test the first man by an\ninsignificant command, so that the first representative of the human race\nshould show whether he was worthy to enter eternal life in his mortal\ngarb, as did Enoch and Elijah. As he could not stand the test, he\nforfeited the marks of divine rank, his celestial radiance, his gigantic\nsize, and his power to overcome death.(677) Obviously the Biblical story\nwas embellished with material from the Persian legend of the fall of Yima\nor Djemshid, the first man, from superhuman greatness because of his\nsin,(678) but it was always related frankly as a legend, and could never\ninfluence the Jewish conception of the fall of man.\n\n7. Judaism rejects completely the belief in hereditary sin and the\ncorruption of the flesh. The Biblical verse, \u201cGod made man upright; but\nthey have sought out many inventions,\u201d(679) is explained in the Midrash:\n\u201cUpright and just as is God, He made man after His likeness in order that\nhe might strive after righteousness, and unfold ever more his god-like\nnature, but men in their dissensions have marred the divine image.\u201d(680)\nWith reference to another verse in Ecclesiastes:(681) \u201cThe dust returneth\nunto the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto God who gave it,\u201d\nthe rabbis teach \u201cPure as the soul is when entering upon its earthly\ncareer, so can man return it to his Maker.\u201d(682) Therefore the pious Jew\nbegins his daily prayers with the words: \u201cMy God, the soul which Thou hast\ngiven me is pure.\u201d(683) The life-long battle with sin begins only at the\nage when sensual desire, \u201cthe evil inclination,\u201d awakens in youth; then\nthe state of primitive innocence makes way for the sterner contest for\nmanly virtue and strength of character.\n\n8. In fact, the whole Paradise story could never be made the basis for a\ndogma. The historicity of the serpent is denied by Saadia;(684) the rabbis\ntransfer Paradise with the tree of life to heaven as a reward for the\nfuture;(685) and both Nahmanides the mystic and Maimonides the philosopher\ngive it an allegorical meaning.(686) On the other hand, the Haggadic\nteachers perceived the simple truth that a life of indolence in Paradise\nwould incapacitate man for his cultural task, and that the toils and\nstruggles inflicted on man as a curse are in reality a blessing. Therefore\nthey laid special stress on the Biblical statement: \u201cHe put man into the\ngarden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.\u201d(687) The following parable is\nespecially suggestive: \u201cWhen Adam heard the stern sentence passed: \u2018Thou\nshalt eat the herb of the field,\u2019 he burst into tears, and said: \u2018Am I and\nmy ass to eat out of the same manger?\u2019 Then came another sentence from God\nto reassure him, \u2018In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,\u2019 and\nforthwith he became aware that man shall attain a higher dignity by dint\nof labor.\u201d(688) Indeed, labor transforms the wilderness into a garden and\nthe earth into a habitation worthy of the son of God. The \u201cbook of the\ngenerations of man\u201d which begins with Adam is accordingly not the history\nof man\u2019s descent, but of his continuous ascent, of ever higher\nachievements and aspirations; it is not a record of the fall of man, but\nof his rise from age to age. According to the Midrash(689) God opened\nbefore Adam the book with the deeds and names of the leading spirits of\nall the coming generations, showing him the latent powers of the human\nintellect and soul. The phrase, \u201cthe fall of man,\u201d can mean, in fact, only\nthe inner experience of the individual, who does fall from his original\nidea of purity and divine nobility into transgression and sin. It cannot\nrefer to mankind as a whole, for the human race has never experienced a\nfall, nor is it affected by original or hereditary sin.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XXXVI. God\u2019s Spirit in Man\n\n\n1. Man is placed in an animal world of dull feelings, of blind and crude\ncravings. Yet his clear understanding, his self-conscious will and his\naspirations forward and upward lead him into a higher world where he\nobtains insight into the order and unity of all things. By the spirit of\nGod he is able to understand material things and grasp them in their\nrelations; thus he can apply all his knowledge and creative imagination to\nconstruct a world of ideals. But this world, in all its truth, beauty and\ngoodness, is still limited and finite, a feeble shadow of the infinite\nworld of God. As the Bible says: \u201cThe spirit of man is the lamp of the\nLord, searching all the inward parts.\u201d(690) \u201cIt is a spirit in man, and\nthe breath of the Almighty, that giveth them understanding.\u201d(691)\n\n2. According to the Biblical conception, the spirit of God endows men with\nall their differing capacities; it gives to one man wisdom by which he\npenetrates into the causes of existence and orders facts into a scientific\nsystem; to another the seeing eye by which he captures the secret of\nbeauty and creates works of art; and to a third the genius to perceive the\nways of God, the laws of virtue, that he may become a teacher of ethical\ntruth. In other words, the spirit of God is \u201cthe spirit of wisdom and\nunderstanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge\nand the fear of the Lord.\u201d(692) It works upon the scientific interest of\nthe investigator, the imagination of the artist and poet, the ethical and\nsocial sense of the prophet, teacher, statesman, and lawgiver. Thus their\nhigh and holy vision of the divine is brought home to the people and\nimplanted within them under the inspiration of God. In commenting upon the\nBiblical verse, \u201cWisdom and might are His ... He giveth wisdom to the\nwise, and knowledge to them that know understanding,\u201d(693) the sages\nwisely remark, \u201cGod carefully selects those who possess wisdom for His\ngift of wisdom.\u201d Even as a musical instrument must be attuned for the\nfiner notes that it may have a clear, resonant tone, so the human soul\nmust be made especially susceptible to the gifts of the spirit in order to\nbe capable of unfolding them. Thus the Talmud records an interesting\ndialogue on this very passage between a Roman matron familiar with the\nScripture, and Rabbi Jose ben Halafta. She asked sarcastically, \u201cWould it\nnot have been more generous of your God to have given wisdom to those that\nare unwise than to those that already possess it?\u201d Thereupon the Jewish\nmaster replied, \u201cIf you were to lend a precious ornament, would you not\nlend it to one who was able to make use of it? So God gives the treasure\nof wisdom to the wise, who know how to appreciate and develop it, not to\nthe unwise, who do not know its value.\u201d(694)\n\n3. Thus the diverse gifts of the divine spirit are distributed differently\namong the various classes and tribes of men, according to their capacity\nand the corresponding task which is assigned them by Providence. The\ndivine spark is set aglow in each human soul, sometimes feebly, sometimes\nbrightly, but it blazes high only in the privileged personality or group.\nThe mutual relationship between God and man is recognized by the Synagogue\nin the Eighteen Benedictions, where the one directly following the three\npraises of God is devoted to wisdom and knowledge: \u201cThou favorest man with\nknowledge, and teachest mortals understanding. So favor us with knowledge,\nunderstanding, and discernment from Thee. Blessed art Thou, O Lord,\ngracious Giver of knowledge.\u201d(695) This petition, remarks Jehuda ha\nLevi,(696) deserves its position as first among these prayers, because\nwisdom brings us nearer to God. It is also noteworthy that the Synagogue\nprescribes a special benediction at the sight of a renowned sage, even if\nhe is not a Jew, reading, \u201cPraised be He who has imparted of His wisdom to\nflesh and blood.\u201d(697)\n\n4. Maimonides holds that in the same degree as a man studies the works of\nGod in nature, he will be filled with longing for direct knowledge of God\nand true love of Him.(698) \u201cNot only religion, but also the sciences\nemanate from God, both being the outcome of the wisdom which God imparts\nto all nations,\u201d\u2014thus wrote a sixteenth-century rabbi, Loewe ben Bezalel\nof Prague, known usually as \u201cthe eminent Rabbi Loewe.\u201d(699) The men of the\nTalmud also accord the palm in certain types of knowledge to heathen\nsages, and did not hesitate to ascribe to some heathens the highest\nknowledge of God in their time.(700) As a mystic of the thirteenth\ncentury, Isaac ben Latif, says: \u201cThat faith is the most perfect which\nperceives truth most fully, since God is the source of all truth.\u201d(701) Of\nthe two heads of the Babylonian academies, Rab and Samuel, one asserted\nthat Moses through his prophetic genius reached forty-nine of the fifty\ndegrees of the divine understanding (as the fiftieth is reserved for God\nalone), while the other claimed the same distinction for King Solomon as\nthe result of his wisdom.(702)\n\n5. Thus the spirit of God creates in man both consciously and\nunconsciously a world of ideas, which proves him a being of a higher order\nin creation. This impulse may work actively, searching, investigating, and\ncreating, or passively as an instrument of a higher power. At first it is\na dim, uncertain groping of the spirit; then the mind acquires greater\nlucidity by which it illumines the dark world; and, as one question calls\nfor the other and one thought suggests another, the world of ideas opens\nup as a well-connected whole. Thus man creates by slow steps his\nlanguages, the arts and sciences, ethics, law and all the religions with\ntheir varying practices and doctrines. At times this spirit bursts forth\nwith greater vehemence in great men, geniuses who lift the race with one\nstroke to a higher level. Such men may say, in the words of David, the\nholy singer: \u201cThe spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His word was upon my\ntongue.\u201d(703) They may repeat the experience of Eliphaz the friend of Job:\n\n\n \u201cNow a word was secretly brought to me,\n And mine ear received a whisper thereof.\n In thoughts from the visions of the night,\n When deep sleep falleth on men,\n Fear came upon me, and trembling,\n And all my bones were made to shake.\n Then a spirit passed before my face,\n That made the hair of my flesh to stand up.\n It stood still, but I could not discern the appearance thereof;\n A form was before mine eyes;\n I heard a still voice.\u201d(704)\n\n\nIn such manner men of former ages received a religious revelation, a\ndivine message.\n\n6. The divine spirit always selects as its instruments individuals with\nspecial endowments. Still, insight into history shows that these men must\nneeds have grown from the very heart of their own people and their own\nage, in order that they might hold a lofty position among them and command\nattention for their message. However far the people or the age may be from\nthe man chosen by God, the multitude must feel at least that the divine\nspirit speaks through him, or works within him. Or, if not his own time,\nthen a later generation must respond to his message, lest it be lost\nentirely to the world.\n\nThe rabbis, who knew nothing of laws of development for the human mind,\nassumed that the first man, made by God Himself, must have known every\nbranch of knowledge and skill, that the spirit of God must have been most\nvigorous in him.(705) They therefore believed in a primeval revelation,\ncoeval with the first man. Our age, with its tremendous emphasis on the\nhistorical view, sees the divine spirit manifested most clearly in the\nvery development and growth of all life, social, intellectual, moral and\nspiritual, proceeding steadily toward the highest of all goals. With this\nemphasis, however, on process, we must lay stress equally on the origin,\non the divine impulse or initiative in this historical development, the\nspirit which gives direction and value to the whole.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XXXVII. Free Will and Moral Responsibility\n\n\n1. Judaism has ever emphasized the freedom of the will as one of its chief\ndoctrines. The dignity and greatness of man depends largely upon his\nfreedom, his power of self-determination. He differs from the lower\nanimals in his independence of instinct as the dictator of his actions. He\nacts from free choice and conscious design, and is able to change his mind\nat any moment, at any new evidence or even through whim. He is therefore\nresponsible for his every act or omission, even for his every intention.\nThis alone renders him a moral being, a child of God; thus the moral sense\nrests upon freedom of the will.(706)\n\n2. The idea of moral freedom is expressed as early as the first pages of\nthe Bible, in the words which God spoke to Cain while he was planning the\nmurder of his brother Abel: \u201cWhether or not, thou offerest an acceptable\ngift,\u201d (New Bible translation: \u201cIf thou doest well, shall it not be lifted\nup? and if thou doest not well,\u201d) \u201csin coucheth at the door; and unto thee\nis its desire, but thou mayest rule over it.\u201d(707) Here, without any\nreference to the sin of Adam in the first generation, the man of the\nsecond generation is told that he is free to choose between good and evil,\nthat he alone is responsible before God for what he does or omits to do.\nThis certainly indicates that the moral freedom of man is not impaired by\nhereditary sin, or by any evil power outside of man himself. This\nprinciple is established in the words of Moses spoken in the name of God:\n\u201cI have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse;\ntherefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed.\u201d(708) In\nlike manner Jeremiah proclaims in God\u2019s name: \u201cBehold I set before you the\nway of life and the way of death.\u201d(709)\n\n3. From these passages and many similar ones the sages derived their\noft-repeated idea that man stands ever at the parting of the ways, to\nchoose either the good or the evil path.(710) Thus the words spoken by God\nto the angels when Adam and Eve were to be expelled from Paradise:\n\u201cBehold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil,\u201d are\ninterpreted by R. Akiba: \u201cHe was given the choice to go the way of life or\nthe way of death, but he chose the way of death by eating of the forbidden\nfruit.\u201d(711) R. Akiba emphasizes the principle of the freedom of the will\nagain in the terse saying: \u201cAll things are foreseen (by God), but free\nwill is granted (to man).\u201d(712)\n\n4. At the first encounter of Judaism with those philosophical schools of\nHellas which denied the freedom of the human will, the Jewish teachers\ninsisted strongly on this principle. The first reference is found in Ben\nSira, who refutes the arguments of the Determinists that God could make\nman sin, and then goes on: \u201cGod created man at the beginning, endowing him\nwith the power of self-determination, saying to him: If thou but willest,\nthou canst observe My commandments; to practice faithfulness is a matter\nof free will.... As when fire and water are put before thee, so that thou\nmayest reach forth thy hand to that which thou desirest, so are life and\ndeath placed before man, and whatever he chooses of his own desire will be\ngiven to him.\u201d(713) The Book of Enoch voices this truth also in the\nforceful sentences: \u201cSin has not been sent upon the earth (from above),\nbut men have produced it out of themselves; therefore they who commit sin\nare condemned.\u201d(714) We read similar sentiments in the Psalms of Solomon,\na Pharisean work of the first pre-Christian century:(715) \u201cOur actions are\nthe outcome of the free choice and power of our own soul; to practice\njustice or injustice lies in the work of our own hands.\u201d\n\nThe Apocalypse of Ezra is especially instructive in the great stress which\nit lays on freedom, in connection with its chief theme, the sinfulness of\nthe children of Adam. \u201cThis is the condition of the contest which man who\nis born on earth must wage, that, if he be conquered by the evil\ninclination, he must suffer that of which thou hast spoken (the tortures\nof hell), but if he be victorious, he shall receive (the reward) which I\n(the angel) have mentioned. For this is the way whereof Moses spoke when\nhe lived, saying unto the people, \u2018Choose life, that thou mayest live!\u2019...\nFor all who knew Me not in life when they received My benefits, who\ndespised My law when they yet had freedom, and did not heed the door of\nrepentance while it was still open before them, but disregarded it, after\ndeath they shall come to know it!\u201d(716)\n\n5. Hellenistic Judaism also, particularly Philo,(717) considered the truly\ndivine in man to be his free will, which distinguishes him from the beast.\nYet Hellenistic naturalism could not grasp the fact that man\u2019s power to do\nevil in opposition to God, the Source of the good, is the greatest\nreminder of his moral responsibility. Josephus likewise mentions\nfrequently as a characteristic teaching of the Pharisees that man\u2019s free\nwill determines his acts without any compulsion of destiny.(718) Only we\nmust not accept too easily the words of this Jewish historian, who wrote\nfor his Roman masters and, therefore, represented the Jewish parties as so\nmany philosophical schools after the Greek pattern. The Pharisean doctrine\nis presented most tersely in the Talmudic maxim: \u201cEverything is in the\nhands of God except the fear of God.\u201d(719) Like the quotation from R.\nAkiba above, this contains the great truth that man\u2019s destiny is\ndetermined by Providence, but his character depends upon his own free\ndecision. This idea recurs frequently in such Talmudic sayings as these:\n\u201cThe wicked are in the power of their desires; the righteous have their\ndesires in their own power;\u201d(720) \u201cThe eye, the ear, and the nostrils are\nnot in man\u2019s power, but the mouth, the hand, and the feet are.\u201d(721) That\nis, the impressions we receive from the world without us come\ninvoluntarily, but our acts, our steps, and our words arise from our own\nvolition.\n\n6. A deeper insight into the problem of free will is offered in two other\nTalmudic sayings; the one is: \u201cWhosoever desires to pollute himself with\nsin will find all the gates open before him, and whosoever desires to\nattain the highest purity will find all the forces of goodness ready to\nhelp him.\u201d(722) The other reads: \u201cIt can be proved by the Torah, the\nProphets, and the other sacred writings that man is led along the road\nwhich he wishes to follow.\u201d(723)\n\nAs a matter of fact, no person is absolutely free, for innumerable\ninfluences affect his decisions, consciously and unconsciously. For this\nreason many thinkers, both ancient and modern, consider freedom a delusion\nand hold to determinism, the doctrine that man acts always under the\ncompulsion of external and internal forces. In opposition to this theory\nis one incontestable fact, our own inner sense of freedom which tells us\nat every step that _we_ have acted, and at every decision that we have\ndecided. Man can maintain his own power of self-determination against all\ninfluences from without and within; his will is the final arbiter over\nevery impulse and every pressure. Moreover, as we penetrate more deeply\ninto the working of the mind, we see that a long series of our own\nvoluntary acts has occasioned much that we consider external, that the\nvery pressure of the past on our thoughts, feelings and habits, which\nleaves so little weight for the decision of the moment, is really only our\npast will influencing our present will. That is, the will may determine\nitself, but it does not do so arbitrarily; its action is along the lines\nof its own character. We have the power to receive the influence of either\nthe noble or the ignoble series of impressions, and thus to yield either\nto the lofty or the low impulses of the soul.\n\nIn this way the rabbis interpret various expressions of Scripture which\nwould seem to limit man\u2019s freedom, as where God induces man to good or\nevil acts, or hardens the heart of Pharaoh so that he will not let the\nIsraelites go, until the plagues had been fulfilled upon him and his\npeople.(724) They understand in such an instance that a man\u2019s heart has a\nprevailing inclination toward right or wrong, the expression of his\ncharacter, and that God encouraged this inclination along the evil course;\nthus the freedom of the human will was kept intact.\n\n7. The doctrine of man\u2019s free will presents another difficulty from the\nside of divine omniscience. For if God knows in advance what is to happen,\nthen man\u2019s acts are determined by this very foreknowledge; he is no longer\nfree, and his moral responsibility becomes an idle dream. In order to\nescape this dilemma, the Mohammedan theologians were compelled to limit\neither the divine omniscience or human freedom, and most of them resorted\nto the latter method. It is characteristic of Judaism that its great\nthinkers, from Saadia to Maimonides and Gersonides,(725) dared not alter\nthe doctrine of man\u2019s free will and moral responsibility, but even\npreferred to limit the divine omniscience. Hisdai Crescas is the only one\nto restrict human freedom in favor of the foreknowledge of God.(726)\n\n8. The insistence of Judaism on unrestricted freedom of will for each\nindividual entirely excludes hereditary sin. This is shown in the\ntraditional explanation of the verse of the Decalogue: \u201cVisiting the\niniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth\ngeneration of them that hate Me.\u201d(727) According to the rabbis the words\n\u201cof them that hate Me\u201d do not refer to the fathers, according to the plain\nmeaning of the passage, but to the children and children\u2019s children. These\nare to be punished only when they hate God and follow the evil example of\ntheir fathers.(728) Despite example and hereditary disposition, the\ndescendants of evildoers can lead a virtuous life, and their punishment\ncomes only when they fail to resist the evil influences of their parental\nhousehold. To illustrate the Biblical words, \u201cWho can bring a clean thing\nout of an unclean?\u201d(729) the rabbis single out Abraham, the son of Terah,\nHezekiah, the son of Ahaz, and Josiah, the son of Manasseh.(730) Man,\nbeing made in God\u2019s image, determines his own character by his own free\nchoice; by his will he can raise or lower himself in the scale of being.\n\n9. The fundamental character of the doctrine of free will for Judaism is\nshown by Maimonides, who devotes a special chapter of his Code to it,(731)\nand calls it the pillar of Israel\u2019s faith and morality, since through it\nalone man manifests his god-like sovereignty. For should his freedom be\nlimited by any kind of predestination, he would be deprived of his moral\nresponsibility, which constitutes his real greatness. In endeavoring to\nreconcile God\u2019s omnipotence and omniscience with man\u2019s freedom, Maimonides\nsays that God wants man to erect a kingdom of morality without\ninterference from above; moreover, God\u2019s knowledge is different in kind\nfrom that of man, and thus is not an infringement upon man\u2019s freedom, as\nthe human type of knowledge would be. However, Abraham ben David of\nPosquieres blames Maimonides for proposing questions which he could not\nanswer satisfactorily in the Code, which is intended for non-philosophical\nreaders. The fact is that this is only another of the problems insoluble\nto human reasoning; the freedom of the will must remain for all time a\npostulate of moral responsibility, and therefore of religion.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XXXVIII. The Meaning of Sin\n\n\n1. Sin is a religious conception. It does not signify a breach of law or\nmorality, or of popular custom and sacred usage, but an offense against\nGod, provoking His punishment. As long as the deity is merely dreaded as\nan external power, not adored as a moral power ruling life from within for\na holy purpose, sin, too, is considered a purely formal offense. The deity\ndemands to be worshiped by certain rites and may be propitiated by other\nformal acts.(732) For Judaism, however, sin is a straying from the path of\nGod, an offense against the divine order of holiness. Thus it signifies an\nabuse of the freedom granted man as his most precious boon. Therefore sin\nhas a twofold character; formally it is an offense against the majesty of\nGod, whose laws are broken; essentially it is a severance of the soul\u2019s\ninner relations to God, an estrangement from Him.\n\n2. Scripture has three different terms for sin, which do not differ\ngreatly in point of language, but indicate three stages of thought. First\nis _het_ or _hataah_, which connotes any straying from the right path,\nwhether caused by levity, carelessness, or design, and may even include\nwrongs committed unwittingly, _shegagah_. Second is _avon_, a crookedness\nor perversion of the straight order of the law. Third is _pesha_, a wicked\nact committed presumptuously in defiance of God and His law. As a matter\nof course, the conception of sin was deepened by degrees, as the prophets,\npsalmists and moralists grew to think of God as the pattern of the highest\nmoral perfection, as the Holy One before whom an evil act or thought\ncannot abide.\n\nThe rabbis usually employed the term _aberah_, that is, a transgression of\na divine commandment. In contrast to this they used _mitzwah_, a divine\ncommand, which denotes also the whole range of duty, including the desire\nand intention of the human soul. From this point of view every evil design\nor impulse, every thought and act contrary to God\u2019s law, becomes a sin.\n\n3. Sin arises from the weakness of the flesh, the desire of the heart, and\naccordingly in the first instance from an error of judgment. The Bible\nfrequently speaks of sin as \u201cfolly.\u201d(733) A rabbinical saying brings out\nthis same idea: \u201cNo one sins unless the spirit of folly has entered into\nhim to deceive him.\u201d(734) A sinful imagination lures one to sin; the\nrepetition of the forbidden act lowers the barrier of the commandment,\nuntil the trespass is hardened into \u201ccallous\u201d and \u201cstubborn\u201d disregard,\nand finally into \u201creckless defiance\u201d and \u201cinsolent godlessness.\u201d Such a\nprocess is graphically expressed by the various terms used in the Bible.\nAccording to the rabbinical figure, \u201csin appears at first as thin as a\nspider\u2019s web, but grows stronger and stronger, until it becomes like a\nwagon-rope to bind a man.\u201d Or, \u201csin comes at first as a passer-by to tarry\nfor a moment, then as a visitor to stay, finally as the master of the\nhouse to claim possession.\u201d Therefore it is incumbent upon us to \u201cguard\u201d\nthe heart, and not \u201cto go astray following after our eyes and our\nheart.\u201d(735)\n\n4. According to the doctrine of Judaism no one is sinful by nature. No\nperson sins by an inner compulsion. But as man has a nature of flesh,\nwhich is sensuous and selfish, each person is inclined to sin and none is\nperfectly free from it. \u201cWho can say: I have made my heart clean, I am\npure from any sin?\u201d(736) This is the voice of the Bible and of all human\nexperience; \u201cFor there is not a righteous man upon earth, that doeth good,\nand sinneth not.\u201d(737) The expression occurs repeatedly in Job: \u201cShall\nmortal man be just before God? Shall a man be pure before his Maker?\u201d(738)\nEven Moses is represented in numerous passages as showing human foibles\nand failings.(739) In fact, \u201cthe greater the personality, the more\nseverely will God call him to account for the smallest trespass, for God\ndesires to be \u2018sanctified\u2019 by His righteous ones.\u201d(740) The Midrash tells\nus that no one is to be called holy, until death has put an end to his\nstruggle with the ever-lurking tempter within, and he lies in the earth\nwith the victor\u2019s crown of peace upon his brow.(741) When we read the\nstern sentence: \u201cBehold, He putteth no trust in His holy ones,\u201d(742) the\nrabbis refer us to the patriarchs, each of whom had his faults.(743)\nMeasured by the Pattern of all holiness, no human being is free from\nblemish.\n\n5. In connection with the God-idea, the conception of sin grew from crude\nbeginnings to the higher meaning given it by Judaism. The ancient\nBabylonians used the same terminology as the Bible for sin and\nsin-offering, but their view, like that of other Semites, was far more\nexternal.(744) If one was afflicted with disease or misfortune, the\ninference was that he had neglected the ritual of some deity and must\nappease the angered one with a sacrificial offering. Any irregularity in\nthe cult was an offense against the deity. This became more moralized with\nthe higher God-idea; the god became the guardian of moral principles; and\nthe calamities, even of the nation, were then ascribed to the divine wrath\non account of moral lapses. The same process may be observed in the views\nof ancient Israel. Here, too, during the dominance of the priestly view\nthe gravest possible offense was one against the cult, a culpable act\nentailing the death penalty\u2014_asham_, or \u201cdoom\u201d of the offender. We shudder\nat the thought that the least violation of the hierarchical rules for the\nsanctuary or even for the burning of incense should meet the penalty of\ndeath. Yet such is the plain statement of the Mosaic law and such was the\nactual practice of the people.(745)\n\nThe more the prophetic conception of the moral nature of the Deity\npermeated the Jewish religion, the more the term sin came to mean an\noffense against the holiness of God, the Guardian of morality. Hence the\ngreat prophets upbraided the people for their moral, not their ceremonial\nfailings. They attacked scathingly transgressions of the laws of\nrighteousness and purity, the true sins against God, because these\noriginate in dullness of heart, unbridled passion, and overbearing pride,\nall so hateful to Him. The only ritual offenses emphasized as sins against\nGod are idolatry, violation of the name of God and of the Sabbath, for\nthese express the sanctity of life.(746) Except for these points, the\nprophets and psalmists insisted only on righteous conduct and integrity of\nsoul, and repudiated entirely the ritualism of the priesthood and the\nformalism of the cult.(747) This view is anticipated by Samuel, the master\nof the prophetic schools, when he says:\n\n\n \u201cBehold, to obey is better than sacrifice,\n And to hearken than the fat of rams.\n For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,\n And stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim.\u201d(748)\n\n\nAs soon as we realize that obedience to God\u2019s will means right conduct and\npurity of soul, we see in sin the desecration of the divine image in man,\nthe violation of his heavenly patent of nobility.\n\n6. Sin, then, is in its essence unfaithfulness to God and to our own\ngod-like nature. We see this thought expressed in Job:(749)\n\n\n \u201cIf thou hast sinned, what doest thou against Him?\n And if thy transgressions be multiplied, what doest thou unto Him?\n If thou be righteous, what givest thou unto Him?\n Or what receiveth He of thy hand?\n Thy wickedness concerneth a man as thou art;\n And thy righteousness a son of man.\u201d\n\n\nThus the source of sin is the human heart, the origin of all our thinking\nand planning. We know sin chiefly as consciousness of guilt. Man\u2019s\nconscience accuses him and compels him to confess, \u201cAgainst Thee, Thee\nonly, have I sinned.\u201d(750) Not only the deed itself, but even more the\nwill which caused it, is condemned by conscience. Such self-accusation\nconstantly proves anew that there is no place for original sin through the\nfall of Adam. \u201cI could have controlled my evil desire, if I had but\nearnestly willed it,\u201d said King David, according to the Talmud.(751)\n\n7. Sin engenders a feeling of disunion with God through the consciousness\nof guilt which accompanies it. It erects a \u201cwall of separation\u201d between\nman and his Maker, depriving him of peace and security.(752) Guilt causes\npain, which overwhelms him, until he has made atonement and obtained\npardon before God. This is no imaginary feeling, easily overcome and\ncapable of being suppressed by the sinner with impunity. Instead, he must\npay the full penalty for his sin, lest it lead him to the very abyss of\nevil, to physical and moral death. Sin in the individual becomes a sense\nof self-condemnation, the consciousness of the divine anger. Hence the\nHebrew term _avon_, sin, is often synonymous with punishment,(753) and\n_asham_, guilt, often signifies the atonement for the guilt, and sometimes\ndoom and perdition as a consequence of guilt.(754) Undoubtedly this still\ncontains a remnant of the old Semitic idea that an awful divine visitation\nmay come upon an entire household or community because of a criminal or\nsacrilegious act committed, consciously or unconsciously, by one of its\nmembers. Such a fate can be averted only by an atoning sacrifice. This\naccords with the rather strange fact that the Priestly Code prescribes\ncertain guilt offerings for sins committed unwittingly, which are called\n_asham_.(755)\n\n8. But even these unintentional sins can be avoided by the constant\nexercise of caution, so that their commission implies a certain degree of\nguilt, which demands a measure of repentance. Thus the Psalmist says: \u201cWho\ncan discern errors? Clear Thou me from hidden faults.\u201d(756) He thus\nimplies that we feel responsible in a certain sense for all our sins,\nincluding those which we commit unknowingly. The rabbis dwell especially\non the idea that we are never altogether free from sinful thoughts. For\nthis reason, they tell us, the two burnt offerings were brought to the\naltar each morning and evening, to atone for the sinful thoughts of the\npeople during the preceding day or night.(757)\n\n9. At any rate, Judaism recognizes no sin which does not arise from the\nindividual conscience or moral personality. The condemnation of a whole\ngeneration or race in consequence of the sin of a single individual is an\nessentially heathen idea, which was overcome by Judaism in the course of\ntime through the prophetic teaching of the divine justice and man\u2019s moral\nresponsibility. This sentiment was voiced by Moses and Aaron after the\nrebellion of Korah in the words: \u201cO God, the God of the spirits of all\nflesh, shall one man sin, and wilt Thou be wroth with all the\ncongregation?\u201d(758) In commenting upon this, the Midrash says: \u201cA human\nking may make war upon a whole province, because it contains rebels who\nhave caused sedition, and so the innocent must suffer together with the\nguilty; but it does not behoove God, the Ruler of the spirits, who looks\ninto the hearts of men, to punish the guiltless together with the\nguilty.\u201d(759) The Christian view of universal guilt as a consequence of\nAdam\u2019s sin, the dogma of original sin, is actually a relapse from the\nJewish stage to the heathen doctrine from which the Jewish religion freed\nitself.\n\n10. According to the Biblical view sin contaminates man, so that he cannot\nstand in the presence of God. The holiness of Him who is \u201cof eyes too pure\nto behold evil\u201d(760) becomes to the sinner \u201ca devouring fire.\u201d(761) Even\nthe lofty prophet Isaiah realizes his own human limitations at the sublime\nvision of the God of holiness enthroned on high, while the angelic\nchoruses chant their thrice holy. In humility and contrition he cries out:\n\u201cWoe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I\ndwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For mine eyes have seen\nthe King, the Lord of hosts.\u201d(762) The prophet must undergo atonement in\norder to be prepared for his high prophetic task. One of the Seraphs\npurges him of his sins by touching his lips with a live coal taken from\nthe altar of God.\n\nUnder the influence of Persian dualism, rabbinical Judaism considers sin a\npollution which puts man under the power of unclean spirits.(763) In the\nlater Cabbalah this idea is elaborated until the world of sin is\nconsidered a cosmic power of impurity, opposed to the realm of right,\nworking evil ever since the fall of Adam.(764) Still, however close this\nmay come to the Christian dogma, it never becomes identical with it; the\nrecognition is always preserved of man\u2019s power to extricate himself from\nthe realm of impurity and to elevate himself into the realm of purity by\nhis own repentance. Sin never becomes a demoniacal power depriving man of\nhis divine dignity of self-determination and condemning him to eternal\ndamnation. It ever remains merely a going astray from the right path, a\nstumbling from which man may rise again to his heavenly height, exerting\nhis own powers as the son of God.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XXXIX. Repentance Or the Return To God\n\n\n1. The brightest gem among the teachings of Judaism is its doctrine of\nrepentance or, in its own characteristic term, the return of the wayward\nsinner to God.(765) Man, full of remorse at having fallen away from the\ndivine Fountainhead of purity, conscious of deserving a sentence of\ncondemnation from the eternal Judge, would be less happy than the\nunreasoning brute which cannot sin at all. Religion restores him by the\npower to rise from his shame and guilt, to return to God in repentance, as\nthe penitent son returns to his father. Whether we regard sin as\nestrangement from God or as a disturbance of the divine order, it has a\ndetrimental effect on both body and soul, and leads inevitably to death.\nOn this point the Bible affords many historical illustrations and\ndoctrinal teachings.(766) If man had no way to escape from sin, then he\nwould be the most unfortunate of creatures, in spite of his god-like\nnature. Therefore the merciful God opens the gate of repentance for the\nsinner, saying as through His prophets of old: \u201cI have no pleasure in the\ndeath of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.\u201d(767)\n\n2. The great value of the gift of divine grace, by which the sinner may\nrepent and return to God with a new spirit, appears in the following\nrabbinical saying: \u201cWisdom was asked, \u2018What shall be the sinner\u2019s\npunishment?\u2019 and answered, \u2018Evil pursues sinners\u2019;(768) then Prophecy was\nasked, and answered, \u2018The soul that sinneth, it shall die\u2019;(769) the\nTorah, or legal code, was consulted, and its answer was: \u2018He shall bring a\nsin-offering, and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be\nforgiven.\u2019(770) Finally God Himself was asked, and He answered:(771) \u2018Good\nand upright is the Lord; therefore doth He instruct sinners in the\nway.\u2019 \u201d(772) The Jewish idea of atonement by the sinner\u2019s return to God\nexcludes every kind of mediatorship. Neither the priesthood nor sacrifice\nis necessary to secure the divine grace; man need only find the way to God\nby his own efforts. \u201cSeek ye Me, and live,\u201d(773) says God to His erring\nchildren.\n\n3. _Teshubah_, which means return, is an idea peculiar to Judaism, created\nby the prophets of Israel, and arising directly from the simple Jewish\nconception of sin. Since sin is a deviation from the path of salvation, a\n\u201cstraying\u201d into the road of perdition and death, the erring can return\nwith heart and soul, end his ways, and thus change his entire being. This\nis not properly expressed by the term repentance, which denotes only\nregret for the wrong, but not the inner transformation. Nor is _Teshubah_\nto be rendered by either penitence or penance. The former indicates a sort\nof bodily self-castigation, the latter some other kind of penalty\nundergone in order to expiate sin. Such external forms of asceticism were\nprescribed and practiced by many tribes and some of the historical\nreligions. The Jewish prophets, however, opposed them bitterly, demanding\nan inner change, a transformation of soul, renewing both heart and spirit.\n\n\n \u201cLet the wicked forsake his way,\n And the man of iniquity his thoughts;\n And let him return unto the Lord, and He will have compassion upon\n him,\n And to our God, for He will abundantly pardon.\u201d(774)\n\n\nJudaism considers sin merely moral aberration, not utter corruption, and\nbelieves in the capability of the very worst of sinners to improve his\nways; therefore it waits ever for his regeneration. This is truly a return\nto God, the restoration of the divine image which has been disfigured and\ncorrupted by sin.\n\n4. The doctrine of _Teshubah_, or the return of the sinner, has a\nspecially instructive history, as this most precious and unique conception\nof Judaism is little understood or appreciated by Christian theologians.\nOften without intentional bias, these are so under the influence of the\nPaulinian dogma that they see no redemption for man corrupted by sin,\nexcept by his belief in a superhuman act of atonement. It is certainly\nsignificant that the legal code, which is of priestly origin, does not\nmention repentance or the sinner\u2019s return. It prescribes various types of\nsin-offerings, speaks of reparation for wrong inflicted, of penalties for\ncrime, and of confession for sins, but it does not state how the soul can\nbe purged of sin, so that man can regain his former state of purity. This\ngreat gap is filled by the prophetic books and the Psalms. The book of\nDeuteronomy alone, written under prophetic influence, alludes to\nrepentance, in connection with the time when Israel would be taken captive\nfrom its land as punishment for its violation of the law. There we read:\n\u201cThou shalt return unto the Lord thy God, ... with all thy heart, and all\nthy soul, then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have\ncompassion upon thee.\u201d(775)\n\nAmos, the prophet of stern justice, has not yet reached the idea of\naverting the divine wrath by the return of the sinner.(776) Hosea, the\nprophet of divine mercy and loving-kindness, in his deep compassion for\nthe unfaithful and backsliding people, became the preacher of repentance\nas the condition for attaining the divine pardon.\n\n\n \u201cReturn, O Israel, unto the Lord thy God;\n For thou hast stumbled in thine iniquity.\n Take with you words (of repentance),\n And return unto the Lord;\n Say unto Him, \u201cForgive all iniquity,\n And accept that which is good;\n So will we render for bullocks the offering of our lips.\u2019 \u201d(777)\n\n\nThe appeal of Jeremiah is still more vigorous:\n\n\n \u201cReturn, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord....\n Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed\n against the Lord thy God....\n Break up for you a fallow ground, and sow not among thorns....\n O Jerusalem, wash thy heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be\n saved;\n How long shall thy baleful thoughts lodge within thee?...\n Return ye now every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and\n your doings.\u201d(778)\n\n\nEzekiel, while emphasizing the guilt of the individual, preached\nrepentance still more insistently. \u201cReturn ye, and turn yourselves from\nall your transgressions; so shall they not be a stumbling-block of\niniquity to you. Cast away from you all your transgressions, wherein ye\nhave transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit; for why will\nye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that\ndieth, saith the Lord God; wherefore turn yourselves, and live.\u201d(779) The\nsame appeal recurs after the exile in the last prophets, Zechariah(780)\nand Malachi.(781) The latter says: \u201cReturn unto Me, and I shall return\nunto you.\u201d Likewise the penitential sermon written in a time of great\ndistress, which is ascribed to the prophet Joel, contains the appeal:\n\n\n \u201cTurn ye unto Me with all your heart,\n And with fasting, and with weeping, and with lamentation;\n And rend your heart, and not your garments,\n And turn unto the Lord your God;\n For He is gracious and compassionate,\n Long-suffering, and abundant in mercy,\n And repenteth Him of the evil.\u201d(782)\n\n\nThis prophetic view, which demands contrition and craving for God instead\nof external modes of atonement, is expressed in the penitential Psalms as\nwell,(783) especially in Psalm LI. The idea is expanded further in the\nparable of the prophet Jonah, which conveys the lesson that even a heathen\nnation like the people of Nineveh can avert the impending judgment of God\nby true repentance.(784) From this point of view the whole conception took\non a larger aspect, and the entire history of mankind was seen in a new\nlight. The Jewish sages realized that God punishes man only when the\nexpected change of mind and heart fails to come.(785)\n\n5. The Jewish plan of divine salvation presents a striking contrast to\nthat of the Church, for it is built upon the presumption that all sinners\ncan find their way back to God and godliness, if they but earnestly so\ndesire. Even before God created the world, He determined to offer man the\npossibility of _Teshubah_, so that, in the midst of the continual struggle\nwith the allurements of the senses, the repentant sinner can ever change\nheart and mind and return to God.(786) Without such a possibility the\nworld of man could not endure; thus, because no man can stand before the\ndivine tribunal of stern justice, the paternal arm of a merciful God is\nextended to receive the penitent. This sublime truth is constantly\nreiterated in the Talmud and in the liturgy, especially of the great Day\nof Atonement.(787) Not only does God\u2019s long-suffering give the sinner time\nto repent; His paternal love urges him to return. Thus the Haggadists\npurposely represent almost all the sinners mentioned in the Bible as\nmodels of sincere repentance. First of all comes King David, who is\nconsidered such a pattern of repentance, as the author of the fifty-first\nPsalm, that he would not have been allowed to sin so grievously, if he had\nnot been providentially appointed as the shining example of the penitent\u2019s\nreturn to God.(788) Then there is King Manasseh, the most wicked among all\nthe kings of Judah and Israel, who had committed the most abominable sins\nof idolatrous worship. Referring to the story told of him in Chronicles,\nit is said that God responded to his tearful prayers and incessant\nsupplications by opening a rift under His throne of mercy and receiving\nhis petition for pardon. Thus all mankind might see that none can be so\nwicked that he will not find the door of repentance open, if he but seek\nit sincerely and persistently.(789) Likewise Adam and Cain, Reuben and\nJudah, Korah, Jeroboam, Ahab, Josiah, and Jechoniah are described in\nTalmud, Midrash, and the apocalyptic literature as penitent sinners who\nobtained at last the coveted pardon.(790) The optimistic spirit of Judaism\ncannot tolerate the idea that mortal man is hopelessly lost under the\nburden of his sins, or that he need ever lose faith in himself. No one can\nsink so low that he cannot find his way back to his heavenly Father by\nuntiring self-discipline. As the Talmud says, nothing can finally\nwithstand the power of sincere repentance: \u201cIt reaches up to the very seat\nof God;\u201d \u201cupon it rests the welfare of the world.\u201d(791)\n\n6. The rabbis follow up the idea first announced in the book of Jonah,\nthat the saving power of repentance applies to the heathen world as well.\nThus they show how God constantly offered time and opportunity to the\nheathens for repentance. For example, when the generation of the flood,\nthe builders of the Tower of Babel, and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah\nwere to be punished, God waited to give them time for Repentance and\nimprovement of their ways.(792) Noah, Enoch, and Abraham are represented\nas monitors of their contemporaries, warning them, like the prophets, to\nrepent in time lest they meet their doom.(793) Thus the whole Hellenistic\nliterature of propaganda, especially the Sibylline books, echoes the\nwarning and the hope that the heathen should repent of their grievous sins\nand return to God, whom they had deserted in idolatry, so that they might\nescape the impending doom of the last judgment day. According to one\nHaggadist,(794) even the Messiah will appear first as a preacher of\nrepentance, admonishing the heathen nations to be converted to the true\nGod and repent before Him, lest they fall into perdition. Indeed, it is\nsaid that even Pharaoh and the Egyptians were warned and given time for\nrepentance before their fate overtook them.\n\n7. Accordingly, the principle of repentance is a universal human one, and\nby no means exclusively national, as the Christian theologians represent\nit.(795) The sages thus describe Adam as the type of the penitent sinner,\nwho is granted pardon by God. The \u201csign\u201d of Cain also was to be a sign for\nall sinners, assuring them they might all obtain forgiveness and\nsalvation, if they would but return to God.(796) In fact, the prophetic\nappeal to Israel for repentance, vain at the time, effected the\nregeneration of the people during the Exile and gave rise to Judaism and\nits institutions. In the same way, the appeal to the heathen world by the\nHellenistic propaganda and the Essene preachers of repentance did not\ninduce the nations at once to prepare for the coming of the Messianic\nkingdom, but finally led to the rise of the Christian religion, and,\nthrough certain intermediaries, of the Mohammedan as well.\n\nHowever, the long-cherished hope for a universal conversion of the heathen\nworld, voiced in the preachments and the prayers of the \u201cpious ones,\u201d gave\nway to a reaction. The rise of antinomian sects in Judaism occasioned the\ndropping of this pious hope, and only certain individual conversions were\ndwelt on as shining exceptions.(797) The heathen world in general was not\nregarded as disposed to repent, and so its ultimate fate was the doom of\nGehenna. Experience seemed to confirm the stern view, which rabbinical\ninterpretation could find in Scripture also, that \u201cEven at the very gate\nof the nether world wicked men shall not return.\u201d(798) The growing\nviolence of the oppressors and the increasing number of the maligners of\nJudaism darkened the hope for a universal conversion of humanity to the\npure faith of Israel and its law of righteousness. On the contrary, a\ncertain satisfaction was felt by the Jew in the thought that these enemies\nof Judaism should not be allowed to repent and obtain salvation in the\nhereafter.(799)\n\n8. The idea of repentance was applied all the more intensely in Jewish\nlife, and a still more prominent place was accorded it in Jewish\nliterature. The rabbis have numberless sayings(800) in the Talmud and also\nin the Haggadic and ethical writings concerning the power and value of\nrepentance. In passages such as these we see how profoundly Judaism dealt\nwith the failings and shortcomings of man. The term _asa teshubah_, do\nrepentance, implies no mere external act of penitence, as Christian\ntheologians often assert. On the contrary, the chief stress is always laid\non the feeling of remorse and on the change of heart which contrition and\nself-accusation bring. Yet even these would not be sufficient to cast off\nthe oppressive consciousness of guilt, unless the contrite heart were\nreassured by God that He forgives the penitent son of man with paternal\ngrace and love. In other words, religion demands a special means of\natonement, that is, _at-one-ment_ with God, to restore the broken relation\nof man to his Maker. The true spiritual power of Judaism appears in this,\nthat it gradually liberates the kernel of the atonement idea from its\npriestly shell. The Jew realizes, as does the adherent of no other\nreligion, that even in sin he is a child of God and certain of His\npaternal love. This is brought home especially on the Day of Atonement,\nwhich will be treated in a later chapter.\n\n9. At all events, the blotting out of man\u2019s sins with their punishment\nremains ever an act of grace by God.(801) In compassion for man\u2019s frailty\nHe has ordained repentance as the means of salvation, and promised pardon\nto the penitent. This truth is brought out in the liturgy for the Day of\nAtonement, as well as in the Apocalyptic Prayer of Manasseh. At the same\ntime, Judaism awards the palm of victory to him who has wrestled with sin\nand conquered it by his own will. Thus the rabbis boldly assert: \u201cThose\nwho have sinned and repented rank higher in the world to come than the\nrighteous who have never sinned,\u201d which is paralleled in the New\nTestament: \u201cThere is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than\nover ninety and nine righteous persons, who need no repentance.\u201d(802) No\nintermediary power from without secures the divine grace and pardon for\nthe repentant sinner, but his own inner transformation alone.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XL. Man, the Child of God\n\n\n1. The belief that God hears our prayers and pardons our sins rests upon\nthe assumption of a mutual relation between man and God. This belief is\ninsusceptible of proof, but rests entirely upon our religious feelings and\nis rooted purely in our emotional life. We apply to the relation between\nman and God the finest feelings known in human life, the devotion and love\nof parents for their children and the affection and trust the child\nentertains for its parents. Thus we are led to the conviction that\nearth-born man has a Helper enthroned in the heavens above, who hearkens\nwhen he implores Him for aid. In his innermost heart man feels that he has\na special claim on the divine protection. In the words of Job,(803) he\nknows that his Redeemer liveth. He need not perish in misery. Unlike the\nbrute creation and the hosts of stars, which know nothing of their Maker,\nman feels akin to the God who lives within him; he is His image, His\nchild. He cannot be deprived of His paternal love and favor. This truly\nhuman emotion is nowhere expressed so clearly as in Judaism. \u201cYe are the\nchildren of the Lord your God.\u201d(804) \u201cHave we not all one Father? Hath not\none God created us?\u201d(805) \u201cLike as a father hath compassion on his\nchildren, so hath the Lord compassion upon them that fear Him.\u201d(806)\n\n2. Still, this simple idea of man\u2019s filial relation to God and God\u2019s\npaternal love for man did not begin in its beautiful final form. For a\nlong time the Jew seems to have avoided the term \u201cFather\u201d for God, because\nit was used by the heathen for their deities as physical progenitors, and\ndid not refer to the moral relation between the Deity and mankind. Thus\nworshipers of wooden idols would, according to Scripture, \u201csay to a stock,\nThou art my father.\u201d(807) Hosea was the first to call the people of Israel\n\u201cchildren of the living God,\u201d(808) if they would but improve their ways\nand enter into right relations with Him. Jeremiah also hopes for the time\nwhen Israel would invoke the Lord, saying, \u201cThou art my Father,\u201d and in\nreturn God would prove a true father to him.(809) However, Scripture calls\nGod a Father only in referring to the people as a whole.(810) The \u201cpious\nones\u201d established a closer relation between God and the individual by\nmeans of prayer, so that through them the epithets, \u201cFather,\u201d \u201cOur\nFather,\u201d and \u201cOur Father in heaven\u201d came into general use. Hence, the\nliturgy frequently uses the invocation, \u201cOur Father, Our King!\u201d We owe to\nRabbi Akiba the significant saying, in opposition to the Paulinian dogma,\n\u201cBlessed are ye, O Israelites! Before whom do you purify yourselves (from\nyour sins)? And who is it that purifies you? Your Father in heaven.\u201d(811)\nPreviously Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanos dwelt on the moral degeneration of\nhis age, which betokened the end of time, and exclaimed: \u201cIn whom, then,\nshall we find support? In our Father who is in heaven.\u201d(812) The\nappellative \u201cFather in heaven\u201d was the stereotyped term used by the \u201cpious\nones\u201d during the century preceding and the one following the rise of\nChristianity, as a glance at the literature of the period indicates.(813)\n\n3. It is instructive to follow the history of this term. In Scripture God\nis represented as speaking to David, \u201cI will be to him for a father, and\nhe shall be to Me for a son,\u201d(814) or \u201cHe shall call unto Me: Thou art my\nFather, ... I also will appoint him first-born.\u201d(815) So in the apocryphal\nwritings God speaks both to Israel and to individual saints: \u201cI shall be\nto them a Father, and they shall be My children.\u201d(816) Elsewhere it is\nsaid of the righteous, \u201cHe calls God his Father,\u201d and \u201che shall be counted\namong the sons of God.\u201d(817) We read concerning the Messiah: \u201cWhen all\nwrongdoing will be removed from the midst of the people, he shall know\nthat all are sons of God.\u201d(818) Obviously only righteousness or personal\nmerit entitles a man to be called a son of God. In fact, we are expressly\ntold of Onias, the great Essene saint, that his intimate relation with God\nemboldened him to converse with the Master of the Universe as a son would\nspeak with his father.(819) According to the Mishnah the older generation\nof \u201cpious ones\u201d used to spend \u201can hour in silent devotion before offering\ntheir daily prayer, in order to concentrate heart and soul upon their\ncommunion with their Father in heaven.\u201d(820) Thus it is said of\ncongregational prayer that through it \u201cIsrael lifts his eyes to his Father\nin heaven.\u201d(821) In this way prayer took the place of the altar, of which\nR. Johanan ben Zakkai said that it established peace between Israel and\nhis Father in heaven.(822) Afterwards the question was discussed by Rabbi\nMeir and Rabbi Jehuda whether even sin-laden Israel had a right to be\ncalled \u201cchildren of God.\u201d Rabbi Meir pointed to Hosea as proof that the\nbacksliders also remain \u201cchildren of the living God.\u201d(823)\n\n4. In the Hellenistic literature, with its dominating idea of universal\nmonotheism, God is frequently invoked or spoken of as the Father of\nmankind. The implication is that each person who invokes God as Father\nenters into filial relation with Him. Thus what was first applied to\nIsrael in particular was now broadened to include mankind in general, and\nconsequently all men were considered \u201cchildren of the living God.\u201d The\nwords of God to Pharaoh, speaking of Israel as His \u201cfirst-born son,\u201d(824)\nwere taken as proof that all the nations of the earth are sons of God and\nHe the universal Father. Israel is the first-born among the sons of God,\nbecause his patriarchs, prophets, and psalmists first recognized Him as\nthe universal Father and Ruler. From this point of view Judaism declared\nlove for fellow-men and regard for the dignity of humanity to be\nfundamental principles of ethics. \u201cAs God is kind and merciful toward His\ncreation, be thou also kind and merciful toward all fellow-creatures,\u201d is\nthe oft-repeated teaching of the rabbis.(825) Likewise, \u201cWhoever takes\npity on his fellow-beings, on him God in heaven will also take pity.\u201d(826)\nLove of humanity has so permeated the nature of the Jew that the rabbis\nassert: \u201cHe who has pity on his fellow-men has the blood of Abraham in his\nveins.\u201d(827) This bold remark casts light upon the strange dictum: \u201cYe\nIsraelites are called by the name of man, but the heathen are not.\u201d(828)\nThe Jewish teachers were so deeply impressed with man\u2019s inhumanity to man,\nso common among the heathen nations, and the immorality of the lives by\nwhich these desecrated God\u2019s image, that they insisted that the laws of\nhumanity alone make for divine dignity in man.\n\n5. Rabbi Akiba probably referred to the Paulinian dogma that Jesus, the\ncrucified Messiah, is the only son of God, in his well-known saying:\n\u201cBeloved is man, for he is created in God\u2019s image, and it was a special\ntoken of love that he became conscious of it. Beloved is Israel, for they\nare called the children of God, and it was a special token of love that\nthey became conscious of it.\u201d(829) Here he claims the glory of being a son\nof God for Israel, but not for all men. Still, as soon as the likeness of\nman to God is taken in a spiritual sense, then it is implied that all men\nhave the same capacity for being a son of God which is claimed for Israel.\nThis is unquestionably the view of Judaism when it considers the Torah as\nentrusted to Israel to bring light and blessing to all the families of\nmen. Rabbi Meir, the disciple of Rabbi Akiba, said: \u201cThe Scriptural words,\n\u2018The statutes and ordinances which _man_ shall do and live thereby,\u2019 and\nsimilar expressions indicate that the final aim of Judaism is not attained\nby the Aaronide, nor the Levite, nor even the Israelite, but by\nmankind.\u201d(830) Such a saying expresses clearly and emphatically that God\u2019s\nfatherly love extends to all men as His children.\n\n6. According to the religious consciousness of modern Israel man is made\nin God\u2019s image, and is thus a child of God. Consequently Jew and non-Jew,\nsaint and sinner have the same claim upon God\u2019s paternal love and mercy.\nThere is no distinction in favor of Israel except as he lives a higher and\nmore god-like life. Even those who have fallen away from God and have\ncommitted crime and sin remain God\u2019s children. If they send up their\npenitent cry to the throne of God, \u201cPardon us, O Father, for we have\nsinned! Forgive us, O King, for we have done evil!\u201d; their prayer is heard\nby the heavenly Father exactly like that of the pious son of Israel.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XLI. Prayer and Sacrifice\n\n\n1. The gap between man and the sublime Master of the universe is vast, but\nnot absolute. The thoughts of God are high above our thoughts, and the\nways of God above our ways, baffling our reason when we endeavor to solve\nthe vexatious problems of destiny, of merit and demerit, of retribution\nand atonement. Yet religion offers a wondrous medium to bring the heart of\nman into close communion with Him who is enthroned above the heavens, one\nthat overleaps all distances, removes all barriers, and blends all\ndissonances into one great harmony, and that is\u2014Prayer. As the child must\nrelieve itself of its troubles and sorrows upon the bosom of its mother or\nfather in order to turn its pain into gladness, so men at all times seek\nto approach the Deity, confiding to Him all their fears and longings in\norder to obtain peace of heart. Prayer, communion between the human soul\nand the Creator, is the glorious privilege enjoyed by man alone among all\ncreatures, as he alone is the child of God. It voices the longing of the\nhuman heart for its Father in heaven. As the Psalmist has it, \u201cMy soul\nthirsteth for God, for the living God.\u201d(831)\n\n2. However, both language, the means of intercourse between man and man,\nand prayer, the means of intercourse between man and God, show traces of a\nslow development lasting for thousands of years, until the loftiest\nthoughts and sublimest emotions could be expressed. The real efficacy of\nprayer could not be truly appreciated, until the prophetic spirit\ntriumphed over the priestly element in Judaism. In the history of speech\nthe language of signs preceded that of sounds, and images gradually\nripened into abstract thoughts. Similarly, primitive man approaches his\nGod with many kinds of gifts and sacrificial rites to express his\nsentiments. He acts out or depicts what he expects from the Deity, whether\nrain, fertility of the soil, or the extermination of his foes. He shares\nwith his God his food and drink, to obtain His friendship and protection\nin time of trouble, and sacrifices the dearest of his possessions to\nassuage His wrath or obtain His favor.\n\n3. In the lowest stage of culture man needed no mediator in his\nintercourse with the Deity, who appeared to him in the phenomena of nature\nas well as in the fetish, totem, and the like. But soon he rose to a\nhigher stage of thought, and the Deity withdrew before him to the\ncelestial heights, filling him with awe and fear; then rose a class of men\nwho claimed the privilege to approach the Deity and influence Him by\ncertain secret practices. Henceforth these acted as mediators between the\nmass of the people and the Deity. In the first place, these were the\nmagicians, medicine-men, and similar persons, who were credited with the\npower to conjure up the hidden forces of nature, considered either divine\nor demoniac. After these arose the priests, distinguished from the people\nby special dress and diet, who established in the various tribes temples,\naltars, and cults, under their own control. Then there were the saints,\npious penitents or Nazarites, who led an ascetic life secluded from the\nmasses, hoping thus to obtain higher powers over the will of the Deity.\nAll these entertained more or less clearly the notion that they stood in\ncloser relation to the Deity than the common people, whom they then\nexcluded from the sanctuary and all access to the Deity.\n\nThe Mosaic cult, in the so-called Priestly Code, was founded upon this\nstage of religious life, forming a hierarchical institution like those of\nother ancient nations. It differed from them, however, in one essential\npoint. The prime element in the cult of other nations was magic,\nconsisting of oracle, incantation and divination, but this was entirely\ncontrary to the principles of the Jewish faith. On the other hand, all the\nrites and ceremonies handed down from remote antiquity were placed in the\nservice of Israel\u2019s holy God, in order to train His people into the\nhighest moral purity. The patriarchs and prophets, who are depicted in\nScripture as approaching God in prayer and hearing His voice in reply,\ncome under the category of saints or elect ones, above the mass of the\npeople.\n\n4. Foreign as the entire idea of sacrifice is to our mode of religious\nthought, to antiquity it appeared as the only means of intercourse with\nthe Deity. \u201cIn every place offerings are presented unto My name, even pure\noblations,\u201d(832) says the prophet Malachi in the name of Israel\u2019s God.\nEven from a higher point of view the underlying idea seems to be of a\nsimple offering laid upon the altar. Such were the meal-offering\n(_minha_);(833) the burnt offering (_olah_), which sends its pillar of\nsmoke up toward heaven, symbolizing the idea of self-sacrifice; while the\nvarious sin-offerings (_hattath_ or _asham_) expressed the desire to\npropitiate an offended Deity. However, since the sacrificial cult was\nalways dominated by the priesthood in Israel as well as other nations, the\nlawgiver made no essential changes in the traditional practice and\nterminology. Thus it was left to the consciousness of the people to find a\ndeeper spiritual meaning in the sacrifices instead of stating one\ndirectly. The want was supplied only by the later Haggadists who tried to\ncreate a symbolism of the sacrificial cult. The laying on of hands by the\nindividual who brought the offering, seems to have been a genuine symbolic\nexpression of self-surrender. In the case of sin-offerings the Mosaic cult\nadded a higher meaning by ordering a preceding confession of sin. Here,\nindeed, the individual entered into personal communion with God through\nhis prayer for pardon, even though the priest performed the act of\nexpiation for him.\n\n5. The great prophets of Israel alone recognized that the entire\nsacrificial system was out of harmony with the true spirit of Judaism and\nled to all sorts of abuses, above all to a misconception of the worship of\nGod, which requires the uplifting of the heart. In impassioned language,\ntherefore, they hurled words of scathing denunciation against the practice\nand principle of ritualism: \u201cI hate, I despise your feasts, and I will\ntake no delight in your solemn assemblies.\n\nYea, though ye offer Me burnt-offerings and your meal-offerings, I will\nnot accept them; Neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat\nbeasts.\n\nTake thou away from Me the noise of thy songs; and let Me not hear the\nmelody of thy psalteries.\n\nBut let justice well up as waters, and righteousness as a mighty\nstream.\u201d(834)\n\nThus speaks Amos in the name of the Lord. And Hosea:\n\n\n \u201cFor I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God\n rather than burnt-offerings.\u201d(835)\n\n\nIsaiah spoke in a similar vein:\n\n\n \u201cTo what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me?\n saith the Lord; I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the\n fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or\n of lambs, or of he-goats....\n\n Bring me no more vain oblations; it is an offering of abomination\n unto Me; new moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations\u2014I\n cannot endure iniquity along with the solemn assembly....\n\n And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from\n you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands\n are full of blood.\n\n Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings From\n before Mine eyes, cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek\n justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for\n the widow.\u201d(836)\n\n\nMost striking of all are the words of Jeremiah, spoken in the name of the\nLord of hosts, the God of Israel: \u201cAdd your burnt-offerings unto your\nsacrifices, and eat ye flesh. For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor\ncommanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt,\nconcerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices, but this thing I commanded\nthem, saying; \u2018Hearken unto My voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall\nbe My people; and walk ye in all the way that I command you, that it may\nbe well with you.\u2019 \u201d(837)\n\n6. However, the mere rejection of the sacrificial cult was quite negative,\nand did not satisfy the normal need for communion with God. Therefore the\nvarious codes established a sort of compromise between the prophetic ideal\nand the priestly practice, in which the ideal was by no means supreme.\nSometimes the prophetic spirit stirred the soul of inspired psalmists, and\ntheir lips echoed forth again the divine revelation:\n\n\u201cHear, O My people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against\nthee: God, thy God, am I. I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices; and\nthy burnt-offerings are continually before Me. I will take no bullock out\nof thy house, nor he-goats out of thy folds. For every beast of the forest\nis Mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.... Do I eat the flesh of\nbulls, or drink the blood of goats?\u201d(838) Another psalmist says:\n\u201cSacrifice and meal-offering thou hast no delight in; Mine ears hast Thou\nopened; burnt-offering and sin-offering hast Thou not required.\u201d(839)\n\nStill, the sacrificial cult was too deeply rooted in the life of the\npeople to be disturbed by the voice of the prophets or the words of a few\npsalmists. It was connected with the Temple, and the Temple was the center\nof the social life of the nation. The few faint voices of protest went\npractically unheeded. The priestly pomp of sacrifice could only be\ndisplaced by the more elevating and more spiritual devotion of the entire\ncongregation in prayer, and this process demanded a new environment, and a\ngroup of men with entirely new ideas.\n\n7. The need of a deeper devotion through prayer was not felt until the\nExile. There altar and priesthood were no more, but the words of the\nprophets and the songs of the Levites remained to kindle the people\u2019s\nlonging for God with a new zeal. Until then prayer was rare and for\nspecial occasions. Hannah\u2019s prayer at Shiloh filled even the high priest\nwith amazement.(840) The prophets alone interceded in behalf of the\npeople, because the ordinary man was not considered sufficiently clean\nfrom sin to approach the Deity in prayer. But on foreign soil, where\nsacrifices could not be offered to the God of Israel, the harp of David\nresounded with solemn songs expressing the national longing toward God.\nThe most touching psalms of penitence and thanksgiving date from the\nexile. A select class of devout men, called the godly or pious ones,\n_Hasidim_ or _Anavim_,(841) assembled by the rivers of Babylon for regular\nprayer, turning their faces toward Jerusalem, that the God of Israel might\nanswer them from His ancient seat.(842) Thus the great seer of the exile\nvoiced the hope for \u201ca house of prayer for all peoples\u201d to stand in the\nvery place where the sacrifices were offered to God.(843) The congregation\nof Hasidim elaborated a liturgy under the Persian influence, in which\nprayer was the chief element, and the secondary part, the instruction from\nthe Torah and the monitions of the prophets. The Synagogue, the house of\nmeeting for the people, spread all over the world, and by its light of\ntruth and glow of fervor it soon eclipsed the Temple, with all its worldly\npomp. In fact, the priesthood of the Temple were finally compelled to make\nconcessions to the lay movement of the Hasidim. They added a prayer\nservice, morning and evening, to the daily sacrifices, and opened the Hall\nof Hewn Stones, the meeting place of the High Court of Justice, as a\nSynagogue in charge of the priests.(844)\n\n8. In this manner the ancient sacrificial cult, thus long monopolized by\nthe priesthood, was gradually superseded by congregational prayer which\nwas no longer confined to a certain time or class, and justly called by\nthe rabbis \u201ca service of the heart.\u201d(845) Moreover, the Temple itself lost\nmuch of its hold upon the hearts of the people, owing to the more\nspiritual character of the Synagogue. Thus the torch of the Roman soldiery\nwhich turned the Temple into a heap of ashes broke only the national bond,\nbut left the religious bond of the Synagogue unbroken. True, the hope for\nthe restoration of the Temple with the priestly sacrifices was not\nrelinquished, and officially the daily prayers were considered only a\n\u201ctemporary substitute\u201d for the divinely ordained sacrificial cult.(846)\n\nNevertheless, the deeper religious consciousness of the people felt that\nthe celestial gate of divine mercy opens only to prayer, which emanates\nfrom the innermost depths of the soul. Accordingly, some of the Haggadists\ntry to prove from Scripture that prayer ranks above sacrifice,(847) while\nothers even identify worship with prayer.(848) They represent God as\nappearing to Moses in the guise of one who leads the congregation in\nprayer, His face covered by the prayer-shawl (_tallith_), in order to\nteach man for all time the mode and power of prayer.(849) Still these\nremain isolated expressions of an underlying sentiment; on the whole, the\nrabbis regarded the Mosaic legislation, with its emphasis on sacrifice,\nfar too highly to accord prayer any but a secondary place, either\naccompanying sacrifice or as its substitute.(850)\n\n9. Through many centuries, then, the belief in the divine origin of the\nsacrificial cult remained, even though it could no longer be carried out.\nThe liturgy contained prayers for the speedy restoration of the Temple and\nthe sacrifices, which were preserved by tradition, and nowhere was even an\necho heard of the bold words of Jeremiah denying the divine character of\nthe sacrifices,(851) even though the idea of the restoration of the old\ncult must have been repugnant to thinkers. The sages of former ages could\nonly resort to a compromise or an allegorical interpretation. It is\nnoteworthy that the Haggadist Rabbi Levi considered the sacrifices a\nconcession of God to the people, who were disposed to idolatry, in order\nto win them gradually for the pure monotheistic ideal.(852) This view was\nadopted by the Church Fathers, and later by Maimonides and other medieval\nthinkers. On the other hand, an allegorical meaning was assigned to the\nsacrifices by Philo and Jehuda ha Levi, as well as by Samson Raphael\nHirsch in modern times.(853)\n\nReform Judaism, recognizing the results of Biblical research and the law\nof religious progress, adopted the prophetic view of the sacrifices.\nAccordingly, the sacrificial cult of the Mosaic code has no validity for\nthe liberal movement, and all reference to it has been eliminated from the\nreform liturgy. In this, however, the connection with the past was by no\nmeans severed. The main part of the service remains the same, although\nmuch of the character and many of the details have been changed.(854) Only\nthe allusions to the Temple worship and the sacrifices were eliminated,\nand the entire form of the service was made more solemn and inspiring \u201cby\ncombining ancient time-honored formulas with modern prayers and\nmeditations in the vernacular and in the spirit of the age.\u201d The morning\nand evening services retained their places, while the additional festal\nservice (_mussaf_) was abrogated, because it stood for the additional\nfestal sacrifice. As to the voluntary element in the old sacrificial\nsystem, the peace, sin, and thank-offerings, this is replaced in the\nreform ritual, as in the traditional practice, by private devotions for\nspecial occasions, to be selected by the individual.\n\nThe traditional Jewish prayer has certainly a wondrous force. It remains a\nsource of inspiration from which the religious consciousness will ever\ndraw new strength and vitality. It echoes the voice of Israel singing the\nsong of redemption by the Red Sea: \u201cThis is My God, and I will glorify\nHim; My father\u2019s God, and I will exalt Him.\u201d(855) Consequently our liturgy\nmust ever respond to a double demand; it must throb with the spirit of\ncontinuity with our great past, to make us feel one with our fathers of\nyore; and it must express clearly and fully our own views and needs, our\nconvictions and our hopes.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XLII. The Nature and Purpose of Prayer\n\n\n1. Prayer is the expression of man\u2019s longing and yearning for God in times\nof dire need and of overflowing joy, an outflow of the emotions of the\nsoul in its dependence on God, the ever-present Helper, the eternal Source\nof its existence. Springing from the deepest necessity of human weakness,\nthe expression of a momentary wish, prayer is felt to be the proud\nprerogative of man as the child of God, and at last it becomes adoration\nof the Most High, whose wisdom and whose paternal love and goodness\ninspire man with confidence and love.\n\n2. Every prayer is offered on the presumption that it will be heard by God\non high. \u201cO Thou that hearest prayer, unto Thee doth all flesh come,\u201d\nsings the Psalmist.(856) No doubt of the efficacy of prayer can arise in\nthe devout spirit. There can be only the question whether, and how far,\nthe Deity can allow its decrees to be influenced by human wishes.\nChildlike faith anticipates divine interference in the natural order at\nany time, because it has not yet attained the conception of a moral order\nin the universe and, therefore, expects from prayer also miraculous\neffects on life. As the Deity can suddenly send or withhold rain or\ndrought, barrenness or birth, life or death, so the inference is that the\nman of God can do the same with his prayer. This is the point of view of\nthe Biblical and Talmudic periods, as well as of the entire ancient world.\nIt seems almost childish to our religious consciousness when, according to\nTalmudic tradition, the high priest petitioned God in the Sanctuary on the\nDay of Atonement for a year rich in rain and blessed with sunshine and\nwith dew, and at the same time expressed the entreaty that the prayers of\ntravelers for dry or cool weather should find no hearing.(857) That the\nprayers of the pious may alter God\u2019s decree is not doubted for a moment by\nthe rabbis; only they insist that God has taken into account beforehand\nthe efficacy of this prayer in deciding the fate of the pious, in order\nthat they may petition for that which He actually plans to do. \u201cGod longs\nfor the prayer of the pious\u201d; for that reason, they say, the Mothers of\nIsrael were afflicted with barrenness, until the prayers of the Patriarchs\nhad accomplished the transformation in their constitutions.(858) On the\nother hand, the rabbis warn against excessive pondering over prayer and\nits efficacy, as through it that childlike faith would be weakened, which\nis the basis of all prayer.(859)\n\n3. According to the rabbinic viewpoint, prayer has the power to reverse\nevery heavenly decree, inasmuch as it appeals from the punitive justice of\nGod, which has decided thus, to His attributes of grace and mercy, which\ncan at any time effect a change. When the prophet Isaiah came to King\nHezekiah with the message: \u201cSet thine house in order, for thou shalt die,\u201d\nhe replied, \u201cFinish thy message and go; I have received the tradition from\nmy royal ancestor David that, even when the sword already touches the\nneck, man shall not desist from an appeal to the divine mercy.\u201d(860) Nay\nmore, the rabbis believed that God Himself prays, saying, \u201cOh, that My\nmercy shall prevail over My justice!\u201d(861) Only after the divine judgment\nhas been executed prayer becomes vain. In general, the entire Talmudic\nperiod ascribed miraculous power to prayer, especially the prayers of the\npious, like the popular saint Onias or Hanina ben Dosa.(862) In many such\ncases the invocation of God was combined with the use of the sacred name,\nthe tetragrammaton, to which magical powers were ascribed.(863)\n\n4. The two attributes of God, Justice and Mercy, correspond to the double\nnature of mankind, as the sinful man, who deserves punishment, is called\nto account by the former, while the righteous man may appeal to the\nlatter. Accordingly, the efficacy of prayer could be so explained that,\nbefore it can influence the decision of God, it demands the reformation of\nman. While the unregenerate man meets an evil destiny, the reformed man\nhas become a different being, and hence instead of justice mercy will\ncontrol his fate. Albo pleads for this view of prayer, when he cites the\nTalmudic incident about R. Meir. It is said that R. Meir interceded for\nthe people of Mimla, who all seemed to have been doomed to die on\nattaining manhood because they inherited the curse of the priestly family\nof Eli.(864) But he also recommended to them that they should devote their\nlives to worthy deeds, as it is said in the Proverbs:(865) \u201cThe hoary head\nis a crown of glory, it is found in the way of righteousness.\u201d(866)\n\nOther thinkers ascribe to prayer the power to change the fate determined\nby the stars, because it exalts man into a higher sphere of godliness,\nexactly like the spirit of prophecy. Of course, this conception is\nconnected with the belief in astrology, which swayed even clear thinkers\nlike Ibn Ezra.(867)\n\n5. According to our modern thinking there can be no question of any\ninfluence upon a Deity exalted above time and space, omniscient,\nunchangeable in will and action, by the prayer of mortals. Prayer can\nexert power only over the relation of man to God, not over God Himself.\nThis indicates the nature and purpose of prayer. Man often feels lonely\nand forlorn in a world which overpowers him, to which he feels superior,\nand yet which he cannot master. Therefore he longs for that unseen Spirit\nof the universe, with whom alone he feels himself akin, and in whom alone\nhe finds peace and bliss amid life\u2019s struggle and unrest. This longing is\nboth expressed and satisfied in prayer. Following the natural impulse of\nhis soul, man must pour out before his God all his desires and sighs, all\nthe emotions of grief and delight which sway his heart, in order that he\nmay find rest, like a child at its mother\u2019s bosom. Therefore the childlike\nmind believes that God can be induced to come down from His heavenly\nheights to offer help, and that He can be moved and influenced in human\nfashion. The truth is that every genuine prayer lifts man up toward God,\nsatisfies the desire for His hallowing presence, unlocks the heavenly gate\nof mercy and bliss, and bestows upon man the beatific and liberating sense\nof being a child of God. The intellect may question the effect of prayer\nupon the physical, mental, or social constitution of man, or may declare\nprayer to be pious self-deception. The religious spirit experiences in\nprayer the soaring up of the soul toward union with God in consecrated\nmoments of our mortal pilgrimage. This is no deception. The man who prays\nreceives from the Godhead, toward whom he fervently lifts himself, the\npower to defy fate, to conquer sin, misery, and death. \u201cThe Lord is nigh\nto all them that call upon Him, to all that call upon Him in truth.\u201d(868)\n\n6. To pray, then, is to look up to God and to pour out before Him one\u2019s\nwishes, thoughts, sorrows, and joys. Certainly the All-knowing does not\nrequire to be told by us what we desire or what we need. \u201cFor there is not\na word in my tongue, but lo, O Lord, Thou knowest it altogether.\u201d(869) But\nwe mortals merely aspire toward Him who bears the world on His eternal\narms, to express in His presence our agony and our jubilation, because we\nare certain of His paternal sympathy. When we praise and extol Him for the\nhappiness and the many pleasures which He has granted us, He becomes the\nPartaker and Protector of our fortune, just as He is our sympathetic\nHelper when we cry out to Him under the burden of sin or grief, in the\nanxiety of danger or of guilt. Every genuine prayer realizes deeply the\ntruth of the words, \u201cCast thy burden upon the Lord, and He will sustain\nthee.\u201d(870)\n\n7. Self-expression before God in prayer has thus a double effect; it\nstrengthens faith in God\u2019s love and kindness, as well as in His all-wise\nand all-bountiful prescience. But it also chastens the desires and\nfeelings of man, teaching him to banish from his heart all thoughts of\nself-seeking and sin, and to raise himself toward the purity and the\nfreedom of the divine will and demand. The essence of every prayer of\nsupplication is that one should be in unison with the divine will, to sum\nup all the wishes of the heart in the one phrase, \u201cDo that which is good\nin Thine own eyes, O Lord.\u201d(871) On the other hand, only the prayer which\navoids impure thoughts and motives can venture to approach a holy God, as\nthe sages infer from the words of Job, \u201cThere is no violence in my hands,\nand my prayer is pure.\u201d(872)\n\n8. Every prayer, teach the sages, should begin with the praise of God\u2019s\ngreatness, wisdom, and goodness, in order that man should learn submission\nand implicit confidence before he proffers his requests.(873) While\nlooking up to the divine Ideal of holiness and perfection, he will strive\nto emulate Him, and seek to grow ever nearer to the holy and the perfect.\nBut only when he prays with and for others, that is, in public worship,\nwill he realize that he is a member of a greater whole, for then he prays\nonly for that which advances the welfare of all. \u201cHe who prays with the\ncommunity,\u201d say the rabbis, \u201cwill have his prayer granted.\u201d(874)\n\nAnother saying of theirs is that he who prays should have his face\ndirected to the sanctuary, and when he stands on its sacred precincts, he\nshould turn his face toward the Holy of Holies.(875) By this they meant\nthat the attitude of the suppliant should ever be toward the highest,\nmaking the soul soar up to the Highest and Holiest in reverent awe and\nadoration, transforming the worshiper into a new character, pure from all\ndross.\n\n9. Therefore prayer offered with the community upon the sanctified ground\nof the house of God exerts a specially powerful influence upon the\nindividual. In the silent chamber the oppressed spirit may find calm and\ncomposure in prayer; but the pure atmosphere of heavenly freedom and bliss\nis attained with overwhelming might only by the united worship of hundreds\nof devout adorers, which rings out like the roaring of majestic billows:\n\u201cThe Lord is in His holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before\nHim.\u201d(876) The familiar strains from days of yore touch the deep,\nlong-silent chords of the heart, and awaken dormant sentiments and\nrepressed thoughts, endowing the soul with new wings, to lift itself up\ntoward God, the Father, from whom it had felt itself alienated. In the\nardor of communal worship the traditional words of the prayer-book obtain\ninvigorating power; the heart is newly strengthened; the covenant with\nheaven sealed anew. To such communal prayer, which springs from the heart,\nthe rabbis refer the Biblical words, \u201cto serve Him with the whole\nheart.\u201d(877) The synagogal worship exerts an ennobling influence upon the\nspirit of the individual as well as that of the community. For after all\nthe main object is that the soul which aspires toward God may learn to\nfind God. \u201cSeek ye the Lord while He may be found; call ye upon Him while\nHe is near.\u201d(878) No man is so poor as he who calls in agony: \u201cO God!\u201d and\nto whom neither the heaven above nor the heart within answers, \u201cBehold,\nGod is here.\u201d Nor is any man so rich with all his possessions as he who\nrealizes, like the Psalmist, that \u201cthe nearness of God is the true good,\u201d\nand imbued with this thought exclaims, \u201cWhom have I in heaven but Thee?\nAnd beside Thee I desire none upon earth.\u201d(879)\n\n\n\n\nChapter XLIII. Death and the Future Life\n\n\n1. The vision of man is directed upwards and forwards; he will not resign\nhimself to decay in the dust like the beast. As he bears in his breast the\nconsciousness of a higher divine world, he is equally confident of his own\ncontinuity after death. He cannot and will not believe that with the\ngiving up of his last living breath his being would become dust like that\nof the animal; or that his soul, which has hitherto accomplished and\nplanned so much, should now suddenly cease altogether to exist. The\nlonging for a future life, however expressed, has filled him and buoyed\nhim up since the very beginning of history. Even the most primitive tribe\ndoes not allow its dead to lie and rot like the carcasses of the beast,\nbut lays them to rest in the grave with all their possessions, in the\nexpectation that somewhere and somehow, under, over or beyond the earth,\nthey will continue their lives, even in a better form than before.\n\nThis longing for immortality implanted in the human soul is so represented\nin the legend of Paradise that the tree whose fruit bestowed upon the\ncelestial beings the gift of eternal life\u2014like the Greek ambrosia, \u201cthe\nfood of the gods\u201d\u2014was originally intended for mankind also in the divine\n\u201cGarden of Bliss.\u201d But after man fell through sin, all access to it was\ndenied him, in order that he might not stretch out his hand for it and\nthereby attain that immortality which was vouchsafed only to divine\nbeings.(880) According to his original destiny, therefore, man should live\nforever; and, just as legend allows those divinely elected, like Enoch and\nElijah,(881) to ascend to heaven alive, so at a later period prophecy\npredicts a time when God will annihilate death forever.(882) Accordingly,\nthrough the power of his divine soul man possesses a claim to immortality,\nto eternal life with God, the \u201cFountain of life.\u201d\n\n2. It was just this keen longing for an energetic life on earth, this\nmighty yearning to \u201cwalk before God in the land of the living,\u201d(883) which\nmade it more difficult for Judaism to brighten the \u201cvalley of the shadow\nof death\u201d and to elevate the vague notion of a shadowy existence in the\nhereafter into a special religious teaching. Until long after the Exile\nthe Jewish people shared the view of the entire ancient world,\u2014both the\nSemitic nations, such as the Babylonians and Ph\u0153nicians, and the Aryans,\nsuch as the Greeks and Romans,\u2014that the dead continue to exist in the\nshadowy realm of the nether world (_Sheol_), the land of no return\n(_Beliyaal_),(884) of eternal silence (_Dumah_), and oblivion\n(_Neshiyah_),(885) a dull, ghostly existence without clear consciousness\nand without any awakening to a better life. We must, however, not overlook\nthe fact that even in these most primitive conceptions a certain\nimperishability is ascribed to man as marking his superiority over the\nanimal world, which is altogether abandoned to decay. Hence the belief in\nthe existence of the shades, the _Refaim_ in Sheol.(886) But throughout\nthe Biblical period no ethical idea yet permeated this conception, and no\nattempt was made to transform the nether world into a place of divine\njudgment, of recompense for the good and evil deeds accomplished on\nearth,(887) as did the Babylonians and Egyptians. Both the prophets and\nthe Mosaic code persist in applying their promises and threats, in fact,\ntheir entire view of retribution, to this world, nor do they indicate by a\nsingle word the belief in a judgment or a weighing of actions in the world\nto come.\n\n3. Whether the Mosaic-prophetic writings be regarded from the standpoint\nof traditional faith or of historical criticism, the limitation of their\nteaching and exhortation to the present life can be considered narrowness\nonly by biased expounders of the \u201cOld Testament.\u201d The Israelitish lawgiver\ncould not have been altogether ignorant of the Egyptian or the Babylonian\nconceptions of the future world. Obviously Israel\u2019s prophets and lawgivers\ndeliberately avoided giving any definite expression to the common belief\nin a future life after death, especially as the Canaanitish magicians and\nnecromancers used this popular belief to carry on their superstitious\npractices, so dangerous to all moral progress.(888) The great task which\nprophetic Judaism set itself was to place the entire life of men and\nnations in the service of the God of justice and holiness; there was thus\nno motive to extend the dominion of JHVH, the God of life, to the\nunderworld, the playground of the forces of fear and superstition. As late\nas the author of the book of Job and of the earlier Psalms, Sheol was\nknown as the despot of the nether world with its demoniacal forms, as the\n\u201cking of terrors\u201d who extends his scepter over the dead.(889) Only\ngradually does the thought find expression in the Psalms that the\nOmnipotent Ruler of heaven could also rescue the soul out of the power of\nSheol,(890) and that His omnipresence included likewise the nether\nworld.(891) In this trustful spirit the Hasidic Psalmist expressed the\nhope: \u201cThou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol, neither wilt Thou suffer\nThy godly one to see the pit. Thou makest me to know the path of life; in\nThy presence is fulness of joy; in Thy right hand bliss forevermore.\u201d(892)\n\n4. Biblical Judaism evinced such a powerful impetus toward a complete and\nblissful life with God, that the center and purpose of existence could not\nbe transferred to the hereafter, as in other systems of belief, but was\nfound in the desire to work out the life here on earth to its fullest\npossible development. Virtue and wisdom, righteousness and piety, signify\nand secure true life; vice and folly, iniquity and sin, lead to death and\nannihilation. This is the ever recurring burden of the popular as well as\nof the prophetic and priestly wisdom of Israel.(893) In the song of thanks\nof King Hezekiah after his recovery, the Jewish soul expresses itself,\nwhen he says:(894) \u201cI said, I shall not see the Lord, even the Lord in the\nland of the living.... But Thou hast delivered my soul from the pit of\ncorruption. For the nether world cannot praise Thee; death cannot\ncelebrate Thee. The living, the living, he shall praise Thee, as I do this\nday. The father to the children shall make known Thy truth.\u201d Therefore the\nauthor of the seventy-third Psalm, ennobled by trials, finds sufficient\ncomfort and happiness in the presence of God that he can spurn all earthly\ntreasures.(895) Job, too, in his affliction longed for death as release\nfrom all earthly pain and sorrow, but not to bring him a state of rest and\npeace like the Nirvana of the Indian beggar-monk, or an outlook into a\nbetter world to come. Such an awakening to a new life seems to him\nunthinkable,\u2014although many commentators have often endeavored to read such\na hope into certain of his expressions.(896) Instead, his belief in God as\nthe Ruler of the infinite world, with His lofty moral purpose far\noutreaching all human wisdom, lent him courage and power for further\neffort and persistent striving on earth. Since to this suffering hero,\nimpelled to deeds by his own energy, life is a continuous battle, a\nhereafter as a \u201cworld of reward and punishment\u201d can hardly solve the great\nenigma of human existence in a satisfactory manner for him. The wise\nones\u2014says a Talmudic maxim\u2014find rest neither in this world nor in the\nworld to come, but \u201cthey shall ascend from strength to strength, until\nthey appear before God on Zion.\u201d(897)\n\n5. In the course of time, however, the question of existence after death\ndemanded more and more a satisfactory answer. Under the severe political\nand social oppression that came upon the Jewish people, the pious ones\nfailed to see a just equation of man\u2019s doings and his destiny in this\nlife. The bitter disappointment which they experienced made them look to\nthe God of justice for a future, when virtue would receive its due reward\nand vice its befitting punishment. The community of the pious especially\nawaited in vain the realization of the great messianic hope with which the\nprophetic words of comfort had filled their hearts. They had willingly\noffered up their lives for the truth of Judaism, and the God of\nfaithfulness could not deceive them. Surely the shadowy realm of the\nnether world could not be the end of all. So the voice of promise came to\nthem from the book of Isaiah, where these encouraging and comforting words\nwere inserted by a later hand: \u201cThy dead shall live; thy (My) dead bodies\nshall arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust, for Thy dew is as\nthe dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast forth the shades.\u201d(898) Even\nbefore this time the God of Israel had been praised as \u201cHe who killeth and\nmaketh alive, who bringeth down to Sheol, and bringeth up.\u201d(899) So was\nalso the miraculous power of restoring the dead to life ascribed to the\nprophets.(900) Furthermore, the vision of the prophet Ezekiel concerning\nthe dry bones which arose to new life, in which he beheld the divine\nrevelation of the approaching event of the restoration of the Jewish\nnation,(901) shows how familiar the idea of resurrection must have been to\nthe people. Hence the minds of the Jewish people were sufficiently\nprepared to adopt the Persian belief in the resurrection of the dead.\n\n6. This, however, led to a tremendous process of transformation in Judaism\nwith a wide chasm between Mosaism and Rabbinism, or, more accurately,\nbetween the Sadducees, who adhered to the letter of the law, and the\nPharisees, who embodied the progressive spirit of the people. On the one\nhand, Jesus ben Sira, who at the close of his book speaks with great\nadmiration of the high-priest Simon the Just as his contemporary, knew as\nyet nothing of a future life, and like Koheleth saw the end of all human\nexistence in the dismal realm of the nether world. Yet at the same time,\nthe Hasidim or pious ones and their successors, the Pharisees, were\ndeveloping after the Persian pattern the thought of a divine judgment day\nafter death, when the just were to awaken to eternal life, and the\nevil-doers to shame and everlasting contempt.(902) This advanced moral\nview, frequently overlooked, transformed the ancient Semitic Sheol from\nthe realm of shades to a place of punishment for sinners, and thus\ninvested it with an ethical purpose.(903) After this the various Biblical\nnames for the nether world became the various divisions of hell.(904)\nIndeed, the Psalmists and the Proverbs had announced to the wicked their\ndestruction in Sheol, and on the other hand held out for the godly the\nhope of deliverance from Sheol and a beatific sight of God in the land of\nthe living. Thus the transition was prepared for the new world-conception.\nAll the promises and threats of the law and the prophets, when they did\nnot receive fulfillment in this world, appeared now to point forward to\nthe world to come. Moreover, the Pharisees in their disputes with the\nSadducees made use of every reference, however slight, to the future\nlife,\u2014even of such passages as those which speak of the Patriarchs as\nreceiving the promise of possessing the Holy Land, as if they were still\nalive,\u2014as proofs of the continued life of the dead, or of their\nresurrection.(905) Thus it came about that the leading authorities of\nrabbinic Judaism were in the position to declare in the Mishnah: \u201cHe who\nsays that the belief in the resurrection of the dead is not founded on the\nTorah (and therefore does not accept it) shall have no share in the world\nto come.\u201d(906)\n\n7. The founders of the liturgy of the Synagogue, in opposition to the\nSadducees, formulated therefore the belief in resurrection in the second\nof the \u201cEighteen (or Seven) Benedictions\u201d of the daily prayer in the\nfollowing words: \u201cThou, O Lord, art mighty forever. Thou revivest the\ndead. Thou art mighty to save. Thou sustainest the living with\nloving-kindness, revivest the dead with great mercy, supportest the\nfalling, healest the sick, loosest the bound, and keepest Thy faith to\nthem that sleep in the dust. (This refers to the Patriarchs, to whom God\nhas promised the land of the future.) Who is like unto Thee, O Lord of\nmighty acts, and who resembleth Thee, O King, who killest and bringest to\nlife, and causest salvation to spring forth? Yea, faithful art Thou to\nrevive the dead. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who revivest the dead.\u201d In this\nprayer dating from the age of the Maccabees(907) the Jewish consciousness\nof two thousand years found a twofold hope,\u2014the national and the\nuniversally human. The national hope, which combined the belief in the\nrestoration of the kingdom of David and of the sacrificial cult with the\nresurrection of the dead in the Holy Land, can be understood only in\nconnection with a historic view of Israel\u2019s place in the world, and is\ntreated in the third part of this book. The purely human hope for the\ncontinuity or the renewal of life rests on two fundamental problems which\nmust be examined more closely in the next two chapters. The one belongs to\nthe province of psychology and considers the question: What is the eternal\ndivine element in man? The other goes more deeply into the religious and\nmoral nature of man and considers the question: Where and how does divine\nretribution\u2014reward or punishment\u2014take place in human life? To both of\nthese questions our modern view, with its special aim toward a unified\ngrasp of the totality of life, requires a special answer. This can be\nneither that of rabbinic Judaism, which rests upon Persian dualism, nor\nthat of medieval philosophy, which was under the Platonic-Aristotelian\ninfluence.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XLIV. The Immortal Soul of Man\n\n\n1. The idea of immortality has been found in Scripture in a rather obscure\nand probably corrupt passage,(908) \u201cIn the way of righteousness is life,\nand in the pathway thereof there is no death.\u201d In the same spirit Aquila,\nthe Bible translator, who belonged to the school of R. Eliezer and R.\nJoshua, renders the equally obscure passage from the Psalms,(909) \u201cHe will\nlead us to immortality,\u201d reading _al maveth_, the Al with _Alef_, for _al\nmuth_, the Al with _Ayin_. There is more solid foundation for the view\nthat the verse, \u201cGod created man in His own image\u201d implies that there is\nan imperishable divine essence in man. In fact, that which distinguishes\nman from the animal as well as from the rest of creation, both the starry\nworlds above and the manifold forms of life on earth about him, is his\nself-conscious personality, his ego, through which he feels himself akin\nwith God, the great world-ruling _I Am_. This self-conscious part of man,\nwhich lends to his every manifestation its value and purpose, can no more\ndisappear into nothingness than can God, who called into existence this\nworld with all its phenomena, who set it in motion and directs it.\nWhatever thought the crudest of men may have of his ego, his self,(910) or\nhowever the most learned scholar may explain the marvelous action and\ninteraction of physical and psychical or spiritual forces which culminates\nin his own self-conscious personality, it appears certain that this ego\ncannot cease to be with the cessation of the bodily functions. There is in\nus something divine, immortal, and the only question is wherein it may be\nfound.\n\n2. The creation of man which is described in the Bible in the words, \u201cGod\nformed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the\nbreath of life, and man became a living soul\u201d(911) corresponds to the\nchild-like conceptions of a primitive people. On the other hand, Scripture\nspeaks of death in parallel terms, \u201cThe dust returneth to the earth as it\nwas, and the spirit (Ruah, the life-giving breath) returneth unto God who\ngave it.\u201d(912)\n\nThe conception that the soul enters into man as the breath of life and\nleaves him at his death, flying toward heaven like a bird,(913) is quite\nas ancient and as universal as the other, that the soul descends into the\nnether world as a shadowy image of the body, there to continue a dull\nexistence. The two are related to one another, and in the Bible, as well\nas in the literature of other peoples, they have given rise to diverse\ndefinitions of the soul. This was the point of departure for the\ndevelopment of the conception of immortality in one or the other\ndirection, according to whether the body was considered a part of the\npersonality which somehow survives after death, or only the spiritual\nsubstance of the soul was thought to live on in celestial regions as\nsomething divine. The former led to the theory of the resurrection of the\nbody and its reunion with the soul; the latter to the belief in a future\nlife for the soul, after it had been separated or released from the body.\n\n3. When once the soul was felt to be a \u201clamp of the Lord,\u201d filling the\nbody with light when man is awake,(914) it was easy to imagine that the\nsoul had escaped and temporarily returned to God in sleep. This induced\nthe teachers of the Synagogue to prescribe a morning prayer of thanks\nwhich reads, \u201cBlessed art Thou, O God, who restorest the souls unto dead\nbodies.\u201d(915) The conception underlying this prayer throws light upon the\nentire belief in resurrection. Death to the pious is only a prolonged\nsleep. On that account the prophet in the passage from Isaiah already\nreferred to, as well as the Hasidic author of the Book of Daniel,(916)\ncould express the hope that \u201cthose who sleep in the dust shall awake.\u201d As\nat every awakening from sleep in the morning, so at the great awakening in\nthe future, the souls which have departed in death shall return again to\ntheir bodies. These bodies could then hardly be conceived of as subject to\ndecomposition, and the picture in Ezekiel\u2019s vision of resurrection(917)\nhad to be accepted as fact. Still R. Simeon b. Yohai in the especially\ninstructive thirty-fourth chapter of Pirke de R. Eliezer assumes the\ncomplete disintegration of the body, in order to render the miracle of\nresurrection so much the greater. Later still arose the legend of an\nindestructible bone of the spinal column, called _Luz_, which was to form\nthe nucleus for the revival of the whole body.(918) The name Luz, which\ndenotes an almond tree and is the name given in the Bible to a city\nalso,(919) seemed to point to a connection with two legends, a fabulous\ncity into which death could not enter,(920) and the tree of resurrection\nin the Osiris cycle.(921)\n\n4. Still, no clear, consistent view of the soul prevailed as yet in the\nrabbinic age. The popular belief, influenced by Persian notions, was that\nthe soul lingers near the body for a certain time after it has\nrelinquished it, either from three to seven days or for an entire\nyear.(922) Furthermore it was said that after death the souls hovered\nbetween heaven and earth in the form of ghosts, able to overhear the\nsecrets of the future decreed above and to betray them to human beings\nbelow. In fact, the rabbis of the Talmud, especially the Hasidim, never\nhesitated to accept these ghost stories.(923) Some sages of the Talmudic\nperiod taught that the souls of the righteous ascend to heaven, there to\ndwell under the throne of the divine majesty, awaiting the time of the\nrenewal of the world, while the souls of the godless hovered over the\nhorizon of the earth as restless demoniacal spirits, finally to succumb to\nthe fate of annihilation, after they had been cast down into the fiery pit\nof Gehenna or Sheol.(924) Of course, this view, which prevails in both the\nTalmud and the New Testament, according to which the souls of the wicked\nare to be consumed in the fire of Gehenna, is inconsistent with the\nconception of the purely spiritual nature of the soul.\n\nNevertheless at this same epoch we find the higher idea expressed that the\nsoul is an invisible, god-like essence, pervading the body as a spiritual\nforce and differing from it in nature in much the same way as God is\ndifferentiated from the world.(925) \u201cThou wishest to know where God\ndwells, who is as high as are the heavens above the earth; tell me then\nwhere dwells thy soul, which is so near,\u201d replied R. Gamaliel to a\nheathen.(926) The prevailing view of the schools is that God implants the\nsoul in the embryo while in the mother\u2019s womb, together with all the\nspiritual potentialities which make it human. In fact, R. Simlai, the\nthird-century Haggadist, advances the Platonic conception of the\npre\u00ebxistence of the soul, as a being of the highest intelligence, which\nsees before birth all things throughout the world, but forgets all at\nbirth, so that all subsequent learning is only a recollection.(927) In\nHellenistic Judaism especially the doctrine seems to have been general of\nthe pre\u00ebxistence of the soul, or of the creation of all human souls\nsimultaneously with the creation of the world.(928) Of course, the soul\nwhich emanates from a higher world must be eternal.\n\n5. The first clear idea of the nature of the soul came with the\nphilosophically trained thinkers, who were dependent either on Plato, main\nfounder of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, or on Aristotle,\nwho ascribes immortality only to the creative spirit of God, the supreme\nIntelligence as a cosmic power. The nearest approach to Plato was\nPhilo,(929) who saw in the three Biblical names for the soul, _nefesh_,\n_ruah_, and _neshama_, the three souls of the Platonic system,\u2014the\nsensuous soul, which has its seat in the abdomen; the courageous or\nemotional soul, situated in the breast; and the intellectual soul, which\ndwells in the brain and contains the imperishable divine nature. This last\nis kept in its physical environment as in a prison or a grave, and ever\nyearns for liberation and reunion with God. The soul of the righteous\nenters the world of angels after death; that of the wicked the world of\ndemons.\n\nSaadia, who was under the influence of Aristotle interpreted from the\nneo-Platonic viewpoint, did not share the Platonic dualism of matter and\nspirit, nor did he divide the soul into three parts, seated in various\nparts of the human body. He finds the soul to be a spiritual substance\ncreated simultaneously with the body, and uniting the three forces of the\nsoul distinguished in Scripture into one inseparable whole, the seat of\nwhich is in the heart,\u2014wherefore soul and heart are often synonymous in\nthe Bible. This indivisible substance possesses a luminous nature like\nthat of the spheres, but is simpler, finer, and purer than they, and\nendowed with the power of thought. It was created by God out of the primal\nether from which He made the angels, simultaneously with the body and\nwithin it. By this union it was qualified to display that moral activity\nprescribed for it in the divine teaching, the neglect of which would\ndefile and tarnish it. According to Saadia some kind of material substance\nadheres to the soul as well as to the angels, and on that account he does\nnot hesitate to accept the Talmudic expressions about the abode of the\nsoul after death, or the last judgment which is to take place as soon as\nthe appointed number of souls shall have made their entrance into their\nearthly bodies, when the souls of the righteous will have their angelic\nnature recognized, and those of the wicked will have their lower character\nrevealed. However, Saadia combats with so much greater fervor the Hindu\nteaching of metempsychosis, which had been adopted by Plato and\nPythagoras.(930)\n\nBahya connects his theory with the three souls of Plato, and likewise\nascribes to the soul an ethereal essence.(931) He holds that its destiny\nis to raise itself to the order of the angels through self-purification,\nand finally to return to God as the divine Source of light. To this end\nthe intellectual soul, which has its being from the primal light, must\novercome the lower sensuous soul which leads to sin.\n\n6. The conception that the soul is a substance derived from the luminous\nprimal matter, like the heavenly spheres and the angels, was now\npersistently retained by the Jewish thinkers, who explained thereby its\nimmortality. In adopting the Aristotelian theory that the soul is the\nform-principle of the body, the Platonic doctrine of its preexistence was\ngradually relinquished, and its existence ascribed to a creative act of\nGod at the birth of the child or at its conception. But Jehuda ha-Levi,\nthe most pious of all the philosophers, emphasized vigorously the\nindivisibility of the soul, its incorporeality and its reality apart from\nthe condition of the body, and\u2014in opposition to the Aristotelian\nfree-thinkers, who expected the human soul to be absorbed into the divine\nsoul, the active intellect,\u2014he declared the immortality of the individual\na fundamental article of faith.(932)\n\nNow some of the Jewish thinkers, following Jehuda ha Levi, Ibn Daud, and\nothers, though Aristotelians, shrank from the logical conclusion of\ndenying all individuality to the soul, and attributed to it rather a\nprocess of purification, which ends with the elevation of the soul-essence\nto angelic rank and thus guarantees its immortality. Not so Maimonides,\nwho accepted with inexorable earnestness the Aristotelian idea of form as\nthe perfection of matter. The essence of the human soul is, for him, that\nforce or potentiality which qualifies it for the highest development of\nthe intellect, and is alone capable of grasping the divine. Yet it can\nacquire a part in the creative World-spirit only in the same degree as it\nunfolds this potentiality to share the divine intellect, whose seat is the\nhighest sphere of the universe. By dint of this acquired intelligence it\ncan live on as an independent intellect, in the image of God, and thus\nattain beatitude in the contemplation of Divinity.(933)\n\n7. Naturally the view of Maimonides, that a certain measure of immortality\nis granted only to the wise,\u2014though they must be morally perfect as\nwell,\u2014aroused great opposition. Hasdai Crescas proves its untenableness by\nasking, \u201cWhy shall the wise alone share in immortality? Furthermore, how\ncan something that came into existence in the course of human life\nsuddenly acquire eternal duration? Or how can there be any bliss in the\nknowledge of God where there is no personality, no self-conscious ego to\nenjoy it?\u201d Therefore Crescas ascribed to the soul an indestructible\nspiritual essence whose perfection is attained, not by mere intellect or\nknowledge, but by love of God manifested in a religious and moral life,\nand which is thereby made to share in eternal bliss.(934)\n\n8. All these various thinkers find the future life either expressed or\nsuggested in the Scriptures as a truth based upon reason. This is\nespecially the conception of Abraham ibn Daud, who, contrary to his\nAristotelian successor Maimonides, sees in self-consciousness, by which\nthe soul differentiates itself from the body as a personality, the proof\nthat it cannot be subject to dissolution with the body.(935)\n\nBesides the philosophic doctrine of the immortality of the soul, however,\nthe traditional belief in the resurrection of the body demanded some\nconsideration on the part of these philosophers. Saadia defends the latter\nwith all his might, endeavoring to reconcile the two as best he can.(936)\nAll the rest leave us in doubt whether resurrection is to be understood\nliterally or symbolically. Maimonides especially involves himself in\ndifficulties, inasmuch as in his commentary on the Mishna he considers the\nresurrection of the dead an unalterable article of faith, whereas in his\nCode(937) and in the Moreh he speaks only of immortality; and again before\nthe end of his life he wrote, obviously in self-defense, a work which\nseems to favor bodily resurrection, yet without clarifying his conceptions\nat any time.(938) The belief in resurrection had taken too deep a root in\nthe Jewish consciousness and had been too firmly established through the\nliturgy of the Synagogue for any philosopher to touch it without injuring\nthe very foundations of faith.\n\nMoreover, beside external caution a certain inner need seems to have\nimpelled toward the acceptance of resurrection. As soon as one thinks of\nthe soul as existing or continuing to live in an incorporeal state, one is\ninvoluntarily led toward the belief in the soul\u2019s pre\u00ebxistence or even in\nthe possibility of metempsychosis. Thus it seemed more reasonable to\nbelieve in a new formation of the human body together with a new creation\nof the world. Therewith came the disposition to assign to the soul in the\nfuture world a body of finer substance, like that assumed by the mystic\nNahmanides,(939) in order to assure to the new humanity a wondrous\nduration of life like that of Elijah.\n\n9. While the popular philosopher Albo rightly declares that the nature of\nthe soul is as far beyond all human understanding as is the nature of\nGod,(940) the mystics sought all the more to penetrate its secrets. The\nCabbalah also divides the soul into three different substances according\nto the three Biblical names, assigning their origins to the three\ndifferent spheres of the universe, and reiterating the Platonic theory of\nthe preexistence of the soul and its future transmigration. This division\ninto three parts provided scope for all types of theories concerning the\nsoul in its sensuous, its moral, and its intellectual nature.\nFundamentally the Cabbalah considered the soul an emanation from the\ndivine intellect with a luminous character just like the philosophers. But\nin the Platonic view of the ascending order of creation, which forms the\nbasis of the Cabbalah, this mundane life is an abyss of moral degradation,\nso that the soul yearns toward the primal Source of light, finally to find\nfreedom and bliss with God.(941) Thus the later Cabbalah returned to the\nteachings of Philo, the Jewish Plato, for whom death was only the\nstripping off of the earthly frame in order to enter the pure and luminous\nworld of God.\n\n10. With Moses Mendelssohn, who in his _Ph\u00e6don_ tried to translate Plato\u2019s\nproof of immortality into modern terms, a new attitude toward the nature\nand destiny of the soul arose in Judaism among both the philosophers and\nthe educated laity. Mendelssohn not only endeavored to prove the\nimmortality of the soul through its indivisibility and incorporeality, as\nall the neo-Platonists and Jewish philosophers had done before him; he\nalso attempted to show from the harmonious plan which pervades and\ncontrols all of God\u2019s creation, that the soul may enter a sphere of\nexistence greater in extent and content than the little span of earthly\nlife which it relinquishes. The progress of the soul toward its highest\nunfolding, unsatisfied in this life, demands a future growth in the\ndirection of god-like perfection.(942) At this point the philosopher\nenters the province of faith, and thus furnishes for all time the cardinal\npoint of the belief in immortality. The divine spirit in man, which is\nevinced in the self-conscious, morally active personality, bears within\nitself the proof and promise of its future life. Moreover, this\ncorresponds with the belief in God as One who rules the world for the\neternal purposes and aims of perfection, who cannot deceive the hope of\nthe human heart for a continued living and striving onward and forward,\nwithout thereby impairing His own perfection. For we all close our lives\nwithout having attained the goal of moral and spiritual perfection toward\nwhich we strive; and therefore our very nature demands a world where we\nmay reach the higher degree of perfection for which we long. In this sense\nwe may interpret the Psalmist\u2019s verse: \u201cI shall be satisfied, when I\nawake, with (beholding) Thy likeness.\u201d(943) That is: our spirit, when no\nlonger bound to the earth, shall behold the divine glory,\u2014a vision which\ntranscends our powers of thought.\n\n11. In the light of modern investigation, body and soul are seen to be\nindissolubly bound together by a reciprocal relation which either benefits\nor impedes them both. Wherein the spiritual bond exists that renders both\nthe physical organs with their muscular and nervous systems and the\nmagnetic or electric currents which set them in motion subservient to the\nwill of the intellect; what the mind actually _is_, into whose deepest\nrecesses science is casting its search-light to illumine its\nprocesses,\u2014these are problems which will probably remain ever incapable of\nsolution by human knowledge, and will therefore always afford new food for\nthe imagination. Yet it is just in periods like ours, when the belief in\nGod is weakening, that the human spirit is especially solicitous to guard\nitself against the thought of the complete annihilation of its god-like\nself-conscious personality. This gives rise to the superstitious effort to\nspy out the soul by sensory means and to find ways of seeing or hearing\nthe spirits of the dead,\u2014a tendency which is as dangerous to the spiritual\nand moral welfare of humanity as was the ancient practice of\nnecromancy.(944) It is therefore all the more important to base the belief\nin immortality solely on the God-likeness of the human soul, which is the\nmirror of Divinity. Just as one postulate of faith holds that God, the\nCreator of the world, rules in accordance with a moral order, so another\nis the immortality of the human soul, which, amidst yearning and groping,\nbeholds God. The question where, and how, this self-same ego is to\ncontinue, will be left for the power of the imagination to answer ever\nanew.\n\n12. Certainly it is both comforting and convenient to imagine the dead who\nare laid to rest in the earth as being asleep and to await their\nreawakening. As the fructifying rain awakens to a new life the seeds\nwithin the soil, so that they rise from the depths arrayed in new raiment,\nso, when touched by the heavenly dew of life, will those who linger in the\ngrave arise to a new existence, clad in new bodies. This is the belief\nwhich inspired the pious founders of the synagogal liturgy even before the\nperiod of the Maccabees, when they expressed their praise of God\u2019s power\nin that He would send the fertilizing rain upon the vegetation of the\nearth, and likewise in due time the revivifying dew upon the sleeping\nworld of man. Both appeared to the sages of that age to be evidences of\nthe same wonder-working power of God. Whoever, therefore, still sees God\u2019s\ngreatness, as they did, revealed through miracles, that is, through\ninterruptions of the natural order of life, may cling to the traditional\nbelief in resurrection, so comforting in ancient times. On the other hand,\nhe who recognizes the unchangeable will of an all-wise, all-ruling God in\nthe immutable laws of nature must find it impossible to praise God\naccording to the traditional formula as the \u201cReviver of the dead,\u201d but\nwill avail himself instead of the expression used in the Union Prayer Book\nafter the pattern of Einhorn, \u201cHe who has implanted within us immortal\nlife.\u201d(945)\n\n\n\n\nChapter XLV. Divine Retribution: Reward and Punishment.\n\n\n1. The feeling of equity is deeply rooted in human nature, demanding\nreparation for every wanton wrong and yielding recognition to every\nbenevolent act. In fact, upon this universal principle is based all\njustice and to a certain extent all morality. Judaism of every age\ncompresses this demand of the religious and moral nature of man into the\ndoctrine: God rewards the good and punishes the evil. This doctrine, which\nis the eleventh of Maimonides\u2019 articles of faith, constitutes the\nunderlying presumption of all the Biblical narratives as well as of the\nprophetic threats and warnings and those of the Mosaic law, in so far as\nearthly success and prosperity were regarded as the rewards of God and\nearthly misfortune and misery as His punishments. In the same degree,\nhowever, as experience contradicted this doctrine, and as examples\nmultiplied of wicked persons revelling in prosperity and innocent ones\nlaboring under adversity and woe, it became necessary to defer the divine\nretribution more and more to the future\u2014at first to a future on earth and\nlater to one in the world to come, until finally it developed into a pure\nspiritual conception in full accord with a higher ethical view of life.\n\n2. As long as in the primitive process of law the family or the clan was\nheld responsible for the crime of the individual, ancient Israel also\nadhered to the idea that \u201cGod visits the sins of the fathers upon the\nthird and fourth generation,\u201d as Jeremiah still did(946) in full accord\nwith the second commandment. It was in a far later stage that the rabbis\ninterpreted the words \u201cof those who hate Me\u201d in the sense of individual\nresponsibility.(947) Only in accordance with the Deuteronomic law which\nsays: \u201cThe fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither\nshall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put\nto death for his own sin,\u201d(948) did the religious consciousness rebel\nagainst the thought that a later generation should suffer for the sins of\nits ancestors, and hence the popular adage arose, \u201cThe fathers have eaten\nsour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge.\u201d(949) It is\nthe prophet Ezekiel who refutes once and for all the idea of a guilt\ntransmitted to children and consequently of hereditary sin and punishment,\ninsisting on the doctrine that personal responsibility alone determines\ndivine retribution.(950) But here a new element affects divine\nretribution. God\u2019s long-suffering and mercy do not desire the immediate\npunishment, the death of the sinner. He should be given time to return to\na better mode of life.(951)\n\nBut the great enigma of human destiny, which vexes the author of the\nseventy-third Psalm and that of the book of Job, still presses for a\nbetter solution. It is true that the popular belief and popular legends\nwhich are preserved in post-Biblical writings as well, insisted on a\njustice which requites \u201cmeasure for measure.\u201d(952) Still insight into\nactual life does not confirm the teaching of the popular philosophy that\nthe \u201crighteous will be requited in the earth\u201d and that \u201cevil pursueth\nsinners.\u201d(953) The unshakeable belief in the justice of God had to find\nanother solution for life\u2019s antinomies, and was forced to reach out for\nanother world in which the divine righteousness would find its complete\nrealization.\n\n3. Biblical Judaism with few exceptions recognized only the present world\nand the subterranean world of shadows, a view preserved in its essentials\nby Ben Sira and the Sadducees, who were subsequently declared heretics. In\ncontrast to them Pharisaic or Rabbinic Judaism teaches a resurrection\nafter death for a life of eternal bliss or eternal torment, according as\nthe divine judgment finds one righteous and another wicked. We may leave\naside the consideration that the first impulse toward a Jewish belief in\nresurrection came from the non-fulfillment of the national hope, wherefore\nit was always bound up with the soil of the Holy Land, as will be seen in\nChapter LIV. The fact remains that the divine judgment to follow upon\nresurrection was consistently regarded as a great world-judgment, which\nwas to decide the future lot of all men and spirits. It must be noted also\nthat the apocalyptic and midrashic literature often identifies the pious\nwith the God-fearing Israelites as those who shall arise to eternal life,\nwhile the wicked are identified with the idolatrous heathen, who are\ncondemned to eternal death, or, as it is frequently expressed, to a second\ndeath.(954)\n\n4. Exactly as the old Persian Mazdaism expected the resurrection of all,\nboth good and bad, the believers in Ahura Mazda as well as the rest of\nhumanity, so the apocalyptic writers prior to the Talmudic period describe\nresurrection as universal: \u201cIn those days the earth will give back those\nwho have been entrusted to her, and the nether-world will release that\nwhich it has received,\u201d according to Enoch LI, 1. Similarly fourth Esdras\nremarks: \u201cAnd after seven days of silence for all creatures, the new order\nof the world shall be raised up, and mortality itself shall perish; and\nthe earth shall restore those that are asleep in her; and so shall the\ndust give back those that dwell in silence; and the chambers shall deliver\nthose souls that were committed unto them. The Most High shall appear on\nthe throne of judgment, and shall say: Judgment only shall remain, truth\nshall stand, and faith shall wax strong. The good deeds shall be of force,\nand wicked deeds shall no longer sleep. The lake of torment shall be\nrevealed, and opposite to it the place of joy; the furnace of Gehinnom\nwill be visible, and opposite to it the bliss of Paradise. Then the Most\nHigh will speak to the heathen nations, who have awakened: behold now Him\nwhom ye have denied, whom ye have not served, whose command ye have\nabhorred. Gaze now here and there,\u2014here bliss and rest, there fire and\ntorment.\u201d(955)\n\nThe rabbinic form of the doctrine of resurrection is quite unambiguous:\n\u201cThose born into the world are destined to die; the dead, to live again;\nand those who enter the world to come, to be judged.\u201d(956) And wherever\nthe rabbinic or apocalyptic literature mentions the share of the pious, or\nof Israel, in eternal life, this implies that, while these enter the world\nto come, the evil-doers or idolaters shall enter hell for eternal death;\nthe understanding being that there is a universal resurrection for the\nworld-judgment.\n\n5. The whole system of eschatology in connection with resurrection arose\nundoubtedly from the Persian doctrine, according to which death together\nwith all that is evil and unclean is created by Ahriman, the evil\nprinciple, and will suffer annihilation with him, as soon as the good\nprinciple, Ahura Mazda, has achieved the final victory. Then Soshiosh \u201cthe\nSavior,\u201d the descendant of Zoroaster, will begin his kingdom of eternal\nlife for the righteous, coincident with the awakening of the dead.(957)\nPharisaic Judaism, however, gave the hope of resurrection a deeper moral\nand religious meaning. The proofs, or rather analogies from nature, of the\nseeds springing from the earth in a new form, of men awakening from sleep\nin the morning, or of the original creation, are shared by the rabbis and\nthe New Testament writers with the Persians. On the other hand, proofs\nbased on the prophetic hope for the future are purely national. So also\nare those proofs based on the Biblical passage that the God of the fathers\nhad sworn to the Patriarchs to give them the Promised Land.(958) Likewise\nthe reference to the wondrous resurrections related in the history of\nElijah and Elisha offers no proof of a universal resurrection. A striking\npoint and one which deepens the idea of retribution is the simile of the\nLame and the Blind(959) employed by Jehuda ha Nasi in a dialogue with the\nEmperor Antoninus. The latter had said that at the last judgment both soul\nand body might deny all guilt. The body may say: \u201cThe soul alone has\nsinned, for since it has parted from me, I have lain motionless as a\nstone.\u201d And the soul, on its part, may reply: \u201cIt must be the body that\nsinned, for since I have parted from it I soar about in the air free as a\nbird.\u201d To this Jehuda ha Nasi answered: \u201cA king once possessed a garden\nwith splendid fig-trees, and appointed as watchmen in it a blind man and a\nlame man. Then the lame man spoke to the blind man, \u2018I see fine figs up\nthere; take me upon your shoulders, and I shall pick them, and we can\nenjoy them together.\u2019 They did so, and when the king entered the garden,\nthe figs were gone. But when they were held to account for it, the lame\nman said, \u2018How could I have taken them, since I cannot walk?\u2019 And the\nblind man said, \u2018And I cannot see.\u2019 Then the king had the lame man placed\nupon the shoulders of the blind man and judged them both together. In like\nmanner will God treat the body and the soul, as it is said:(960) \u2018He\ncalleth to the heavens above\u2014that is, the heavenly element, the soul\u2014and\nto the earth beneath\u2014the earthly body\u2014and places them together before His\nthrone of judgment.\u2019 \u201d\n\n6. It cannot be denied that the idea that the soul and body, having\ncommitted good or evil deeds together in this life, should receive in\ncommon their reward or punishment in the world to come, satisfied the\nJewish sense of justice better than the conception developed by\nHellenistic Judaism (after the Platonic and, in the last resort, the\nEgyptian view) that the soul alone should partake of eternal bliss or\ntorment. Nevertheless the philosophically trained Jewish thinkers of\nAlexandria could not bring themselves to accept a bodily resurrection, and\ntherefore emphasized so much more strongly the great day of judgment and\nthe reward and punishment of the soul in the world to come. Still we find\nmuch inconsistency among various authors, sometimes even in the same work,\nin the conception of future bliss for the good and torture for the wicked.\nThese varied according to the more sensuous or more spiritual view taken\nof the soul and the celestial world, and according to the literal or\nfigurative interpretation of the Biblical allusions to \u201cfire,\u201d \u201cworms,\u201d\nand the like in the punishment of evil-doers, and of the delights awaiting\nthe righteous in the future.(961)\n\nOn this point free play was allowed to the imagination of the people and\nthe fancy of the Haggadists. Still, throughout, the solemn thought found\nits echo that mortal man must give account to the inexorable Judge of the\nliving and the dead for the life just completed, in order to be ushered,\naccording to his deserts, into the portals of the celestial Paradise or of\nhell.(962) This led to the view that this whole mundane life is but like a\nwayfarers\u2019 inn for the life to come, or the vestibule of the palace (more\nprecisely the \u201cbanquet-hall\u201d) of the future.(963)\n\n7. A further development of the principle of justice in application to\nfuture retribution led not merely to such a depiction of the tortures of\nhell and the delights of heaven that the maxim: \u201cmeasure for measure,\u201d so\noften deviated from in this life, could find complete realization in the\nworld to come. An intermediate stage also was devised for those whose\nmerit or guilt would enroll them neither among the righteous for eternal\nbliss, nor among the wicked for eternal punishment. While the stern\nteachers of the school of Shammai insisted that these mediocre ones must\nundergo a twelve-month process of purification in the fires of Gehenna,\nthe milder school of Hillel maintained that the divine mercy would grant\nthem admission into Paradise even without the fires of purgatory(964),\neither through the merit of the patriarchs(965) or owing to the deserts of\na son who has been trained to reverence for God, as is indicated by the\nlegend concerning the Kaddish prayer.(966) In any case, the teaching of\nHillel concerning the all-sufficing mercy of God swept aside the old\nhopeless conception that eternal suffering in hell awaits the average man,\nwhich was adhered to by the Christian church in connection with its dogma\nof the atoning blood of Christ. Likewise, in the dispute of schools as to\nwhether or not the bliss of eternal life would be accorded also to the\nrighteous among the heathen, the more humane view of Joshua ben Hananiah\nprevailed over the gloomier one of the Shammaite Eliezer ben Hyrcanos, and\ntherefore the doctrine became generally accepted, \u201cThe righteous of all\nnations shall have a share in the world to come.\u201d(967)\n\n8. The apocalyptic writers, who largely influenced the New Testament, and\nalso the Haggadists refer with fond interest to the banquet of the pious\nin the world to come, where they would be served with heavenly manna as\nbread, with wine preserved from the days of the creation, and with the\nflesh of the Leviathan or the fruit of the Tree of Life.(968) On the other\nhand they elaborated the tortures of the evil-doers in hell which are to\nafford a pleasing sight to the pious in heaven, just as the torments of\nthe sinners are aggravated by the sight of the righteous enjoying all\ndelights.(969) But at the same time we meet with a more refined and\nspiritual conception of future reward and punishment among the disciples\nof R. Jehuda ha Nasi, in the Babylonian Rab, and the Palestinian R.\nJohanan and his pupil Simeon ben Lakish. \u201cIn the future world,\u201d says Rab,\n\u201cthere are no sensual enjoyments nor passions, but the righteous sit at\nthe table of God with wreaths upon their heads (like the Greek sages at a\nsymposium!), feeding on the radiance of the divine majesty, as did the\nchosen ones of Israel on the heights of Sinai.\u201d(970) R. Johanan teaches,\n\u201cAll the promises held forth in Scripture in definite form as reward for\nthe future, refer to the Messianic era, whereas in regard to the bliss\nawaiting the pious in the world to come, the words of Isaiah hold good:\n\u2018No eye hath seen it, O God, beside Thee.\u2019 \u201d(971) Simeon ben Lakish even\nwent so far as to say, \u201cThere is neither hell nor paradise. Instead, God\nsends out the sun in its full strength from its encasement, and the wicked\nare consumed by its heat, while the pious find delight and healing in its\nbeams.\u201d(972)\n\nHowever, the popular imagination demanded more perceptible pictures of\nheaven and hell, if fear of punishment was to deter men from sin, and hope\nof reward to lead them to virtue. The description of the modes of reward\nand punishment for the future in the Koran is the outcome of mingled\nPersian and Jewish popular conceptions, and its crass sensuousness exerted\nin turn a decisive influence upon the entire Gaonic period,(973) leaving\nits mark upon even so clear a thinker as Saadia. Not only does he admit\ninto his philosophic work all the crude and conflicting descriptions of\nthe future world, but he also argues for the eternity of the punishments\nof hell and of the delights of heaven as logical necessities, because only\nsuch could sufficiently deter or allure mankind, and a righteous God must\ncertainly carry out His threats and promises.(974)\n\n9. The entire Jewish philosophy or theology of the Middle Ages remained\nunder the influence of the traditional belief in resurrection. Even\nMaimonides, whose purely spiritual conception of the soul and of salvation\nis utterly irreconcilable with the belief in bodily resurrection, and who\naccordingly dwells instead, in both his Moreh and his Code, on the future\nworld of spirits, with explicit emphasis on their incorporeality, did not\nhave the courage to break altogether with the traditional belief in\nresurrection. In his apologetic treatise on resurrection he even attempts\nto present it as a miraculous act of God beyond the grasp of the\nintellect. He omits, however, to specify what purpose this miracle may\nserve, since in the Maimonidean system reward and punishment would be\nadministered in the world of spirits in a much purer and more satisfactory\nmanner.(975) The same standpoint is taken also by Jehuda ha Levi as well\nas by Crescas and Albo.(976) If then resurrection be a miracle, it falls\noutside the scope of philosophic speculation and becomes a matter of\nfaith; accordingly the mystics from Nahmanides down to Manasseh ben Israel\nassociated with it the grossest conceptions.(977)\n\n10. The actual view of Maimonides concerning future retribution is\nexpressed clearly and unambiguously in both his early product, the\ncommentary on the Mishna, and in the ripest fruit of his life work, the\nMishneh Torah, where he says \u201cNot immortality, but the power to win\neternal life through the knowledge and the love of God is implanted in the\nhuman soul. If it has the ability to free itself from the bondage of the\nsenses and by means of the knowledge of God to lift itself to the highest\nmorality and the purest thinking, then it has attained divine bliss, true\nimmortality, and it enters the realm of the eternal Spirit together with\nthe angels. If it sinks into the sensuousness of earthly existence, then\nit is cut off from eternal life; it suffers annihilation like the beast.\nIn reality this life eternal is not the future, but is already potentially\npresent and invariably at hand in the spirit of man himself, with its\nconstant striving toward the highest. When the rabbis speak of paradise\nand hell, describing vividly the delights of the one and the torments of\nthe other, these are only metaphors for the agony of sin and the happiness\nof virtue. True piety serves God neither from fear of punishment nor from\ndesire for reward, as servants obey their master, but from pure love of\nGod and truth. Thus the saying of Ben Azai is verified, \u2018The reward of a\ngood deed is the good deed itself.\u2019(978) Only children need bribes and\nthreats to be trained to morality. Thus religion trains mankind. The\npeople who cannot penetrate into the kernel need the shell, the external\nmeans of threats and promises.\u201d(979) These splendid words of the great\nthinker require supplementing or modification in only one direction, and\nthat has been afforded by the keenest critic among Jewish philosophers,\nHasdai Crescas. Too deeply enmeshed in the Aristotelian system, Maimonides\nfound the happiness and immortality of man solely in the acquired\nintellectual power which becomes part of the divine intellect, and the\nmere knowledge of God is to him tantamount to the blissful enjoyment of\nthe pious in the radiance of God\u2019s majesty. Consequently those who strive\nand soar heavenward through their moral conduct and noble aspirations,\nwithout at the same time being thinkers, receive no reward. Against this\nAristotelian one-sidedness Crescas emphasizes God\u2019s love and goodness for\nwhich the righteous yearn, and in whose pursuit man finds perfection and\nhappiness. Not for the sake of attaining bliss shall we love God and\npractice virtue and truth, but to love God and practice virtue is itself\ntrue bliss. This is the nearness of God referred to by the Psalmist and\ndeclared to be man\u2019s highest good.(980) There is no need of any other\nreward than this, and there is no greater punishment than to be deprived\nof this boon forever.(981)\n\n11. In the face of these two great thinkers, to whom Spinoza owes the\nfundamental ideas of his ethics,(982) the question considered by Albo,\nwhether the eternal duration of the tortures of hell is reconcilable with\nthe divine mercy,(983) a question which still plays an important r\u00f4le in\nChristian theology, and which was probably suggested to Albo through his\ndisputations with representatives of the Church,\u2014is for us superfluous and\nsuperseded. Our modern conceptions of time and space admit neither a place\nor a world-period for the reward and punishment of souls, nor the\nintolerable conception of eternal joy without useful action and eternal\nagony without any moral purpose. Modern man knows that he bears heaven and\nhell within his own bosom. Indeed, so much more difficult is the life of\nduty which knows of no other reward than happiness through harmony with\nGod, the Father of the immortal soul, and of no other punishment than the\nsoul\u2019s distress at its inner discord with the primal Source and the divine\nIdeal of all morality. All the more powerfully is modern man controlled by\nthe thought that the universe permits no stagnation, no barren enjoyment\nor barren suffering, but that every death marks the transition to a higher\ngoal for greater accomplishment. This yearning of the soul finds\nexpression in the Talmudic maxim, \u201cThe righteous find rest neither in this\nworld, nor in the world to come, as it is said, \u2018They go from strength to\nstrength, until they appear before God on Zion.\u2019 \u201d(984)\n\n\n\n\nChapter XLVI. The Individual and the Race\n\n\n1. In every system of belief the object of divine care and guidance is the\nindividual. His soul and his conscience raise him up, especially according\nto the Jewish doctrine, to the divine image, to Godchildship. His freedom\nand moral responsibility are the patent of nobility for his divine nature;\nhis ego, controlling external forces and carrying out its own designs,\nvouches for his immortality. Nevertheless the spirit of the Biblical\nlanguage indicates rightly that the individual is only a son of man,\u2014_ben\nadam_,\u2014that is, a segment or member of the human race, but not the perfect\ntypical exemplification of the whole of mankind. From the social organism\nhe receives what he is, what he has, and what he ought to do, both his\nnature and his destiny; and only in association with the community and\nunder the guidance of the highest ideal of humanity can he attain true\nperfection. Only mankind as a whole, in its co\u00f6peration, as it extends\nover the vast expanse of the earth, and in its succession which reaches\nthrough the centuries of the world\u2019s history, can bring to full\ndevelopment the divine image in man, his moral and religious nature with\nall its varied potentialities. It is man collectively who in the first\nchapter of Genesis receives the command to subject the earth with all its\ncreatures to his cultural purposes.(985) In whatever stage of culture we\nmeet man, his modes of thought and speech, his customs and moral views,\neven his spiritual faculties are the result of a long historic process of\ndevelopment, the product of an extremely complicated past, as well as the\nbasis of a future which expands in all directions. The ancients expressed\nthis in their suggestive way, remarking in connection with the verse of\nthe Psalm, \u201cThine eyes did see mine unformed substance, and in Thy book\nthey were all written,\u201d(986) that at the creation of the first man God\nrecorded the succession of races with their sages, seers and leaders until\nthe end of time.(987) And when the Haggadists say that in creating man God\ntook dust from every part of the world, so that he would be everywhere at\nhome,(988) again they were thinking of mankind. Similarly in the passage\nfrom the Psalms, \u201cThou hast hemmed me in behind and before,\u201d they explain\nthat God made the first man with two faces, one looking forward and the\nother backward, that is, with a Janus head; and thus they regard man in\nhis relation to the past and the future, in his historic continuity.(989)\nAs both physically and spiritually he is the heir of innumerable ancestors\nwho have transmitted to him with their blood all their idiosyncrasies and\ncapacities in a peculiar combination, so will he transmit both consciously\nand unconsciously the inherited possessions of mankind to future\ngenerations for continued growth or for degeneration. He forms but a link\nin the great chain of history, whose goal is the perfected ideal of\nhumanity, the completed idea of man. This was the underlying thought of\nBen Azzai in his dispute with R. Akiba, who held that the principal maxim\nof Jewish teaching is \u201cThou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.\u201d In\nopposition to this Ben Azzai presented as the most important lesson of the\nBible the verse which says, \u201cThis is the book of the generations of man;\nin the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him.\u201d(990)\nThe godlikeness of man develops more and more through the evolution of the\nhuman race. This is the basic force for all human love and all human\nworth.\n\n2. This social bond existing between the individual and the race imposes\nupon him in accordance with his occupation certain duties in the same\ndegree as it confers benefits. Ben Zoma, a colleague of Ben Azzai,\nexpressed this as follows: When he saw great crowds of people together, he\nexclaimed, \u201cPraised be Thou who hast created all these to serve me.\u201d In\nexplanation of this blessing he said, \u201cHow hard the first man in his\nloneliness must have toiled, until he could eat a morsel of bread or wear\na garment, but I find everything prepared. The various workmen, from the\nfarmer to the miller and the baker, from the weaver to the tailor, all\nlabor for me. Can I then be ungrateful and be oblivious of my duty?\u201d(991)\nIn the same sense he interprets the last verse in Koheleth, \u201cThis is the\nend of the matter; fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the\nwhole duty of man.\u201d That is to say, all mankind toils for him who does so.\nThus does human life rest upon a reciprocal relation, upon mutual\nduty.(992)\n\n3. Man is a social being who must strike root in many spheres of life in\norder that the variegated blossoms and fruits of his spiritual and\nemotional nature may sprout forth. The more richly the communal life is\nspecialized into professions and occupations, the more does the province\nof the individual expand, and the more difficult it is for him to attain\nperfection on all sides. According to his faculties and predisposition he\nmust always develop one or the other side of human endeavor and pursue now\nthe beautiful, now the good, now the true and now the useful, if as the\nimage of God he is to emulate the Ideal of all existence, the Pattern of\nall creation. Consequently he may reflect some radiance of the divine\nglory in his character and achievements, whether as moral hero, as sage\nand thinker, as statesman and battler for freedom, as artist, or as the\ndiscoverer of new forces and new worlds; and yet the full splendor of\nGod\u2019s greatness is mirrored only by mankind as a whole through its\nceaseless common action and interaction. Therefore Judaism deprecates\nevery attempt to present a single individual, be he ever so noble or wise,\nas the ideal of all human perfection, as a perfect man, free from fault or\nblemish. \u201cThere is none holy as the Lord, for there is none beside Thee,\u201d\nsays Scripture.(993) Instead of extolling any single mortal as the type or\nideal of perfection, our sages rather say with reference to the lofty\ncharacters of the Bible: \u201cThere is no generation which cannot show a man\nwith the love for righteousness of an Abraham, or the nobility of spirit\nof a Moses, or the love for truth of a Samuel.\u201d(994) That is to say, every\nage creates its own heroes, who reflect the majesty of God in their own\nway.\n\n4. As man is the keystone of all creation, so he is called upon to take\nhis full share in the progress of the race. \u201cHe who formed the earth\ncreated it not a waste; He formed it to be inhabited,\u201d says the\nprophet.(995) True humanity has its seat, not in the life of the recluse,\nbut in the family circle, amid mutual love and loyalty between husband and\nwife, between parents and children. The sages, with their keen insight\ninto the spirit of the Scripture, point to the fact that it is man and\nwife together who first receive the name of \u201cman,\u201d because only the mutual\nhelpfulness and influence, the care and toil for one another draw forth\nthe treasures of the soul, and create relations which warrant permanency\nand give promise of a future.(996)\n\n5. Still the family circle itself is only a segment of the nation, which\ncreates speech and custom, and assigns to each person his share in the\ncommon activity of the various classes of men. Only within the social bond\nof the nation or tribe is the interdependence of all brought home to the\nconsciousness of the individual, together with all the common moral\nobligations and religious yearnings. Through the few elect ones of the\nnation or tribe, God\u2019s voice is heard as to what is right in both custom\nand law, and through them the individual is roused to a sense of duty. It\nis society which enables the human mind to triumph over physical necessity\nby ever new discoveries of tools and means of life, thus to attain freedom\nand prosperity, and, through meditation over the continually expanding\nrealm of God\u2019s world, to build up the various systems of science and of\nart.\n\n6. But the single nation also is too dependent upon the conditions of its\nhistoric past, of its land and its racial characteristics, to bring the\ndivine image to its full development in a perfect man. Humanity as a whole\ncomes to its own, to true self-consciousness, only through the reciprocal\ncontact of race with race, through the co\u00f6peration of the various circles\nand classes of life which extend beyond the narrow limits of nationality\nand have in view common interests and aims, whether in the pursuit of\ntruth, in the achievement of good, or in the creation of the useful and\nthe beautiful. Only when the various nations and groups of men learn to\nregard themselves as members of one great family, will the life of the\nindividual find its true value in relation to the idea and the ideal of\nhumanity. Then only will the unity and harmony of the entire cosmic life\nfind its reflection in the blending of the factors and forces of human\nsociety.\n\n7. Judaism has evolved the idea of the unity of mankind as a corollary of\nits ethical monotheism. Therefore the Bible begins the history of the\nworld with the creation of Adam and Eve, the one human pair. The covenant\nwhich God concluded after the flood with Noah, the father of the new\nmankind, has its corresponding goal at the end of time in the divine\ncovenant which is to include all tribes of men in one great brotherhood;\nand so also the dispersion of man through the confusion of tongues at the\nbuilding of the Tower of Babel has its counterpart in the rallying of all\nnations at the end of time for the worship of the One and Only God in a\npure tongue and a united spirit on Zion\u2019s heights.(997) Whatever the\ncivilizations of Greece and Rome and the Stoic philosophy have achieved\nfor the idea of humanity, Judaism has offered in its prophetic hope for a\nMessianic future the guiding idea for the progress of man in history, thus\ngiving him the impulse to ceaseless efforts toward the highest of all aims\nfor the realization of which all nations and classes, all systems of faith\nand thought, must labor together for millenniums to come.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XLVII. The Moral Elements of Civilization\n\n\n1. Because Judaism sees the attainment of human perfection only when the\ndivine in man has reached complete development through the unimpeded\nactivity of all his spiritual, moral, and social forces, it insists upon\nthe full recognition of all branches of human society as instruments of\nman\u2019s elevation, either individually or collectively. It deprecates the\nidea that any force or faculty of human life be regarded as unholy and\ntherefore be suppressed. It thus rejects on principle monastic\nrenunciation and isolation, pointing to the Scriptural verse, \u201cHe who\nformed the earth created it not a waste; He formed it to be\ninhabited.(998)\u201d\n\n2. Accordingly Judaism regards the establishment of family life through\nmarriage as a duty obligatory on mankind, and sees in the entrance into\nthe marital relation an act of life\u2019s supreme consecration. In contrast to\nthe celibacy sanctioned by the Church and approved by the rabbis only\nunder certain conditions, and exceptionally for their holy exercises by\nthe Essenes, the Tannaite R. Eliezer pronounces the man who through\nbachelorhood shirks the duty of rearing children to be guilty of murder\nagainst the human race. Another calls him a despoiler of the divine image.\nAnother rabbi says that such a one renounces his privilege of true\nhumanity, in so far as only in the married state can happiness, blessing,\nand peace be attained.(999) It is significant as to the spirit of Judaism\nthat, while other religions regard the celibacy of the priests and saints\nas signs of highest sanctity, the Jewish law expressly commands that the\nhigh priest shall not be allowed to observe the solemn rites of the Day of\nAtonement if unmarried.(1000) Love for the wife, the keeper and guardian\nof the home, must attune his heart to tenderness and sympathy, if he is to\nplead for the people before the Holy God. He can make intercession for the\nhousehold of Israel only if he himself has founded a family, in which are\npracticed faithfulness and modesty, love and regard for the\nlife-companion, all the domestic virtues inherited from the past.\n\n3. Another moral factor for human development is industry, which secures\nto the individual his independence and his dignity when he engages in\ncreative labor after the divine pattern, and which rewards him with\ncomfort and the joy of life. This also is so highly valued by Judaism that\nindustrial activity, which unlocks from the earth ever new treasures to\nenrich human life, is enjoined upon all, even those pursuing more\nspiritual vocations. \u201cSeest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall\nstand before kings.\u201d(1001) \u201cWhen thou eatest the labor of thy hands, happy\nart thou and it shall be well with thee.\u201d(1002) In commenting on this last\nverse, the sages say: \u201cThis means that thou wilt be doubly blessed; happy\nart thou in this world, and it shall be well with thee in the world to\ncome.\u201d(1003) Again they say, \u201cNo labor, however humble, is\ndishonoring,\u201d(1004) also: \u201cIdleness, even amid great wealth, leads to the\nwasting of the intellect.\u201d(1005) Moreover it is said, \u201cWhoever neglects to\ntrain his son to a trade, rears him to become a robber.\u201d(1006) True, there\nwere some among the pious who themselves abstained from participation in\nindustry, and therefore proclaimed, in the same tenor as the Sermon on the\nMount, \u201cBehold the beasts of the field and the birds of heaven, they sow\nnot and reap not, and their heavenly Father cares for them.\u201d(1007) But\nthese formed an exception, while the majority of Jewish teachers extolled\nthe real blessing of labor and its efficacy in ennobling heart and\nspirit.(1008)\n\n4. Neither does Judaism begrudge man the joy of life which is the fruit of\nindustry, nor rob it of its moral value. On the contrary, that ascetic\nspirit which encourages self-mortification and rigid renunciation of all\npleasure is declared sinful.(1009) Instead, we are told that in the world\nto come man shall have to give account for every enjoyment offered him in\nthis life, whether he used it gratefully or rejected it in\ningratitude.(1010) Abstinence is declared to be praiseworthy only in\ncurbing wild desires and passions. For the rest, true piety lies in the\nconsecration of every gift of God, every pleasure of life which He has\noffered, and using it in His service, so that the seal of holiness shall\nbe imprinted even upon the satisfaction of the most sensuous desires.\n\n5. Judaism, then, lays special emphasis upon sociability as advancing all\nthat is good and noble in man. The life of the recluse, according to its\nteaching, is of little use to the world at large and hence of no moral\nvalue. Only in association with one\u2019s fellow-men does life find incentive\nand opportunity for worthy work. \u201cEither a life among friends or death\u201d is\na Talmudic proverb.(1011) Unselfish friendship like that of David and\nJonathan is lauded and pointed out for imitation.(1012) Through it man\nlearns to step beyond the narrow boundaries of his ego, and in caring for\nothers he will purify and exalt his own soul, until at last its love will\ninclude all mankind.\n\n6. \u201cIron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his\nfriend,\u201d says the book of Proverbs,(1013) and the sages derive from this\nverse the doctrine that learning does not thrive in solitude.(1014) A\nsingle log does not nourish the flame; to keep up the fire one must throw\nin one piece of wood after the other. This applies also to learning; it\nlacks in vigor, if it is not communicated to others. Wisdom calls to her\nvotaries on the highways, in order that the stream of knowledge may\noverflow for many. For both the culture of the intellect and the ennobling\nof the soul it is necessary that man should step out of the narrow limits\nof self and come into touch with a larger world. Only in devotion to his\nfellows is man made to realize his own godlike nature. In the same measure\nas he honors God\u2019s image in others, in foe as well as in friend, in the\nmost lowly servant as well in the most noble master, man increases his own\ndignity. This is the fundamental thought of morality as expressed in Job,\nespecially in the beautiful thirty-first chapter, and as embodied in\nAbraham,(1015) and later reflected in various Talmudic sayings about the\ndignity of man.(1016) Everywhere man\u2019s relation to society becomes a test\nof his own worth. The idea of interdependence and reciprocal duty among\nall members of the human family forms the outstanding characteristic of\nJewish ethics. For it is far more concerned in the welfare of society than\nin that of the individual, and demands that those endowed with fortune\nshould care for the unfortunate, the strong for the weak, and those\nblessed with vision for the blind. As God Himself is Father to the\nfatherless, Judge of the widows, and Protector of the oppressed, so should\nman be. \u201cWorks of benevolence form the beginning and the end of the\nTorah,\u201d points out R. Simlai.(1017)\n\n7. It is in the life of the nation that the individual first realizes that\nhe is only a part of a greater whole. The nation to which he belongs is\nthe mother who nourishes him with her spirit, teaches him to speak and to\nthink, and equips him with all the means to take part in the achievements\nand tasks of humanity. In fact, the State, which guarantees to all its\ncitizens safety, order and opportunity under the law, and which arranges\nthe relations of the various groups and classes of society that they may\nadvance one another and thus promote the welfare and progress of all, is\nhuman society in miniature. Here the citizen first learns obedience to the\nlaw which is binding upon all alike, then respect and reverence for the\nauthority embodied in the guardians of the law who administer justice\n\u201cwhich is God\u2019s,\u201d and hence also loyalty and devotion to the whole,\ntogether with reciprocal obligation and helpfulness among the separate\nmembers and classes of society. The words of Jeremiah to his exiled\nbrethren, \u201cSeek ye the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be\ncarried away captive, and pray unto the Lord for it, for in the peace\nthereof shall ye have peace,\u201d(1018) became the guiding maxim of Jewry when\ntorn from its native soil. It impressed upon them, once for all, the\ndeeply rooted virtues of loyalty and love for the country in which they\ndwelt. To pray for the welfare of the State and its ruler, under whose\ndominion all citizens were protected, and so in modern times for its\nlegislative and administrative authorities, has become a sacred duty of\nthe Jewish religious community. To sacrifice one\u2019s life willingly, if need\nbe, for the welfare of the country in which he lived, was a demand of\nloyalty which the Jew has never disregarded. \u201cThe law of the State is as\nthe law of God\u201d(1019) taught Samuel the Babylonian, and another sage of\nBabylon said, \u201cThe government on earth is to be regarded as an image of\nGod\u2019s government in heaven.\u201d(1020)\n\n8. But, after all, the community of the State or the nation is too\nconfined in its cultural work by its special interests and particular\ntasks ever to reach the universal ideal of man, that is, a perfected\nhumanity. Where the interests of one State or nation come into conflict\nwith those of another, far too often the result is enmity and murderous\nwarfare. Therefore there must be a higher power to quench the brands of\nwar whenever they flare up, to cultivate every motive leading toward peace\nand harmony among nations, to impel men toward a higher righteousness and\nto obviate all conflict of interests, because in place of selfishness it\nimplants in the heart the self-forgetfulness of love. Religion is the\npower which trains peoples as well as individuals toward the conception of\none humanity, in the same measure as it points to the one and only God,\nRuler over all the contending motives of men, the Source and Shield of all\nrighteousness, truth, and love, the Father of mankind as the only\nfoundation upon which the grand edifice of human civilization must\nultimately rest. Thus it teaches us to regard the common life and endeavor\nof peoples and societies as one household of divine goodness. Every system\nof belief, every religious denomination which transcends the limits of the\nnational consciousness with a view to the broader conception of mankind,\nand binds the national groups and interests into a higher unity to include\nand influence all the depths and heights of the human spirit, paves the\nway toward the attainment of the mighty goal. In the same sense the united\nefforts of the various classes and societies or States for the common\nadvance of culture, prosperity, national welfare and international\ncommerce, as well as of science and art, tend unceasingly toward that full\nrealization of the idea of humanity which constitutes the brotherhood of\nman.\n\n9. Not yet has any religious body, however great and remarkable its\naccomplishments may have been, nor any of the religious, scientific, or\nnational organizations, much as they have achieved, performed the sublime\ntask which the prophets of Israel foretold as the goal of history. Each\none has drawn to itself only a portion of mankind, and promised it success\nor redemption and bliss, while the rest have been excluded and denied both\ntemporal and eternal happiness. Each one has singled out one side of human\nnature in order to link to it the entire absolute truth, but at the same\ntime has underestimated or cast aside all other sides of human life, and\nthereby blocked the road to complete truth, which can never be presented\nin final form, nor ever be the exclusive possession of one portion of\nhumanity. Judaism, which is neither a religious nor a national system\n_solely_, but aims to be a _covenant with God_ uniting all peoples, lays\nclaim to no exclusive truth, and makes its appeal to no single group of\nmankind. The Messianic hope, which aims to unite all races and classes of\nmen into a bond of brotherhood, has become an impelling force in the\nhistory of the world, and both Christianity and Islam, in so far as they\nowe their existence to this hope and to the adoption of Jewish teachings,\nconstitute parts of the history of Judaism. Between these world-religions\nwith their wide domains of civilization stands the little Jewish people as\na cosmopolitan element. It points to an ideal future, with a humanity\ntruly united in God, when, through ceaseless progress in the pursuit of\never more perfect ideals, truth, justice, and peace will triumph,\u2014to the\nrealization of the kingdom of God.\n\n\n\n\n\nPART III. ISRAEL AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD\n\n\n\n\nChapter XLVIII. The Election of Israel\n\n\n1. The central point of Jewish theology and the key to an understanding of\nthe nature of Judaism is the doctrine, \u201cGod chose Israel as His people.\u201d\nThe election of Israel as the chosen people of God, or, what amounts to\nthe same, as the nation whose special task and historic mission it is to\nbe the bearer of the most lofty truths of religion among mankind, forms\nthe basis and the chief condition of revelation. Before God proclaimed the\nTen Words of the Covenant on Sinai, He addressed the people through His\nchosen messenger, Moses, saying: \u201cYe have seen what I did unto the\nEgyptians, and how I bore you on eagles\u2019 wings, and brought you unto\nMyself. Now therefore, if ye will hearken unto My voice, indeed, and keep\nMy covenant, then ye shall be Mine own treasure from among all peoples,\nfor all the earth is Mine; and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests,\nand a holy nation.\u201d(1021)\n\n2. The fact of Israel\u2019s election by God as His peculiar nation is repeated\nin Deuteronomy, with the special declaration that God had found delight in\nthem as the smallest of the peoples, on account of the love and the faith\nHe had sworn to the Patriarchs.(1022) It is accentuated in the Synagogal\nliturgy, especially in the prayer for holy days which begins with the\nwords: \u201cThou hast chosen us from all peoples; Thou hast loved us and found\npleasure in us and hast exalted us above all tongues; Thou hast sanctified\nus by Thy commandments and brought us near unto Thy service, O King, and\nhast called us by Thy great and holy name.\u201d(1023) Inasmuch as the election\nof Israel is connected with the deliverance of the people from Egypt, the\nwhole relation of the Jewish nation to its God assumes from the outset an\nessentially different character from that of other nations to their\ndeities. The God of Israel is not inseparably connected with His people by\nmere natural bonds, as is the case with every other ancient divinity. He\nis not a national God in the ordinary sense. He has chosen Israel freely\nof His own accord. \u201cWhen Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of\nEgypt I called My son,\u201d says God through Hosea,(1024) and thus prefers to\ncall Himself \u201cthy God from the land of Egypt.\u201d This election from love is\nechoed also in Jeremiah, who said, \u201cIsrael is the Lord\u2019s hallowed portion,\nHis first-fruits of the increase.\u201d(1025) The moral relation between God\nand Israel is most clearly characterized, however, by Amos, in the words:\n\u201cYou only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will\nvisit upon you all your iniquities.\u201d(1026) Here is stated in explicit\nterms that the God of history selected Israel as an instrument for His\nplan of salvation, in the expectation that he would remain faithful to His\nwill.\n\n3. The real purpose of the election and mission of Israel was announced by\nthe great prophet of the Exile when he called Israel the \u201cservant of the\nLord,\u201d who has been formed from his mother\u2019s bosom and delivered from\nevery other bondage, in order that he may declare the praise of God among\nthe peoples, and be a harbinger of light and a bond of union among the\nnations, the witness of God, the proclaimer of His truth and righteousness\nthroughout the world.(1027) The entire history of Israel as far back as\nthe Patriarchs was reconstructed in this light, and we find the election\nof Abraham also similarly described in the Psalms(1028) and in the\nliturgy. Indeed, in every morning prayer for the past two thousand years\nthe Jewish people have offered thanks to God for the divine teaching that\nhas been intrusted to their care, and praised Him \u201cwho has chosen Israel\nin love.\u201d(1029)\n\n4. The belief in the election of Israel rests on the conviction that the\nJewish people has a certain superiority over other peoples in being\nespecially qualified to be the messenger and champion of religious truth.\nIn one sense this prerogative takes into account every people which has\ncontributed something unique to any department of human power or\nknowledge, and therein has served others as pattern and guide. From the\nbroader standpoint, all great historic peoples appear as though appointed\nby divine providence for their special cultural tasks, in which others can\nat most emulate them without achieving their greatness. Yet we cannot\nspeak in quite the same way of the election of the Greeks or Romans or of\nthe nations of remote antiquity for mastery in art and science, or for\nskill in jurisprudence and statecraft. The fact is that these nations were\nnever fully conscious that they had a historic or providential destiny to\ninfluence mankind in this special direction. Israel alone was\nself-conscious, realizing its task as harbinger and defender of its\nreligious truth as soon as it had entered into its possession. Its\nelection, therefore, does not imply presumption, but rather a grave duty\nand responsibility. As the great seer of the Captivity had already\ndeclared, to be the servant of the Lord is to undergo the destiny of\nsuffering, to be \u201cthe man of sorrow,\u201d from whose bruises comes healing\nunto all mankind.(1030)\n\n5. Accordingly the election of Israel cannot be regarded as a single\ndivine act, concluded at one moment of revelation, or even during the\nBiblical period. It must instead be considered a divine call persisting\nthrough all ages and encompassing all lands, a continuous activity of the\nspirit which has ever summoned for itself new heralds and heroes to\ntestify to truth, justice, and sublime faith, with an unparalleled scorn\nfor death, and to work for their dissemination by words and deeds and by\ntheir whole life. Judaism differs from all other religions in that it is\nneither the creation of one great moral teacher and preacher of truth, nor\nseeks to typify the moral and spiritual sublimity which it aims to develop\nin a single person, who is then lifted up into the realm of the\nsuperhuman. Judaism counts its prophets, its sages, and its martyrs by\ngenerations; it is still demonstrating its power to reshape and regenerate\nreligion as a vital force. Moreover, Judaism does not separate religion\nfrom life, so as to regard only a segment of the common life and the\nnational existence as holy. The entire people, the entire life, must bear\nthe stamp of holiness and be filled with priestly consecration. Whether\nthis lofty aim can ever be completely attained is a question not to be\ndecided by short-sighted humanity, but only by God, the Ruler of history.\nIt is sufficient that the life of the individual as well as that of the\npeople should aspire toward this ideal.\n\n6. Of course, the election of Israel presupposes an inner calling, a\nspecial capacity of soul and tendency of intellect which fit it for the\ndivine task. The people which has given mankind its greatest prophets and\npsalmists, its boldest thinkers and its noblest martyrs, which has brought\nto fruition the three great world-religions, the Church, the Mosque,\nand\u2014mother of them both\u2014the Synagogue, must be the religious people _par\nexcellence_. It must have within itself enough of the heavenly spark of\ntruth and of the impetus of the religious genius as to be able and eager,\nwhenever and wherever the opportunity is favorable, to direct the\nspiritual flight of humanity toward the highest and holiest. In fact, the\nsoul of the Jewish people reveals a peculiar mingling of characteristics,\na union of contrasts, which makes it especially fit for its providential\nmission in history. Together with the marked individuality of each person\nwe find a common spirit highly sensitive to every encroachment. Here there\nis a tenacious adherence to what is old and traditional, and there an\neager assimilation of what is new and strange. On the one hand, a\nmaterialistic self-interest; on the other, an idealism soaring to the\nstars.(1031) The sages of the Tannaitic period already remarked that\nIsrael has been intrusted with the law which it is to defend and to\ndisseminate, just because it is the boldest and most obstinate of\nnations.(1032) On the other hand, the three special characteristics of the\nJewish people according to the Talmud are its chastity and purity of life,\nits benevolence and its active love for humanity.(1033) A heathen scoffer\ncalls Israel \u201ca people of generous impulses which promised at Sinai to do\nwhat God would command, even before it had hearkened to the\ncommandments.\u201d(1034) \u201cGentle and shy as a dove, it is also willing like\nthe dove to stretch out its neck for the sacrifice, for love of its\nheavenly Father,\u201d says the Haggadist.(1035) And yet R. Johanan remarks\nthat Israel, called to be the bearer of light to the world, must be\npressed like the olive before it will yield its precious oil.(1036) Every\nindividual in Israel possesses the requisite qualities for a holy\npriest-people, according to a Midrash of the Tannaitic period, and hence\nwe read in Deuteronomy, \u201cThe Lord hath chosen thee to be His own treasure\nout of all peoples that are upon the face of the earth.\u201d(1037)\n\n7. All these and similar sayings disprove completely the idea that the\nelection of Israel was an arbitrary act of God. It is due rather to\nhereditary virtues and to tendencies of mind and spirit which equip Israel\nfor his calling. To this must be added the important fact that God\neducated the people for its task through the Law, which was to make it\nconscious of its priestly sanctity and keep it ever active in mind and\nheart. The election of Israel is emphasized in Deuteronomy especially in\nconnection with the prohibition of marriage with idolaters and with the\nprohibition of unclean animals, which also originated in the priestly\nlaws.(1038) The underlying idea is that the mission of Israel to battle\nfor the Most High imperatively demands separation from the heathen\npeoples, and on the other hand, that its priestly calling necessitates an\nespecial abstinence. And as has the law in its development and realization\nfor thousands of years, so has also God\u2019s wise guidance trained Israel in\nthe course of history so as to render him at times the unyielding\npreserver and defender and at other times the bold champion and\nprotagonist of the highest truth and justice, according as the outlook and\nthe mental horizon of the period were narrow or broad.\n\n8. It is true that the thought of Israel\u2019s calling and mission in\nworld-history first became clear when its prophets and sages attained a\nview of great world-movements from the lofty watch-tower of the centuries,\nso that they could take cognizance of the varying relations of Judaism to\nthe civilized peoples around. The summons of the Jewish people to be\nheralds of truth and workers for peace is first mentioned in Isaiah and\nMicah,(1039) while only in the great movement of nations under Cyrus did\nthe seer of the Exile recognize the peculiar mission of Israel in the\nhistory of the world. If in gloomy periods the outlook became dark, still\nthe hope for the fulfillment of this mission was never entirely lost. In\nfact, the contact of the Jewish people with Greek culture after Alexander\nthe Great gave new power and fresh impetus to the conception of Israel\u2019s\nmission,(1040) as the rich Hellenistic literature and the vision of Daniel\nin chapter VII testify. In fact, Abraham, the ancestor of the Jewish\npeople, became for the earliest Haggadists a wandering missionary and a\ngreat preacher of the unity of God, and his picture was the pattern for\nboth Paul and Mohammed.(1041) The election of Israel is clearly and\nunequivocally expressed by Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedath in the words, \u201cGod\nsent Israel among the heathen nations that they may win a rich harvest of\nproselytes, for, as God said through Hosea, \u2018I will sow her unto Me in the\nland,\u2019 so He wishes from this seed to reap a bountiful and world-wide\nharvest.\u201d(1042)\n\n9. In the Middle Ages, when the historical viewpoint and the idea of human\nprogress were both lacking, the belief in the mission of Israel was\nconfined to the Messianic hope. Both Jehuda ha Levi and Maimonides,\nhowever, regard Christianity and Islam as preparatory steps for the\nMessiah, who is to unify the world through the knowledge of God.(1043)\n\u201cThe work of the Messiah is the fruit, of which Israel will be universally\nacknowledged as the root,\u201d says the Jewish sage in the Cuzari. Therefore\nhe rightly accepts the election of Israel as a fundamental doctrine of\nbelief. Modern times, however, with their awakened historical sense and\ntheir idea of progress, have again placed in the foreground the belief in\nthe election and mission of Israel. The founders of reform Judaism have\ncast this ancient doctrine in a new form. On the one hand, they have\nreinterpreted the Messianic hope in the prophetic spirit, as the\nrealization of the highest ideals of a united humanity. On the other, they\nhave rejected the entire theory that Israel was exiled from his ancient\nland because of his sins, and that he is eventually to return there and to\nrestore the sacrificial cult in the Temple at Jerusalem. Therefore the\nwhole view concerning Israel\u2019s future had to undergo a\ntransformation.(1044) The historic mission of Israel as priest of humanity\nand champion of truth assumed a higher meaning, and his peculiar position\nin history and in the Law necessarily received a different interpretation\nfrom that of Talmudic Judaism or that of the Church. As individuals,\nindeed, many Jews have taken part in the achievements and efforts of all\ncivilized peoples; the Jewish people as such has accomplished great things\nin only one field, the field of religion. The following chapters will\nconsider more closely how Judaism has taken up and carried out this sacred\nmission.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XLIX. The Kingdom of God and the Mission of Israel\n\n\n1. The hope of Judaism for the future is comprised in the phrase, \u201cthe\nkingdom of God,\u201d\u2014_malkuth shaddai_ or _malkuth Shamayim_,\u2014which means the\nsovereign rule of God. From ancient times the liturgy of the Synagogue\nconcludes regularly with the solemn _Alenu_, in which God is addressed as\nthe \u201cKing of kings of kings\u201d\u2014king of kings being the Persian title for the\nruler of the whole Empire\u2014and directly after this the hope is expressed\nthat \u201cwe may speedily behold the glory of Thy might, when Thou wilt remove\nthe abominations from the earth, and the idols will be utterly cut off;\nwhen the world will be perfected under the kingdom of the Almighty, and\nall the children of flesh will call upon Thy name; when Thou wilt turn\nunto Thyself all the wicked of the earth. Let all the inhabitants of the\nearth perceive and know that unto Thee every knee must bend, and every\ntongue give homage. Let them all accept the yoke of Thy kingdom, and do\nThou reign over them speedily, and forever and ever.\u201d(1045) At the close\nof the Torah lesson in the house of learning the assembly regularly\nrecited the blessing, \u201cPraised be Thy name! May Thy kingdom soon\ncome!\u201d\u2014afterwards known as the _Kaddish_,(1046) and re\u00ebchoed in the\nso-called \u201cLord\u2019s Prayer\u201d of the Church. The words of the prophet, \u201cThe\nLord shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall the Lord be One,\nand His name One,\u201d(1047) voiced for all ages this ideal of the future, and\nthus gave a goal and a purpose to the history of the world and at the same\ntime centered it in Israel, the chosen people of God.\n\n2. The establishment of the kingdom of the One and Only God throughput the\nentire world constitutes the divine plan of salvation toward which,\naccording to Jewish teaching, the efforts of all the ages are tending.\nThis \u201cKingdom of God\u201d is not, however, a kingdom of heaven in the world to\ncome, which men are to enter only after death, and then only if redeemed\nfrom sin by accepting the belief in a supernatural Savior as their\nMessiah, as is taught by the Church. Judaism points to God\u2019s Kingdom on\n_earth_ as the goal and hope of mankind, to a world in which all men and\nnations shall turn away from idolatry and wickedness, falsehood and\nviolence, and become united in their recognition of the sovereignty of\nGod, the Holy One, as proclaimed by Israel, His servant and herald, the\nMessiah of the nations. It is not the hope of bliss in a future life\n(which is the leading motive of Christianity), but the building up of the\ndivine kingdom of truth, justice, and peace among men by Israel\u2019s teaching\nand practice.(1048) In this sense God speaks through the mouth of the\nprophet, \u201cI will also give thee for a light of the nations, that My\nsalvation may be unto the end of the earth.\u201d(1049) \u201cAll the ends of the\nearth shall see the salvation of our God.\u201d(1050) \u201cThe remnant of Jacob\nshall be in the midst of many peoples, as dew from the Lord, as showers\nupon the grass.\u201d(1051)\n\n3. Clearly, the idea of a world-kingdom of God arose only as the result of\nthe gradual development of the Jewish God-consciousness. It was necessary\nat first that the prophetic idea of God\u2019s kingship, the theocracy in\nIsrael, should triumph over the monarchical view and absorb it. The\npatriarchal life of the shepherd was certainly not favorable to a\nmonarchical rule. \u201cI will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule\nover you, the Lord shall rule over you,\u201d said Gideon in refusing the title\nof king which the people had offered him.(1052) According to one tradition\nSamuel blamed the people for desiring a king and thereby rejecting the\ndivine kingship.(1053) \u201cI give thee a king in Mine anger,\u201d says God\nthrough Hosea.(1054) The more the monarchy, with its exclusively worldly\nand materialistic aims, came into conflict with the demands of the\nprophets and their religious truth, the higher rose the prophetic hope for\nthe dawning of a day when God alone would rule in absolute sovereignty\nover the entire world. Now, in the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, with its\nfrequently changing dynasties, the old patriarchal conception was\ndominant, while in the kingdom of Judah, which remained loyal to the house\nof David, the monarchical idea developed. Isaiah, living in Jerusalem and\nfavorably disposed towards the monarchy, prophesied that a shoot from the\nhouse of David, endowed with marvelous spiritual powers, should come\nforth, occupying the throne in the place of God, and through his victories\nwould plant righteousness and the knowledge of God everywhere upon earth,\nand establish throughout the world a wonderful reign of peace.(1055) Upon\nthis royal \u201cshoot\u201d of David(1056) rested the Messianic hope during the\nExile, and amidst the disappointments of the time this vision became all\nthe more idealized. In contrast to this the great prophet of the Exile\nannounced the establishment of the absolute dominion of God as the true\n\u201cKing of Israel\u201d(1057) over all the earth by the nucleus of Israel, \u201cthe\nservant of God,\u201d who would become conscious of his great historic mission\nin the world and be willing to offer his very life in its cause. In all\nthis the prophet makes no reference to the royal house of David, but makes\nbold to confer the title of the \u201canointed of God\u201d\u2014that is, Messiah\u2014upon\nCyrus, the king of Persia, as the one who was to usher in the new\nera.(1058) Subsequently these two divergent hopes for the future run\nparallel in the Psalms and the liturgy as well as in the apocryphal and\nrabbinic literature.\n\n4. While the Messianic aspirations as such bore rather a political and\nnational character in Judaism (as will be explained in Chapter LIII), yet\nthe religious hope for a universal kingdom of God took root even more\ndeeply in the heart of the Jewish people. It created the conception of\nIsrael\u2019s mission and also the literature and activity of the Hellenistic\npropaganda, and it gave a new impetus to the making of proselytes among\nthe heathen, to which both Christianity and Islam owe their existence. The\nwords of Isaiah, repeated later by Habakkuk, \u201cThe earth will be full of\nthe knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea,\u201d(1059) became now\nan article of faith. While in earlier times the rule of Israel\u2019s God,\nJHVH, was attached to Zion, from whose holy mount He ruled as invisible\nKing,(1060) later on we find Zechariah proclaiming Him who was enthroned\nin heaven as having dominion over the entire earth,(1061) and the Psalter\nsummons all nations to acknowledge, adore, and extol Him as King of the\nworld.(1062) Nay, at the very time when Judah lay humbled to the ground,\nthe prophet exclaimed, \u201cWho would not fear Thee, O King of the nations?\nfor it befitteth Thee; forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations,\nand in all their royalty there is none like unto Thee.\u201d(1063) Israel\u2019s\ngreat hope for the future is expressed most completely and in most sublime\nlanguage in the New Year liturgy: \u201cO Lord our God, impose Thine awe upon\nall Thy works, and let Thy dread be upon all that Thou hast created, that\nthey may all form one single band to do Thy will with a perfect heart....\nOur God and God of our fathers, reveal Thyself in Thy splendor as King\nover all the inhabitants of the world, that every handiwork of Thine may\nknow that Thou hast made it, and every creature may acknowledge that Thou\nhast created it, and whatsoever hath breath in its nostrils may say: the\nLord God of Israel is King, and His dominion ruleth over all.\u201d(1064)\n\n5. In the earlier period, then, the rule of JHVH seems to have been\nconfined to Israel as the people of His covenant. During the Second Temple\nJerusalem was called the \u201ccity of the great King\u201d(1065) and the\nconstitution was considered by Josephus to have been a theocracy, that is,\na government by God.(1066) Indeed, the entire Mosaic code has as its main\npurpose to make Israel a \u201ckingdom of priests,\u201d over which JHVH, the God of\nthe covenant, was alone to rule as King. The chief object of the strict\nnationalists, in opposition to the cosmopolitanism of the Hellenists, was\nthat this government of God, in its intimate association with the Holy\nLand and the Holy People, should be maintained unchanged for all the\nfuture. Thus the book of Daniel predicts the speedy downfall of the fourth\nworld-kingdom and the establishment of the kingdom of God through Israel,\n\u201cthe people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom is an\neverlasting kingdom.\u201d(1067) Naturally, such a purely nationalistic\nconception of the rulership of God does not admit the thought of a mission\nor its corollary, the conversion of the heathen.(1068) These appear among\nthe liberal school of Hillel in their opposition to the more rigorous\nShammaites and the party of the Zealots.(1069) It is, therefore, quite\nconsistent that the modern nationalists should again dispute the mission\nof Israel.\n\n6. As soon as Jewish monotheism had once been conceived by the Jewish mind\nas the universal truth, the idea of the mission of Israel as a bearer of\nlight and a witness of God for the nations, as enunciated by\nDeutero-Isaiah, became ever more firmly established. Many Psalms exhort\nthe people to make known the wondrous doings of God among the nations, so\nthat the heathen world might at last acknowledge the One and Only\nGod.(1070) Nay, Israel is even called God\u2019s anointed and prophet,(1071)\nand in one Psalm we find Zion, the city of God, elevated to be the\nreligious metropolis of the world.(1072) The book of Jonah is simply a\nrefutation of the narrow nationalistic conception of Judaism; it holds\nforth the hope of the conversion of the heathen to the true knowledge of\nGod. In the same spirit Ruth the Moabitess became the type of the heathen\nwho are eager to \u201ctake refuge under the wings of God\u2019s majesty.\u201d(1073) The\nauthor of the book of Job no longer knows of a national God; to him God is\nthe highest ideal of morality as it lives and grows in the human heart.\nThe wisdom literature also teaches a God of humanity. Under His wings Shem\nand Japheth, the teaching of the Jew and the wisdom of the Greek, can join\nhands; the religious truth of the one and the philosophic truth of the\nother may harmoniously blend.\n\n7. Thus a new impulse was given to Jewish proselytism in Alexandria, and\nthe earlier history of Israel, especially the pre-Israelite epoch with its\nsimple human types, was read in a new light. Enoch(1074) and Noah(1075)\nbecame preachers of penitence, heralds of the pure monotheism from which\nthe heathen world had departed. Abraham especially, the progenitor of\nIsrael, was looked upon as a prototype of the wandering missionary people,\nconverting the heathen.(1076) Wherever he journeyed, his teaching and his\nexample of true benevolence won souls for the Lord proclaimed by him as\nthe \u201cGod of the heaven and the earth.\u201d(1077) In this sense of missionary\nactivity were now interpreted the words, \u201cBe thou a blessing ... and in\nthy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.\u201d(1078) This was no\nlonger understood in the original sense, that Abraham by his prosperity\nshould be an example of a blessed man, to be pointed out in blessing\nothers; the words were given the higher meaning that Abraham with his\ndescendants should become a source of blessing for mankind through his\nteachings and his conduct, so that all the families of men should attain\nblessing and salvation by following his doctrine and example. Thus the\nidea of the Jewish mission was connected with Abraham, the \u201cfather of a\nmultitude of nations,\u201d(1079) and this was later on adopted by Paul and\nMohammed in establishing the Church and the Mosque.\n\n8. In contradistinction, then, to the political concept of the kingdom of\nGod, which Ezekiel still hoped to see established by the exercise of\nexternal power,(1080) the idea assumed now a purely spiritual meaning.\nThis kingdom of God is accepted by the pious Jew every morning through his\nconfession of the divine Unity in the Shema. Abraham had anticipated this,\nsay the rabbis, when he swore by the God of heaven and earth, and so also\nhad Israel in accepting the Torah at Sinai and at the Red Sea.(1081) In\nfact, the kingdom of God began, we are told, with the first man, since,\nwhen he adored God freely as King of the world, every living creature\nacknowledged Him also. But only when Israel as a people proclaimed God\u2019s\ndominion at the Red Sea, was the throne of God and His kingdom on earth\nestablished for eternity.(1082) And when Ezekiel says: \u201cWith a mighty hand\nwill I be King over you,\u201d they explain this to mean that the people chosen\nas the servant of God will be continually constrained anew by the prophets\nto recognize His kingdom.(1083) Yea, the closing words of the Song at the\nRed Sea, \u201cThe Lord shall reign for ever and ever\u201d were taken to imply that\nall the nations would in the end recognize only Israel\u2019s One God as King\nof the world.(1084) As a matter of fact, the rabbinical view is that every\nproselyte, in \u201ctaking upon himself the yoke of the sovereignty of God,\u201d\nenters that divine Kingdom which at the end of time will embrace all men\nand nations.(1085) In the book of Tobit and the Sibylline Oracles also we\nfind this universalistic conception of the Messianic age expressed.(1086)\n\n9. Accordingly, proselytism found open and solemn recognition both before\nand after the time of the Maccabees, as we see in the Psalms,\u2014especially\nthose which speak of proselytes in the term, \u201cthey that fear the\nLord,\u201d(1087) and also in the ancient synagogal liturgy, where the\n\u201cproselytes of righteousness\u201d are especially mentioned.(1088) The school\nof Hillel followed precisely this course. Matters changed, however, under\nthe Roman dominion, which was contrasted to the dominion of God especially\nfrom the time of Herod, when the belief became current that \u201conly when the\none is destroyed, will the other arise.\u201d(1089) Particularly after the\nChristian Church had become identified with Rome, all missionary endeavors\nby the Jews were considered dangerous and were therefore discouraged as\nmuch as possible. In their place arose the hope for a miraculous\nintervention of God. In Hellenistic circles the Messiah was believed to be\nthe future founder of the kingdom of God,(1090) which assumed more and\nmore of an other-worldly nature, such as the Church developed for it later\non.\n\n10. The more the harsh oppression of the times forced the Jew to isolate\nhimself and to spend his life in studying and practicing the law,\u2014which\nwas tantamount to \u201cplacing himself under the kingdom of God,\u201d(1091) the\nmore he lost sight of his sublime mission for the world at large. Only\nindividual thinkers, such as Jehuda ha Levi and Maimonides, kept a vision\nof the world-mission of Israel, when they called Jesus and Mohammed, as\nfounders of Christianity and Islam, messengers of God to the idolatrous\nnations, divinely appointed to bring them nearer to Israel\u2019s truth,(1092)\nor when they pointed forward to the time when all peoples will recognize\nin the truth their common mother and in God the Father of all\nmankind.(1093) A most instructive Midrash on Zechariah IX, 9 gives the\nkeynote of this belief. \u201cAt that time God as the King of Zion will speak\nto the righteous of all times, and say to them, \u2018Dear as the words of My\nteaching are to Me, yet have ye erred in that ye have followed only My\nTorah, and have not waited for My world-kingdom. I swear to you that I\nshall remember for good him who has waited for My kingdom, as it is said,\nWait ye for Me until the day that I rise up as a witness.\u2019 \u201d(1094)\n\nOn the other hand, it was owing to the sad consequences of the missionary\nendeavors of the Church that the idea of the mission of Judaism was given\na different direction. Not conversion, but conviction by teaching and\nexample, is the historic task of Judaism, whose maxim is expressed in the\nverse of Zechariah, \u201cNot by might, nor by power, but by My spirit, saith\nthe Lord of hosts.\u201d(1095) It is not the creed, but the deed, which tells.\nNot the confession, but conduct, with the moral principles which govern\nit, counts. Such a view is implied in the well-known teaching of Joshua\nben Hananiah, \u201cThe righteous of all nations will have a share in the world\nof eternal bliss.\u201d(1096) Judaism does not deny salvation to those\nprofessing other religions, which would tend to undermine the foundation\nof their spiritual life. Standing upon the high watchtower of time, it\nrather strives ever to clarify and strengthen the universal longing for\ntruth and righteousness which lies at the heart of all religion, and is\nthus to become a bond of union, an all-illuminating light for the world.\nTo quote the beautiful words of Leopold Stein in his _Schrift des\nLebens_:(1097) \u201cJudaism, while recognizing the historic justification of\nall systems of thought and faith, does not cherish the ambition to become\nthe Church Universal in the usual sense of the term, but aims rather to be\nthe focus, or mirror, of religious unity for all the rest. \u2018The people\nfrom of old,\u2019 as the prophet called them, are to accompany mankind in its\nprogress through the ages and the continents, until it reaches the goal of\nthe kingdom of God on earth, the \u2018new heaven and new earth\u2019 of the\nprophetic vision.\u201d(1098) The thought of the Jewish mission is most\nadequately expressed in the Neilah service of the Union Prayer Book, based\nupon the Einhorn Prayerbook, which reads as follows:(1099) \u201cEndow us, our\nGuardian, with strength and patience for our holy mission. Grant that all\nthe children of Thy people may recognize the goal of our changeful career,\nso that they may exemplify by their zeal and love for mankind the truth of\nIsrael\u2019s watchword: One humanity on earth, even as there is but One God in\nheaven. Enlighten all that call themselves by Thy name with the knowledge\nthat the sanctuary of wood and stone, which erst crowned Zion\u2019s hill, was\nbut a gate through which Israel should step out into the world, to\nreconcile all mankind unto Thee!\u201d\n\n\n\n\nChapter L. The Priest-people and its Law of Holiness\n\n\n1. The checkered, stormy, and yet triumphant march of the Jewish people\nthrough the ages remains the great enigma of history for all those who do\nnot believe in a divine plan of salvation to be consummated through\nIsrael. The idea of Israel\u2019s mission alone throws light on its law and its\ndestiny. Even before God had revealed to the people at Mt. Sinai the Ten\nCommandments, the foundation of all religion and morality, and there\nconcluded with them a covenant for all time, He spoke: \u201cYe shall be unto\nMe a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,\u201d thus consecrating them to be a\npriest-people among the nations, and enjoining them to a life of especial\nholiness. Possessing as a heritage from the Patriarchs the germ of a\nhigher religious consciousness, in distinction from all other peoples,\nthey were to make the cultivation, development, and promotion of the\nhighest religious truth their life-task, and thus to become the people of\nGod. At first they were to establish in the Holy Land a theocratic\ngovernment, a State in which God alone was the Ruler, while they lived in\npriestly isolation from all the nations around. Thus they prepared\nthemselves for the time when, scattered over all the earth, they might\nagain work as the priest-people through the ages for the upbuilding of the\nuniversal kingdom of God. This was Israel\u2019s destiny from the very first,\nas expressed by the great seer of the Exile when he beheld Israel\nwandering forth among the nations, \u201cYe shall be named the priests of the\nLord; men shall call you the ministers of our God.\u201d(1100)\n\n2. Among all religions the priest is considered especially holy as the\nmediator between God and man, and in his appearance as well as in his mode\nof life he must observe special forms of purity and holiness. He alone may\napproach the Godhead, ascertain its will, and administer the sacrificial\ncult in the sanctuary. He must represent the Divinity in its relation to\nthe people, embody it in his outward life, enjoy nothing which it abhors,\nand touch nothing which could render him impure. These priestly rules\nexist among all the nations of antiquity in striking similarity, and\nindicate a common origin in the prehistoric period, during which the\nentire cult developed through a priestly caste, beginning with simple,\nprimitive conceptions and transmitted in ever more elaborate form from\nfather to son. It goes without saying that the priests of the original\nHebrew race, which migrated from Babylonia, retained the ancient customs\nand rules. They must also have adopted many other things from neighboring\npeoples. During the entire period of the first temple, the priests\u2014despite\nall prophetic warnings\u2014preferred the heathen cult with its vainglorious\npomp to the simple worship of the patriarchal times. As everywhere else,\nthe priesthood of Israel, and later of Jud\u00e6a as well, thought only of its\nown interests, of the retention of its ancient prerogatives, unmindful of\nthe higher calling to which it had been chosen, to serve the God of truth\nand justice, to exemplify true holiness, to stand for moral rather than\nceremonial purity. Yet the sacerdotal institutions were indispensable so\nlong as the people required a sanctuary where the Deity should dwell, and\nwhere the sacrificial cult should be administered. Every trespass by a\nlayman on the sanctuary reserved for the priests was considered sacrilege\nand called for divine punishment. It was thus necessary to deepen the\npopular notion of holiness and of the reverence due the sanctuary, before\nthese could be elevated into the realm of spirituality and morality. The\npriesthood had to be won for the service of the loftier religious ideas,\nso that it might gradually educate the people in general for its sublime\npriestly mission. This conception underlies both the Mosaic law and its\nrabbinical interpretation.\n\n3. Through Biblical and post-Biblical literature and history there runs a\ntwofold tendency, one anti-sacerdotal,\u2014emanating from the prophets and\nlater the Hasideans or Pharisees,\u2014the other a mediating tendency,\nfavorable to the priesthood. The ritualistic piety of the priests was\nbitterly assailed by the prophets as being subversive of all morality, and\nlater on the Sadducean hierarchy also constituted a threat to the moral\nand spiritual welfare of the people. Before even the revelation at Sinai\nwas to take place, we read that warning was given to the priests \u201cnot to\nbreak through\u201d and stand above the people.(1101)\n\nOn the other hand, the law demands of the Aaronites a peculiar degree of\nholiness, since \u201cthey offer the bread of their God upon the altar.\u201d(1102)\nTheir blood must be kept pure by the avoidance of improper marriages.\nEverything unclean or polluting must be kept far from them.(1103) The law,\nfollowing a tradition which probably arose in ancient Babylon, prescribed\nminutely their mode of admission into the divine service, their vestments\nand their conditions of life, the ritual of sacrifice and of purity; and\nevery violation of these laws, every trespass by a layman, was declared to\nbe punishable with death.(1104) The sanctuary contains no room for the\n_nation_ of _priests_; no layman durst venture to cross its threshold.\nEven in the legal system of the rabbis the ancient rights and privileges\nof the priesthood, dating from the time when they possessed no property,\nremained inviolate, and their precedence in everything was\nundisputed.(1105)\n\nThe glaring contrast between the idea of a universal priesthood of the\npeople and the institution of the Aaronites is explained by a deeper\ninsight into history. The success of the reformation under Josiah on the\nbasis of the Deuteronomic code rested in the last analysis on the fact\nthat the priests of the house of Zadok at Jerusalem were placed in the\nservice of the higher prophetic teaching by being rendered the guardians,\nexecutors, and later, in conjunction with the Levites, the teachers of the\nLaw, as it was presented in the book of the law of Moses, soon afterward\ncompleted. The priesthood, deprived of everything that might remind one of\nthe former idolatry and heathenish practices, was, in its purer and holier\ncharacter, to lead the priest-people to true moral holiness through its\nconnection with the sanctuary and its ancient cult. Still the impulse for\nthe moral rebirth of the nation, for the establishment of a priest-people,\ndid not emanate from the Temple priesthood, nor even from the sacred soil\nof Palestine; but from the Synagogue, which began in the Exile, under the\ninfluence of the prophetic word and the Levitical song, in the form of\npublic worship by the congregation of the pious. Here arose a generation\nof godly men, a class of singularly devout ones, living in priestly\nholiness, who consecrated their lives to the practice of the law, and whom\nthe exile seer had designated as the true Israel, the servant of the Lord,\nand these formed the nucleus of the renewed Israel.\n\n4. That which the prophet Ezekiel had attempted in his proposed\nconstitution(1106) was accomplished in a far more thorough manner by the\nHoliness Code, which emanated from his school and became the central\nportion of the Mosaic books, and by the so-called Priestly Code, which\nfollowed later. The object was to bring about the sanctification of the\nentire people upon the holy soil of the national land, through\ninstitutions embodying the ideal of the holiness of God in the life and\ncult of the people. Circumcision, idealized by the prophetic author of\nDeuteronomy,(1107) was to be made the sign of the covenant to mark as holy\nthe progeny of Abraham;(1108) strict laws of marriage were to put an end\nto all heathenish unchastity; the Sabbath rest was to consecrate the\nlabors of the week, the Sabbatical month and year the produce of the\nsoil.(1109) The prohibition of unclean foods, heretofore reserved, as\namong other nations, for the priests and other consecrated persons, was\nnow applied to the whole community in order that Israel should learn \u201cto\nset itself apart from all other nations as a holy people.\u201d(1110) Even\ntheir apparel was to proclaim the priestly holiness of the people by a\nblue fringe at the border of the garments.(1111)\n\nWhereas from the time of Ezra to Simon the Just priestly rulers endeavored\nto promote the work of educating the people for holiness, the pious men\nfrom among the people made still greater efforts to assert the claim of\nholiness for the entire Jewish people as a priest-nation.(1112) The\nrepasts of these pious fellowships should be in no way inferior in\nsanctity to those of the priests in the Temple. New ceremonies of\nsanctification were to open and close the Sabbaths and festivals. Symbols\nof priestly consecration should adorn forehead and arm in the form of the\nphylacteries (_tefillin_), and should be placed at the entrance of every\nhouse in the so-called _mezuzzah_. \u201cGod has given unto all an heritage\n(the Torah), the kingdom, the priesthood, and the sanctuary\u201d(1113)\u2014this\nbecame the _leitmotif_ for the Pharisaic school, who constantly enlarged\nthe domain of piety so that it should include the whole of life. Whoever\ndid not belong to this circle of the pious was regarded with scorn as one\nof the lower class (_am ha-aretz_).\n\n5. The chief effort of the pious, the founders of the Judaism of the\nSynagogue, was to keep the Jewish people from the demoralizing influences\nof pagan nature-worship, represented first by Semitic and later by Greek\nculture. The leaders of the Pharisees \u201cbuilt a fence about the law\u201d(1114)\nextending the prohibition of mingling with the heathen nations so as also\nto prohibit eating with them and participating in their feasts and social\ngatherings,\u2014not for the preservation of the Jewish race merely, as\nChristian theologians maintain, but for the sake of keeping its inner life\nintact and pure.(1115) \u201cGod surrounded us with brazen walls, hedged us in\nwith laws of purity in regard to food and drink and physical contact, yea,\neven to that which we see and hear, in order that we should be pure in\nbody and soul, free from absurd beliefs, not polluted by contact with\nothers or through association with the wicked; for most of the peoples\ndefile themselves with their sexual practices, and whole lands pride\nthemselves upon it. But we hold ourselves aloof from all this\u201d\u2014so spoke\nEleazar the priest to King Ptolemy Philadelphus, according to the Letter\nof Aristeas, thus giving expression to the sentiment most deeply rooted in\nthe souls of the pious of that period.(1116) They strove to build up a\nnation of whom the Tannaim could say, \u201cWhoever possesses no sense of shame\nand chastity, of him it is certain that his ancestors did not stand at\nSinai.\u201d(1117)\n\nNaturally enough, the Greek and Roman people took offense at this\naloofness and separation from every contact with the outer world, and\nexplained it as due to a spirit of hostility to mankind. Even up to the\npresent it has been the lot of Jewry and Judaism to be misunderstood by\nthe world at large, to be the object of either its hate or its pity. The\nworld disregards the magnificence of the plan by which an entire people\nwere to be reared as a priest-nation, as citizens of a kingdom of God,\namong whom, in the course of centuries, the seed of prophetic truth was to\ngerminate and sprout forth for the salvation of humanity. If, in complete\ncontrast to heathen immorality, the Jew in his life, his thinking, and his\nwill was governed by the strictest moral discipline; if, in spite of the\nmost cruel persecutions and the most insidious temptations, the Jewish\npeople remained steadfast to its pure belief in God and its traditional\nstandards of chastity, exhibiting a loyalty which amazed the nations and\nthe religious sects about, but was neither understood nor followed by\nthem, this was mainly due to the hallowing influences of the priestly\nlaws. They steeled the people for the fulfillment of their duty and\nshielded them against all hostile powers both within and without. The very\n_burden_ of the law, so bitterly denounced by Christianity since the time\nof Paul, lent Judaism its dignity at all times, protecting it from the\nassaults of the tempter; and that which seemed to the outsider a heavy\nload was to the Jew a source of pride in the consciousness of his divine\nelection.(1118)\n\n6. But most significant in the character and development of Judaism is the\nfact that all the leading ideas and motives which emanated from the\npriesthood of the Jewish people were concentrated in one single focus, the\n_hallowing of the name of God_. Two terms expressed this idea in both a\nnegative and a positive form, the warning against \u201c_Hillul ha\nShem_\u201d\u2014profanation of the name of God\u2014and the duty of \u201c_Kiddush ha\nShem_\u201d\u2014sanctification of God\u2019s name. These exerted a marvelous power in\ncurbing the passions and self-indulgence of the Jew and in spurring him on\nto the greatest possible self-sacrifice and to an unparalleled willingness\nto undergo suffering and martyrdom for the cause. These terms are derived\nfrom the Biblical verse, \u201cYe shall not profane My holy name, but I will be\nhallowed among the children of Israel; I am the Lord who halloweth\nyou.\u201d(1119) This verse forms the concluding sentence of the precepts for\nthe Aaronitic priesthood and warns them as the guardians of the sanctuary\nto do nothing which might in the popular estimation degrade them or the\ndivine cause intrusted to them. When, however, during the Maccabean wars,\nthe little band of the pious proved themselves to be the true priesthood\nin their Opposition to the faithless Aaronites, offering their very lives\nas a sacrifice for the preservation of the true faith in God, the\nScriptural word received a new and higher meaning. It came to signify the\nobligation of the entire priest-people to consecrate the name of God by\nthe sacrifice of their lives, and also their duty to guard against its\nprofanation by any offensive act. In connection with this Scriptural\npassage the sages represent God as saying, \u201cI have brought you out of\nEgypt only on the condition that you are ready to sacrifice your lives, if\nneed be, to consecrate My name.\u201d(1120) From that period it became a duty\nand even a law of Judaism, as Maimonides shows in his Code, for each\nperson in life and in death to bear witness to His God.(1121) \u201cYe are My\nwitnesses, saith the Lord, and I am God\u201d(1122)\u2014and witnesses being in the\nGreek version martyrs, the word afterward received the meaning of\n\u201cblood-witnesses.\u201d\u2014This passage of the prophet is commented on by Simeon\nben Johai, one of the great teachers who suffered under Hadrian\u2019s\npersecution, in the following words, \u201cIf ye become My witnesses, then am I\nyour Lord, God of the world; but if ye do not witness to Me, I cease to\nbe, as it were, the Lord, God of all the world.\u201d(1123) That is to say, it\nis the martyrdom of the pious which glorifies God\u2019s name before all the\nworld. Or, as Felix Perles says so beautifully, \u201cAs every good and noble\nman must ever bear in mind that the dignity of humanity is intrusted to\nhis hand, so should each earnest adherent of the Jewish faith remember\nthat the glory of God is intrusted to his care.\u201d(1124) The Jewish people\nhas fulfilled this priestly task through a martyrdom of over two thousand\nyears and has scornfully resisted every demand to abandon its faith in\nGod, not consenting to do so even in appearance. Surely historians or\nphilosophers who can ridicule or commiserate such resistance betray a\nhatred which blinds their sense of justice. As a matter of fact, it was\nthe consciousness of the Jewish people of its priestly mission that has\nmade it a pattern of loyalty for all time.\n\n7. Moreover, the fear of profaning the divine name became the highest\nincentive to, and safeguard of the morality of the Jew. Every misdeed\ntoward a non-Jew is considered by the teachers of Judaism a double sin,\nyea, sometimes, an unpardonable one, because it gives a false impression\nof the moral standard of Judaism and infringes upon the honor of God as\nwell as that of man. The disciples of Rabbi Simeon ben Shetach once bought\nan ass for him from an Arab, and to their joy found a precious stone in\nits collar. \u201cDid the seller know of this gem?\u201d asked the master. On being\nanswered in the negative, he called out angrily, \u201cDo you consider me a\nbarbarian? Return the Arab his precious stone immediately!\u201d And when the\nheathen received it back, he cried out, \u201cPraised be the God of Simeon ben\nShetach!\u201d(1125) Thus the conscientious Jew honors his God by his conduct,\nsays the Talmud, referring to this and many similar examples. Such lessons\nof the Jew\u2019s responsibility for the recognition of the high moral purity\nof his religion have ever constituted a high barrier against immoral acts.\n\nThe words, \u201cBe ye holy, for I the Lord your God am holy\u201d form\nsignificantly the introduction to the chapter on the love of man, the\nnineteenth chapter of Leviticus, placed at the very center of the entire\nPriestly Code. \u201cYour self-sanctification sanctifies Me, as it were,\u201d says\nGod to Israel, according to the interpretation of this verse by the\nsages.(1126) In contrast to heathendom, which deifies nature with its\nappeal to the senses, Judaism teaches that holiness is a moral quality, as\nit means the curbing of the senses. And in order to prevent Israel, the\nbearer of this ideal of holiness, from sinking into the mire of heathen\nwantonness and lust, the separation of the Jew from the heathen world,\nwhether in his domestic or social life, was a necessity and became the\nrule and maxim of his life for that period. All the many prohibitions and\ncommands had for their object the purification of the people in order to\nrender the highest moral purity a hereditary virtue among them, according\nto the rabbis.(1127)\n\n8. It is true that the accumulation of \u201claw upon law, prohibition upon\nprohibition\u201d by the rabbis had eventually the same injurious effect which\nit had exerted upon the priests in the Temple. The formal law, \u201cthe\nprecepts learned by rote,\u201d became the important factor, while their\npurpose was lost to sight. The shell smothered the kernel, and blind\nobedience to the letter of the law came to be regarded as true piety. It\ncannot be denied that adherence to the mere form, which was transmitted\nfrom the Temple practice to the legalism of the Pharisees and the later\nrabbinic schools with their casuistry, impaired and tarnished the lofty\nprophetic ideal of holiness. It almost seems as if the clarion notes of\nsuch sublime passages as that of the Psalmist,\n\n\n \u201cWho shall ascend into the mountain of the Lord,\n And who shall stand in His holy place?\n He that hath clean hands and a pure heart;\n Who hath not taken My name in vain, and hath not sworn\n deceitfully,\u201d(1128)\n\n\nno longer found its full resonance in the heart of Judaism. In the\npractice of external acts of piety religion became petrified and the\nspirit took flight. That which is of secondary importance became of\nprimary consideration. This is the fundamental error into which the\npractice and the development of the Law in Judaism lapsed, and to which no\ncareful observer can or dares close his eyes. Undoubtedly the Law, as it\nembraced the whole of life in its power, sharpened the Jewish sense of\nduty, and served the Jew as an iron wall of defense against temptations,\naberrations, and enticements of the centuries. As soon as the modern Jew,\nhowever, undertook to free himself from the tutelage of a blind acceptance\nof authority and inquired after the purpose of all the restrictions which\nthe Law laid upon him, his ancient loyalty to the same collapsed and the\npillars of Judaism seemed to be shaken. Then the leaders of Reform, imbued\nwith the prophetic spirit, felt it to be their imperative duty to search\nout the fundamental ideas of the priestly law of holiness, and,\naccordingly, they learned how to separate the kernel from the shell. In\nopposition to the orthodox tendency to worship the letter, they insisted\non the fact that Israel\u2019s separation from the world\u2014which it is ultimately\nto win for the divine truth\u2014cannot itself be its end and aim, and that\nblind obedience to the law does not constitute true piety. Only the\nfundamental idea, that Israel as the \u201cfirst-born\u201d among the nations has\nbeen elected as a priest-people, must remain our imperishable truth, a\ntruth to which the centuries of history bear witness by showing that it\nhas given its life-blood as a ransom for humanity, and is ever bringing\nnew sacrifices for its cause.\n\nOnly because it has kept itself distinct as a priest-people among the\nnations could it carry out its great task in history; and only if it\nremains conscious of its priestly calling and therefore maintains itself\nas the people of God, can it fulfill its mission. Not until the end of\ntime, when all of God\u2019s children will have entered the kingdom of God, may\nIsrael, the high-priest among the nations, renounce his priesthood.\n\n\n\n\nChapter LI. Israel, the People of the Law, and its World Mission\n\n\n1. Judaism differs from all the ancient religions chiefly in its\nintrusting its truth to the whole people instead of a special priesthood.\nThe law which \u201cMoses commanded us is an inheritance of the Congregation of\nJacob,\u201d(1129) is the Scriptural lesson impressed upon every Jew in early\nchildhood. As soon as the Torah passed from the care of the priests into\nthat of the whole nation, the people of the book became the priest-nation,\nand set forth to conquer the world by its religious truth. This aim was\nexpressed by all the prophets beginning with Moses, who said: \u201cWould that\nall the Lord\u2019s people were prophets, that the Lord would put His spirit\nupon them.\u201d(1130) The prophetic ideal was that \u201cthey shall all know Me\n(God), from the least of them unto the greatest of them,\u201d(1131) and that\n\u201call thy (Zion\u2019s) children shall be taught of the Lord.\u201d(1132) After the\npeople came to realize that the Law was \u201ctheir wisdom and understanding in\nthe sight of the peoples,\u201d(1133) they soon felt the hope that one day \u201cthe\nisles shall wait for His teaching,\u201d(1134) and confidently expected the\ntime when \u201cmany peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the\nmountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach\nus of His ways, and we will walk in His paths, for out of Zion shall go\nforth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.\u201d(1135) Once\nliberated from the dominance of the priesthood, religion became the\ninstrument of universal instruction, the factor of general spiritual and\nmoral advancement. In addition it endowed humanity with an educational\nideal, destined to regenerate its moral life far more deeply than Greek\nculture could ever do. The object was to elevate all classes of the people\nby the living word of God, by the reading and expounding of the Scripture\nfor the dissemination of its truth among the masses.\n\n2. Those who define Judaism as a religion of law completely misunderstand\nits nature and its historic forces. This is done by all those Christian\ntheologians who endeavor to prove the extraordinary assertion of the\napostle Paul that the Jewish people was providentially destined to produce\nthe Old Testament law and become enmeshed in it, like the silkworm in its\ncocoon, finally to dry up and perish, leaving its prophetic truth for the\nChurch. This fateful misconception of Judaism is based upon a false\ninterpretation of the word _Torah_, which denotes moral and spiritual\ninstruction as often as law, and thus includes all kinds of religious\nteaching and knowledge together with its primary meaning, the written and\nthe oral codes.(1136) In fact, in post-Biblical times it comprised the\nentire religion, as subject of both instruction and scientific\ninvestigation. True, law is fundamental in Jewish history; Israel accepted\nthe divine covenant on the basis of the Sinaitic code; the reforms of King\nJosiah were founded on the Deuteronomic law;(1137) and the restoration of\nthe Judean commonwealth was based upon the completed Mosaic code brought\nfrom Babylon by Ezra the Scribe.(1138) This book of law, with its further\ndevelopment and interpretation, remained the normative factor for Judaism\nfor all time. Still, from the very beginning the Law of the covenant\ncontained a certain element which distinguished it from all the priestly\nand political codes of antiquity. Beside the traditional juridical and\nritualistic statutes, which betray a Babylonian origin, it contains laws\nand doctrines of kindness toward the poor and helpless, the enemy and the\nslave, even toward the dumb beast, in striking contrast to the spirit of\ncruelty and violence in the Babylonian law.(1139) In the name of the\nall-seeing, all-ruling God it appeals to the sympathy of man. These\nexhortations to tenderness increase in later codes of law under the\nprophetic influence, until finally the rabbis extended them as far as\npossible. They held that every negligence which leads to the loss of life\nor property by the neighbor, every neglect of a domestic animal, even\nevery act of deceit by which one attempts to \u201csteal\u201d the good opinion of\none\u2019s fellow-men, is a violation of the law.(1140) Hence Rabbi Simlai, the\nHaggadist, said that from beginning to end the Law is but a system of\nteachings of human love,(1141) while another sage tried to prove from the\nbooks of Moses that God implanted mercy, modesty, and benevolence in the\nsouls of Israel as hereditary virtues.(1142) In the same spirit Rabbi Meir\ndescribed the law of Israel as the law of humanity, supporting his\nstatement by a number of biblical passages.(1143)\n\n3. But, as light by its very nature illumines its surroundings, so the\nTorah in the possession of the Jewish people was certain to become the\nlight of mankind. First of all, the book of Law itself insists that the\nfather shall teach the word of God to his children, using many signs and\nceremonies that they may meditate on the works of God and walk in the path\nof virtue, and that the divine commands should be \u201cin the mouth and in the\nheart of all to do them.\u201d(1144) It was made incumbent upon the high priest\nor king to read the Law at least once every seven years to the whole\npeople assembled in the holy city for the autumnal festival,\u2014men, women,\nchildren, and the sojourners in the gates,\u2014so that it should become their\ncommon property.(1145) This precept probably gave rise to the triennial\nand later the annual system of Torah reading on the Sabbath. But in\naddition to the book of Law the prophetic words of consolation were read\nto the people, a custom which originated in the Babylonian exile, and was\ncontinued under the name of _Haftarah_ (\u201cdismissal\u201d of the\ncongregation).(1146) The seer of the exile refers to these prophetic words\nof comfort which were offered to the people on the Sabbath as well as\nother feasts and fasts: \u201cAttend unto Me, O My people, and give ear unto\nMe, O My nation, for instruction (Torah) shall go forth from Me, and My\nright on a sudden for a light of the people.... Hearken unto Me, ye that\nknow righteousness, the people in whose heart is My law; fear ye not the\ntaunt of men, neither be ye dismayed at their revilings. For the moth\nshall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool;\nbut My favor shall be forever, and My salvation unto all\ngenerations.\u201d(1147) Moved by such stirring ideals, Synagogues arose in\nJewish settlements all over the globe, and the book of the Law, in its\nvernacular versions, Greek and Aramaic, together with the words of the\nprophets, became the general source of instruction. In the words of the\nPsalms, it became \u201cthe testimony of the Lord, making wise the simple,\u201d\n\u201crejoicing the heart,\u201d \u201cenlightening the eyes,\u201d \u201cmore to be desired than\ngold.\u201d(1148) Nay more, the study of the Law became the duty of every man,\nand he who failed to live up to the precepts of the devotees of the Law,\nthe Pharisean fellowships, was scorned as belonging to the lower class,\n_am haaretz_. Every morning the pious Jew, first thanking God for the\nlight of day, followed this up by thanking Him for the Torah, which\nillumines the path of life. \u201cThe welfare of society rests upon the study\nof the Law, divine service and organized charity,\u201d was a saying of Simon\nthe Just, a high priest of the beginning of the third pre-Christian\ncentury.(1149) Thus learning and teaching became leading occupations for\nthe Jew, and the two main departments of Jewish literature,\ncorrespondingly, are _Torah_ and _Talmud_, that is, the written Law and\nits exposition. Indeed, the highest title which the rabbis could find for\nMoses was simply \u201cMoses our Teacher.\u201d Nay, God Himself was frequently\nrepresented as a venerable Master, teaching the Law in awful\nmajesty.(1150)\n\n4. Later under the successive influence of Babylonian and Greek culture,\nthe wisdom literature was added to the Prophets and the Psalms, giving to\nthe whole Torah a universal scope, like that claimed for Greek philosophy.\nThe Jewish love of learning led to an ever greater longing for truth by\nadding the wisdom of other cultured nations to its own store of knowledge.\nThis motive for universalism became all the stronger, as the faith became\nmore centered in the sublime conception of God as Master of all the world.\nAs the God of Israel appeared the primal source of all truth, so the\nrevealed word of God was considered the very embodiment of divine\nwisdom.(1151) In fact, the men of hoary antiquity described in the opening\nchapters of Genesis were actually credited with being the instructors of\nthe Greeks and other nations.(1152) We read a strange story by a pupil of\nAristotle that the great sage admired a Jew, whom he happened to meet, as\nboth wise and pious, so that the little Jewish nation was often\nconsidered, like the wise men of India, to be a sect of\nphilosophers.(1153) Indeed, Judaism became a matter of curiosity to the\npagan world on account of the Synagogue, which attracted them as a unique\ncenter of religious devotion and instruction, and especially because of\nthe Bible, which was read and expounded in its Greek garb from Sabbath to\nSabbath. The Jewish people raised themselves to be a nation of thinkers,\nand largely through association with Greek thought. For example, in the\nGreek translation of the Scriptures all anthropomorphic expressions are\navoided. As the personal name of Israel\u2019s God of the covenant, *JHVH*, was\nreplaced by the name _Adonai_, \u201cthe Lord,\u201d(1154) the universality of the\nJewish God became still more evident. Thus the pagan world could find God\nin the Scriptures to be the living God who dwells in the heart and is\nsought by all mankind. The Jew became the herald of the One God of the\nuniverse, his Bible a book of universal instruction. Many of the heathen,\nwithout merging themselves into the community of the covenant people and\nwithout accepting all its particularistic customs, rallied around its\ncentral standard as simple theists, \u201cworshipers of God,\u201d or \u201cthey who fear\nthe Lord,\u201d according to the terminology of the Psalms.(1155)\n\n5. An old rabbinical legend, which is reflected in the New Testament\nmiracle of Pentecost, relates that the Ten Words of Sinai were uttered in\nseventy tongues of fire to reach the known seventy nations of the\nearth.(1156) We are told that when the people entered Canaan, the words of\nthe Law were engraved in seventy languages on the stones of the altar at\nMount Ebal.(1157) That is, the law of Sinai was intended to provide the\nfoundation for all human society. One Haggadist even asserts that the\nheathen nations all refused to accept the Law, and if Israel also had\nrejected it, the world would have returned to chaos.(1158) Israel was, so\nto speak, _forced_ by divine Providence to accept the Law on behalf of the\nentire race. Hillel, under the Romanized reign of Herod, was fully\nconscious of this world-mission when he said: \u201cLove your fellow creatures\nand lead them to the study of the Law.\u201d(1159)\n\n6. The outlook for the Jewish people, however, became darker and darker\nthrough its struggle with Rome. The fanatical Zealots entirely opposed the\nspreading of the knowledge of the Torah among those who did not belong to\nthe household of Israel.(1160) Then the Church sent forth her missionaries\nto convert the pagan world by constant concessions to its polytheistic\nviews and practices. The seed sown by Hellenistic Judaism yielded a rich\nharvest for the Church, even though it was won at the sacrifice of pure\nJewish monotheism. The Ten Words of Sinai, the Mosaic laws of marriage,\nthe poor laws, and other Biblical statutes became the cornerstone of\ncivilization, but in a different guise; the heritage of Judaism was\ntransplanted to the Christian and Mohammedan world in a new garb and under\na new name. Henceforth the Jew, dispersed, isolated, and afflicted, had to\nstruggle to preserve his faith in its pristine purity. The very danger\nbesetting the study of the Law during the Hadrianic persecutions, which\nfollowed the Bar Kochba revolt, increased his zeal and courage. \u201cDevoid of\nthe Torah, our vital element, we are surely threatened with death,\u201d said\nRabbi Akiba, applying to himself the fable of the fox and the fishes, as\nhe defied the Roman edict.(1161) The fear lest the Torah should be\nforgotten, stimulated the teachers and their disciples ever anew to its\npursuit. The Torah was regarded as the bond and pledge of God\u2019s nearness;\nhence the many rabbinical sayings concerning its value in the eyes of God,\nwhich are frequently couched in poetic and extravagant language.(1162) The\nunderlying idea of them all is that Israel could dispense with its State\nand its Temple, but not with its storehouse of divine truth, from which it\nconstantly derives new life and new youth.\n\n7. One important question, however, remains, which must be answered: Has\nthe Jewish people, shut up for centuries by the ramparts of Talmudic\nJudaism, actually renounced its world mission? In transmitting part of its\ninheritance to its two daughter-religions, has Judaism lost its claim to\nbe a world-religion? The Congregation of Israel, according to the Midrash,\nanswers this question in the words of the Shulamite in the Song of Songs:\n\u201cI sleep, but my heart waketh.\u201d(1163) During the sad period of the Middle\nAges, Judaism in its relation to the outer world slept a long\nwinter-sleep, now in one land and now in another, but its inner life\nalways manifested a splendid activity of mind and soul, exerting a mighty\ninfluence upon the history of the world. It was declared dead by the\nruling Church, and yet it constantly filled her with alarm by the truths\nit uttered. The Jewish people was given over to destruction and\npersecution a thousand times, but all the floods of hatred and violence\ncould not quench its flame. Its marvelous endurance constituted the\nstrongest possible protest against the creed of the Church, which claimed\nto possess an exclusive truth and the only means of salvation. To suffer\nand die as martyrs by thousands and tens of thousands, at the stake and\nunder the torture of bloodthirsty mobs, testifying to the One Only God of\nIsrael and humanity, was, to say the least, as heroic a mission as to\nconvert the heathen. Indeed, the Jew, in reciting the Shema each morning\nin the house of God, renewed daily his zeal and faith, by which he was\nencouraged to sacrifice himself for his sacred heritage.\n\n8. But the cultivation of the Torah, obligatory upon every Jew, effected\nmore even than the preservation of monotheism. Alongside of the Church,\nwhich did its best to suppress free thought, Islam provided a culture\nwhich encouraged study and investigation, and this brought the leading\nspirits in Judaism to a profounder grasp of their own literary treasures.\nBold truth-seekers arose under the Mohammedan sway who had the courage to\nbreak the chains of belief in the letter of the Scripture, and to claim\nthe right of the human reason to give an opinion on the highest questions\nof religion. The leading authorities of the Synagogue followed a different\ncourse from that of the Church, which had brought the Deity into the\nsphere of the senses, divided the one God into three persons, and induced\nthe people to worship the image of Mary and her God-child rather than God\nthe Father. They insisted on the absolute unity and spirituality of God,\neliminated all the human attributes ascribed to Him in Scripture, and\nstrove to attain the loftiest and purest possible conception of His being.\nIt took a mighty effort for the people of the Law to re\u00ebxamine the entire\nmass of tradition in order to harmonize philosophy and religion, and\ninvest the divine revelation with the highest spiritual character. This\nmental activity exerted a great influence upon the whole course of thought\nof subsequent centuries and even upon modern philosophy. Again Israel\nbecame conscious of his mission of light. Jewish thinkers, often combining\nrabbi, physician, and astronomer in one person, carried the torch of\nscience and free investigation, directly or indirectly, into the cell of\nmany a Christian monk, rousing the dull spirit of the Middle Ages and\nbringing new intellectual nurture to the Church, else she might have\nstarved in her mental poverty.\n\nThe Jews of Spain became the teachers of Christian Europe. The forerunners\nof the Protestant Reformation sat at the feet of Jewish masters. Jewish\nstudents of the Hebrew language, scientifically trained, opened up the\nsimple meaning of the Scriptural word, so long hidden by traditional\ninterpretation. The Lutheran and the English translations of the Bible\nwere due to their efforts, and thus also the rise of Protestantism, which\ninaugurated the modern era. Yet this intellectual revival, this wonderful\nactivity of various thinkers among medieval Jewry, required a soil\nsusceptible to such seeds, an atmosphere favorable to this intense search\nfor truth. This existed only in the Jewish people, since the universal\nstudy of the Torah brought it about that \u201call the children of Israel had\nlight in their dwellings\u201d even while dense darkness covered the nations of\nthe medieval world.\n\n9. We must not underrate the cultural mission of the Jewish people, with\nits striking contrast to the New Testament point of view, which created\nmonasteries and the celibate ideal, and thus discouraged industry,\ncommerce, and scientific inquiry. Dispersed as they were, the Jewish\npeople cultivated both commerce and science, and thus for centuries were\nthe real bearers of culture, the intermediaries between East and West.\nWhile the Church divided mankind into heirs of heaven and hell, thus\nsowing discord and hatred, the little group of Jews maintained their ideal\nof an undivided humanity. But even their industrial and commercial\nactivity had more than a mere economic significance. Forced upon the Jew\nby external pressure, it was favored by Jewish teaching as a means of\npromoting spiritual life. Not poverty and beggary, but wealth begotten by\nhonest toil has the sanction of Judaism in accordance with the saying\n\u201cWhere there is no flour for bread, there can be no support for the study\nof the Torah.\u201d(1164) Moreover, the rabbis interpreted the verse, \u201cRejoice,\nO Zebulun, in thy going out, and thou, Issachar, in thy tents,\u201d(1165) as\nmeaning that Zebulun, the seafarer, shared the profit of his commerce with\nIssachar, who taught the law in the tents of the Torah, that he, in turn,\nmight share his brother\u2019s spiritual reward. Indeed, the Jew used his gains\nwon by trade in the service of the promotion of learning, and thus his\nentire industry assumed a higher character. Our modern civilization, with\nits higher values of life, owes much to the cultural activity of the\nmedieval Jew, which many leaders of the ruling Church still ignore\ncompletely. It is true that the hard struggle for their very existence\nkept the people unconscious of their cultural mission, and only now that\nthey have attained the higher historical point of view can they exclaim\nwith Joseph their ancestor: \u201cAs for you, ye meant evil against me; but God\nmeant it for good, to bring it to pass, as it is this day, to save much\npeople alive.\u201d(1166) The fact is that Jewish commerce has been an\nimportant cosmopolitan factor in the past, and is still working, to a\ncertain extent, in the same direction.(1167)\n\n10. New and great tasks have been assigned by divine Providence to the Jew\nof modern times, who is a full citizen in the cultural, social, and\npolitical life of the various nations. These tasks are most holy to him as\nJew, the bearer of a great mission to the world, which is embodied in his\nheritage, the Torah. However splendid may have been his achievements in\nthe fields of industry and commerce, of literature and art, his own\npeculiar possession is the Torah alone, the religious truth for which he\nfought and suffered all these centuries past; this must forever remain the\ncentral thought, the aim of all his striving.(1168) Every achievement of\nthe Jewish people, every attainment in power, knowledge, or skill, must\nlead toward the completion of the divine kingdom of truth and justice;\nthat for which the Jew laid the foundation at the beginning of his history\nis still leading forward the entire social life of man to render it a\ndivine household of love and peace. In order that it may carry out the\nworld mission mapped out by its great seers of yore, the Jewish people\nmust guard against absorption by the multitude of nations as much as\nagainst isolation from them. It must preserve its identity without going\nback into a separation rooted in self-adulation and clannishness. Instead,\nthe great goal of Israel will be reached only by patient endurance and\nperseverance, confidently awaiting the fulfillment in God\u2019s own time of\nthe glorious prophecy that all the nations shall be led up to the mountain\nof the Lord by the priest-people, there to worship God in truth and\nrighteousness. The Law is to go forth from Zion and the word of the Lord\nfrom Jerusalem, as a spiritual, not a geographical center. This vision\nforms the highest pinnacle of human aspiration, rising higher and higher\nbefore the mind, as man ascends from one stage of culture to another,\nstriving ever for perfection, for the sublimest ideal of life. This is\ncharacteristically expressed by the Midrash, which refers to the Messianic\nvision: \u201cAnd it shall come to pass in the end of days, that the mountain\nof the Lord\u2019s house shall be established as the top of the mountains, and\nshall be exalted above the hills.\u201d(1169) \u201cOne great mountain of the earth\nwill be piled upon the other, and Mount Zion will be placed upon the top\nas the culminating point of all human ascents.\u201d Taken in a figurative\nsense, in which alone the saying is acceptable, this means that all the\nheights of the various ideals will finally merge into the loftiest of all\nideals, when Israel\u2019s one holy God will be acknowledged as the One for\nwhom all hearts yearn, whom all minds seek as the Ideal of all ideals.\n\n\n\n\nChapter LII. Israel, the Servant of the Lord, Martyr and Messiah Of the\nNations\n\n\n1. \u201cIf there are ranks in suffering, Israel takes precedence. If the\nduration of sorrows and the patience with which they are borne, ennoble,\nthe Jews are among the aristocracy of every land. If a literature is\ncalled rich which contains a few classic tragedies, what shall we say to a\nnational tragedy lasting for fifteen hundred years, in which the poets and\nthe actors are also the heroes?\u201d With these classic words Leopold Zunz\nintroduces the history of sufferings which have occasioned the hundreds of\nplaintive and penitential songs of the Synagogue described in his book,\n_Die Synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters_. They are the cries of a nation\nof martyrs, resounding through the whole Jewish liturgy, and appearing\nalready in many of the Psalms: \u201cThou hast given us like sheep to be eaten;\nand hast scattered us among the nations. Thou makest us a taunt to our\nneighbors, a scorn and a derision to them that are round about us. All\nthis is come upon us, yet have we not forgotten Thee, neither have we been\nfalse to Thy covenant: Nay, for Thy sake are we killed all the day; we are\naccounted as sheep for the slaughter. Awake, why sleepest Thou, O Lord?\nArouse Thyself, cast not off forever. Wherefore hidest Thou Thy face, and\nforgettest our affliction and our oppression?\u201d(1170) Thus the congregation\nof Israel laments; and what is the answer of Heaven?\n\n2. The Bible contains two answers: the first by Ezekiel, priest and\nprophet; the other by the great unknown seer of the Exile whose words of\ncomfort are given in the latter part of Isaiah. Ezekiel gave a stern and\ndirect answer: \u201cThe nations shall know that the house of Israel went into\ncaptivity because of their iniquity, because they broke faith with Me, and\nI hid My face from them; so I gave them into the hand of their\nadversaries, and they fell all of them by the sword. According to their\nuncleanness and according to their transgressions did I unto them; and I\nhid My face from them. Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Now will I bring\nback the captivity of Jacob, and have compassion upon the whole house of\nIsrael; and I will be jealous for My holy name. And they shall bear their\nshame, and all their breach of faith which they committed against\nMe.\u201d(1171) These words are echoed in the harrowing admonitory chapter of\nLeviticus, which, however, closes with words of comfort: \u201cAnd they shall\nconfess their iniquity ... if then perchance their uncircumcised heart be\nhumbled, and they then be paid the punishment of their iniquity; then will\nI remember My covenant with Jacob, and also My covenant with Isaac, and\nalso My covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the\nland.\u201d(1172) This view of divine justice as external and punitive was\nbasic to the Synagogue liturgy and the entire rabbinic system. The\npriestly idea of atonement, that sin could be wiped out by sacrifice, made\na profound impression, not only upon individual sinners, but also upon the\nnation. Hence it was applied especially to the people in exile when they\ncould not bring sacrifices to their God. Still, one means of atonement\nremained, the exile itself, which could lead the people to repentance and\nfinally to God\u2019s forgiveness.(1173) Thus the people retained a hope of\nreturn from their captivity. They were assured by their prophetic monitors\nthat the faithful community of the Lord would again be received in favor\nby the God of faithfulness. They even built their hope upon the portions\nof the Law, which was read to assembled worshipers that they might know\nand observe it on their return to the land of their fathers. Israel could\nsay with the Psalmist: \u201cUnless Thy law had been my delight, I should then\nhave perished in mine affliction.\u201d(1174) According to a Palestinian\nHaggadist, \u201cIsrael would never have persevered so long, had not the Torah,\nthe marriage contract of Israel with its God, pledged to it a glorious\nfuture on the holy soil.\u201d(1175) Wait patiently for God\u2019s mercy, which in\nHis own time will rebuild Israel\u2019s State and Temple!\u2014this is the keynote\nof all the prayers and songs of the Synagogue.\n\n3. But the great seer of the exile, whose anonymity lends still greater\nimpressiveness to his words of comfort, stood on a higher historical plane\nthan that of Ezekiel the priest. He witnessed the transformation of the\nentire political world of his time through the victory of Cyrus the Mede\nover the Babylonian empire, and thus was able to attain a profounder grasp\nof the destiny of his own nation. Hence he was not satisfied with the view\nof Ezekiel. The latter had applied the popular saying, \u201cThe fathers have\neaten sour grapes, and the children\u2019s teeth are set on edge,\u201d(1176) to\nrefute the belief that an individual was punished for the sins of his\nfathers; but he failed to extend this doctrine to the whole nation.\nWhatever sins were committed by the generation who were exiled, their\nchildren ought not to suffer for them \u201cin double measure.\u201d(1177) Moreover,\nthe realm of love has a higher law than atonement through retribution.\nLove brings its sacrifice without asking why. By willing sacrifice of self\nit serves its higher purpose. He who struggles and suffers silently for\nthe good and true is _God\u2019s servant_, who cannot perish. He attains a\nhigher glory, transcending the fate of mortality. This is the new\nrevelation that came to the seer, as he pondered on the destiny of Israel\nin exile, illumining for him that dark enigma of his people\u2019s tragic\nhistory.\n\nThe problem of suffering, especially that of the servant of God, or the\npious, occupied the Jewish mind ever since the days of Jeremiah and\nespecially during the exile. The author of the book of Job elaborated this\ninto a great theodicy, speaking of Job also as the \u201cservant of the\nLord.\u201d(1178) Whatever pattern our exilic seer employed, beside the\nchapters about the Servant of the Lord,(1179) whatever tragic fate of some\ngreat contemporary the plaintive song in the fifty-second and fifty-third\nchapters referred to (some point to Jeremiah, others to Zerubabel),(1180)\nor whether the poet had in mind only the tragic fate of Israel, as many\nmodern exegetes think; in any case he conceived the unique and pathetic\npicture of Israel as the suffering Servant of the Lord, who is at last to\nbe exalted:(1181)\n\n\u201cBehold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and\nshall be very high. According as many were appalled at thee\u2014so marred was\nhis visage unlike that of a man, and his form unlike that of the sons of\nmen\u2014so shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths\nbecause of him; for that which had not been told them they shall see, and\nthat which they had not heard shall they perceive. Who would have believed\nour report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he\nshot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground; he\nhad no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, nor beauty that\nwe should delight in him. He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of\npains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their\nface; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely our diseases he did\nbear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken,\nsmitten of God and afflicted. But he was wounded because of our\ntransgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement\nof our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed. All we,\nlike sheep, did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and the\nLord hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed,\nthough he humbled himself, and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led\nto the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; yea, he\nopened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and\nwith his generation who did reason? For he was cut off out of the land of\nthe living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.\nAnd they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb;\nalthough he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet\nit pleased the Lord to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would\noffer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days,\nand that the purpose of the Lord might prosper by his hand. Of the travail\nof his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, who by his\nknowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many, and their iniquities\nhe did bear. Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he\nshall divide his soul with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto\ndeath, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of\nmany, and made intercession for the transgressors.\u201d\n\n4. Whatever be the historical background of this great elegy, our seer\nuses it to portray Israel as the tragic hero of the world\u2019s history. His\nprophetic genius possessed a unique insight into the character and destiny\nof his people, seeing Israel as a man of woe and grief, chosen by\nProvidence to undergo unheard-of trials for a great cause, by which, at\nthe last, he is to be exalted. Bent and disfigured by his burden of misery\nand shame, shunned and abhorred as one laden with sin, he suffers for no\nguilt of his own. He is called to testify to his God among all the\npeoples, and is thus the _Servant of the Lord_, the atoning sacrifice for\nthe sins of mankind, from whose bruises healing is to come to all the\nnations,\u2014an inimitable picture of a self-sacrificing hero, whose death\nmeans life to the world and glory to God, and who will at last live\nforever with the Lord whom he has served so steadfastly. Our seer mentions\nin earlier passages the Servant of the Lord who \u201cgave his back to the\nsmiters, and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; and hid not his\nface from shame and spitting.\u201d(1182) Yet \u201che shall set his face like a\nflint,\u201d so that \u201che shall not fail nor be crushed, till he have set the\nright in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his teaching.\u201d(1183)\nStill more directly, he says: \u201cAnd He said unto Me, \u2018Thou art My servant,\nIsrael, in whom I will be glorified.\u2019 ... It is too light a thing that\nthou shouldest be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to\nrestore the offspring of Israel; I will also give thee for a light of the\nnations, that My salvation may be unto the end of the earth. Thus saith\nthe Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to him who is despised of\nmen, to him who is abhorred of nations, to a servant of rulers: kings\nshall see and arise, princes, and they shall prostrate themselves; because\nof the Lord that is faithful, even the Holy One of Israel, who hath chosen\nthee.\u201d(1184)\n\n5. It was, however, no easy matter for men reared in the old view to reach\nthe lofty conception of a suffering hero. Even the dramatic figure of Job\nseemed to lack the right solution. Job protests his guiltlessness, defies\nthe dark power of fate, and even challenges divine justice, but God\nhimself announces at the end that no man can grasp the essence of His plan\nfor the world. A later and more na\u00efve writer, who added the conclusion of\nthe book, reversed Job\u2019s destiny and compensated him by a double share of\nwhat he had lost in both wealth and family.(1185) As if the great problem\nof suffering could be solved by such external means! Neither would the\nproblem of the great tragedy of Israel, the martyr-priest of the\ncenturies, the Job of the nations, ever find its solution in a national\nrestoration. A mere political rebirth could never compensate for the\nthousandfold death and untold woe of the Jew for his God and his faith!\nBut the people at large could not grasp such a conception as is that of\nDeutero-Isaiah\u2019s of the mission of Israel to be the suffering servant of\nthe Lord, the witness of God\u2014which is \u201cmartyr\u201d in the Greek version,\u2014the\nredeemer of the nations. They were eager to return to Palestine, to\nrebuild State and Temple under the leadership of the heir to the throne of\nDavid. But when their hope had failed that Zerubbabel would prove to be\nthe \u201cshoot of Jesse,\u201d(1186) the prophetic elegy was referred to the\nMessiah, and the belief gained ground that he would have to suffer before\nhe would triumph.(1187) Thus many a pseudo-Messiah fell a victim to the\ntyranny of Rome in both Jud\u00e6a and Samaria,\u2014for the Samaritans also hoped\nfor a Messiah, a redeemer of the type of Moses.(1188) Finally a belief\narose that there would be two Messiahs, one of the house of Joseph, that\nis, the tribe of Ephraim, who would fall before the sword of the\nenemy,(1189) and the other of the house of David, who was to conquer the\nheathen nations and establish his throne forever.(1190)\n\nThe Church referred the pathetic figure of the man of sorrow to her\ncrucified Messiah or Christ. Yet he who was to be a world-savior bore\nthrough his followers damnation to his own kinsmen, and thus was rendered\nthe chief cause of the persecution of the martyr-race of Israel.\n\n6. We learn, however, from Origen, a Church father of the third century,\nthat Jewish scholars, in a controversy with him, expressed the view that\nthe Servant of the Lord refers to the Jewish people, which, dispersed\namong the nations and universally despised, would finally obtain the\nascendancy over them, so that many of the heathen would espouse the Jewish\nfaith.(1191) Most of the medieval Jewish exegetes, including Rashi, who\nusually follows the traditional view, refer the chapter likewise to the\nJewish people. As a matter of fact, the earlier chapters which speak of\nthe Servant of the Lord can have no other meaning, while many points in\nthe description of the suffering hero, especially the reference to his\nseed after his death, do not fit the Nazarene at all. Hence all\nindependent Christian scholars to-day have abandoned the tradition of the\nChurch, and admit that Israel alone is declared by the prophet to be the\none singled out by God to atone for the sins of the nations, to arouse all\nhumanity to a deeper spiritual vision, and finally to triumph over all the\nheathen world.(1192)\n\n7. Thus the strange history of the martyr people is put in the right light\nand the great tragedy of Israel explained. Israel is the champion of the\nLord, chosen to battle and suffer for the supreme values of mankind, for\nfreedom and justice, truth and humanity; the man of woe and grief, whose\nblood is to fertilize the soil with the seeds of righteousness and love\nfor mankind. From the days of Pharaoh to the present day, every oppressor\nof the Jews has become the means of bringing greater liberty to a wider\ncircle; for the God of Israel, the Hater of bondage, has been appealed to\nin behalf of freedom in the old world and the new. Every hardship that\nmade life unbearable to the Jew became a road to humanity\u2019s triumph over\nbarbarism. All the injustice and malice which hurled their bitter shafts\nagainst Israel, the Pariah of the nations, led ultimately to the greater\nvictory of right and love. So all the dark waves of hatred and fanaticism\nthat beat against the Jewish people served only to impress the truth of\nmonotheism, coupled with sincere love of God and man, more deeply upon all\nhearts and to consign hypocrisy and falsehood to eternal contempt. Such is\nthe belief confidently held by the people of God, and ever confirmed anew\nby the history of the ages. \u201cHe is near that justifieth me; who will\ncontend with me? let us stand up together; who is mine adversary? let him\ncome near to me. Behold, the Lord God will help me; who is he that shall\ncondemn me?\u201d(1193) Thus speaks the Servant of the Lord, certain that he\nwill finally triumph, because he defends God\u2019s cause, and is bound\nindissolubly to Him.(1194) Indeed, God says of him: \u201cSurely, he that\ntoucheth you toucheth the apple of Mine (his) eye.\u201d(1195)\n\n8. The great importance which the rabbis attached to Israel\u2019s martyrdom is\nshown by the following remarks in connection with the laws of sacrifice:\n\u201cBehold, how the Torah selects for the sacrificial altar only such animals\nas belong to the pursued, not the pursuers: the ox which is pursued by the\nlion; the lamb which is pursued by the wolf; the goat which is pursued by\nthe panther, but none of those which feed on prey. In like manner God\nchose for His own the persecuted ones: Abel, who was persecuted by his\nbrother Cain; Noah, who was derided by the generation of the flood;\nAbraham, who had to flee before the tyrant Nimrod; and Isaac, Jacob, and\nJoseph, who met with unkindness from their own brothers. In the same way\nGod has chosen Israel from among the seventy nations, as the lamb hunted,\nas it were, by seventy wolves, that it should bear His law to\nmankind.\u201d(1196) This idea is expressed also in the Haggadic saying: \u201cThose\nshall be privileged to see the majesty of God in full splendor who meet\nhumiliation, but do not humiliate others; who bear insult, but do not\ninflict it on others; and who endure a life of martyrdom in pure love of\nGod.\u201d(1197)\n\nIndeed, the medieval Jew accepted his sad lot in this spirit of\nresignation. But the modern Jew is in a different situation. In the mighty\neffort of our age for higher truth, broader love and larger justice, he\nbeholds the nearing of the prophetic goal of a united humanity, based on\nthe belief in God, the King and Father of all. Accordingly, modern Judaism\nproclaims more insistently than ever that the Jewish people is the Servant\nof the Lord, the suffering Messiah of the nations, who offered his life as\nan atoning sacrifice for humanity and furnished his blood as the cement\nwith which to build the divine kingdom of truth and justice. Indeed, the\ncosmopolitan spirit of the Jew is the one element needed for the\nuniversality of culture. On the other hand, the world at large is to-day\nlearning more and more to regard the superb loyalty of the Jew to his\nancestral faith with greater fairness and admiration and to accord larger\nappreciation to him and his religion. Once the flood of hatred,\ndissension, and prejudice that brought such untold havoc shall have\ndisappeared from the earth; once religion emerges from the nebulous\natmosphere of other-worldliness, and directs its longing for God toward a\nlife of godliness on earth in the spirit of the ancient prophets, then the\nhistoric mission of the Jew will also be better understood. Israel, the\nhunted dove, which found no resting-place for the sole of its foot during\nthe flood of sin and persecution, will then appear with the olive-branch\nof peace for all humanity, to open the hearts of men that all may enter\nthe covenant with the universal Father. Then, and not till then, will the\nshame of those thousands of years be rolled away, when the world will\nrecognize that not _a_ Jew, but _the_ Jew has been the suffering Messiah,\nand that he was sent forth to be the savior of the nations.\n\n\n\n\nChapter LIII. The Messianic Hope\n\n\n1. Recent investigators have brought to light many a vision of an era of\nheavenly bliss brought about by some powerful ruler, voiced in hoary\nantiquity by seer or singer in addressing the royal masters of Babylon or\nEgypt.(1198) But no word in the entire vocabulary of ancient poetry or\nprose can so touch the deeper chords of the heart, and so voice the\nhighest hopes of mankind, as does the name _Messiah_ (\u201cGod\u2019s anointed\u201d).\nFrom a simple title for any of the kings of Israel, it grew in meaning\nuntil it comprised the highest hopes of the nation. The Jewish vision of\nthe future was not the twilight of the gods, which meant the end of the\nworld with its deities, but the dawn of a new world, bright with the\nknowledge of God and blessed by the brotherhood of man. This, the\nMessianic ideal, is the creation of the prophetic genius of Israel, and in\nturn it influenced man\u2019s conception of God, lifting Him out of the\nnational bounds, and making Him the God of humanity, Ruler of history.\nIsrael\u2019s Messianic hope has become the motive power of civilization. In\nthe time of deepest national humiliation it gave the prophets their power\nto surmount the present and soar to heights of vision; through it the\nJewish people attained their strength to resist oppression, buoyed up by\nperfect confidence and sublime hope. At the same time its magic luster\ncaptivated the non-Jewish nations, spurring them on to mighty deeds. Thus\nit has actually conquered the whole world of man. With every step in\nculture it points forward to higher aims, still unattained; it promises to\nlead mankind, united in God, the Only One, to truth and justice,\nrighteousness and love. As the banner of Israel, the Messiah of the\nnations, it is destined to become the lode-star of all nations and all\nreligions. This is the kernel of the Jewish doctrine concerning the\nMessiah.\n\n2. This Messianic hope, on closer analysis, reveals two elements, both of\nprophetic origin: one national, the other religious and universal. The\nlatter is the logical outcome of the monotheism of the great exilic seer,\nwho based his stirring pictures of the glorious future of Israel upon the\nall-encompassing knowledge of God possessed by the Chosen People. The\nclassic expression of this hope appears in Isaiah II, 1-4, and Micah IV,\n1-14: \u201cAnd it shall come to pass in the end of days, that the mountain of\nthe Lord\u2019s house shall be established as the top of the mountains, and\nshall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And\nmany peoples shall go and say: \u2018Come ye and let us go up to the mountain\nof the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His\nways, and we will walk in His paths,\u2019 for out of Zion shall go forth the\nlaw, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge between\nthe nations, and shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their\nswords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation\nshall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any\nmore.\u201d We note, indeed, that no reference to the Messiah or a king of the\nhouse of David appears either in this passage or any of the prophecies of\nDeutero-Isaiah. Justice and peace for all humanity are expected through\nthe reign of God alone. The specific Messianic character of this prophecy\ntook shape only in its association with the older national hope, voiced by\nthe prophet Isaiah.\n\n3. The real Messianic hope involved the re\u00ebstablishment of the throne of\nDavid, and was expressed most perfectly in the words of Isaiah: \u201cAnd there\nshall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a twig shall grow\nforth out of his roots. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,\nthe spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might,\nthe spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord. And his delight shall\nbe in the fear of the Lord; and he shall not judge after the sight of his\neyes, neither decide after the hearing of his ears; but with righteousness\nshall he judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the land;\nand he shall smite the land with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath\nof his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the\ngirdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. And the\nwolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the\nkid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a\nlittle child shall lead them.... They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My\nholy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord,\nas the waters cover the sea.\u201d(1199)\n\nThis pattern of the ideal ruler may have been modeled after some ancient\nBabylonian formula for the adoration of kings, as has been asserted of\nlate; and the same may be true of the mystic titles given by Isaiah to the\nroyal heir: \u201cWonderful counselor, divine hero, father of spoil, prince of\npeace.\u201d(1200) When the little kingdom of Jud\u00e6a fell, the prospect of a\nrealization of the great prophetic vision seemed gone forever. Therefore\nthe exiles in Babylon fastened their hopes so much more firmly on the\n\u201cShoot,\u201d particularly on Zerubabel (\u201cthe seed born in Babylon\u201d), the\nobject of the fondest hopes of the later prophets.(1201) When he, too,\ndisappointed their expectations, probably due to Persian interference,\nthey transferred the advent of the Messiah more and more into the realm of\nmiracle, and popular fancy dwelt fondly on his appearance as God\u2019s\nchampion against the hosts of heathendom (Gog and Magog).(1202)\n\n4. The conception of the priest-prophet Ezekiel is very significant in\nthis connection; for him the kingdom of Israel\u2019s God could only be\nestablished by the restoration of the throne of David, the servant of the\nLord, and by the utter destruction of the hosts of heathendom, who were\nhostile to both God and Israel. In accordance with this hope the author of\nthe second Psalm presents a dramatic picture of the Messiah triumphing\nover the heathen nations, a picture which became typical for all the\nfuture. \u201cWhy are the nations in an uproar? And why do the peoples mutter\nin vain? The kings of the earth stand up, and the rulers take counsel\ntogether against the Lord, and against His anointed: \u2018Let us break their\nbands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.\u2019 He that sitteth in\nheaven laugheth, the Lord hath them in derision. Then will He speak unto\nthem in His wrath, and affright them in His sore displeasure: \u2018Truly it is\nI that have established My king upon Zion, My holy mountain.\u2019 I will tell\nof the decree: The Lord said unto me: \u2018Thou art My son, this day have I\nbegotten thee. Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for thine\ninheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt\nbreak them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a\npotter\u2019s vessel.\u2019 \u201d Henceforth the conception of the Messiah alternated\nbetween Isaiah\u2019s prince of peace and the world-conqueror of the\nPsalmist.(1203) The name Messiah does not occur in Scripture in the\nabsolute form, but always occurs in the construct with JHVH or a pronoun,\nsignifying \u201cthe Anointed of the Lord.\u201d Accordingly, it expresses the\nrelation of the Anointed to God, his sovereign, in striking contrast to\nthe heathen kings who themselves claimed adoration as gods. The very name\nMessiah excludes the possibility of deification. The term Messiah was used\nwith the article only in much later times, _ha Meshiah_, or in the\nAramaic, _Meshiha_, from which we derive the name, Messiah.\n\n5. In the course of time, however, as the people waited in vain for a\nredeemer, the expected Messiah was lifted more and more into the realm of\nthe ideal. The belief took hold especially in the inner circle of the\npious (Hasidim) that the Messiah was hidden somewhere, protected by God,\nto appear miraculously after having vanquished the hostile powers. The\nEssenes, the representatives of the secret lore, developed this conception\nin the Apocalyptic writings, thus giving the Messiah a certain cosmic or\nsupernatural character. They probably modeled their thoughts upon the\nZoroastrian system, where _Soshiosh_, the world savior, would appear in\nthe last millennium as the messenger of Ormuzd to destroy forever the\nkingdom of evil and establish the dominion of the good.(1204) Thus, when\nIsaiah says of the Messiah that \u201cby the breath of his mouth he shall slay\nthe wicked,\u201d this is referred to the principle of evil, Satan or Belial,\nwho was sometimes actually identified with the Persian Ahriman.(1205)\nMoreover, after the Persian system, the whole process of history was\ndivided into six millenniums of strife between the principle of good and\nevil, represented by the Torah and the ungodliness of the world, and a\nseventh millennium, the kingdom of God or the Messianic age. The dates of\nthese were calculated upon the basis of the book of Daniel, with its four\nworld-kingdoms and mysterious numbers.(1206)\n\n6. The Biblical passages which refer to \u201cthe end of days\u201d were also\nconnected with the advent of the Messianic age, and the so-called\neschatological writings speak of fixed periods following one another. In\naccordance with certain prophetic hints, they expected first the\n\u201cbirth-throes\u201d(1207) or \u201cvestiges\u201d of the Messianic age, a great physical\nand moral crisis with the turmoil of nature, plagues, and moral\ndegeneracy. Before the Messiah would suddenly appear from his hiding\nplace, the prophet Elijah was to return from heaven, whither he had\nascended in a fiery chariot. But, while he had lived in implacable wrath\nagainst idolaters, he was now to come as a messenger of peace, reconciling\nthe hearts of Israel with God and with one another, preparing the way to\nrepentance, and thus to the redemption and reunion of Israel.(1208) The\nnext stage is the gathering together of Israel from all corners of the\nearth to the holy land under the leadership of the Messiah, summoned by\nthe blast of the heavenly trumpet.(1209) Then begins that gigantic warfare\non the holy soil between the hosts of Israel and the vast forces of\nheathendom led by the half-mystic powers of Gog and Magog, a conflict\nwhich, according to Ezekiel, is to last for seven years and to end with\nthe annihilation of the powers of evil. Before the real Messiah, the son\nof David, appears in victory, another Messiah of the tribe of Ephraim is\nto fall in battle, according to a belief dating from the second century\nand possibly connected with the Bar Kochba war.(1210) In another\ntradition, probably older, the true Messiah himself is to suffer and\ndie.(1211) At all events, he must destroy Rome, the fourth world-kingdom.\nBut he is also to slay the arch-fiend Ahriman, afterwards known as\nArmillus. Moreover, he will redeem the dead from Sheol, as he possesses\nthe key to open all the graves of the holy land, and thus all the sons of\nIsrael will partake in the glory of his kingdom. Then at last the city of\nJerusalem will arise in splendor, built of gold and precious stones, the\nmarvel of the world, and in its midst the Temple, a structure of\nsurpassing magnificence. The holy vessels of the tabernacle, hidden for\nages in the wilderness, will appear, and the nations will offer the wealth\nof the whole earth as their tribute to the Messiah. All will practice\nrighteousness and piety, and will be rewarded by bliss and numerous\nposterity.(1212)\n\nOpinions differ widely as to the duration of the Messianic age. They range\nfrom forty to four hundred years, and again from three generations to a\nfull millennium.(1213) This difference is partly caused by the distinction\nbetween the national hope, with the temporary welfare of the people of\nIsrael, and the religious hope concerning the divine kingdom, which is to\nlast forever. A very late rabbinic belief holds that the Messiah will be\nable to give a new law and even to abrogate Mosaic prohibitions.(1214)\n\n7. At any rate, no complete system of eschatology existed during the\nTalmudic age, as the views of the various apocalyptic writers were\ninfluenced by the changing events of the time and the new environments,\nwith their constant influence upon popular belief. A certain uniformity,\nindeed, existed in the fundamental ideas. The Messianic hope in its\nnational character includes always the reunion of all Israel under a\nvictorious ruler of the house of David, who shall destroy all hostile\npowers and bring an era of supreme prosperity and happiness as well as of\npeace and good-will among men. The Haggadists indulged also in dreams of\nthe marvelous fertility of the soil of Palestine in the Messianic\ntime,(1215) and of the resurrection of the dead in the holy land. But in\nJudaism such views could never become dogmas, as they did in the Church,\neven though they were common in both the older and younger Haggadah. These\nnational expectations were expressed in the liturgy by the Eighteen\nBenedictions, composed by the founders of the Synagogue, the so-called Men\nof the Great Synagogue; here the prayers for \u201cthe gathering of the\ndispersed\u201d and the \u201cdestruction of the kingdom of Insolence\u201d precede those\nfor the \u201crebuilding of Jerusalem and the restoration of the throne of\nDavid.\u201d But the mystic speculations on the origin, activity, and sojourn\nof the Messiah, which were a favorite theme of the apocalyptic writers and\nthe Haggadists during the pre-Christian and the first Christian centuries,\ngave way to a more sober mode of thought, in the disappointment that\nfollowed the collapse of the great Messianic movements. On the one hand,\nthe Church deified its Messiah and thus relapsed into paganism; on the\nother, Bar Kochba, \u201cthe son of the star,\u201d whom the leading Jewish masters\nof the law actually considered the Messiah who would free them from Rome,\nproved to be a \u201cstar of ill-luck\u201d to the Jewish people.(1216) \u201cLike one\nwho wanders in the dark night, now and then kindling a light to brighten\nup his path, only to have it again and again extinguished by the wind,\nuntil at last he resolves to wait patiently for the break of day when he\nwill no longer require a light,\u201d so were the people of Israel with their\nwould-be deliverers, who appeared from time to time to delude their hopes,\nuntil they exclaimed at last: \u201cIn Thy light alone, O Lord, we behold\nlight.\u201d(1217) Samuel the Babylonian, of the third century, in opposition\nto the Messianic visionaries of his time, declared: \u201cThe Messianic age\ndiffers from the present in nothing except that Israel will throw off the\nyoke of the nations and regain its political independence.\u201d(1218) Another\nsage said: \u201cMay the curse of heaven fall upon those who calculate the date\nof the advent of the Messiah and thus create political and social unrest\namong the people!\u201d(1219) A third declared: \u201cThe Messiah will appear when\nnobody expects him.\u201d(1220) Most remarkable of all is the bold utterance of\nRabbi Hillel of the fourth century, a lineal descendant of the great\nmaster Hillel and the originator of the present Jewish calendar system. In\nall likelihood many of his contemporaries were busy calculating the advent\nof the Messianic time according to the number of Jubilees in the\nworld-eras, whereupon he said: \u201cIsrael need not await the advent of the\nMessiah, as Isaiah\u2019s prophecy was fulfilled by the appearance of King\nHezekiah.\u201d(1221)\n\n8. Throughout the Middle Ages, when the political or national hopes rose\nhigh, we find various Messianic movements in both East and West revived by\nreligious aspirations. But Maimonides, the great rationalist, in his\ncommentary on the Mishnah and in his Code, formulated a Messianic belief\nwhich was quite free from mystical and supernatural elements. His twelfth\narticle of faith declares that \u201cthe Jew, unless he wishes to forfeit his\nclaim to eternal life by denial of his faith, must, in acceptance of the\nteachings of Moses and the prophets down to Malachi, believe that the\nMessiah will issue forth from the house of David in the person of a\ndescendant of Solomon, the only legitimate king; and he shall far excel\nall rulers in history by his reign, glorious in justice and peace. Neither\nimpatience nor deceptive calculation of the time of the advent of the\nMessiah should shatter this belief. Still, notwithstanding the majesty and\nwisdom of the Messiah, he must be regarded as a mortal being like any\nother and only as the restorer of the Davidic dynasty. He will die and\nleave a son as his successor, who will in his turn die and leave the\nthrone to his heir. Nor will there be any material change in the order of\nthings in the whole system of nature and human life; accordingly Isaiah\u2019s\npicture of the living together of lamb and wolf cannot be taken literally,\nnor any of the Haggadic sayings with reference to the Messianic time. We\nare only to believe in the coming of Elijah as a messenger of peace and\nthe forerunner of the Messiah, and also in the great decisive battle with\nthe hosts of heathendom embodied in Gog and Magog, through whose defeat\nthe dominion of the Messiah will be permanently established.\u201d \u201cThe\nMessianic kingdom itself,\u201d continues Maimonides with reference to the\nutterance of Samuel quoted above, \u201cis to bring the Jewish nation its\npolitical independence, but not the subjection of all the heathen nations,\nnor merely material prosperity and sensual pleasure, but an era of general\naffluence and peace, enabling the Jewish people to devote their lives\nwithout care or anxiety to the study of the Torah and universal wisdom, so\nthat by their teachings they may lead all mankind to the knowledge of God\nand make them also share in the eternal bliss of the world to come.\u201d(1222)\n\n9. Against this rationalized hope for the Messiah, which merges the\nnational expectation into the universal hope for the kingdom of God,\nstrong objections were raised by Abraham ben David of Posquieres, the\nmystic, a fierce opponent of Maimonides, who referred to various Biblical\nand Talmudical passages in contradiction to this view.(1223) On the other\nhand, Joseph Albo, the popular philosopher, who was trained by his public\ndebates against the representatives of the Church, emphasized especially\nthe rational character of the Jewish theology, and declared that the\nMessianic hope cannot be counted among the fundamental doctrines of\nJudaism, or else Rabbi Hillel could never have rejected it so\nboldly.(1224)\n\nOn this point we must consider the fine observation of Rashi that Hillel\ndenied only a personal Messiah, but not the coming of a Messianic age,\nassuming that God himself will redeem Israel and be acknowledged\neverywhere as Ruler of the world. As a matter of fact, too much difference\nof opinion existed among the Tanaim and Amoraim on the personality of the\nMessiah and the duration of his reign to admit of a definite article of\nfaith on the question. The expected Messiah, the heir of the Davidic\nthrone, naturally embodied the national hope of the Jewish people in their\ndispersion, when all looked to Palestine as their land and to Jerusalem as\ntheir political center and rallying point in days to come. Traditional\nJudaism, awaiting the restoration of the Mosaic sacrificial cult as the\ncondition for the return of the _Shekinah_ to Zion, was bound to persist\nin its belief in a personal Messiah who would restore the Temple and its\nservice.\n\n10. A complete change in the religious aspiration of the Jew was brought\nabout by the transformation of his political status and hopes in the\nnineteenth century. The new era witnessed his admission in many lands to\nfull citizenship on an equality with his fellow-citizens of other faiths.\nHe was no longer distinguished from them in his manner of speech and\ndress, nor in his mode of education and thought; he therefore necessarily\nidentified himself completely with the nation whose language and\nliterature had nurtured his mind, and whose political and social destinies\nhe shared with true patriotic fervor. He stood apart from the rest only by\nvirtue of his religion, the great spiritual heritage of his hoary past.\nConsequently the hope voiced in the Synagogal liturgy for a return to\nPalestine, the formation of a Jewish State under a king of the house of\nDavid, and the restoration of the sacrificial cult, no longer expressed\nthe views of the Jew in Western civilization. The prayer for the\nrebuilding of Jerusalem and the restoration of the Temple with its\npriestly cult could no longer voice his religious hope. Thus the leaders\nof Reform Judaism in the middle of the nineteenth century declared\nthemselves unanimously opposed to retaining the belief in a personal\nMessiah and the political restoration of Israel, either in doctrine or in\ntheir liturgy.(1225) They accentuated all the more strongly Israel\u2019s hope\nfor a Messianic age, a time of universal knowledge of God and love of man,\nso intimately interwoven with the religious mission of the Jewish people.\nHarking back to the suffering Servant of the Lord in Deutero-Isaiah, they\ntransferred the title of Messiah to the Jewish nation. Reform Judaism has\nthus accepted the belief that Israel, the suffering Messiah of the\ncenturies, shall at the end of days become the triumphant Messiah of the\nnations.(1226)\n\n11. This view taken by reform Judaism is the logical outcome of the\npolitical and social emancipation of the Jew in western Europe and\nAmerica. Naturally, it had no appeal to the Jew in the Eastern lands,\nwhere he was kept apart by mental training, social habits and the\ndiscrimination of the law, so that he regarded himself as a member of a\ndifferent nationality in every sense. Palestine remained the object of his\nhope and longing in both his social and religious life. When modern ideas\nof life began to transform the religious views and habits in many a\nquarter, and terrible persecutions again aroused the longing of the\nunfortunate sufferers for a return to the land of their fathers, the term\nZionism was coined, and the movement rapidly spread. It expressed the\npurely national aims of the Jewish people, disregarding the religious\naspirations always heretofore connected with the Messianic hope. This term\nhas since become the watchword of all those who hope for a political\nrestoration of the Jewish people on Palestinian soil, as well as of others\nwhose longings are of a more cultural nature. Both regard the Jewish\npeople as a nation like any other, denying to it the specific character of\na priest-people and a holy nation with a religious mission for humanity,\nwhich has been assigned to it at the very beginning of its history and has\nserved to preserve it through the centuries. On this account Zionism,\nwhether political or cultural, can have no place in Jewish theology. Quite\ndifferent is the attitude of religious Zionism which emphasizes the\nancient hopes and longings for the restoration of the Jewish Temple and\nState in connection with the nationalistic movement.\n\n12. Political Zionism owes its origin to the wave of Anti-Semitism which\nrose as a counter-movement to the emancipation of the Jew, that alienated\nmany of the household of Israel from their religion. Thus it has the merit\nof awakening many Jews upon whom the ancestral faith had lost its hold to\na sense of love and loyalty to the Jewish past. In many it has aroused a\nlaudable zeal for the study of Jewish history and literature, which should\nbring them a deeper insight into, and closer identification with, the\nhistoric character of Israel, the suffering Messiah of the nations, and\nthus in time transform the national Jew into a religious Jew. The study of\nIsrael\u2019s mighty past will, it is hoped, bring to them the conviction that\nthe power, the hope and the refuge of Israel is in its God, and not in any\nterritorial possession. We require a regeneration, not of the nation, but\nof the faith of Israel, which is its soul.\n\n\n\n\nChapter LIV. Resurrection, a National Hope\n\n\n1. The Jewish belief in resurrection is intimately bound up with the hope\nfor the restoration of the Israelitish nation on its own soil, and\nconsequently rather national; indeed, originally purely local and\nterritorial.(1227) True, the rabbis justified their belief in resurrection\nby such Scriptural verses as: \u201cI kill and I make alive\u201d(1228) and \u201cThe\nLord killeth, and maketh alive; He bringeth down to the grave, and\nbringeth up.\u201d(1229) Founded on such passages, the belief would have to\ninclude all men, and could be confined neither to the Jewish people nor to\nthe land of Judea. However, we find no trace of such a belief in the\nentire Bible save for two late post-exilic passages(1230) which are in\nfact apocalyptic, being based upon earlier prophecies, and themselves, in\nturn, basic to the later dogma of the Pharisees.\n\n2. The picture of a resurrection was first drawn by the prophet Hosea, who\napplied it to Israel. In his distress over the destiny of his people he\nsays: \u201cCome, and let us return unto the Lord; for He hath torn, and He\nwill heal us, He hath smitten, and He will bind us up. After two days will\nHe revive us, on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live in\nHis presence.\u201d(1231) Ezekiel\u2019s vision of the dry bones which rose to a new\nlife under the mighty sway of the spirit of God,(1232) gave more definite\nshape to the picture, although in the form of allegory. As the prophet\nhimself says, he aimed to describe the resurrection of Judah and Israel\nfrom their grave of exile. The obscure Messianic prophecy in Isaiah,\nchapters XXIV to XXVII, strikes a new note. First the author deals with\nthe terrible slaughter which God will inflict upon the heathen, after\nwhich \u201cHe will swallow up death forever; and the Lord God will wipe away\ntears from off all faces; and the reproach of His people will He take away\nfrom off all the earth.\u201d(1233) Finally, when the oppressors of Israel are\ncompletely annihilated, exclaims the seer: \u201cThy dead shall live, thy dead\nbodies shall arise\u2014awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust\u2014for thy dew\nis a fructifying dew, and the earth shall bring to life the shades.\u201d(1234)\nDaniel speaks in a similar vein: \u201cAnd many of them that sleep in the dust\nof the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches\nand everlasting abhorrence.\u201d(1235)\n\n3. In this hope for resurrection at the end of days the leading thought is\nthat the prophecies which have been unfulfilled during the lifetime of the\npious, and particularly the martyrs, shall be realized in the world to\ncome.(1236) In the oldest apocalyptic writings this life of the future is\nstill conceived as earthly bliss, inasmuch as the writers think only of\nthe Messianic time of national glory, depicted in such glowing colors by\nthe prophets. Unbounded richness of the soil and numerous offspring,\nabundant treasures brought by remote nations and their rulers, peace and\nhappiness far and wide\u2014such are the characteristics of the Messianic age.\nIn order that the dead may share in all this, it is to be preceded by the\nresurrection and the great _Day of Judgment_ in the valley of Jehoshaphat\nor Gehinnom (Gehenna), where the righteous are to be singled out to\nparticipate in the realm of the Messiah.(1237) As a national prospect the\nMessianic hope was based upon the passage in Deutero-Isaiah: \u201cThy people\nalso shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever.\u201d(1238)\nConsequently an ancient Mishnah taught that \u201cAll Israel shall have a share\nin the world to come.\u201d(1239) In fact, the term \u201cinherit the land\u201d was used\nas late as the Mishnah to express the idea of sharing in the future life;\nso also in the New Testament, where the resurrection was expected before\nthe coming of the kingdom of the Messiah.(1240)\n\n4. The logical assumption was, accordingly, that only the dead of the holy\nland should enjoy the resurrection. The prophetic verses were cited: \u201cI\nwill set glory in the land of the living,\u201d(1241) and \u201cHe that giveth\nbreath to the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein,\u201d(1242)\nand were interpreted in the sense that God would restore the breath of\nlife only to those buried in the holy land.(1243) Likewise the verse of\nthe Psalmist, \u201cI shall walk before the Lord in the land of the living,\u201d\nwas referred to Palestine, as the land where the dead shall awaken to a\nnew life.(1244) Hence the rabbis held the strange belief that when the\ngreat heavenly trumpet is sounded to summon all the tribes of Israel from\nthe ends of the earth to the holy land,(1245) those who have been buried\noutside of Palestine must pass through cavities under the earth, until\nthey reach the soil where the miracle of the resurrection will be\nperformed.(1246) It has, therefore, become a custom of the pious among the\nOrthodox to this very day, in case they could not bury the dead in\nPalestine, to put dust of the holy land beneath their head, that they\nmight arise wherever they were buried.\n\n5. We may take it for granted that this na\u00efve conception of the\nresurrection could not be permanent, and so was modified to include a\ndouble resurrection: the first, national, to usher in the Messianic\nkingdom, and the other, universal, to usher in the everlasting life of the\nfuture. The former offered scant room for the heathen world, at best only\nfor those who had actually joined the ranks of Judaism; the latter,\nhowever, included the last judgment for all souls and thus opened the way\nfor the salvation of the righteous among the nations as well as the people\nof Israel. At this point the conception of resurrection led to higher and\nmore spiritual ideas, as has been shown in Chapter XLIII.\n\n6. However, the belief in the resurrection of the body, though expressed\nin the ancient liturgy, is in such utter contradiction to our entire\nattitude toward both science and religion, that it may be considered\nobsolete for the modern Jew. Orthodoxy, which clings to it in formal\nloyalty to tradition, regards it as a miracle which God will perform in\nthe future, exactly like the many Biblical miracles which defy reason.\n\n7. The Zionist movement has given many Jews a new attitude toward the\nnational resurrection of Israel. The nationalists expect the Jewish nation\nto awaken from a sleep of eighteen hundred years to new greatness in its\nancient home, not as a religious, but as a political body, and in\nrenouncing all allegiance to the priestly mission of Israel and its\nancestral faith they are as remote from genuine Orthodoxy as from Reform\nJudaism. They assert that the soul of the Jewish people requires a\nnational body rooted in its ancient soil in order that it may fulfill its\nappointed task among the nations; they even go so far as to declare all\nthe achievements brought about by the assimilation of the culture of the\nsurrounding nations to be a deterioration of the genuine character of the\nJewish nation. The fact is that, as in nature there is nowhere a\nresurrection of the dead but an ever renewed regeneration of life, so is\nthe history of the Jew and of Judaism a continuous process of regeneration\nmanifested at every great turning-point of history, when the ideas and\ncultural elements of a new civilization exert their powerful influence on\nlife and thought. There never was, nor will be an exclusively Jewish\nculture. It is the wondrous power of assimilation of the Jew which ever\ncreated and fashioned his culture anew. That which constitutes the\npeculiarity of the Jew and his life force is his religion fostered through\nthe ages, preserved amidst the most antagonistic influences and hostile\nenvironments, and ever rejuvenated by its unique universalistic spirit\nwhen revived by contact with kindred movements. To maintain and propagate\nthis, his religion in all lands and amidst all civilizations, is the task\nassigned to him by Providence, until God\u2019s Kingdom has been established\nall over the globe.\n\n\n\n\nChapter LV. Israel and the Heathen Nations\n\n\n1. As there is but one Creator and Ruler of the universe, so there is\nbefore Him but one humanity. All the nations are under His guidance, while\nIsrael, His chosen people, points to the kingdom of God which is to\nembrace them all. Israel was called the \u201cfirst-born son\u201d of God(1247) at\nthe very moment of his election, implying that all the sons of men are His\nchildren. All of them are links in the divine plan of salvation. In the\nsame sense God spoke through Isaiah: \u201cBlessed be Egypt, My people, and\nAssyria the work of My hands, and Israel Mine inheritance.\u201d(1248) As the\nfirst page of Scripture assigns a common origin to them all in the first\nman, so, the prophets tell us, at the end of time they shall all be filled\nwith longing for the one God and form with Israel one community on earth,\na great brotherhood of man serving the common Father above.(1249) Still,\nthe actual world began, not with the unity, but with the wide diversity\nand dispersion of mankind. The idea of the unity of man came as a\ncorollary to the kindred conception of the unity of God, after a long\nhistorical process.\n\nJust as the creation of the world opens with the separation of light from\ndarkness, so the process of the spiritual and moral development of mankind\nbegins, according to the divine plan of salvation, with the separation of\nIsrael from the heathen nations.(1250) The sharper the contrast became\nbetween the spiritual God of Israel and the crude sensual gods of\nheathendom, the wider grew the chasm between Judaism and heathenism,\nbetween Israel and the nations. As light is opposed to darkness, so\nIsrael\u2019s truth stood opposed to the idolatry of the nations, until\nChristianity and Islam, its daughter-religions, arose between the two\nextremes. Henceforth Israel waits with still more confidence for the age\nwhose dawning will bring the full knowledge of God to all mankind, leading\nthe world from the night of error and discord to the noon-day brightness\nof truth and unity, when a universal monotheism will make all humanity\none.\n\n2. Nothing was more remote from ancient Israel than the hatred of the\nstranger or hostility to other nations, so often attributed to it.(1251)\nIn the time of the patriarchs and under the monarchy, the Hebrews fostered\na spirit of friendly intercourse with their neighbors, which was often\nconfirmed by peaceful alliances.(1252) Of course, during war time the\nspirit of hostility had full sway, particularly as ancient warfare imposed\na relentless ban upon both booty and human life among the vanquished. But\neven then the kings of Israel were called compassionate also toward their\nenemies when compared with other rulers.(1253) Indeed, the code of Israel\nis distinguished from all other codes of antiquity by mildness and tender\ncompassion. On the other hand, the God of justice, revealed through Amos,\nIsaiah, Jeremiah, and Habakkuk, punishes Israel and the nations\nimpartially on account of their moral transgressions.(1254) He avenges\nacts of treachery, even when committed against pagan tyrants. \u201cShall not\nthe Judge of all the earth do justly?\u201d(1255) Such is the recurrent thought\nthat governs Israel, demanding the same standard of judgment for Israelite\nand stranger.\n\n3. The simple sense of justice inherent in the Jewish people admits so\nlittle difference between our own God-consciousness and that of others,\nthat Scripture represents the Philistine King Abimelech as receiving a\nwarning from Abraham\u2019s God *JHVH*.(1256) As the Bible holds up Job, the\nBedouin Sheik, as the pattern of a blameless servant of God and true lover\nof mankind,(1257) so the Talmud cites the Philistine Dama ben Nethina as\nan example of filial piety.(1258) Altogether, the merits of the heathen\nreceive their full measure of appreciation throughout Jewish\nliterature,(1259) even though a narrow dissenting view occurs now and\nthen.(1260)\n\n4. Still from the very beginning a tendency to relentless harshness\nexisted in one direction, when the pure worship of Israel\u2019s one and only\nGod was endangered. The early Book of the Covenant forbade every alliance\nwith idolatrous nations,(1261) and the Deuteronomic Code made this more\nstringent by prohibiting intermarriage and even the toleration of\nidolaters in the land, lest they seduce the people of God to turn away\nfrom Him.(1262) The Pharisean leaders, the founders of Rabbinism, went\nstill further by placing an interdict upon eating with the heathen or\nusing food and wine prepared by them, thus aiming at a complete separation\nfrom the non-Jewish world.(1263)\n\nThe contrast between Judaism and heathenism was further heightened by the\nview of the prophets and psalmists, showing that the great nations were\nthe very embodiment of idolatrous iniquity, murderous violence and sexual\nimpurity, a world of arrogance and pride, defying God and doomed to\nperdition, because they opposed the kingdom of God proclaimed by\nIsrael.(1264) Henceforth the term \u201cthe nations\u201d (_goyim_) was taken by the\nreligious as meaning the wicked ones, who would not be able to stand the\ndivine judgment in the future life, but would go down to Sheol, or\nGehenna, to fall a prey to everlasting corruption, to the fire that is\nnever quenched.(1265)\n\n5. Yet such a wholesale condemnation could not long be maintained; it was\ntoo strongly contradicted in principle by the prophets and Psalmists, and\nquite as much by the apocalyptic writers and Haggadists of later times.\nThe book of Jonah testifies that Israel\u2019s God sent His prophet to the\nheathen of Nineveh to exhort them to repentance, that they might obtain\nforgiveness and salvation like repentant Israel.(1266) Heathenism is\ndoomed to perish, not the heathen; they are to acknowledge the heavenly\nJudge in their very punishments and return to Him. Such is the conclusion\nof all the exhortations of the prophets predicting punishment to the\nnations. Moreover, those heathen who escape the doom of the world-powers\nare to proclaim the mighty deeds of the Lord to the utmost lands. Nay,\naccording to the grand vision of the exilic seer, among the many nations\nthat shall assemble at the end of days to worship the Lord in Zion, select\nones will be admitted to the priesthood with the sons of Aaron.(1267) The\nname _Hadrak_, understood as \u201che who bringeth back,\u201d suggested itself to\nthe rabbis as a title of the Messiah, the converter of the heathen\nnations.(1268) So in both the Talmud and the Sibylline books(1269) Noah is\nrepresented as a preacher of repentance to the nations before the flood,\nand accordingly the latter book adjures the Hellenic world to repent of\ntheir sinful lives before they would be overwhelmed by the flood of fire\nat the great judgment day. In the same spirit the Haggadists tell that God\nsent Balaam, Job, and other pious men as prophets of the heathen to teach\nthem the way of repentance.(1270) And the rabbis actually say that, if the\nheathen nations had not refused the Torah when the Lord offered it to them\nat Sinai, it would have been the common property of all mankind.(1271)\n\n6. The leading minds of Judaism felt only pity for the blind obstinacy of\nthe great mass of heathen, who worshiped the creatures instead of the\nCreator, or the stars of heaven instead of Him who is enthroned above the\nskies. They regarded heathenism either as evidence of spiritual want and\nweakness, or as the result of destiny. Indeed, the words of the\nDeuteronomist sound like an echo of Babylonian fatalism when he asserts\nthat God himself assigned to the nations the worship of the stars as their\ninheritance.(1272) Later the opinion gained ground that the heathen\ndeities were real demons, holding dominion over the nations and leading\nthem astray.(1273) The exilic seer attacked idolatry most vigorously as\nfolly and falsehood, and thus the note of derision and irony is struck by\nDeutero-Isaiah, the Psalms, and in many of the propaganda writings of the\nHellenistic age, in their references to heathenism.\n\nOn the other hand, it is very significant that the Palestinian sages and\ntheir successors condemned heathenism as a moral plague, conducing to\ndepravity, lewdness, and bloodshed. They regarded the powers of the world,\nespecially Edom (Rome), as being under the dominion of the Evil One, and\ntherefore doomed to perish in the flames of Gehenna. As they rejected the\nTen Commandments out of love for bloodshed, lust, and robbery, so,\naccording to the Haggadists, they will be unable to withstand the last\njudgment and will suffer eternal punishment. Since their one desire was to\nenjoy the life of this world, their lot in the future will be Gehenna;\nwhile the gates of the Garden of Eden will be open for Israel, the people\noppressed and sorely tried, yet ever faithful to the covenant of\nAbraham.(1274) Of course, this view implied both comfort and vengeance,\nbut we must not forget that the harsh statements contained in the Talmud\nowe their origin to bitter distress and cannot be considered Jewish\ndoctrines, as unfriendly critics frequently do.(1275)\n\n7. As has been shown above, the dominant view of the Synagogue is that\neternal salvation belongs to the righteous among the nations as well as\nthose of Israel. In this sense, Psalm IX, 18, is understood to the effect\nthat \u201call those heathens who have forgotten God will go down to the nether\nworld.\u201d(1276) One of the sages expresses a still broader view: \u201cWhen\njudging the nations, God determines their standard by their best\nrepresentatives.\u201d(1277) Many rabbis held the belief that circumcision\nsecured for the Jew a place in \u201cAbraham\u2019s bosom\u201d while the uncircumcised\nare consigned to Gehenna, thus assigning to circumcision a corresponding\nplace to that of baptism in the Christian Church. This belief seems to be\nbased upon a passage in Ezekiel, where the prophet speaks of the _arelim_,\nor \u201cuncircumcised,\u201d as dwelling in the nether world.(1278) But a number of\npassages in the Talmud, especially in the Tosefta,(1279) show that\ncircumcision was not believed to have the power to save a sinner from\nGehenna, On the other hand, we have the great teaching of R. Johanan ben\nZakkai in opposing his disciple Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, telling that the\nsacrifices which atoned for the sins of Israel are paralleled by deeds of\nbenevolence, which can atone for the sins of the heathen.(1280) Both the\nTalmud and Philo state that the seventy bullocks which were offered up\nduring the seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles were brought by Israel\nas sacrifices for the seventy nations of the world.(1281)\n\n8. Where no cause existed to fear the influence of idolatry, friendly\nrelations with non-Jews were always recommended and cultivated. A non-Jew\nwho devotes his life to the study and practice of the law, said Rabbi\nMeir, is equal to the high priest; for Scripture says: \u201cThe laws which, if\na man do, he shall live by them,\u201d implying that pure humanity is the one\nessential required by God.(1282) Indeed, Rabbi Meir enjoyed a close\nfriendship with \u0152nomaos of Gadara,(1283) a heathen philosopher spoken of\nadmiringly in Talmudic sources and placed on a par with Balaam as noble\nrepresentatives of heathendom. Obviously this good opinion was held,\nbecause both spoke favorably of Judaism, whose \u201csynagogues and\nschoolhouses formed the strongest bulwark against the attacks of\nJew-haters.\u201d Other friendships which were described in popular legends and\nheld up as examples for emulation are those between Jehuda ha Nasi and the\nEmperor Antoninus (Severus)(1284) and that of Samuel of Babylonia with\nAblat, a Persian sage.(1285)\n\n9. The Mosaic and Talmudic law prescribed quite different treatment for\nthose heathen who persisted in idolatrous practices and refused to observe\nthe laws of humanity, called the seven Noahitic laws, as will be explained\nmore fully in the next chapter. No toleration could be granted them within\nthe ancient jurisdiction; \u201cThou shall show them no mercy\u201d was the phrase\nof the law for the seven tribes of Canaan, and this was applied to all\nidolaters.(1286) Hence Maimonides lays down the rule in his Code that\n\u201cwherever and whenever the Mosaic law is in force, the people must be\ncompelled to abjure heathenism and accept the seven laws of Noah in the\nname of God, or else they are doomed to die.\u201d(1287)\n\nOn the other hand, in the very same Code, Maimonides writes in the spirit\nof Rabbi Meir: \u201cNot only the Jewish tribe is sanctified by the highest\ndegree of human holiness, but every human being, without difference of\nbirth, in whom is the spirit of love and the power of knowledge to devote\nhis life exclusively to the service of God and the dissemination of His\nknowledge, and who, walking uprightly before Him, has cast off the yoke of\nthe many earthly desires pursued by the rest of men. God is his portion\nand his eternal inheritance, and God will provide for his needs, as He did\nfor the priest and the Levite of yore.\u201d(1288)\n\n10. To be sure, a statement of this nature presents a different judgment\nof heathenism from that of the ancient national law. But the historical\nand comparative study of religions has caused us to entertain altogether\ndifferent views of the various heathen religions, both those representing\nprimitive stages of childlike imagination and superstition, and those more\ndeveloped faiths which inculcate genuine ideals of a more or less lofty\ncharacter. Certainly the laws of Deuteronomy, written when the nation had\ndwindled down to the little kingdom of Jud\u00e6a, and those further expounded\nin the Mishnah enjoining the most rigorous intolerance toward every\nvestige of paganism, had only a theoretical value for the powerless Jewish\nnation; while both the Church and the rulers of Islam were largely guided\nby them in practical measures. The higher view of Judaism was expressed by\nthe last of the prophets: \u201c \u2018For from the rising of the sun even unto the\ngoing down of the same My name is great among the nations; and in every\nplace offerings are presented unto My name, even pure oblations, for My\nname is great among the nations,\u2019 saith the Lord of hosts.\u201d(1289) The fact\nis that heathenism seeks the God whom Israel by its revelation has found.\nIn this spirit both Philo and Josephus took the Scriptural passage, \u201cThou\nshalt not curse God,\u201d taking the Hebrew _Elohim_ in the plural sense, \u201cthe\ngods\u201d; thus they said a Jew must not offend the religious sense of the\nheathen by scorn or ridicule, however careful he must be to avoid the\nimitation of their practices and superstitions.(1290)\n\nAs a matter of fact, the Code of Law aimed to separate Israel and the\nnations in order to avoid the crude worship of idols, animals and stars\npracticed by the heathen of antiquity. It was not framed for masters like\nSocrates, Buddha, and Confucius, with their lofty moral views and their\nclaims upon humanity. The God who revealed himself to Abraham, Job, Enoch,\nand Balaam, as well as to Moses and Isaiah, spoke to them also, and the\nwise ones of Israel have ever hearkened to their inspiring lessons. Their\nwords are echoed in Jewish literature together with Solomon\u2019s words of\nwisdom. Plato, Plotinus, and Aristotle received the most friendly\nhospitality from the rabbinic philosophers and mystic writers of Jewry,\nand so Buddhist sayings and views penetrated into Jewish ethics and\npopular teachings. Both the Jew and his literature are cosmopolitan, and\nJudaism never withholds its appreciation of the merits of the heathen\nworld.(1291)\n\n11. We must especially emphasize one claim of the Jewish people above\nother nations which the rabbis call _zekuth aboth_, \u201cthe merit of the\nfathers,\u201d and which we may term \u201chereditary virtue.\u201d The election of\nIsrael, in spite of its own lack of merit, is declared in Deuteronomy and\nelsewhere to be due to the merit of the fathers, with whom God concluded\nHis covenant in love.(1292) The promise is often repeated that God will\never remember His covenant with the fathers and not let the people perish,\neven though their sins were great; therefore the rabbis assumed that the\npatriarchs had accumulated a store of merit by their virtues which would\nredound before God to the benefit of their descendants, supplementing\ntheir own weaknesses.(1293) This merit or righteousness of the fathers\nformed a prominent part of the hope and prayer, nay, of the whole\ntheological system of the Jewish people. They regarded the patriarchs and\nall the great leaders of the past as patterns of loyalty and love for God,\nso that, according to the Midrash, Israel might say in the words of the\nShulamite: \u201cBlack am I\u201d considering my own merit, \u201cbut comely\u201d when\nconsidering the merit of the fathers.(1294) Whether this store of merit\nwould ever be exhausted is a matter of controversy among the rabbis. Some\nreferred to God\u2019s own words that He will ever remember His covenant with\nthe fathers; others pointed to the verse in Deutero-Isaiah: \u201cFor the\nmountains may depart, and the hills be removed; but My kindness shall not\ndepart from thee, neither shall My covenant of peace be removed,\u201d which\nthey interpreted symbolically to mean: when the merit of the patriarchs\nand matriarchs of Israel is exhausted, God\u2019s mercy and compassion for\nIsrael will be there never to depart.(1295) Translated into our own mode\nof thinking, this merit of the fathers claimed for Israel signifies the\nunique treasure of a spiritual inheritance which belongs to the Jew. This\ninheritance of thousands of years provides such rare examples and such\nhigh inspiration that it incites to the highest virtue, the firmest\nloyalty, and the greatest love for truth and justice. Judaism, knowing no\nsuch thing as original sin, points with pride instead to hereditary\nvirtue, deriving an inexhaustible source of blessing from its historical\ncontinuity of four thousand years.\n\n\n\n\nChapter LVI. The Stranger and the Proselyte\n\n\n1. Among all the laws of the Mosaic Code, that which has no parallel in\nany other ancient code is the one enjoining justice, kindness and love\ntoward the stranger. The Book of the Covenant teaches: \u201cAnd a stranger\nshall thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him; for ye were\nstrangers in the land of Egypt,\u201d(1296) and \u201cA stranger shalt thou not\noppress; for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in\nthe land of Egypt.\u201d The Deuteronomic writer lays special stress on the\nfact that Israel\u2019s God, \u201cwho regardeth not persons nor taketh bribes, doth\nexecute justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loveth the stranger,\nin giving him food and raiment.\u201d He then concludes: \u201cLove ye therefore the\nstranger; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.\u201d(1297) The Priestly\nCode goes still further, granting the stranger the same legal protection\nas the native.(1298)\n\n2. We would, however, misunderstand the spirit of all antiquity, including\nancient Israel, if we consider this as an expression of universal love for\nmankind and the recognition of every human being as fellow-man and\nbrother. Throughout antiquity and during the semi-civilized Middle Ages, a\nstranger was an enemy unless he became a guest. If he sought protection at\nthe family hearth or (in the Orient) under the tent of a Sheik, he thereby\nentered into a tutelary relation with both the clan or tribe and its\ndeity. After entering into such a relation, temporary or permanent, he\nbecame, in the term which the Mosaic law uses in common with the general\nSemitic custom, a _Ger_ or _Toshab_, \u201csojourner\u201d or \u201csettler,\u201d entitled to\nfull protection.(1299) This relation of dependency on the community is\noccasionally expressed by the term: \u201cthy stranger that is within thy\ngates.\u201d(1300) Such protection implied, in turn, that the _Ger_ or\n_proteg\u00e9_ owed an obligation to the tribe or community which shielded him.\nHe stood under the protection of the tribal god, frequently assumed his\nname, and thus dared not violate the law of the land or of its deity, lest\nhe forfeit his claim to protection.\n\n3. In accordance with this, the oft-repeated Mosaic command for\nbenevolence toward the stranger, which placed him on the same footing with\nthe needy and helpless, imposed certain religious obligations upon him. He\nwas enjoined, like the Israelite, not to violate the sanctity of the\nSabbath by labor, nor to provoke God\u2019s anger by idolatrous practices, and,\naccording to the Priestly Code, to avoid the eating of blood and the\ncontracting of incestuous marriages as well as the transgression of the\nlaws for Passover and the Day of Atonement. Naturally, in criminal cases\nsuch as blasphemy he was subject to the death-penalty just like the\nnative.(1301) Still, the _Ger_ was not admitted as a citizen, and in the\nMosaic system of law he was always a tolerated or protected alien, unless\nhe underwent went the rite of circumcision and thus joined the Israelitish\ncommunity.(1302)\n\n4. With the transformation of the Israelitish State into the Jewish\ncommunity\u2014in other words, with the change of the people from a political\nto a religious status,\u2014this relation to the non-Jew underwent a decided\nchange. As the contrast to the heathen became more marked, the _Ger_\nassumed a new position. As he pledged himself to abandon all vestiges of\nidolatry and to conform to certain principles of the Jewish law, he\nentered into closer relations with the people. Accordingly, he adopted\ncertain parts of the Mosaic code or the entire law, and thus became either\na partial or a complete member of the religious community of Israel. In\neither case he was regarded as a follower of the God of the Covenant. In\nspite of the exclusive spirit which was dominant in the period following\nEzra, two forces favored the extending of the boundaries of Judaism beyond\nthe confines of the nation. On the one hand, the Babylonian Exile had\nvisualized and partially realized the prophecy of Jeremiah: \u201cUnto Thee\nshall the nations come from the ends of the earth, and shall say: \u2018Our\nfathers have inherited naught but lies, vanity and things wherein there is\nno profit.\u2019 \u201d(1303) For example, Zechariah announced a time when \u201cmany\npeoples and mighty nations shall come to seek the Lord of Hosts in\nJerusalem and to entreat the favor of the Lord,\u201d and \u201cTen men shall take\nhold, out of all the languages of nations, shall even take hold of the\nskirt of him that is a Jew, saying, \u2018We will go with you, for we have\nheard that God is with you.\u2019 \u201d(1304) Another prophet said at the time of\nthe overthrow of Babylon: \u201cFor the Lord will have compassion on Jacob, and\nwill yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land, and the stranger\n(_Ger_, or proselyte) shall join himself with them, and they shall cleave\nto the house of Jacob.\u201d(1305) The Psalmists especially refer to the\nheathen who shall join Israel,(1306) so that _Ger_ now becomes the regular\nterm for proselyte.(1307)\n\nIn addition to this inward religious desire we must consider the social\nand political impulse. The handful of Jud\u00e6ans who had returned from\nBabylonia were so surrounded by heathen tribes that, while the Samaritans\nhad attracted the less desirable groups, they were glad to welcome the\ninflux of such as promised to become true worshipers of God. The chief\nproblem was how to provide a legal form for these to \u201ccome over,\u201d\n_proselyte_ being the Greek term for \u201chim who comes over.\u201d By such a form\nthey could enter the community while accepting certain religious\nobligations. In fact, such obligations had been stated before in the\nPriestly Code, which admitted into the political community as \u201csojourners\u201d\nor \u201cindwellers\u201d those who pledged themselves to abstain from idolatry,\nblasphemy, incest, the eating of blood or of flesh from living animals,\nand from all violence against human life and property. They were debarred\nonly from marriage into the religious community, \u201cthe congregation of the\nLord.\u201d Henceforth _Ger_ and _Ger Toshab_ became juridical terms, the\nsocial and legal designation of those proselytes who had abjured\nheathenism and joined the monotheistic ranks of Judaism as \u201cworshipers of\nGod.\u201d\n\n5. Thus the first great step in the progress of Judaism from a national\nsystem of law to a universal religion was made in Jud\u00e6a. The next step was\nto recognize the idea of the revelation of God to the \u201cgod-fearing men\u201d of\nthe primeval ages, as described in the Mosaic books, and thus to open the\ngates of the national religion for heathen who had become \u201cGod-fearing\nmen\u201d or \u201cworshipers of the Lord.\u201d Thus the Psalms, after enumerating the\ncustomary two or three classes, \u201cthe house of Israel,\u201d \u201cof Aaron,\u201d and \u201cof\nLevi,\u201d often add the \u201cGod-fearing\u201d proselyte.(1308) The Synagogue was\nespecially attractive to the heathen who sought religious truth because of\nits elevating devotion and its public instruction in the Scripture,\ntranslated into Greek, the language of the cultured world. This sponsored\na new system for propagating the Jewish faith. The so-called Propaganda\nliterature of Alexandria laid its chief stress upon the ethical laws of\nJudaism, not seeking to submit the non-Jew to the observance of the entire\nMosaic law or to subject him to the rite of circumcision. The Jewish\nmerchants, coming into contact with non-Jews in their travels on land and\nsea, endeavored especially to present their religious tenets in terms of a\nbroad, universal religion. As a universal faith forms the background of\nthe entire Wisdom literature, particularly the book of Job, a simple\nmonotheism could be founded upon a divine revelation to mankind in\ngeneral, corresponding to the one to Noah and his sons after the flood.\nThe laws connected with this covenant, called the Noahitic laws, were\ngeneral humanitarian precepts. We find these enumerated in the Talmud as\nsix, seven, and occasionally ten. Sometimes we read of thirty such laws to\nbe accepted by the heathen, probably founded upon the nineteenth chapter\nof Leviticus, at one time central in Jewish ethics.(1309) At any rate, the\nobservance of the so-called Noahitic laws was demanded of all worshipers\nof the one God of Israel.\n\nStrange to say, however, this extensive propaganda of the Alexandrian Jews\nduring the two or three pre-Christian centuries left few traces in the\nhistory and literature of Palestinian Judaism. Two reasons seem at hand;\nthe growth of the Paulinian Church, which absorbed the missionary activity\nof the Synagogue, and the effort of Talmudic Judaism to obliterate the old\nmissionary tradition. To judge from occasional references in Josephus and\nthe New Testament, as well as many inscriptions all over the lands of the\nMediterranean,(1310) the number of heathen converts to the Synagogue was\nvery large and caused attacks on Judaism in both Rome and Alexandria.\nJosephus tells us that Jews and proselytes in all lands sent sacrificial\ngifts to Jerusalem in such abundance as to excite the avarice of the\nRomans.(1311) The Midrash preserves a highly interesting passage which\ncasts light on the earlier significance of the winning of heathen\nconverts, reading as follows: \u201cWhen it is said in Zephaniah II, 5: \u2018Woe to\nthe inhabitants of the sea-coast, the nation of Kerethites\u2019; this means\nthat the inhabitants of the various pagan lands would be doomed to undergo\n_Kareth_, \u2018perdition,\u2019 save for the one God-fearing proselyte, who is won\nover to Judaism each year and set up to save the heathen world.\u201d(1312) In\nother words, the merit of the one proselyte whose conversion awakens the\nhope for the winning of the entire heathen world to pure monotheism, is an\natoning power for all. Such was the teaching of the Pharisees, whom the\ngospel of Matthew brands as hypocrites because of their zeal in making\nproselytes.\n\n6. This kind of proselytism was encouraged only by Alexandrian or\nHellenistic Judaism. In Palestine, however, the social system of the\nnation was quite unfavorable to the simple \u201cGod-worshiper,\u201d who remained\nmerely a tolerated alien, even though protected, and never really entered\nthe national body. Legally he was termed _Ger Toshab_, \u201csettler,\u201d which\nmeant semi-proselyte. The type of this class was Naaman, the Syrian\ngeneral who was instructed by Elijah to bathe in the Jordan to cure his\nleprosy, and then became a worshiper of the God of Israel.(1313)\nSimilarly, whatever the real origin of the proselyte\u2019s bath may have been,\na baptismal bath was prescribed for the proselyte to wash off the stain of\nidolatry.(1314) He was regarded as one who had \u201cfled from his former\nmaster\u201d (in heaven) to find refuge with the only God;(1315) therefore he\nwas legally entitled to shelter, support, and religious instruction from\nthe authorities.(1316) Certain places were assigned where he was to\nreceive protection and provision for his needs, but he was not allowed to\nsettle in Jerusalem, where only full proselytes were received as\ncitizens.(1317) According to Philo, special hospices were fitted out for\nthe reception of semi-proselytes.(1318)\n\n7. In order to enjoy full citizenship and equal rights, the proselyte had\nto undergo both the baptismal bath and the rite of circumcision, thus\naccepting all the laws of the Mosaic Code equally with the Israelite born.\nBeside this, he had to bring a special proselyte\u2019s sacrifice as a\ntestimony to his belief in the God of Israel. In distinction from the _Ger\nToshab_, or semi-proselyte, he was then called _Ger ha Zedek_ or _Ger\nZedek_. This name, usually translated as \u201cproselyte of righteousness,\u201d\nobviously possesses a deeper historical meaning. The Psalmist voices a\npure ethical monotheism in his query: \u201cO Lord, who shall be a guest\n(_Ger_, sojourner) in thy tent?\u201d which he answers: \u201cHe that walketh\nuprightly and worketh righteousness and speaketh truth in his\nheart.\u201d(1319) But the legal view of the priestly authorities was that only\nthe man who offers a \u201csacrifice of righteousness\u201d and pledges himself to\nobserve all the laws binding upon Israel might become a \u201cguest\u201d in the\nTemple on Zion, an adopted citizen of Jerusalem, the \u201ccity of\nrighteousness.\u201d(1320) In illustration of this view a striking\ninterpretation to a Deuteronomic verse is preserved: \u201cThey shall call\npeople unto the mountain, there shall they offer sacrifices of\nrighteousness: that is, the heathen nations with their kings who come to\nJerusalem for commerce with the Jewish people shall be so fascinated by\nits pure monotheistic worship and its simple diet, that they will espouse\nthe Jewish faith and bring sacrifices to the God of Israel as\nproselytes.\u201d(1321)\n\nThe prominence of the full proselyte in the early Synagogue appears in the\nancient benediction for the righteous leaders and Hasidim, the Soferim and\nSynedrion, the ruling authorities of the Jewish nation, where special\nmention is made of \u201cthe Proselytes of (the) Righteousness.\u201d(1322) These\nfull proselytes pushed aside the half-proselytes, so that, while both are\nmentioned in the earlier classification, only the latter are considered by\nthe later Haggadah.(1323) With the dissolution of the Jewish State no\njuridical basis remained for the _Ger Toshab_, the \u201cprotected stranger.\u201d\nR. Simeon ben Eleazar expressed this in the statement: \u201cWith the cessation\nof the Jubilee year there was no longer any place for the _Ger Toshab_ in\nJud\u00e6a.\u201d(1324) We read in Josephus that no proselytes were accepted in his\ntime unless they submitted to the Abrahamitic rite and became full\nproselytes.(1325)\n\nHowever, as Josephus tells us, a strong desire to espouse the Jewish faith\nexisted among the pagan women of neighboring countries, especially of\nSyria.(1326) The same situation existed in Rome according to the\nrabbinical sources, Josephus, Roman writers, and many tomb\ninscriptions.(1327) Conspicuous among these proselytes was Queen Helen of\nAdiabene, who won lasting fame by her generous gifts to the Jewish people\nin time of famine and to the Temple at Jerusalem; her son Menobaz, at the\nadvice of a Jewish teacher, underwent the rite of circumcision in order to\nrise from a mere God-worshiper to a full proselyte.(1328) The\nMidrash(1329) enumerates nine heathen women of the Bible who became\nGod-worshipers: Hagar; Asenath, the wife of Joseph, whose conversion is\ndescribed in a little known but very instructive Apocryphal book by that\nname;(1330) Zipporah, the wife of Moses; Shifra and Puah, the Egyptian\nmidwives;(1331) Pharaoh\u2019s daughter, the foster-mother of Moses, whom the\nrabbis identified with Bithia (_Bath Yah_, \u201cDaughter of the Lord\u201d);(1332)\nRahab, whom the Midrash represents as the wife of Joshua and ancestress of\nmany prophets;(1333) Ruth and Jael. Philo adds Tamar, the daughter-in-law\nof Judah, as a type of a proselyte.(1334)\n\n8. Beside the term _Ger_, with its derivatives, which gave legal standing\nto the proselyte, the religious genius of Judaism found another term which\nillustrated far better the idea of conversion to Judaism. The words of\nBoaz to Ruth: \u201cBe thy reward complete from the Lord thy God of Israel,\nunder whose wings thou art come to take refuge,\u201d(1335) were applied by the\nPharisean leaders to all who joined the faith as Ruth did. So it became a\ntechnical term for converts to Judaism, \u201cto come, or be brought, under the\nwings of the divine majesty\u201d (Shekinah).(1336) Philo frequently expresses\nthe idea that the proselyte who renounces heathenism and places himself\nunder the protection of Israel\u2019s God, stands in filial relation to Him\nexactly like the born Israelite.(1337) Therefore Hillel devoted his life\nto missionary activity, endeavoring \u201cto bring the soul of many a heathen\nunder the wings of the Shekinah.\u201d But in this he was merely following the\nrabbinic ideal of Abraham,(1338) and of Jethro, of whom the Midrash says:\n\u201cAfter having been won to the monotheistic faith by Moses, he returned to\nhis land to bring his countrymen, the Kenites, under the wings of the\nShekinah.\u201d(1339) The proselyte\u2019s bath in living water was to constitute a\nrebirth of the former heathen, poetically expressed in the Halakic rule:\n\u201cA convert is like a newborn creature.\u201d(1340) The Paulinian idea that\nbaptism creates a new Adam in place of the old is but an adaptation of the\nPharisaic view. Some ancient teachers therefore declared the proselyte\u2019s\nbath more important than circumcision, since it forms the sole initiatory\nrite for female proselytes, as it was with the wives of the\npatriarchs.(1341)\n\n9. The school of Hillel followed in the footsteps of Hellenistic Judaism\nin accentuating the ethical element in the law;(1342) so naturally it\nencouraged proselytism as well. The Midrash preserves the following\nMishnah, handed down by Simeon ben Gamaliel, but not contained in our\nMishnaic Code: \u201cIf a _Ger_ desires to espouse the Jewish faith, we extend\nto him the hand of welcome in order to bring him under the wings of the\nShekinah.\u201d(1343) Both the Midrash and the early Church literature reveal\ntraces of a Jewish treatise on proselytes, containing rules for admission\ninto the two grades, which was written in the spirit of the Hellenistic\npropaganda, but was afterward rewritten and adopted by the Christian\nChurch. The school of Shammai in its rigorous legalism opposed proselytism\nin general, and its chief representative, Eliezer ben Hyrcanos, distrusted\nproselytes altogether.(1344) On the other hand, the followers of Hillel\nwere decidedly in favor of converting the heathen and were probably\nresponsible for many Haggadic passages extolling the proselytes. Thus the\nverse of Deutero-Isaiah: \u201cOne shall say, \u2018I am the Lord\u2019s,\u2019 and another\nshall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with\nhis hand unto the Lord, and surname himself by the name of Israel\u201d is\npeculiarly applied in the Midrash. The first half, we are told, denotes\ntwo classes of Israelites, those who are without blemish, and those who\nhave sinned and repented; the second half includes the two classes of\nproselytes, those who have become full Jews (_Gere ha Zedek_) and those\nwho are merely worshippers of God (_Yir\u2019e Shamayim_). A later Haggadic\nversion characteristically omits the last, recognizing only the full\nconverts (_Gere Emeth_) as proselytes.(1345) The following parable in the\nspirit of the Essenes illustrates their viewpoint. In commenting upon the\nverse from the Psalms: \u201cThe Lord keepeth the strangers,\u201d the story is\ntold: A king possessed a flock of sheep and goats and noted that a deer\njoined them, accompanying them to their pasture and returning with them.\nSo he said to the herdsmen: \u201cTake good care of this deer of mine which has\nleft the free and broad desert to go in and out with my flock, and do not\nlet it suffer hunger or thirst.\u201d Likewise God takes special delight in the\nproselytes who leave their own nation, giving up their fellowship with the\ngreat multitude in order to worship Him as the One and Only God, together\nwith the little people of Israel.(1346) Similarly the Biblical verse\nconcerning wisdom: \u201cI love them that love me, and those that seek me\nearnestly shall find me\u201d(1347) is referred to the proselytes, \u201cwho give up\ntheir entire past from pure love of God, and place their lives under the\nsheltering wings of the divine majesty.\u201d All these Midrashic passages and\nmany others are but feeble echoes of the conceptions of the Hellenistic\npropaganda, which were so ably set forth by Philo and the Book of Asenath.\nIndeed, Judaism must have exerted a powerful influence upon the cultured\nworld of Hellas and Rome in those days, as is evidenced both in the\nHellenistic writings of the Jew and in the Greek and Roman writers\nthemselves. Their very defamation of Judaism unwittingly gives testimony\nto the danger to which Judaism exposed the pagan conception of life, and\nto the hold it took upon many of the heathen.(1348)\n\n10. The reaction against this missionary movement took place in Judea. The\nenforced conversion of the Idumeans to Judaism by John Hyrcanus benefited\nneither the nation nor the faith of the Jew, and turned the school of\nShammai, which belonged to the party of the Zealots, entirely against the\nwhole system of proselytism. On the whole, bitter experience taught the\nJews distrust of conversions due to fear, such as those of the Samaritans\nwho feared the lions that killed the inhabitants, or to political and\nsocial advantage, like those under David and Solomon, or in the days of\nMordecai and Esther, or still later under John Hyrcanus.(1349) Instead,\nall stress was laid upon religious conviction and loyalty to the law. In\nfact, Josephus mentions many proselytes who in his time fell away from\nJudaism,(1350) who may perhaps have been converts to Christianity. The\nlater Halakah, fixed under the influence of the Hadrianic persecution and\nquoted in the Talmud as Baraitha, prescribes the following mode of\nadmission for the time after the destruction of the Temple, omitting\nsignificantly much that was used in the preceding period:(1351) \u201cIf a\nperson desires to join Judaism as a proselyte, let him first learn of the\nsad lot of the Jewish people and their martyrdom, so as to be dissuaded\nfrom joining. If, however, he persists in his intention, let him be\ninstructed in a number of laws, both prohibitory and mandatory, easy and\nhard to observe, and be informed also as to the punishment for their\ndisobedience and the reward for fulfillment. After he has then declared\nhis willingness to accept the belief in God and to adhere to His law, he\nmust submit to the rite of circumcision in the presence of two members of\nthe Pharisean community, take the baptismal bath, and is then fully\nadmitted into the Jewish fold.\u201d It is instructive to compare this Halakic\nrule with the manual for proselytes preserved by the Church under the name\nof \u201cThe Two Ways,\u201d but in a revised form.(1352) The mode of admission in\nthe Halakah seems modeled superficially after the more elaborate one of\nthe earlier code, where the Shema as the Jewish creed and the Ten\nCommandments, possibly with the addition of the eighteenth and nineteenth\nchapters of Leviticus and the twenty-seventh chapter of Deuteronomy, seem\nto have formed the basis for the instruction and the solemn oath of the\nproselyte.\n\n11. As long as the Jewish people possessed a flourishing world-wide\ncommerce, unhampered by the power of the Church, they were still joined by\nnumerous proselytes in the various lands and enjoyed general confidence.\nIndeed, many prominent members of the Roman nobility became zealous\nadherents of Judaism, such as Aquilas, the translator of the Bible, and\nClemens Flavius, the senator of the Imperial house,(1353) and many\nprominent Jewish masters were said to be descendants of illustrious\nproselytes.(1354) All this changed as soon as the Christian Church girded\nherself with \u201cthe sword of Esau.\u201d From that time on proselytism became a\nperil and a source of evil to the Jew. The sages no longer took pride in\nthe prophetic promise that \u201cthe stranger will join himself to Israel,\u201d nor\ndid they find in the words \u201cand they shall cleave to the house of Jacob\u201d\nan allusion to the prediction that some of these proselytes would be added\n\u201cto the priesthood of the Lord,\u201d as some earlier teachers had interpreted\nthe passage.(1355) R. Helbo of the fourth century, on the contrary,\nexplained that proselytes have become a plague like \u201cleprosy\u201d for the\nhouse of Jacob, taking the Hebrew _nispehu_ as an allusion to the word\n_Sappahat_, \u201cleprosy.\u201d(1356) Henceforth all attempts at proselytism were\ndeprecated and discouraged, while uncircumcised proselytes,\u2014probably\nmeaning the persecuting Christians\u2014were relegated to Gehinnom.(1357)\n\n12. This view was not shared by all contemporaries, however. R. Abbahu of\nC\u00e6sarea, who had many an interesting and bitter dispute with his Christian\nfellow-citizens,(1358) was broad-minded enough to declare the proselytes\nto be genuine worshipers of God.(1359) Joshua ben Hanania encouraged the\nproselyte Aquilas and prognosticated great success for proselytes in\ngeneral as teachers of both the Haggada and Halakah. So other Haggadists\nurged special love and compassion for the half-proselyte,(1360) and\nentertained a special hope of the Messianic age that many heathen should\nturn to God in sincerity of heart.(1361) At all events, it was considered\na great sin to reproach a convert with his idolatrous past.(1362) Indeed,\nthe phrase, \u201cthey that fear the Lord,\u201d used so often in the Psalms, is\nreferred by the Haggadists to the proselytes; true, the chief stress is\nlaid upon the full proselytes, the _Gere Zedek_, but a foremost place in\nthe world to come is still reserved for God-worshipers like the Emperor\nAntoninus.(1363) Thus Psalm CXXVIII, which speaks of the \u201cGod-fearing\nman,\u201d was applied to the proselyte, to whom were therefore promised\ntemporal bliss and eternal salvation, rejoicing in the Law, in deeds of\nlove and bounteous blessing from Zion.(1364) While the Halakah remained\nantagonistic to proselytism on account of its narrow adherence to the\nspirit of the Priestly Code, the Haggadah exhibits a broader view.\nResonant with the spirit of prophecy, it beckons to all men to come and\nseek shelter under the wings of the one and only God, in order to\ndisseminate light and love all over the world.\n\n13. Modern Judaism, quickened anew with the spirit of the ancient seers of\nIsrael, cannot remain bound by a later and altogether too rigid Halakah.\nAt the very beginning of the Talmudic period stands Hillel, the liberal\nsage and master of the law, who, like Abraham of old, extended the hand of\nfellowship to all who wished to know God and His law; he actually pushed\naside the national bounds to make way for a faith of love for God and the\nfellow man. For this is the significance of his answer to the Roman\nscoffer who wanted to hear the law expounded while he was standing on one\nfoot: \u201cWhatever is hateful to thee, do not do to thy fellow man! That is\nthe law; all the rest is only commentary.\u201d(1365) Thus the leaders of\nprogressive Judaism also have stepped out of the dark prison walls of the\nTalmudic Ghetto and reasserted the humanitarian principles of the founders\nof the Synagogue, who welcomed the proselytes into Israel and introduced\nspecial blessings for them into the liturgy. They declare again, with the\nauthor of Psalm LXXXVII, that Zion, the \u201ccity of God,\u201d should be, not a\nnational center of Israel, but the metropolis of humanity, because Judaism\nis destined to be a universal religion.(1366)\n\nNot that Judaism is to follow the proselytizing methods of the Church,\nwhich aims to capture souls by wholesale conversion without due regard for\nthe attitude or conviction of the individual. But we can no longer afford\nto shut the gate to those who wish to enter, impelled by conviction or\nother motives having a religious bearing, even though they do not conform\nto the Talmudic law.(1367) This attitude guided the leaders of American\nReform Judaism at the rabbinical conference under the presidency of Isaac\nM. Wise, when they considered the admission of proselytes at the present\ntime. In their decision they followed the maxim of the prophet of yore:\n\u201cOpen the gates (of Judaism) that a righteous nation may enter that\nkeepeth the faith.\u201d(1368)\n\n14. It is interesting to observe how Philo of Alexandria contrasts those\nwho join the Jewish faith with those who have become apostates. The\nformer, he says, become at once prudent, temperate, modest, gentle, kind,\nhuman, reverential, just, magnanimous, lovers of truth, and superior to\nthe temptations of wealth and pleasure, whereas the latter are\nintemperate, unchaste, unjust, irreverent, low-minded, quarrelsome,\naccustomed to falsehood and perjury, and ready to sell their freedom for\nsensual pleasures of all kinds.(1369) In the times of Hellenic culture\napostasy made its appearance among the upper classes of the Jews. As the\nhigher-minded among the heathen world were drawn towards the sublime\nmonotheistic faith of the Jew, so the pleasure-seeking and worldly-minded\namong the Jews were attracted by the allurements of Greek culture to\nbecome faithless to the God of Israel, break away from the law, and\nviolate the covenant. Especially under Syrian rule, apostasy became a real\ndanger to the Jewish community, and many measures had to be decided upon\nto avert it. The desertion of the ancestral faith was looked upon as\nrebellion and treason against God and Israel.(1370) With the rise of the\nChristian Church to power and influence the number of apostates increased,\nand with it also the danger to the small community of the Jews in the\nvarious lands. In the same measure as the Church made a meritorious\npractice of the conversion of the Jews, whether by persuasive means or by\nforce and persecution, the authorities of Judaism had to provide the Jew\nwith spiritual weapons of self-defense in the shape of polemical and\napologetic writings,(1371) and to warn him against too close a contact\nwith the apostate, which was too often fraught with peril for the whole\ncommunity. As a number of these apostates became actual maligners of the\nJews under the Roman empire, a special malediction against sectarians, the\nso-called _Birkat ha-Minim_, was inserted in the Eighteen Benedictions\nunder the direction of Gamaliel II.(1372) \u201cThose who have emanated from my\nown midst hurt me most,\u201d says the Synagogue, referring to herself the\nwords of the Sulamite in the Song of Songs.(1373) While every other\noffender from among the Jewish people is declared to be \u201cbrother,\u201d\nnotwithstanding his sin,(1374) the apostate was declared to be one from\nwhom no free-will offering was to be accepted,(1375) and to whom the gates\nof repentance and the gates of salvation are forever closed.(1376) The\nfeeling of bitterness against him grew in intensity, as throughout Jewish\nhistory he often played the despicable r\u00f4le of an accuser of his former\ncoreligionists and betrayer of their faith. The modern Jew also, though he\nsympathizes with every liberal movement among men and respects every\nhonest opinion, however radically different from his own, cannot but\nbehold in the attitude of him who deserts the small yet heroic band of\ndefenders of his ancient faith and joins the great and powerful majority\naround him, a disloyalty and weakness of character unworthy of a son of\nAbraham, the faithful. Since the beginning of the new era in the time of\nMendelssohn, apostasy has made great inroads upon the numerical and\nintellectual strength of Judaism, especially among the upper classes. It\nis no longer, however, of an aggressive character, but rather a result of\nthe lack of Jewish self-respect and religious sentiment, against which\nmeasures tending to a revival of the Jewish spirit are being taken more\nand more. The Jews are called by the rabbis \u201cthe faithful sons of the\nfaithful.\u201d The apostate must be made to feel that he is of a lower type,\nsince he has become a deserter from the army of the battlers for the Lord,\nthe Only One God of Israel.\n\n\n\n\nChapter LVII. Christianity and Mohammedanism, the Daughter-Religions Of\nJudaism\n\n\n1. \u201cIt shall come to pass on that day that living waters shall go out from\nJerusalem; half of them toward the eastern sea and half of them toward the\nwestern sea.... And the Lord shall be King over all the earth; in that day\nshall the Lord be One, and His name one.\u201d(1377) These prophetic words of\nZechariah may be applied to the two great world-religions which emanated\nfrom Judaism and won fully half of the human race, as it exists at\npresent, for the God of Abraham. Though they have incorporated many\nnon-Jewish elements in their systems, they have spread the fundamental\ntruths of the Jewish faith and Jewish ethics to every part of the earth.\nChristianity in the West and Islam in the East have aided in leading\nmankind ever nearer to the pure monotheistic truth. Consciously or\nunconsciously, both found their guiding motive in the Messianic hope of\nthe prophets of Israel and based their moral systems on the ethics of the\nHebrew Scriptures. The leading spirits of Judaism recognized this,\ndeclaring both the Christian and Mohammedan religions to be agencies of\nDivine Providence, intrusted with the historical mission of co\u00f6perating in\nthe building up of the Messianic Kingdom, thus preparing for the ultimate\ntriumph of pure monotheism in the hearts and lives of all men and nations\nof the world. These views, voiced by Jehuda ha Levi, Maimonides, and\nNahmanides,(1378) were reiterated by many enlightened rabbis of later\ntimes. These point out that both the Christian and Mohammedan nations\nbelieve in the same God and His revelation to man, in the unity of the\nhuman race, and in the future life; that they have spread the knowledge of\nGod by a sacred literature based upon our Scripture; that they have\nretained the divine commandments essentially as they are phrased in our\nDecalogue; and have practically taught men to fulfill the Noahitic laws of\nhumanity.(1379) On account of the last fact the medieval Jewish\nauthorities considered Christians to be half-proselytes,(1380) while the\nMohammedans, being pure monotheists, were always still closer to Judaism.\n\n2. In general, however, rabbinic Judaism was not in a position to judge\nChristianity impartially, as it never learned to know primitive\nChristianity as presented in the New Testament. We see no indication in\neither the oldest Talmudic sources or Josephus that the movement made any\nmore impression in Galilee or Jerusalem than the other Messianic\nagitations of the time. All that we learn concerning Jesus from the rabbis\nof the second century and later is that magic arts were practiced by him\nand his disciples who exorcised by his name; and, still worse, that the\nsect named after him was suspected of moral aberrations like a few Gnostic\nsects, known by the collective name of _Minim_, \u201csectarians.\u201d(1381) As a\nmatter of fact, the early Church was chiefly recruited from the Essenes\nand distinguished itself little from the rest of the Synagogue. Its\nmembers, who are called Jud\u00e6o-Christians, continued to observe the Jewish\nlaw and changed their attitude to it only gradually.(1382) Matters took a\ndifferent turn under the influence of Paul, the apostle to the heathen,\nwho emphasized the antinomian spirit; the Jud\u00e6o-Christian sects were then\npushed aside, hostility to Judaism became prominent, and the Church strove\nmore and more for a _rapprochement_ with Rome.(1383) Then the rabbis awoke\nto the serious danger to Judaism from these heretics, _Minim_, when after\nthe tragic downfall of the Jewish nation they grew to world-power as\nallies of the Roman Empire. Thus Isaac Nappaha, a Haggadist of the fourth\ncentury, declared: \u201cThe turning point for the advent of the Messiah, the\nson of David, will not come until the whole (Roman) Empire has been\nconverted to Christianity (_Minuth_).\u201d(1384) This is supplemented by the\nBabylonian Rabbah, who plays with a Biblical phrase, saying: \u201cNot until\nthe whole (Roman) world has turned to the Son (of God).\u201d(1385) Henceforth\nChristian Rome was termed _Edom_, like pagan Rome from the days of Herod\nthe Idumean. In fact, her imperial edicts showed the fratricidal hatred of\nEsau, with hardly a trace of the professed religion of love. No wonder the\nHaggadists identified Rome with the Biblical \u201cBoar of the forest,\u201d and\nwaited impatiently for the time when she would have to give up her rule as\nthe fourth world-empire to the people of God, ushering in the Messianic\nera.(1386)\n\n3. Meanwhile the relapse of Christianity from monotheism became more\nsteady and more apparent. The One God of the Jew was pushed into the\nbackground by the \u201cSon of Man\u201d; and the Virgin-Mother with her divine\nchild became adored like the Queen of Heaven of pagan times, showing\nsimilarity especially to Isis, the Egyptian mother-goddess, with Horus,\nthe young son-god, on her lap. The pagan deities of the various lands were\ntransformed into saints of the Church and worshiped by means of images, in\norder to win the pagan masses for the Christian faith. The original pure\nand absolute monotheism and the stern conception of holiness were thus\nturned into their very opposites by the hierarchy and monasticism of the\nChurch. How, then, could the Jewish people recognize the crucified Christ\nas one of their own? One whose preaching seemed to bring them only\ndamnation and death instead of salvation and life, even while speaking in\nthe name of Israel\u2019s God after the manner of the prophets of yore? How\ncould they see in the strange doctrines of the Church any resemblance to\ntheir own system of faith, especially as the very doctrines which repelled\nthem were those most emphasized by Christianity? Maimonides considered the\nadherents of the Roman Church to be idolaters,(1387) a view which was\nmodified by the Jewish authorities in the West, as they became better\nacquainted with Christian doctrines.(1388)\n\n4. The world-empire of the Church was subsequently divided between Rome,\nwhich the Jewish writers called _Edom_,(1389) and Byzantium, which they\nnamed _Yavan_, but neither showed any real advance in religious views and\nideals. On the contrary, they both persecuted with fire and sword the\nlittle people who were faithful to their ancient monotheism, and\nsuppressed what remained of learning and science. As the Church had the\ngreat task of disciplining wild and semi-barbarous races, there was little\nroom left for learning or for high ideals. At this time a rigorous avenger\nof the persecuted spirit of pure monotheism arose among the sons of\nIshmael in the desert of Arabia in the person of Mohammed, a camel-driver\nof Mecca, a man of mighty passions and void of learning, but imbued with\nthe fire of the ancient prophets of Israel. He felt summoned by Allah, the\nGod of Abraham, to wage war against the idolatry of his nation and restore\nthe pure faith of antiquity. He kindled a flame in the hearts of his\ncountrymen which did not cease, until they had proclaimed the unity of God\nthroughout the Orient, had put to flight the trinitarian dogma of the\nChurch in both Asia and Africa, and extended their domain as far as the\nSpanish peninsula. He offered the Jews inducements to recognize him as the\nlast, \u201cthe seal,\u201d of the prophets, by promising to adopt some of their\nreligious practices; but when they refused, he showed himself fanatical\nand revengeful, a genuine son of the Bedouins, unrelenting in his wrath\nand ending his career as a cruel, sensuous despot of the true Oriental\ntype. Nevertheless, he created a religion which led to a remarkable\nadvancement of intellectual and spiritual culture, and in which Judaism\nfound a valuable incentive to similar endeavors. Thus Ishmael proved a\nbetter heir to Abraham than was Esau, the hostile brother of Jacob.(1390)\n\n5. The important, yet delicate question, which of the three religions is\nthe best, the Mohammedan, Christian or Jewish, was answered most cleverly\nby Lessing in his _Nathan the Wise_, by adapting the parable of the three\nrings, taken from Boccaccio. His conclusion is that the best religion is\nthe one which induces men best to promote the welfare of their fellow\nmen.(1391) But the question itself is much older; it was discussed at the\ncourt of the Kaliphs in Bagdad as early as the tenth century, where the\nadherents of every religion there represented expressed their opinions in\nall candor. For centuries it was the subject of philosophical and\ncomparative investigations.(1392) Among these, the most thorough and\nprofound is the _Cuzari_ by the Jewish philosopher and poet, Jehuda ha\nLevi. But the parable of the three rings also has been traced through\nJewish and Christian collections of tales dating back to the thirteenth\ncentury, and seems to be originally the work of a Jewish author. Standing\nbetween the two powerful faiths with their appeal to the temporal arm, the\nJew had to resort to his wit as almost his only resource for escape. Two\nJewish works have preserved earlier forms of the parable. In Ibn Verga\u2019s\ncollection of histories of the fifteenth century, it is related that \u201cDon\nPedro the Elder, King of Aragon (1196-1213), asked Ephraim Sancho, a\nJewish sage, which of the two religions, the Jewish or Christian, was the\nbetter one. After three days\u2019 deliberation, the sage told the king a story\nof two sons who had each received a precious stone from their father, a\njeweler, when he went on a journey. The sons then went to a stranger,\nthreatening him with violence, unless he would decide which of the jewels\nwas the more valuable. The king, believing the story to be a fact,\nprotested against the action of the two sons, whereupon the Jew explained:\nEsau and Jacob are the two sons who have each received a jewel from their\nheavenly Father. Instead of asking me which jewel is the more precious,\nask God, the heavenly Jeweler. He knows the difference, and can tell the\ntwo apart.\u201d(1393)\n\nAn older and probably more original form of the parable was discovered by\nSteinschneider in a work by Abraham Abulafia of the thirteenth century,\nrunning as follows: \u201cA father intended to bequeath a precious jewel to his\nonly son, but was exasperated by his ingratitude, and therefore buried it.\nHis servants, however, knowing of the treasure, took it and claimed to\nhave received it from the father. In the course of time they became so\narrogant that the son repented of his conduct, whereupon the father gave\nhim the jewel as his rightful possession.\u201d The story ends by stating that\nIsrael is the son and the Moslem and Christian the servants.\n\nBeside this witty solution of a delicate problem, some Mohammedans made\nattempts very early, doubtless on account of discussions with learned\nJews, to prove the justification of the three religions from the Jewish\nScriptures themselves. Thus they referred the verse speaking of the\nrevelation of God on Sinai, Mount Seir, and Mount Paran(1394) to the\nreligious teachings of Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. Naturally, the Jewish\nexegetes and philosophers objected vigorously to such an interpretation.\n\n6. The question which religion is the best, has been most satisfactorily\nanswered for Judaism by R. Joshua ben Hanania, who said that \u201cthe\nrighteous of the heathen have also a share in the world to come.\u201d(1395)\nThe question which religion is true, has been, alas, too long arbitrated\nby the sword, and will be decided peacefully only when the whole earth\nwill be full of the knowledge of God. Our own age, however, has begun to\nexamine the title to existence of every religion from the broad standpoint\nof history and ethnology, assigning to each its proper rank. In this large\npurview even the crude beliefs of savages are shown to be of value, and\nthe various heathen religions are seen to have a historical task of their\nown. Each of them has to some extent awakened the dormant divine spark in\nman; one has aided in the growth of the ideal of the beautiful in art,\nanother in the rise of the ideal of the true in philosophy and science; a\nthird in the cultivation of the ideal of the good and in stimulating\nsympathy and love so as to ennoble men and nations. Thus after a careful\nexamination of the historical documents of the Christian and Mohammedan\nreligions, it is possible to state clearly their great historic mission\nand their achievements in the whole domain of civilization. The Jewish\nreligion, as the mother who gave birth to both, must deliver the verdict,\nhow far they still contribute to the upbuilding of God\u2019s kingdom on earth.\nIn fulfilling their appointed mission, each has given rise to valuable and\npeculiar institutions, and each has fallen short of the Messianic ideal as\nvisualized by our great prophets of old. Only an impartial judgment can\nsay which one has reached the higher stage of civilization.\n\n7. Christianity\u2019s origin from Judaism is proved by its religious documents\nas well as by its very name, which is derived from the Greek for the title\nMessiah (_Christos_), bestowed on the Nazarene by his followers. Still the\nname Christianity arose in Antioch among non-Jews who scarcely knew its\nmeaning. All the sources of the New Testament, however much they conflict\nin details, agree that the movement of Christianity began with the\nappearance of John the Baptist, a popular Essene saint. He rallied the\nmultitude at the shore of the Jordan, preparing them for the approaching\nend of the Roman world-kingdom with the proclamation, \u201cWash yourselves\nclean from your sins!\u201d that is, \u201cTake the baptismal bath of repentance,\nfor the kingdom of heaven is nigh.\u201d(1396) He conferred the baptismal bath\nof repentance upon Jesus of Nazareth and the first apostles.(1397) Jesus\ntook up this message when John was imprisoned and finally killed by Herod\nAntipas on account of his preachment against him.(1398) The life of Jesus\nis wrapt in legends which may be reduced to the following historical\nelements:(1399) The young Nazarene was of an altogether different\ntemperament from that of John the Baptist, the stern, Elijah-like preacher\nin the wilderness;(1400) he manifested as preacher and as a healer of the\nsick a profound love for, and tender sympathy with suffering humanity, a\ntrait especially fostered among the Essenes. This drew him toward that\nclass of people who were shunned as unclean by the uncompromising leaders\nof the Pharisees, and also by the rigid brotherhoods of the Essenes, whose\nchief object was to attain the highest degree of holiness by a life of\nasceticism. His simple countrymen, the fishers and shepherds of Galilee,\non hearing his wise and humane teachings and seeing his miraculous cures,\nconsidered him a prophet and a conqueror of the hosts of demons, the\nworkers of disease. In contrast to the learned Pharisees, he felt it to be\nhis calling to bring the good tidings of salvation to the poor and\noutcast, to \u201cseek the lost sheep of the house of Israel\u201d and win them for\nGod. He soon found himself surrounded by a multitude of followers, who, on\na Passover pilgrimage to Jerusalem, induced him to announce himself as the\nexpected Messiah. He attracted the people in Jerusalem by his vehement\nattacks upon the Sadducean hierarchy, which he threatened with the wrath\nof heaven for its abuses, and also by his denunciations of the\nself-sufficient Pharisean doctors of the law. Soon the crisis came when he\nopenly declared war against the avarice of the priests, who owned the\nmarkets where the sacrificial fowl for the Temple were sold, overthrowing\nthe tables of the money-changers, and declaring the Temple to have become\n\u201ca den of robbers.\u201d(1401) The hierarchical council delivered him to\nPontius Pilatus, the Roman prefect, as an aspirant to the royal title of\nMessiah, which in the eyes of the Romans meant a revolutionary leader. The\nRoman soldiers crucified him and mocked him, calling him, \u201cJesus, the king\nof the Jews.\u201d(1402)\n\nThe fate of crucifixion, however, did not end the career of Jesus, as it\nhad that of many other claimants to the Messiahship in those turbulent\ntimes. His personality had impressed itself so deeply upon his followers\nthat they could not admit that he had gone from them forever. They awaited\nhis resurrection and return in all the heavenly glory of the \u201cSon of Man,\u201d\nand saw him in their ecstatic visions, attending their love-feasts,(1403)\nor walking about on the lake of Nazareth while they were fishing from\ntheir boats, or hovering at the summit of the mountains.(1404) This was\nbut the starting point of that remarkable religious movement which grew\nfirst among the lower classes in northern Palestine and Syria,(1405) then\ngradually throughout the entire Roman Empire, shaking the whole of\nheathendom until all its deities gave way to the God of Israel, the divine\nFather of the crucified Messiah. The Jewish tidings of salvation for the\npoor and lowly offered by the Nazarene became the death-knell to the proud\nmight of paganism.\n\n8. But the ways of Providence are as inscrutable as they are wonderful.\nThe poor and lowly members of the early Christian Churches, with their\nleaders, called \u201capostles\u201d or \u201cmessengers\u201d of the community,\u2014elected\noriginally to carry out works of charity and love,(1406)\u2014would never have\nbeen able to conquer the great world, if they had persisted in the Essene\ntraditions. They owed their success to the large Hellenistic groups who\njoined them at an early period and introduced the Greek language as their\nmedium of expression. Henceforth the propaganda activity of the\nAlexandrian Jews was adopted by the young Church, which likewise took up\nall the works of wisdom and ethics written in Greek for the instruction of\nthe proselytes and the young, scarcely known to the Palestinian schools.\nThe Essene baptism for repentance was replaced by baptism for conversion\nor initiation into the new faith, while the neophyte to be prepared for\nthis rite was for a long time instructed mainly in the doctrines of the\nJewish faith.(1407) Subsequently collections of wise sayings and moral\nteachings ascribed to the Nazarene and handed down in the Aramaic\nvernacular, orally or in writing, were translated into Greek. These\ntogether with the manuals for proselytes were the original Church\nteachings. The Greek language paved the way for the Church to enter the\ngreat pagan world, exactly as the Greek translation of the Bible in\nAlexandria brought the teachings of Judaism to the knowledge of the\noutside world.\n\nAt first the same obstacle confronted the early Church which had prevented\nthe Synagogue from becoming a world conqueror, namely, the rite of\ncircumcision, which was required for full membership. Without this,\nbaptized converts were only half-proselytes and could not be fully\nassimilated. This classification was still upheld by the Apostolic\nConvention, which met under the presidency of James the Elder.(1408) The\ntime was ripe for a bold and radical innovation, and at this psychological\nmoment arose a man of great zeal and unbridled energy as well as of a\ncreative genius and a mystical imagination,\u2014Saul of Tarsus, known by his\nRoman name Paulus.(1409) He had been sent by the authorities at Jerusalem\nto pursue the adherents of the new sect, but when he had come as far as\nDamascus in Syria, he suddenly turned from a persecutor into the most\nardent promoter of the nascent Church, impelled by a strange\nhallucination. Paul was a carpet weaver by trade, born and reared in\nTarsus, a seaport of Asia Minor, where he seems to have had a Greek\ntraining and to have imbibed Gnostic or semi-pagan ideas beside his\nBiblical knowledge. In this ecstatic vision on his journey he beheld the\nfigure of Jesus, \u201cthe crucified Christ,\u201d whose adherents he was pursuing,\nyet whom he had never seen in the flesh, appearing as a heavenly being\nwhom Paul identified as the heavenly Adam, the archetypal \u201cgodlike\u201d man.\n\nUpon this strange vision he constructed a theological system far more\npagan than Jewish in type, according to which man was corrupt through the\nsin of the first couple, and the death of Jesus on the cross was to be the\natoning sacrifice offered by God himself, who gave His own son as a ransom\nfor the sins of humanity. This doctrine he used as a lever with which, at\none bold stroke, he was to unhinge the Mosaic law and make the infant\nChurch a world-religion. Through baptism in the name of the Christ, the\nold sin-laden Adam was to be cast off and the new heavenly Adam, in the\nimage of Christ, put on instead. The new covenant of God\u2019s atoning love\nwas to replace the old covenant of Sinai, to abolish forever the old\ncovenant based upon the Jewish law, and to set mankind free from all law,\n\u201cwhich begets sin and works wrath.\u201d In Christ, \u201cwho is the end of the\nlaw,\u201d the sinfulness of the flesh should be overcome and the gates of\nsalvation be opened to a world redeemed from both death and sin.(1410) The\none essential for salvation was to accept the _mystery_ concerning the\nbirth and death of Christ, after the manner of the heathen\nmystery-religions, and to employ as sacramental symbols of the mystery the\nrites of baptism and communion with Christ.\n\n9. This system of Paul, however, demanded a high price of its votaries.\nAcceptance of the belief meant the surrender of reason and free thinking.\nThis breach in pure monotheism opened the door for the whole heathen\nmythology and the worship of the heathen deities in a new form. But the\nsaddest result was the dualism of the system; the kingdom of God predicted\nby the prophets and sages of Israel for all humanity was transferred to\nthe hereafter, and this life with all its healthy aspirations was\nconsidered sinful and in the hands of Satan. The cross, originally a sign\nof life,(1411) became from this time and through the Middle Ages a sign of\ndeath, casting a shadow of sin upon the Christian world and a shadow of\nterror upon the Jew.\n\nThe greatest harm of all, however, was done to Judaism itself. Paul made a\ncaricature of the Law, which he declared to be a rigid, external system,\nnot elevating life, but only inciting to transgression and engendering\ncurse. He even aroused a feeling of hatred toward the Law, which grew in\nintensity, until it became a source of untold cruelty for many centuries.\nThis spirit permeated the Gospels more and more in their successive\nappearance, even finding its way into the Sermon on the Mount. In the\nsimple form given in the Gospel of Luke this was a teaching of love and\ntenderness; in Matthew, Jesus is represented as offering a new\ndispensation to replace the revelation of Sinai.(1412) Here the Mosaic law\nis presented as a system of commandments demanding austere adherence to\nthe letter with no regard to the inner life, whereas, on the other hand,\nthe actual teachings of the Nazarene were animated by love and sympathy,\nemanating from the ethical spirit of the Law. Yet the very words of Jesus\nin this same sermon disavow every hint of antinomianism: \u201cVerily I say\nunto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no\nwise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled.\u201d(1413) As a matter of fact,\nthe very teachings of love and inwardness which are embodied in both the\nSermon on the Mount and the epistles of Paul were largely adopted from the\nPharisean schools and Hasidean works as well as from the Alexandrian\nPropaganda literature and the Proselyte Manuals preserved by the Church.\n\nIn fact, part of this criticism was voiced by the Pharisees, as they\nattacked the Sadducean insistence upon the letter of the Law. The\nPharisean spirit of progress applied new methods of interpretation to the\nMosaic Code and especially to the Decalogue, deriving from them a higher\nconception of God and godliness, breaking the fetters of the letter, and\nworking mainly for the holiness of the inner life and the endeavor to\nspread happiness about.(1414) Taking no heed of the actual achievements of\nthe Synagogue, the Paulinian Church rose triumphantly to power after the\ndownfall of the Jewish State and impregnated the Christian world with\nhostility to Judaism and the Jew, which lasts to this very day, thus\nturning the gospel of love into a source of religious hatred.\n\n10. Nevertheless it cannot be denied that Paulinian Christianity, while\ngrowing into a world-conquering Church, achieved the dissemination of the\nSinaitic doctrines as neither Judaism nor the Jud\u00e6o-Christian sect could\never have done. The missionary zeal of the apostle to the heathen caused a\nfermentation and dissolution in the entire neo-Jewish world, which will\nnot end until all pagan elements are eliminated. Eventually the whole of\ncivilization will accept, through a purified Christianity, the Fatherhood\nof God, the only Ruler of the world, and the brotherhood of all men as His\nchildren. Then, in place of an unsound overemphasis on the principle of\nlove, justice will be the foundation of society; in place of a pessimistic\nother-worldliness, the optimistic hope for a kingdom of God on earth will\nconstitute the spiritual and ethical ideal of humanity. We must not be\nblind to the fact that only her alliance with Rome, her holding in one\nhand the sword of Esau and in the other the Scriptures of the house of\nJacob, made the Church able to train the crude heathen nations for a life\nof duty and love, for the willing subordination to a higher power, and\ncaused them to banish vice and cruelty from their deep hold on social and\ndomestic life. Only the powerful Church was able to develop the ancient\nJewish institutions of charity and redeeming love into magnificent systems\nof beneficence, which have led civilization forward toward ideals which it\nwill take centuries to realize.\n\nNor must we overlook the mission of the Church in the realm of art, a\nmission which Judaism could never have undertaken. The stern conception of\na spiritual God who tolerated no visible representation of His being made\nimpossible the development of plastic art among the Jews. The semi-pagan\nimage worship of the Christian Church, the representation of God and the\nsaints in pictorial form, favored ecclesiastical art, until it broadened\nin the Renaissance into the various arts of modern times. Similarly, the\npredominance of mysticism over reason, of the emotions over the intellect\nin the Church, gave rise to its wonderful creation of music, endowing the\nsoul with new powers to soar aloft to undreamed-of heights of emotion, to\nbe carried along as upon Seraph\u2019s wings to realms where human language\nfalters and grows faint. Beyond dispute Christianity deserves great credit\nfor having among all religions opened wide the flood gates of the soul by\ncultivating the emotions through works of art and the development of\nmusic, thereby enriching human life in all directions.\n\n11. Islam, the other daughter of Judaism, for its part, fostered the\nintellectual side of humanity, so contemptuously neglected by the Church.\nThe cultivation of philosophy and science was the historical task assigned\nto the Mohammedan religion. From the sources of information we have about\nthe life and revelation of Mohammed, we learn that the origin of the\nbelief in Allah, the God of Abraham, goes back to an earlier period when\nJewish tribes settled in south Arabia. Among these Jews were traders,\ngoldsmiths, famous warriors, and knights endowed with the gift of song,\nwho disseminated Jewish legends concerning Biblical heroes.(1415) Amid\nhallucinations and mighty emotional outbursts this belief in Allah took\nroot in the fiery soul of Mohammed, who thus received sublime conceptions\nof the one God and His creation, and of the world\u2019s Judge and His future\nDay of Judgment. The sight of idolatry, cruelty, and vice among his\ncountrymen filled him with boundless indignation, so that he began his\ncareer as a God-sent preacher of repentance, modeling his life after the\ngreat prophets of yore. With drastic threats of the last Judgment he tried\nto force the idolaters to return to Allah in true repentance. But few of\nhis hearers believed in his prophetic mission, and the leading men of the\ncity of Mecca, who derived a large income from the heathen sanctuary\nthere, opposed him with fierce and violent measures.\n\nThus he was forced to flee to the Jewish colony of Yathrib, afterwards\ncalled Medina, \u201cthe city\u201d of the prophet. He hoped for recognition there,\nespecially after he had made certain concessions, such as turning the face\ntoward Jerusalem in prayer, and keeping the Day of Atonement on the tenth\nof Tishri. In addition, he emphasized the unity of God in the strongest\npossible manner, and opposed every encroachment upon it by the belief in\nadditional powers or persons, attacking the Christians on the one hand and\nhis Arabian countrymen on the other, with the sarcastic phrase: \u201cVerily,\nGod has neither a son, nor has He any daughter.\u201d In spite of all these\nfacts, the Jews could not be brought to recognize the uneducated son of\nthe desert as a prophet. Therefore his proffered friendship was turned to\ndeadly hatred and passionate revenge. His whole nature underwent a great\nchange; his former enthusiasm and prophetic zeal were replaced by\ncalculation and worldly desire, so that the preacher of repentance of\nMecca became at the last a lover of bloodshed, robbery and lust. Instead\nof Jerusalem he chose Mecca with its heathen traditions as the center of\nhis religious system and aimed chiefly to win the Arabian tribes for his\ndivine revelation.\n\nThus the entire Arabian nation, full of youthful energy, burning with the\nimpulse of great deeds, bore the faith of the One God to the world by the\nsword. Like Israel of old, it stepped forth from the desert with a divine\nrevelation contained in a holy book. It conquered first the Christian\nlands of the East, which under the Trinitarian dogma had lapsed from pure\nmonotheism, then the northern coast of Africa, and it finally unfurled the\ngreen flag of Islam over the lands of the West to free them from the\nfanatical Church. Henceforth war was waged for centuries between the One\nGod of Abraham and the triune God of the Church in both Spain and\nPalestine. Then might the genius of history ask: \u201cWatchman, what of the\nnight? Watchman, what of the night?\u201d And again the words are heard, as\nfrom on high: \u201cThe morning cometh, and also the night.\u201d The final victory\nis yet to come.\n\n12. It cannot be denied that the Mohammedan monotheism has a certain\nharshness and bluntness. It cannot win the heart by the mildness of heaven\nor the recognition of man\u2019s individuality. _Islam_, as the name denotes,\ndemands blind submission to the will of God, and it has led to a fatalism\nwhich paralyzes the sense of freedom, and to a fanaticism which treats\nevery other faith with contempt. Islam has remained a national religion,\nwhich has never attained the outlook upon the whole of humanity, so\ncharacteristic of the prophets of Israel. Its view of the hereafter is\ncrude and sensuous, while its picture of the Day of Judgment bears no\ntrace of the divine mercy. On the other hand, we must recognize that the\nreverence of the Koran lent the \u201cMen of the Book,\u201d the representatives of\nculture, greater dignity, and provided a mighty incentive to study and\ninquiry. Damascus and Bagdad became under the Caliphs centers of learning,\nof philosophical study and scientific investigation, uniting Nestorian,\nJew, and Mohammedan in the great efforts towards general enlightenment.\nThe consequence was that Greek science and philosophy, banished by the\nChurch, were revived by the Mohammedan rulers and again cultivated, so\nthat Judaism also felt their fructifying power. Our modern Christian\ncivilization, so-called by Christian historians, is largely the fruit of\nthe rich intellectual seeds sown by Mohammedans and Jews, after the works\nof ancient Greeks had been translated into Syrian, Arabic, and Hebrew by a\ngroup of Syrian Unitarians (the Nestorians) assisted by Jewish\nscholars.(1416)\n\nAs for instance the Hohenstaufen Emperor Frederick II, the friend of\nJewish and other liberal thinkers, was much more of an investigator than a\nbeliever, so did the spirit of investigation derived from Islam and\nJudaism pervade Christendom, and create the great intellectual movements\nwhich finally undermined its creeds and shattered its solidarity into\ncontending sects. _Return_ to the Bible and the God of the Bible, to a\nSabbath devoted to instruction in the word of God, and to the recognition\nof human freedom and the sanctity of the family\u2014this was the watchword of\nthe Reformation. Return to the right of free thought and free conscience,\nwhich implies the pure worship of God as He lives in the heart, is now the\nwatchword of those who endeavor to reform the Protestant Church. That is,\nboth are moved by a desire to return to the principles and ideals set\nforth by Israel\u2019s prophets of old.\n\n13. Both the Church, Protestant and Catholic, and the Mosque have a\nProvidential mission which they must fulfill through the ages of history,\nuntil all the heathen have learned to worship God as the spirit of\nholiness in man, instead of seeking Him in the blind forces of nature or\nof destiny. True, the Mohammedan religion is predisposed to sensuality and\nstill awaits the process of purification to become completely\nspiritualized; yet indications are not lacking that a process of reform is\napproaching to bring out the gold of pure monotheism and cast off the\ndross of Oriental voluptuousness and superstition. We must remember that\nduring the dark night of medieval ignorance and barbarism Islam carried\nthroughout all lands the torch of philosophy and scientific investigation\nand of the pure faith in God. Even to-day it accomplishes far more for the\nadvancement of life in the east of Asia and the south of Africa than did\nthe Russian Church with her gross superstition and idolatry, or even some\nbranches of Protestantism, with their deification of a human being.\n\nBetween Church and Mosque, hated and despised by both, stood and still\nstands the Synagogue, proudly conscious of its divine mission. It feels\nitself the banner-bearer of a truth which brooks no compromise, of a\njustice which insists on the rights of all men. It offers the world a\nreligion of peace and love, admitting no division or discord among\nmankind, waiting for the day when the God of Sinai shall rear high His\nthrone in the hearts of all men and nations. To-day the Synagogue,\nrejuvenated by the influences of modern culture, looks with ever greater\nconfidence to a speedy realization of its Messianic hope for all humanity.\n\nHitherto Judaism was restrained by its two daughter-religions from\npursuing its former missionary activity. It was forced to employ all its\nenergy in the single effort for self-preservation. But in the striking\ncontrasts of our age, when the enlightened spirit of humanity struggles so\nbitterly with the forces of barbarism and brutality, we may well see the\napproaching dawn of a new era. That glorious day, we feel, will witness\nthe ultimate triumph of justice and truth, and out of the day which is\n\u201cneither day nor night\u201d will bring forth the time when \u201cthe Lord shall be\nKing over all the earth, the Lord shall be One and His name One.\u201d(1417)\nThis will be an auspicious time for Israel to arise with renewed prophetic\nvigor as the bearer of a world-uniting faith, as the triumphant Messiah of\nthe nations. Through Israel the monotheistic faiths of the world may find\na union so that, in fulfillment of the ancient prophecy,(1418) its Sabbath\nmay be a world-Sabbath and its Atonement Day a feast of at-one-ment and\nreconciliation for all mankind. \u201cHe that believeth shall not make\nhaste.\u201d(1419)\n\nYet just because of this universalistic Messianic hope of Judaism it is\nstill imperative, as it has been throughout the past, that the Jewish\npeople must continue its separateness as \u201ca Kingdom of priests and a holy\nnation,\u201d and for the sake of its world-mission avoid intermarrying with\nmembers of other sects, unless they espouse the Jewish faith.(1420)\nIsrael\u2019s particularism, says Professor Lazarus,(1421) has its universalism\nas motive and aim.\n\n\n\n\nChapter LVIII. The Synagogue and its Institutions\n\n\n1. Every religion, as soon as it attains any degree of self-consciousness,\naims to present a convincing form of truth to the individual and to win\nadherents in increasing numbers. Nevertheless the maintenance of a\nreligion does not rest upon its doctrines, which must differ according to\nthe intellectual capacity of the people and the prevailing views of each\nage. Its stability is based upon those forms and institutions which lend\nit a peculiar character, and which express, symbolically or otherwise,\ndefinite ideas, religious, ethical, and historical. For this reason many\nexponents of Judaism would entirely discard the idea of a systematic\ntheology, and insist on the observance of the ceremonial laws as the one\nessential. In following tradition in this manner, they forget that the\nforms of religious practice have undergone many changes in the course of\ntime. In fact, the vitality of Judaism lies in its unique capacity for\ndevelopment. Its ever youthful mind has constantly created new forms to\nexpress the ideas of the time, or has invested old ones with new\nmeanings.(1422)\n\n2. The greatest and, indeed, the unique creation of Judaism is the\nSynagogue, which started it on its world-mission and made the Torah the\ncommon property of the entire people. Devised in the Exile as a substitute\nfor the Temple, it soon eclipsed it as a religious force and a rallying\npoint for the whole people, appealing through the prayers and Scriptural\nlessons to the congregation as a whole. The Synagogue was limited to no\none locality, like the Temple, but raised its banner wherever Jews settled\nthroughout the globe. It was thus able to spread the truths of Judaism to\nthe remotest parts of the earth, and to invest the Sabbath and festivals\nwith deeper meaning by utilizing them for the instruction and elevation of\nthe people. What did it matter, if the Temple fell a prey to the flame for\na second time, or if the whole sacrificial cult of the priesthood with all\nits pomp were to cease forever? The soul of Judaism lived indestructibly\nin the house of prayer and learning. In the Synagogue was fanned the holy\nflame which kindled the heart with love of God and fellow-men; here were\noffered sacrifices more pleasing to God than the blood and fat of beasts,\nsacrifices of love and charity.(1423)\n\n3. The Synagogue has its peculiar institutions and ceremonies, but no\nsacraments like those of the Church. Its institutions, such as the\nfestivals, aim to preserve the historic memory of the people; its\nceremonies, called \u201csigns\u201d or \u201ctestimonies\u201d in the Scripture, are to\nsanctify the life of the nation, the family, or the individual. Neither\npossesses a sacramental power, as does baptism or communion in the Church,\nin giving salvation, or imparting something of the nature of the Deity, or\nmaking one a member of the religious community. The Jew is a member of the\nJewish community by his birth, which imposes upon him the obligations of\nthe covenant which God made with Israel at Mount Sinai. Judaism is a\nreligious heritage intrusted to a nation of priests, and is not acquired\nby any rite of consecration or confession of faith. Such a form of\nconsecration and confession is required only in the case of\nproselytes.(1424) It is superfluous to state that Confirmation does not\nbestow the character of Jew upon the young, any more than the former rite\nof Bar Mizwah did upon the young Israelite who was called up to the\nreading from the Law in his thirteenth year as a form of initiation into\nJewish life.(1425)\n\n4. The rite of circumcision is enjoined upon the father in the Mosaic Code\nas a \u201csign\u201d of the covenant with Abraham, to be performed on every son on\nthe eighth day after birth.(1426) Therefore it is held in high esteem, and\nthe father terms the act in his benediction \u201cadmission into the covenant\nof Abraham\u201d;(1427) but in spite of this it is not a sacrament and does not\ndetermine membership in the Jewish community. The operation was not to be\nperformed by a person of sacred calling such as priest or rabbi, but in\nancient Biblical times was performed by women,(1428) and in the Talmudic\nperiod by the surgeon.(1429) In fact, if no Jewish surgeon was at hand,\nsome Talmudic authorities held that a non-Jewish surgeon could perform it.\nMoreover, where hygienic reasons forced the omission of the rite, the man\nwas still a Jew.(1430) The rite itself underwent a change; it was\nperformed with stone knives in Biblical times, just as in Egypt and even\nto-day in Arabia and Syria.(1431) It became a mark of distinction for the\npeople during the Exile.(1432) But the act was invested with special\nreligious sanctity during the Syrian persecution, when many Jewish youths\n\u201cviolated the covenant\u201d in order to appear uncircumcised when they\nappeared in the arena with the heathen.(1433) At this time new methods\nwere introduced to guard the \u201cseal\u201d of the covenant,(1434) while pious\nmothers faced martyrdom willingly to preserve the rite of Abraham among\ntheir children. Later on the rabbis even declared circumcision to be a\nsafeguard against the pit of Gehenna(1435) and made Elijah the guardian of\nthe covenant.(1436) The rite may be traced back to primitive life, when\nthe operation was usually performed at the time of puberty and as a\npreliminary to marriage,(1437) but in Jewish life it assumed a religious\nmeaning and became endeared to the people as the consecration of the child\nas the future head of a family. The idea underlying the institution (as\nZunz correctly calls it)(1438) is the sanctification of the Jewish\nhousehold as represented by its male members. The member of a people that\nis to be holy unto God must bear the seal of the covenant on his flesh; as\na potential father of another generation, the sign he bore had a deeper\nmeaning for the future of the people.(1439) The rationalistic view that\nthe Mosaic law is merely hygienic, although found as early as Philo, is\nquite erroneous.(1440)\n\n5. The same rationalist view(1441) is often applied to the dietary laws of\nthe Mosaic Code, but without any justification from the Biblical point of\nview. These laws prohibit as unclean various species of animals, or such\nas have fallen dead or as the prey of wild beasts, or certain portions\nlike blood and suet.(1442) The Holiness Code states its reason for these\nprohibitions very emphatically: \u201cI am the Lord your God, who have set you\napart from the peoples. Ye shall therefore separate between the clean\nbeast and the unclean, and between the unclean fowl and the clean; and ye\nshall not make your souls detestable by beast, or by fowl, or by any thing\nwherewith the ground teemeth, which I have set apart for you to hold\nunclean. And ye shall be holy unto Me; for I the Lord your God am holy,\nand have set you apart from the peoples, that ye should be Mine.\u201d(1443)\nThe Deuteronomic Code gives the same reason for the prohibition of the\nunclean beasts: \u201cFor thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God.\u201d It\nseems that these prohibitions of \u201cunclean\u201d foods were intended originally\nfor the priesthood and other holy men, as appears in Ezekiel and\nelsewhere.(1444) As a matter of fact, the same class of animals from which\nthe Israelites were commanded to abstain were also forbidden to the\npriests or saints of India, Persia, Mesopotamia, and partly of\nEgypt.(1445) The natural conclusion is that the Mosaic law intended these\nrules as a practical expression of its general principle that Israel was\nto be \u201ca kingdom of priests and a holy nation.\u201d(1446) In other words,\nIsrael was to fill the usual place of the priest among the nations of the\nancient world, a priest-people observing the priestly laws of\nsanctification. Whatever the origin of these customs may have been,\nwhether they were tabu laws in connection with totemism or some other\nprimitive view, the Priestly Code itself admits their lack of an\nIsraelitish origin by recognizing that they were known to Noah.(1447) They\nwere simply adopted by the law-giver of Israel to make the whole people\nfeel their priestly calling.\n\nIn later times the dietary laws, especially abstinence from the flesh of\nswine, became a mark of distinction which separated the Jew from his\nheathen surroundings; and they became a symbol of Jewish loyalty in the\nSyrian persecutions when pious Jews faced martyrdom for them as willingly\nas for the refusal to adore the Syrian idols.(1448) In fact, Pharisaism\nadopted the principle of separation from the heathen in every matter\npertaining to diet, and this spirit of separatism was strengthened by the\nscorn of the Greeks and Romans and afterward by the antinomian spirit of\nChristianity. While Hellenistic writers, eager to find a universal meaning\nin these laws, assigned certain physical or psychic reasons for\nthem,(1449) the rabbis of the Talmud insisted that they were given solely\nfor the moral purification of Israel. Thus they were to be observed as\ntests of Israel\u2019s submission to the divine will and not because of\npersonal distaste. In their own words, \u201cWe must overcome all desire for\nthe sake of our Father in heaven\u201d; and \u201cOnly to those who wrestle with\ntemptation does the kingdom of God come.\u201d(1450) In the course of time\nthese prohibitions were steadily extended, until they encircled the whole\nlife of the Jew, forming an insurmountable wall which secluded him from\nhis non-Jewish environment. Finally, separation from the world came to be\nregarded as an end in itself.(1451)\n\nNow, it cannot be denied that these laws actually disciplined the medieval\nJew, so that during centuries of wild dissipation he practiced sobriety\nand moderation; as Maimonides says,(1452) they served as lessons in\nself-mastery, in curbing carnal desire, and keeping him clean in soul as\nwell as body. The question remains whether they still fulfill their real\nobject of consecrating Israel to its priestly mission among the nations.\nCertainly the priestly character of these laws is no longer understood,\nand the great majority of the Jewish people who live among the various\nnations have long discarded them. Orthodox Judaism, which follows\ntradition without inquiring into the purpose of the laws, is entirely\nconsistent in maintaining the importance of every item of the traditional\nJewish life. Reform Judaism has a different view, as it sees in the\nhumanitarianism of the present a mode of realizing the Messianic hope of\nIsrael. Therefore it cannot afford to encourage the separation of the Jew\nfrom his environment in any way except through the maintenance of his\nreligion, and cannot encourage the dietary laws as a means of separatism.\nIts great problem is to find other methods to inculcate the spirit of\nholiness in the modern Jew, to render him conscious of his priestly\nmission, while he lives in unison and fellowship with all his\nfellow-citizens.(1453)\n\n6. The tendency to distinguish the Jew from his non-Jewish neighbor in the\ncourse of time found expression in the laws for wearing phylacteries\n(_tefillin_) on his forehead and arm, a special sign on the doorpost of\nhis house (_mezuzzah_) and fringes (_zizith_) on the four corners of his\nshawl (_tallith_).(1454) As a matter of fact, the original Biblical\npassages had no such meaning, but acquired it through rabbinical\ninterpretation. The Mosaic law said: \u201cAnd thou shalt bind them for a sign\nupon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. And\nthou shalt write them upon the doorposts of thy house and upon thy gates.\u201d\nThis refers clearly to the words of God, admonishing the people to keep\nthem in mind, as the preceding verse indicates. Likewise, the precept\nregarding the fringes upon the four-cornered garment emphasizes rather the\nblue thread in the fringes, which is to help the people remember the\ncommandments of the Lord, that they may not go astray, \u201cfollowing after\nthe promptings of their own hearts and eyes.\u201d As the name phylacteries\nshows, these were originally talismans or amulets. True, the law as stated\nin Deuteronomy may be taken symbolically;(1455) but the corresponding\npassage in Exodus, which is traditionally referred to the phylacteries,\nindicates its origin by its close relation to the Passover sacrifice. The\nblood of this was, no doubt, put originally on the arm and forehead,(1456)\nwhich is still done by the Samaritans(1457) and has striking parallels in\nthe practice of the Fellahin in Palestine and Syria.(1458) Originally the\nsacrificial blood was supposed to ward off evil spirits from men, beasts\nand houses or tents, and gradually this pagan custom was transformed into\na religious precept to consecrate the body, life, and home of the Jew. In\nmore ancient times the phylacteries were worn by pious men and women all\nday and not merely during the time of prayer, and seem to have served both\nas a religious symbol and an amulet. This was certainly the case with the\n_mezuzzah_ on the doorpost and probably with the blue thread at the\ncorners of the _tallith_.(1459) As both phylacteries and _tallith_ came\ninto use at the divine service in connection with the recital of the\n_Shema_ and the chapter on the _zizith_, the symbols assumed a higher\nmeaning. Arrayed in his vestments, the pious Jew offered daily allegiance\nto his Maker, feeling that he was thereby protected from evil within and\nwithout; similarly, the sacred sign upon the door both consecrated and\nprotected his home. Even with this conception the talismanic character was\nnever quite forgotten. Throughout the Middle Ages these ceremonies were\nobserved as divine commandments; and tradition having seemingly fixed them\nfor all time, the Jew took great pride in the fact that he was\n\u201cdistinguished\u201d in many ways, and especially in his forms of\nworship.(1460) Of course, they distinguished him far more when these\nceremonies were practiced for the entire day. Since the modern era has\nbrought the Jew nearer to his neighbors and he has opened the Synagogue to\ninvite the non-Jewish world to hear its teachings, these practices have\nlost their hold upon the people, becoming meaningless forms. The wearing\nof these sacred symbols while at prayer seems superfluous as a means of\n\u201cturning men\u2019s hearts away from frivolous and sinful thoughts.\u201d(1461)\n\n7. The most important institution of the Synagogue, and the one most\nfraught with blessing for all mankind, is the Sabbath. Although its name\nand existence point to a Babylonian origin,(1462) it is still the peculiar\ncreation of the Jewish genius and a chief pillar of the Jewish religion.\nAs a day of rest crowning the daily labor of the week, it testifies to the\nCreator of the universe who made all that is in accordance with His divine\nplan of perfection. The underlying idea expressed in Scripture is that the\nSabbath is a divine institution. As God himself worked out His design for\nthe world in absolute freedom and rested with delight at its completion,\nso man is to follow His example, working during six days of the week and\nthen enjoying the rest of the Sabbath with a mind elated by higher\nthoughts. Moreover, the day of rest observed by Israel should recall his\nredemption from the slavery and continual labor of Egypt. Thereby every\ncreature made in God\u2019s image, the slave and stranger as well as the born\nIsraelite, is given the heavenly boon of freedom and recreation to hallow\nthe labor of the week. There are thus two explanations given for the\nSabbath, one in the Decalogue of Exodus, the Holiness Code and Priestly\nCode,(1463) the other in the Decalogue of Deuteronomy and the Book of the\nCovenant.(1464)\n\nThese two views, in turn, gave rise to different conceptions of the\nSabbath laws. Many ancient teachers laid chief stress on the letter of the\nlaw which bids men cease from labor. Others, who penetrated farther into\nthe spirit of Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code, emphasized the human need\nfor relaxation and refreshment of soul. The older school, especially the\nSadducees, demanded absolute cessation of labor on pain of death for any\nwork, however insignificant, and even for the moving from one place to\nanother. They thought of the Sabbath as a sign of the covenant between God\nand Israel, and hence held that it should be observed as punctiliously as\npossible.(1465) In the same measure as the Pharisees, with their program\nof religious democracy and common sense, obtained the upper hand, the\nBiblical strictness of the Sabbath law was modified. The term labor was\ndefined by analogy with the work done for the tabernacle, and so\nrestricted as to make the death penalty much more limited.(1466) Moreover,\nthe Pharisees held that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the\nSabbath;(1467) so, although they adhered strictly to the prohibition of\nlabor, the Sabbath received at their hands more of the other element, and\nbecame a day for the elevation of the soul, \u201ca day of delight\u201d for the\nspirit.(1468) The whole man, body and soul alike, should enjoy God\u2019s gifts\nmore fully on this day; he should cast off care and sanctify the day by\npraise offered to God at the family table. At a very early period in\nIsrael the Sabbath was distinguished by the words of instruction and\ncomfort offered by the prophets to the people who consulted them on the\nday of rest.(1469) During the Exile and afterward the people assembled on\nthe Sabbath to hear the word of God read from the Torah and the prophets\nand to join in prayer and song, which soon became a permanent\ninstitution.(1470) Thus the Sabbath elevated and educated the Jewish\npeople, and afterward transferred its blessings also to the Christian and\nMohammedan world. Especially during the Middle Ages the Sabbath became an\noasis, a refreshing spring of water for the Jew. All through the week he\nwas a Pariah in the outside world, but the Sabbath brought him bliss in\nhis home and spiritual power in his Synagogue and school. Cheerfully he\nbore the yoke of statutes and ordinances that grew ever heavier under the\nrabbinical amplification; for he hailed the Sabbath as the \u201cqueen\u201d that\nraised him from a hated wanderer to a prince in his own domain.(1471)\n\nModern life has worked great changes in the Jewish observance of the\nSabbath. Caught up in the whirl of commercial and industrial competition,\nthe Jew, like Ixion in the fable, is bound to his wheel of business, and\nenjoys neither rest for his body nor elevation for his soul on God\u2019s holy\nday. True, the Synagogue still preserves the sanctity of the ancient\nSabbath, however small may be the attendance at the divine service, and in\nmany pious homes the family still rallies around the festive table,\nlighted by the Sabbath lamp and decorated by the symbolic cup of wine. But\nfor the majority of Western Jews the Sabbath has lost its pristine\nsanctity and splendor, to the great detriment of Jewish religious life.\nTherefore many now ask: \u201cIs it sufficient to have a vicarious observance\nof the historical Sabbath, the \u2018sign between God and Israel,\u2019 by an hour\nor two in the Synagogue, but without rest for the entire day? Or shall the\ncivic day of rest, though Christian in origin and character, take the\nplace of the Jewish Sabbath with its sacred traditions, so that possibly\nat last it may become the Sabbath day predicted by the seer upon which\n\u2018all flesh shall come to worship before the Lord\u2019?\u201d(1472) In the halcyon\ndays of the reform movement in Germany this view was often expressed when\nthe radical reformers celebrated the civic day of rest as the Jewish\nSabbath, not in the spirit of dissension, but for the sake of giving\nJudaism a larger scope and a wider outlook. In America, too, the idea of\ntransferring the Sabbath to Sunday was broached by some leading Reform\nrabbis and met with hearty support on the part of their congregations.\nSince then a more conservative view has taken hold of most of the liberal\nelements of Jewry also in America. While divine service on Sundays has\nbeen introduced with decided success in many cities and eminent preachers\nbring the message of Judaism home to thousands that would otherwise remain\nstrangers to the house of God and to the influence of religion, the\nconviction has become well established that the continuity with our great\npast must be upheld, and the general feeling is that the historical\nSabbath should under no condition be entirely given up. It is inseparably\nconnected with the election of Israel as a priest-people, while the\nChristian \u201cLord\u2019s Day\u201d represents views and tendencies opposed to those of\nJudaism, whether considered in its original meaning or in that given it by\nthe Church.(1473) The Jew may properly use the civic day of rest in common\nwith his Christian fellow-citizen for religious devotion and instruction\nfor young and old; it will supplement his neglected Sabbath service, until\nconditions have changed. Perhaps the Jew in Mohammedan countries may even\nat some time observe Friday as is done by the Mosque, and accordingly\nconsecrate this day in common with his fellow-citizens. Still, between the\nSabbath observed by the Church and the one of the Mosque stands the Jewish\nSabbath in solemn grandeur and patriarchal dignity, waiting with Israel,\nits keeper and ally, for the day when all humanity will worship the one\nholy God of Abraham, and when our ancient Sabbath may truly become the\nSabbath of the world.\n\n8. In all lands time was originally regulated by the movements of the\nmoon, which are within the observation of all. The alternation of its\nincrease and decrease divided the month into two parts, which were then\nsubdivided into four. Therefore the original month among both the\nBabylonians and the Hebrews consisted of four weeks of seven days each,\nthe last day of each week being the Sabbath, the \u201cday of standstill,\u201d and\ntwo days of the new moon.(1474) Both the new moon and full moon were\nspecial days of celebration,(1475) and later two other Sabbath days were\nadded between them to correspond to the four phases of the moon. Still\nlater the week was detached altogether from the moon and made a fixed\nperiod of seven days, solemnly ended by the Sabbath. Thus Judaism raised\nthe Sabbath above all dependence on nature and into the realm of holiness.\nThe Jewish Sabbath became the witness to God, the Creator ruling above\nnature in absolute freedom.(1476)\n\nStill the ancient festival of the new moon was preserved as an observance\nin the Temple, and it afterward survived only in the liturgy of the\nSynagogue. While ancient Israel had observed the New Moon as a day of rest\neven more sacred than the Sabbath,(1477) the Priestly Code placed it among\nthe festivals only as a day of sacrifice, but as neither a day of rest nor\nof popular celebration.(1478) Beside the recital of the _Hallel_ Psalms\nand the _Mussaf_ (\u201cadditional\u201d) prayer in the Synagogue no religious\nsignificance was attached to it in the daily life of the people. Still the\nfact that the Jewish calendar was regulated by the moon, while that of\nother nations depended on the solar year, led the rabbis to compare the\nunique history of Israel to the course of the moon. As the moon changes\ncontinually, waxing and waning but ever renewing itself after each\ndecline, so Israel renews itself after every fall; while the proud nations\nof the world, which count their year by the course of the sun, rise and\nset, as it does, with no hope of renewal.(1479) At the same time,\nassurance was found in the prophetic words that \u201cthe light of the moon\nshall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be\nsevenfold as the light of the seven days\u201d and \u201cthy (Israel\u2019s) sun shall no\nmore go down, neither shall thy moon withdraw itself, for the Lord shall\nbe thine everlasting light.\u201d(1480)\n\n9. The various Jewish festivals, like the Sabbath, were detached from\ntheir original relation to nature and turned into historical memorials,\neloquent testimonies to the great works of God and of Israel\u2019s power of\nrejuvenation. The Passover was originally the spring festival of the\nshepherds when they hallowed the thresholds,(1481) but was later\nidentified with the agricultural Feast of Unleavened Bread in Palestine,\nand at an early period was further transformed into a festival of\nredemption. The former rites of consecration of tent and herd were taken\nas symbols of the wondrous deliverance of the Hebrews from the Egyptian\nyoke. The sacrifice of the \u201cpassing over the threshold,\u201d with the\nsprinkling of the blood on the doorposts and lintels of each house,\nobserved each spring exactly as is still done among the semi-pagan\ninhabitants of Syria and Arabia, was reinterpreted. According to the\nMosaic code it indicated the wondrous passing of the angel of death over\nthe thresholds of the Israelites in Egypt, while he entered the homes of\nthe Egyptians to slay the first-born and avenge the wrongs of\nIsrael.(1482) Likewise the cakes of bread without leaven (the _Mazzoth_)\nbaked for the festival were taken as reminders of the hasty exodus of the\nfathers from the land of oppression. Thus the spring festival became a\nmemorial of the springtime of liberty for the nation and at the same time\na consecration of the Jewish home to the covenant God of Israel. God was\nto enter the Jewish home as He did in Egypt, as the Redeemer and Protector\nof Israel. Young and old listened with perennial interest to the story of\nthe deliverance, offering praise for the wonders of the past and voicing\ntheir confidence in the future redemption from oppression and woe.\n\nHowever burdensome the Passover minuti\u00e6, especially in regard to the\nprohibition of leaven, became to the Jewish household, the predominant\nfeature was always an exuberance of joy. In the darkest days of\nmedievalism the synagogue and home resounded with song and thanksgiving,\nand the young imbibed the joy and comfort of their elders through the\nbeautiful symbols of the feast and the richly adorned tale of the\ndeliverance (the _Haggadah_). The Passover feast with its \u201cnight of divine\nwatching\u201d endowed the Jew ever anew with endurance during the dark night\nof medieval tyranny, and with faith in \u201cthe Keeper of Israel who\nslumbereth not nor sleepeth.\u201d(1483) Moreover, as the springtide of nature\nfills each creature with joy and hope, so Israel\u2019s feast of redemption\npromises the great day of liberty to those who still chafe under the yoke\nof oppression. The modern Jew is beginning to see in the reawakening of\nhis religious and social life in western lands the token of the future\nliberation of all mankind.(1484) The Passover feast brings him the clear\nand hopeful message of freedom for humanity from all bondage of body and\nof spirit.\n\n10. The Feast of Weeks or Festival of the First Fruits in Biblical times\nwas merely a farmer\u2019s holiday at the end of the seven weeks of harvest. At\nthe beginning of the harvest parched grains of barley were offered, while\nat its end two loaves of the new wheat flour were brought as a\nthank-offering for the new crop.(1485) Rabbinical Judaism, however,\ntransformed it into a historical feast by making it the memorial day of\nthe giving of the Ten Words on Mount Sinai. It was thus given a universal\nsignificance, as the Midrash has it, \u201cturning the Feast of the First\nFruits into a festival commemorating the ripening of the first fruits of\nthe spiritual harvest for the people of the covenant.\u201d(1486) Henceforth\nthe Ten Words were to be solemnly read to the congregation on that day,\nand the pledge of loyalty made by the fathers thereby renewed each year by\nIsrael\u2019s faithful sons. The leaders of Reform Judaism surrounded the day\nwith new charm by the introduction of the confirmation ceremony,(1487)\nthus rendering it a feast of consecration of the Jewish youth to the\nancient covenant, of yearly renewal of loyalty by the rising generation to\nthe ancestral faith.\n\n11. The main festival in Biblical times was the Feast of _Sukkoth_, or\nTabernacles, the great harvest festival of autumn, when the people flocked\nto the central sanctuary in solemn procession, carrying palms and other\nplants. Hence this was called the _Hag_ or Pilgrimage Feast.(1488) In the\npost-exilic Priestly Code this festival also was made historical, and the\nname Feast of Sukkoth (which denoted originally Feast of Pilgrimage Tents)\nwas connected with the exodus from Egypt, when the town of _Sukkoth_\n(possibly named from the tents of their encampment) was made the rallying\npoint of the fugitive Hebrews at their departure from Egypt. The\ncommentators no longer understood this connection, and traced the name to\nthe tents erected by the people in their wanderings through the\nwilderness.(1489) It seems that from very ancient times popular rites were\nperformed at this feast, which took a specially solemn form in the holding\nof a procession from the pool of Shiloah at the foot of the Temple mount\nto the altar in the Temple, to offer there a libation of water, which was\na sort of symbolic prayer for rain for the opening year. Obviously, it is\nthis feast which is referred to in the last chapter of Zechariah, while\nthis outburst of popular joy found a deep response among the pious leaders\nof the people and is echoed in the liturgy of the medieval\nSynagogue.(1490) The Halakic rules concerning the tabernacle and the four\nplans for it tended to obscure the real significance of the\nfestival;(1491) yet in the synagogue and the home it retained its original\ncharacter as a \u201cseason of gladness.\u201d The joyous gratitude to God for His\nprotection of Israel during the forty years of wanderings through the\nwilderness expanded into thanksgiving for His guidance throughout the\nforty centuries of Israel\u2019s pilgrimage through all lands and ages. This\njoy culminated on the last day in the Feast of Rejoicing in the Law, when\nthe annual cycle of readings from the Pentateuch was completed in the\nSynagogue amid overflowing pride in the possession of God\u2019s law by\nIsrael.(1492) The rabbis gave Sukkoth a universal significance by taking\nthe seventy bullocks prescribed for the seven days as offerings for the\nsalvation of the seventy nations of the world, while the one bullock\noffered on the last day suggested the uniqueness of Israel as God\u2019s\npeculiar people.(1493)\n\n12. The highest point of religious devotion in the synagogue is reached on\nthe New Year\u2019s day and the Day of Atonement preceding the Feast of\nSukkoth. These are first mentioned in the Priestly Code and were\nundoubtedly instituted after the time of Ezra;(1494) they were then\nbrought into closer connection by the Pharisees and permeated with lofty\nideas which struck the deepest chords of the human heart and voiced the\nsublimest truths of religion for all time to come.\n\nThe New Year\u2019s Day on the first of Tishri appears in the Mosaic Code\nsimply as the memorial \u201cDay of the Blowing of the Trumpet,\u201d because of the\nincreased number of trumpet blasts to usher in the seventh or Sabbatical\nmonth with its great pilgrim feast. Under Babylonian influence, however,\nit received a new name and meaning. The Babylonian New Year was looked\nupon as a heavenly day of destiny when the fates of all beings on earth\nand in heaven were foretold for the whole year from the tables of destiny.\nThe leaders of Jewish thought also adopted the first day of the holy month\nof Tishri as a day of divine judgment, when God allots to each man his\ndestiny for the year according to his record of good and evil deeds in the\nbook of life.(1495) Accordingly, the stirring notes of the Shofar were to\nstrike the hearts of the people with fear, that they might repent of their\nsins and improve their ways during the new year. As fixed by tradition,\nthe liturgy contained three blasts of the Shofar to proclaim three great\nideas of Judaism:(1496) the recognition of God as King of the world; as\nJudge, remembering the actions and thoughts of men and nations for their\nreward and punishment; and as the Ruler of history, who revealed Himself\nto Israel in the trumpet-blasts of Sinai and will gather all men and\nnations by the trumpet-blasts of the Judgment Day at the end of time.\n\nThe main purpose of the New Year was to render it a day of renewal of the\nheart, so that man might put himself in harmony with the great Judge on\nhigh and receive life anew from His hand, while he fills his spirit with\nnew and better resolves for the future. Judaism does not place the day of\njudgment after death, when repentance is beyond reach and the sinner can\nonly await damnation, as is done by Christianity after the apocalyptic\nviews adopted from the Parsees. The Jewish judgment day occurs at the\nbeginning of every year, a day of self-examination and improvement of men\nbefore God. On this day\u2014in the orthodox Synagogue on the second day of the\nNew Year\u2014the chapter is read from the Torah describing Abraham\u2019s great act\nof faith on Mount Moriah, the heroic pattern of Jewish martyrdom, and\nstirring prayers, litanies, and songs prepare the worshiper for the \u201cgreat\nday\u201d of the year, the Day of Atonement, which is to come on the tenth day\nof Tishri, the last of the ten Days of Repentance.\n\n13. The Day of Atonement figures in the Mosaic Code as the day when the\nhigh priest in the Temple performed the important function of expiation\nfor the sanctuary, the priesthood, and the people. The mass of the people\nwere to observe the day from evening to evening as a Sabbath and a fast\nday to obtain pardon for their sins before God.(1497) A very primitive\nrite which survived for this day was the selection of two goats, one of\nwhich was to be sent to Azazel, the demon of the wilderness, to bear away\nthe sins of the people, while the other was to be offered to the Lord as a\nsacrifice. We learn from the Mishnaic sources that the sending forth of\nthe scapegoat was accompanied by strange practices betraying intense\npopular interest, and its arrival at the bottom of the wild ravine, where\nAzazel was supposed to dwell, was announced by signals from station to\nstation, until they reached the Temple mount, and the news of it was then\nreceived with wild bursts of joy by the people. The young men and maidens\nassembled on the heights of Jerusalem, like the men at the pilgrimage\nfeast at Shiloh, and held, as it were, nuptial dances.(1498) The day was\none of communion with God for the high-priest alone; he confessed his sins\nand those of the people and implored forgiveness, and it was actually\nbelieved that he beheld the Majesty of God on that day when he entered the\nHoly of Holies with the incense shrouding his face.(1499)\n\nIn contrast to this priestly monopoly of service with its external and\narchaic forms of expiation, the founders of the Synagogue invested the Day\nof Atonement with a higher meaning in accord with the spirit of the\nprophets of old, the doctrine of God\u2019s mercy and paternal love. Atonement\ncould no longer be obtained by the priest with the sacrificial blood, the\nincense, or the scapegoat; it must come through the repentance of the\nsinner, leading him back from the path of error to the way of God. As the\nhigh-priest in the Temple, so now every son of Israel was to spend the day\nin the house of prayer, confessing his sins before God with a contrite\nheart, awaiting with awe the realization of God\u2019s promise to Moses: \u201cI\nhave pardoned according to thy word.\u201d(1500) Indeed, a forward step in the\nhistory of religion is represented in the interpretation of the verse:\n\u201cFor on this day _he_\u2014that is, the high-priest\u2014shall make atonement for\nyou to cleanse you,\u201d which was now understood to refer to God: \u201cHe shall\nmake atonement for you through this day.\u201d(1501) Therefore R. Akiba could\nexclaim proudly, as he thought of the Paulinian doctrine of vicarious\natonement: \u201cHappy are ye Israelites! Before whom do you cleanse yourselves\nfrom sin, and who cleanses you? Your Father in heaven!\u201d(1502) No mediator\nwas needed between man and his heavenly Father from the moment that each\nindividual learned to approach God in true humility on the Day of\nAtonement, imploring His pardon for sin and promising to amend his ways.\nWith profound intuition the rabbis attributed God\u2019s pardon to the petition\nof Moses, saying that He revealed Himself in His attribute of mercy on the\nvery tenth of Tishri, foreshadowing for all time the divine forgiveness of\nsin on the Day of Atonement.(1503)\n\nAs the Mishnah expressly states, even the Day of Atonement cannot bring\nforgiveness so long as injustice cleaves to one\u2019s hand or evil speech to\nthe lips and no attempt is made to repair the injury and appease one\u2019s\nfellow-man.(1504) Where justice is lacking, divine love cannot exert its\nsaving power. God\u2019s mercy and long-suffering cannot remove sin, unless the\nroot of evil is removed from the heart and every wrong redressed in\nsincere repentance. The spirit of God is invoked on these great days at\nthe year\u2019s commencement only that the penitent soul may thus receive\nstrength to improve its ways, that good conduct in the future may atone\nfor the errors of the past. Surely no religion in the world can equal the\nsublime teachings of the New Year\u2019s day and the Day of Atonement, first\nfilling the heart of mortal man with awe before the Judge of the world and\nthen cheering it with the assurance of God\u2019s paternal love being ever\nready to extend mercy to His repentant children. While the other festivals\nof the year are specifically Jewish in historic associations and meaning,\nthese two days on the threshold of each new year are universally human,\nand the chief prayers for this day are of a universal character, appealing\nto every human heart. Indeed, it is characteristic that both the\nconcluding service for the day, the _Neilah_, and the Scriptural reading\nof the _Minhah_ Service, selected from the book of Jonah, tell that God\u2019s\nall-forgiving mercy extends to the non-Jewish world as well as to the\nJew.(1505)\n\n14. Altogether, the Synagogue gave to the annual cycle of the Jewish life\na beautiful rhythm in its alternation of joy and sorrow, lending a higher\nsolemnity to general experience. All the festivals mentioned above were\npreceded by a series of Sabbaths to prepare the congregation for the\ncoming of the sad or the joyful season with its historical reminiscences.\nSo the memorial day of the destruction of Jerusalem, the ninth of Ab, had\nthree weeks previously to herald in a day commemorating the siege of\nJerusalem, the seventeenth of Tammuz; but it had also seven Sabbath days\nto follow, which afforded words of consolation and hope of a more glorious\nfuture for the mourning nation.(1506) Of course, the brighter days of the\npresent era have greatly modified the lugubrious character of these\neventful days of the past, even in those circles where the hope for the\nrestoration of the Jewish nation and Temple is still expressed in prayer.\nAt the same time, the commemoration of the destruction of State and\nTemple, the great turning-point in the history of the Jew, ought to be\ngiven a prominent place in the Reform Synagogue as well, though celebrated\nin the spirit of progressive Judaism.\n\nThe feast of Hanukkah with its lights and song, jubilant with the\nMaccabean victory in the battle for Israel\u2019s faith, still resounds in the\nJewish home and the house of God with the prophetic watchword: \u201cNot by\nmight, nor by power, but by My spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.\u201d(1507)\n\nThe mirthful feast of Purim, with its half-serious, half-jovial use of the\nscroll of Esther and its popular rejoicing, assumed in the course of time\na more earnest character, because the plot of Haman and the rescue of the\nJews became typical in Jewish history. Therefore the story of Amalek, the\narch-foe of Israel, is read in the Synagogue on the preceding Sabbath as a\nreminder of the constant battle which Israel must wage for its supreme\nreligious task.(1508)\n\n15. Through the entire history of Judaism since the Exile, the Synagogue\nbrought its religious truth home to the people each Sabbath and holy day\nthrough the reading and expounding of the Torah and the prophets. These\nwords of consolation and admonition struck a deep chord in the hearts of\nthe people, so that learning was the coveted prize of all and ignorance of\nthe law became a mark of inferiority. Beside these stated occasions, all\ntimes of joy or sadness such as weddings and funerals were given some\nattention in the Synagogue, as linking the individual to the communal\nlife, and linking his personal joy and sorrow with the past sadness and\nfuture glory of Jerusalem, as if they but mirrored the greater events of\nthe people. Thus the whole life was to be placed in the service of the\nsocial body, and could not be torn asunder or divided into things holy and\nthings profane. Religion must send forth its rays like the sun, illumining\nand warming all of man\u2019s deeds and thoughts.\n\n16. The weakness of the Synagogue was its Orientalism. Amid all the\nchanges of time and environment, it remained separated from the\nsurrounding world to such an extent that it could no longer exert an\ninfluence to win outsiders for its great truths. Until recently the Hebrew\nlanguage was retained for the entire liturgy, although it had become\nunintelligible to the majority of the Jews in western lands, and even\nthough the rabbis had declared in Talmudic times that the verse: \u201cHear O\nIsrael, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One\u201d indicates that the words\nshould be spoken in a language which can be heard and understood by the\npeople.(1509) The Torah likewise was, and in the ancient Synagogue is\nstill read exclusively in the Hebrew original, in spite of the fact that\nthe original reading under Ezra was accompanied by a translation and\ninterpretation in the Aramaic vernacular. Thus only could the Torah become\n\u201cthe heritage of the whole congregation of Jacob,\u201d which fact gave rise to\nboth the Aramaic and Greek translations of the Bible which carried the\ntruths of Judaism to the wider circle of the world. These plain facts were\nignored through the centuries to the detriment of the Jewish faith, and\nthis neglect, in turn, engendered a false conception of Judaism, making it\nseem ever more exclusive and narrow. Instead of becoming \u201cour wisdom and\nunderstanding before all the nations,\u201d(1510) knowledge of the Torah\ndwindled to a possession of the few, while the ceremonial laws, observed\nby the many, were performed without any understanding of their origin or\npurpose. But in the last century under the banner of Reform Judaism many\nof these points were altered. The vernacular was introduced into the\nSynagogue, so that the modern Jew might pray in the same tongue in which\nhe feels and thinks, thus turning the prayers from mechanical recitations\ninto true offerings of the soul, and bringing the Scriptural readings\nnearer to the consciousness of the congregation. Likewise the\nreintroduction of the sermon in the vernacular as part of the divine\nservice for Sabbath and holy days became the vehicle to awaken religious\nsentiments in the hearts of the people, and thereby to revive the spirit\nof the ancient prophets and Haggadists.(1511)\n\n17. This Orientalism is especially marked in the attitude of the older\nSynagogue to women. True enough, woman was honored as the mistress of the\nhome. She kindled the Sabbath light, provided for the joy and comfort of\ndomestic life, especially on the holy days, observed strictly the laws of\ndiet and purity, and awakened the spirit of piety in her children. Still\nshe was excluded from the regular divine service in the Synagogue. She did\nnot count as a member of the religious community, which consisted\nexclusively of men. She had to sit in the gallery behind a trellis during\nthe service and could not even join the men in saying grace at table. A\nfew rare women were privileged to study Hebrew, such as the daughter of\nRashi, but as a rule woman\u2019s education was neglected as if \u201cshe had no\nclaim on any other wisdom than the distaff.\u201d(1512) More and more Judaism\nlost sight of its noble types of women in antiquity; it forgot the\nBiblical heroines such as Miriam and Deborah, Hannah and Hulda, and\nTalmudic ones such as Beruria the wife of Rabbi Meir. Such women as these\nmight have repeated the words: \u201cHath the Lord indeed spoken only through\nMoses? Hath He not also spoken through us?\u201d(1513) Aside from the sphere of\nreligion, in which woman always manifests a splendid wealth of sentiment,\nshe was held in subjection by Oriental laws in both marital and social\nrelations,(1514) and her natural vocation as religious teacher of the\nchildren in the home failed to receive full recognition also.\n\nThe first attempt to liberate the Jewish woman from the yoke of\nOrientalism was made in the eleventh century by Rabbi Gershon ben Jehudah\nof Mayence, at that time the leading rabbi of Germany. Under the influence\nof Occidental ideas he secured equal rights for men and women in\nmarriage.(1515) But only in our own time were full rights accorded her in\nthe Synagogue, owing to the reform movement in Germany and Austria. As a\nmatter of fact, the confirmation of children of both sexes, which was\ngradually introduced in many conservative congregations also, was the\nvirtual recognition of woman as the equal of man in Synagogue and\nschool.(1516) Finally, upon the initiative of Isaac M. Wise, then Rabbi in\nAlbany, N. Y., family pews were introduced in the American Synagogue and\nwoman was seated beside her husband, son, father, and brother as their\nequal. With her greater emotional powers she is able to lend a new\nsolemnity and dignity to the religious and educational efforts of the\nSynagogue, wherever she is admitted as a full participant in the service.\n\n18. Another shortcoming of the Synagogue and of Rabbinical Judaism in\ngeneral was its formalism. Too much stress was laid upon the perfunctory\n\u201cdischarge of duty,\u201d the outward performance of the letter of the law, and\nnot enough upon the spiritual basis of the Jewish religion. The form\nobscured the spirit, even though it never quite succeeded in throttling\nit. This formalism of the ignorant, but observant multitude was censured\nas early as the eleventh century by Bahya ben Joseph ibn Pakudah in his\n\u201cDuties of the Heart,\u201d a philosophical work in which he emphatically urges\nthe need of inwardness for the Jewish faith.(1517) Later the mystics of\nGermany and Palestine, while strong supporters of the law, opposed the\none-sidedness of legalism and intellectualism, and endeavored to instill\nelements of deeper devotion into the Jewish soul through the introduction\nof their secret lore, _Cabbalah_, or \u201cesoteric tradition.\u201d(1518) Their\noffering, however, was anything but beneficial to the soul of Judaism. A\nmysticism which attempts to fathom the unfathomable depth of the divine\naccords but ill with the teaching of Judaism, which says: \u201cThe secret\nthings belong unto the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed\nbelong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words\nof this law.\u201d(1519) The Cabbalah was but the reaction to the excessive\nrationalism of the Spanish-Arabic period. As the ultimate source of\nreligion is not reason but the heart, so the cultivation of the intellect\nat the expense of the emotions can be only harmful to the faith. The\nlegalism and casuistry of the Talmud and the Codes appealed too much to\nthe intellect, disregarding the deeper emotional sources of religion and\nmorality; on the other hand, the mysticism of the Cabbalists\noveremphasized the emotional element, and eliminated much of the rational\nbasis of Judaism. True religion grasps the whole of man and shows God\u2019s\nworld as a harmonious whole, reflecting in both mind and heart the\ngreatness and majesty of God on high. In order to open the flood-gates of\nthe soul and render religion again the deepest and strongest force of\nlife, the Synagogue must revitalize its time-honored institutions and\nceremonies. Thus only will they become real powers of the Jewish spirit,\ntestimonies to the living God, witnessing to the truth of the Biblical\nwords: \u201cFor this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too\nhard for thee, neither is it too far off. It is not in heaven, that thou\nshouldest say, \u2018Who shall go up for us to heaven and bring it unto us, and\nmake us to hear it, that we may do it?\u2019 Neither is it beyond the sea, that\nthou shouldest say, \u2018Who shall go over the sea for us and bring it unto\nus, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?\u2019 But the word is very nigh\nunto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.\u201d(1520)\n\n19. The Synagogue need no longer restrict itself to the ancient forms of\nworship in its appeal to the Jewish soul. It must point to the loftiest\nideals for the future of all humanity, if it is to be true to its\nprophetic spirit of yore. \u201cMy house shall be called a house of prayer for\nall peoples,\u201d exclaimed the seer of the exile.(1521) \u201cHear O Israel, the\nLord our God, the Lord is one\u201d must be echoed in all lands and languages,\nby all God-seeking minds and hearts, to realize the prophetic vision: \u201cAnd\nthe Lord shall be King over all the earth; in that day the Lord shall be\nOne, and His name One.\u201d(1522) Just as there is but one truth, one justice,\nand one love, however differently the various races and classes of men may\nconceive them, so Israel shall uphold God, the only One, as the bond of\nunity for all men, despite their diversity of ideas and cultures, and His\ntruth will be the beacon-light for all humanity. As the Psalms, prophets,\nand the opening chapters of the Pentateuch speak a language appealing to\nthe common sense of mankind, so the divine worship of the Synagogue must\nagain strike the deeper chords of humanity, in its weal and woe, its hope\nand fear, its aspirations and ideals. Therefore it is not enough that the\ninstitutions and ceremonies of the Synagogue are testimonies to the great\npast of Israel. They must also become eloquent heralds and monitors of the\nglorious future, when all mankind will have learned the lessons of the\nJewish festivals, the ideals of liberty, law, and peace, the thoughts of\nthe divine judgment and the divine mercy. They must help also to bring\nabout the time when the ideal of social justice, which the Mosaic Code\nholds forth for the Israelitish nation, will have become the motive-power\nand incentive to the re\u00ebstablishment of human society upon new\nfoundations.\n\nJehudah ha Levi, the lofty poet of medieval Jewry,(1523) speaks of Israel\nas the \u201cheart of humanity,\u201d because it has supplied the spiritual and\nmoral life-blood of the civilized world. Israel provides continually the\nrejuvenating influence of society. Israel\u2019s history is the history of the\nworld in miniature. As the Midrash says,(1524) the confession of God\u2019s\nunity imposes upon us the obligation to lead all God\u2019s children to love\nHim with heart and soul and might, thus working toward the time when \u201cthe\nearth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the\nwaters cover the sea.\u201d(1525) All the social, political, and intellectual\nmovements of our restless, heaven-storming age, notwithstanding temporary\nlapses into barbarism and hatred, point unerringly to the final goal, the\nunity of all human and cosmic life under the supreme leadership of God on\nhigh. In the midst of all these movements of the day stands the Jew, God\u2019s\nwitness from of old, yet vigorous and youthful still, surveying the\nexperiences of the past and voicing the hope of the future, exclaiming in\nthe words of his traditional prayers: \u201cHappy are we; how goodly is our\nportion! how pleasant our lot! how beautiful our inheritance!\u201d(1526) Our\nfaith is the faith of the coming humanity; our hope of Zion is the kingdom\nof God, which will include all the ideals of mankind.\n\n\n\n\nChapter LIX. The Ethics of Judaism and the Kingdom of God\n\n\n1. The soul of the Jewish religion is its ethics. Its God is the\nFountainhead and Ideal of morality. At the beginning of the summary of the\nethical laws in the Mosaic Code stands the verse: \u201cYe shall be holy, for I\nthe Lord your God am holy.\u201d(1527) This provides the Jew with the loftiest\npossible motive for perfection and at the same time the greatest incentive\nto an ever higher conception of life and life\u2019s purpose. Accordingly, the\nkingdom of God for whose coming the Jew longs from the beginning until the\nend of the year,(1528) does not rest in a world beyond the grave, but (in\nconsonance with the ideal of Israel\u2019s sages and prophets) in a complete\nmoral order on earth, the reign of truth, righteousness and holiness among\nall men and nations. Jewish ethics, then, derives its sanction from God,\nthe Author and Master of life, and sees its purpose in the hallowing of\nall life, individual and social. Its motive is the splendid conception\nthat man, with his finite ends, is linked to the infinite God with His\ninfinite ends; or, as the rabbis express it, \u201cMan is a co-worker with God\nin the work of creation.\u201d(1529)\n\n2. Both the term ethics (from the Greek _ethos_) and morality (from the\nLatin _mores_) are derived from custom or habit. In distinction to this,\nthe Hebrew Scripture points to God\u2019s will as perceived in the human\nconscience as the source of all morality. Those ethical systems which\ndispense with religion fail to take due cognizance of the voice of duty\nwhich says to each man: \u201cThou shalt\u201d or \u201cThou shalt not!\u201d Duty\ndistinguishes man from all other creatures. However low man may be in the\nscale of freedom, he is moved to action by an impulse from within, not by\na compulsion from without. Of course, morality must travel a long road\nfrom the primitive code, which does not extend beyond the near kinsmen, to\nthe ideal of civilized man which encompasses the world. Still man\u2019s steps\nare always directed by some rule of duty. The voice of conscience, heard\nclearly or dimly, is not, as is so often asserted, the product, but the\noriginal guiding factor of human society. The divine inner power of\nmorality has made man, not man morality. Morality and religion,\ninseparably united in the Decalogue of Sinai, will attain their perfection\ntogether in the kingdom of God upon the Zion heights of humanity.\n\n3. Ethical elements, greater or smaller, enter into all religions and\ncodes of law of the various nations. Ancient Egypt, Persia and India even\nconnected ethical principle and the future of the soul so closely, that\ncertain ethical laws were to determine one\u2019s fate in heaven or hell. This\nled to the idea that this life is but the preparatory stage to the great\nhereafter. But antiquity also witnessed more or less successful attempts\nto emancipate ethics from religion. When the old beliefs no longer\nsatisfied the thinking mind and no longer kept men from corruption,\nvarious philosophers attempted to provide general principles of morality\nas substitutes for the departed deities. Confucius built up in China a\nsystem of common-sense ethics based upon the communal life, but without\nany religious ideals; this satisfied the commonplace attitude of that\ncountry, but could not pass beyond the confines of the far East. A\nsemi-religious ascetic system was offered at about the same time by\nGautama Buddha of India, a prince garbed as a mendicant friar, who\npreached the gospel of love and charity for all fellow creatures. His\nleading maxims were blind resignation and self-effacement in the presence\nof the ills, suffering and death which rule the entire domain of life. All\nexistence was evil to him, with its pleasure, passion and desire, its\nthought and feeling; his aim was a state of apathy and listlessness,\n_Nirvana_; while sympathy and compassion for fellow creatures were to\noffer some relief to a life of delusion and despair. The Hindu conception\nof the unbearable woe of the world corresponded more or less with the hot\nclimate, which renders the people indolent and apathetic. In striking\ncontrast to this was the vigorous manhood of the ethical systems developed\non the healthy soil of Greece, under the azure canopy of a sky that fills\nthe soul with beauty and joy. Life should be valued for the happiness it\noffers to the individual or to society. The good should be loved for its\nbeauty, the just admired for its nobility. Greek ethics was thus both\naristocratic and utilitarian; it took no heed of the toiling slave, the\nsuffering poor, or the unprotected stranger. Both the Buddhist and the\nHellenic systems lacked the energizing force and motive of the highest\npurpose of life, because both have left out of their purview the great\nRuler who summons man to his duty, saying: \u201cI am the Lord thy God; thou\nshalt and thou shalt not!\u201d\n\n4. Between the two extremes, the Hellenic self-expansion and the Buddhist\nself-extinction, Jewish ethics labors for self-elevation under the\nuplifting power of a holy God. The term which Scripture uses for moral\nconduct is, very significantly, \u201cto walk in the ways of God.\u201d The rabbis\nexplain this as follows: \u201cAs God is merciful and gracious, so be thou\nmerciful and gracious. As God is called righteous, so be thou righteous.\nAs God is holy, so do thou strive to be holy.\u201d(1530) Another of their\nmaxims is: \u201cHow can mortal man walk after God, who is an all-consuming\nfire? What Scripture means is that man should emulate God. As He clothes\nthe naked, nurses the sick, comforts the sorrowing, and buries the dead,\nso should man.\u201d(1531) In other words, human life must take its pattern\nfrom the divine goodness and holiness.\n\n5. Obviously, Jewish ethics had to go through the same long process of\ndevelopment as the Jewish religion itself. A very high stage is\nrepresented by that disinterested goodness taught by Antigonus of Soko in\nthe second pre-Christian century and by ben Azzai in the second century of\nthe present era, which no longer anticipates reward or punishment, but\ndoes good for its own sake and shuns evil because it is evil.(1532) As\nlong as the law tolerated slavery, polygamy, and blood vengeance, and\nman\u2019s personality was not recognized on principle as being made in the\nimage of God, the practical morality of the Hebrews could not rise above\nthat of other nations, except in so far as the shepherd\u2019s compassion for\nthe beast occasioned sympathy also for the fellow-man. After all, Jewish\nethics became the ethics of humanity because of the God-conception of the\nprophets,\u2014the righteous, merciful, and holy God, the God \u201cwho executeth\nthe judgment of the fatherless and the widow, and loveth the stranger in\ngiving him food and raiment.\u201d(1533) The conception of Jewish ethics as\nhuman ethics is voiced in the familiar verse: \u201cIt hath been told thee, O\nman, what is good and what the Lord doth require of thee: only to do\njustly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God.\u201d(1534) The\nall-ruling and all-seeing God of the Psalmist made men feel that only such\na one can stand in His holy place \u201cwho hath clean hands and a pure heart,\nwho hath not lifted up his soul unto falsehood, nor sworn\ndeceitfully.\u201d(1535) After law-giver, prophet, and psalmist came the wise,\nwho gave ethics a more practical and popular character in the wisdom\nliterature, and then came the _Hasidim_ or Essenes, who, while seeking the\nhighest piety or saintliness as life\u2019s aim, deepened and spiritualized\ntheir ethical ideals. Some of these considered the essential principles of\nmorality to be love of God and of the fellow-man;(1536) while rabbinical\nethics in general laid great stress on motive as determining the value of\nthe deed. The words, \u201cThou shalt fear the Lord thy God,\u201d so often repeated\nin the law, are taken to mean: Fear Him who looks into the heart, judging\nmotives and intentions.(1537)\n\n6. As the Mosaic Code presented the ceremonial and moral laws together as\ndivine, so the rabbinical schools treated them all as divine commandments\nwithout any distinction. Hence the Mishnah and the Talmud fail to give\nethics the prominent place it occupies in the prophetic and wisdom\nliterature of the Bible and did not even make an attempt to formulate a\nsystem of ethics. The ethical rules in the \u201cSayings of the Fathers\u201d and\nsimilar later collections make no pretentions to being general or\nsystematic. The ethical teachings became conspicuous only through contact\nwith the Hellenic world in the propaganda literature, with its aim to win\nthe Gentile world to Judaism. Thus at an early period handbooks on ethics\nwere written and circulated in the Greek language, some of which were\nafterward appropriated by the Christian Church. This entire movement is\nsummed up in the well-known answer of Hillel to the heathen who desired to\njoin the Jewish faith: \u201cWhat is hateful to thee, do thou not unto thy\nfellow man; this is the law, and all the rest is merely commentary.\u201d(1538)\n\nOn the whole, rabbinical Judaism elaborated no ethical system before the\nMiddle Ages. Then, under Mohammedan influence, the Aristotelian and\nNeo-Platonic philosophies in vogue gave rise to certain ethical works more\nor less in accord with their philosophic or mystic prototypes. In\naddition, ethical treatises were often written in the form of wills and of\npopular admonitions, which were sometimes broad and human, at other times\nstern and ascetic. One thought, however, prevailed through the ages: as\nlife emanates from the God of holiness, so it must ever serve His holy\npurposes and benefit all His earthly children. \u201cAll the laws given by God\nto Israel have only the purification and ennobling of the life of men for\ntheir object,\u201d say the rabbis.(1539)\n\n7. Perhaps the best summary of Jewish ethics was presented by Hillel in\nthe famous three words: \u201cIf I am not for myself, who will be for me? But\nif I am for myself alone, what am I? And if not now, when then?\u201d(1540) We\nfind here three spheres of duty: toward one\u2019s self, toward others, and\ntoward the life before us. In contrast to purely altruistic or socialistic\nethics, Jewish morality accentuated the value of the individual even apart\nfrom the social organism. Man is a child of God, a. self-conscious\npersonality, who is to unfold and improve the powers implanted by his\ndivine Maker, in both body and soul, laboring in this way toward the\npurpose for which he was created. Man was created single, says one of the\nsages in the Mishnah,(1541) that he might know that he forms a world for\nhimself, and the whole creation must aid him in unfolding the divine image\nwithin himself. Accordingly, self-preservation, self-improvement and\nself-perfection are duties of every man. This implies first the care for\nthe human body as the temple which enshrines the divine spirit. In the\neyes of Judaism, to neglect or enfeeble the body, the instrument of the\nsoul, is altogether sinful. As the Sabbath law demands physical rest and\nrecreation after the week\u2019s work, so the Jewish religion in general trains\nmen to enjoy the gifts of God; and the rabbis declare that their rejection\n(except for disciplinary reasons) is ingratitude for which man must give\nan account at the last Judgment Day.(1542) The Pharisean teacher who\nopposed the Essenic custom of fasting and declared it sinful, unless it be\nfor special purposes, would have deprecated even more strongly the ascetic\nChristian or Hindoo saint who castigated his body as the seat of\nsin.(1543) As Hillel remarked: \u201cSee what care is bestowed upon the statue\nof the emperor to keep it clean and bright; ought we not, likewise, keep\nGod\u2019s image, our body, clean and free from every blemish?\u201d(1544)\n\nIn regard to our moral and spiritual selves the rabbinical maxim is:\n\u201cBeautify thyself first, and then beautify others.\u201d(1545) Only as we first\nennoble ourselves can we then contribute to the elevation of the world\nabout us. Our industry promotes the welfare of the community as well as of\nourselves; our idleness harms others as well as ourselves.(1546) Upon\nself-respect rest our honor and our character. Virtue also is the result\nof self-control and self-conquest.(1547) \u201cThere shall be no strange God in\nthee.\u201d This Psalm verse is taken by the rabbis to mean that no anger and\npassion nor any evil desire or overbearing pride shall obtain their\nmastery over thee.(1548) Man asserts himself in braving temptation and\ntrial, in overcoming sin and grief. Greater still is the hero who, in\ncomplete self-mastery, can sacrifice himself in a great cause. Martyrdom\nfor the sake of God, which the rabbis call sanctification of the name of\nGod,(1549) is really the assertion of the divine life in the midst of\ndeath. But desertion of life from selfish motives through suicide is all\nthe more despicable. He who sells his human birthright to escape pain or\ndisgrace, though greatly to be pitied, has forfeited his claim and his\nshare in the world to come.(1550)\n\nNot only our life is to be maintained amid all trials as a sacred trust,\nbut also our rights, our freedom, and our individuality, for we must not\nallow our personality to become the slave or tool of others. Job, who\nbattled for his own convictions against the false assumption of his\nfriends, was at last praised and rewarded by God.(1551) The Biblical\nverse: \u201cFor they are My servants whom I brought forth out of the land of\nEgypt, they shall not be sold as slaves,\u201d is explained by the rabbis: \u201cMy\nservants, but not servants to servants,\u201d and is thus applicable to\nspiritual slavery as well.(1552)\n\n8. Therefore the Jewish conception of duty to our fellow-men is by no\nmeans comprised in love or benevolence. Long before Hillel, other Jewish\nsages gave the so-called Golden Rule: \u201cLove thy neighbor as thyself,\u201d a\nnegative form: \u201cWhat is hateful to thee do not do unto thy fellow\nmen.\u201d(1553) Taken in the positive form, the command cannot be literally\ncarried out. We cannot love the stranger as we love ourselves or our kin;\nstill less can we love our enemy, as is demanded by the Sermon on the\nMount. According to the Hebrew Scriptures(1554) we can and should treat\nour enemy magnanimously and forgive him, but we cannot truly love him,\nunless he turns from an enemy to a friend. The real meaning given by the\nrabbis to the command, \u201cLove thy neighbor as thyself\u201d is: \u201cPut thyself in\nhis place and act accordingly. As thou dost not desire to be robbed of thy\nproperty or good name or to be injured or insulted, so do not these things\nunto thy fellow man.\u201d(1555) They then take the closing words, \u201cI am the\nLord thy God,\u201d as an oath by God: \u201cI am the Lord, the Creator of thy\nfellow man as well as of thee; therefore, if thou showest love to him, I\nshall surely reward thee, and if not, I am the Judge ready to punish\nthee.\u201d(1556) Love of all fellow-men is, in fact, taught by both\nHillel(1557) and Philo.(1558) Love and helpful sympathy are implied also\nby the verse from Deuteronomy: \u201cHe (the Lord) loveth the stranger in\ngiving him bread and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger.\u201d(1559) All\nmembers of the human household are dependent on each other for kindness\nand good will, whether we are rich or poor, high or lowly, in life or in\ndeath; so do we owe love and kindness to all men alike.\n\n9. However, love as a principle of action is not sufficiently firm to\nfashion human conduct or rule society. It is too much swayed by impulse\nand emotion and is often too partial. Love without justice leads to abuse\nand wrong, as we see in the history of the Church, which began with the\nprinciple of love, but often failed to heed the admonitions of justice.\nTherefore justice is the all-inclusive principle of human conduct in the\neyes of Judaism. Justice is impartial by its very nature. It must right\nevery wrong and vindicate the cause of the oppressed. \u201cWhen Thy judgments\nare in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness,\u201d\nsaid the prophet,(1560) describing the just man as he \u201cthat walketh\nrighteously and speaketh uprightly, that despiseth the gain of\noppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth\nhis ear from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from looking on\nevil.\u201d(1561) Justice is the requisite not only in action, but also in\ndisposition,(1562) implying honesty in intention as in deed, uprightness\nin speech and mien, perfect rectitude, neither taking advantage of\nignorance nor abusing confidence.(1563) It is sinful to acquire wealth by\nbetting or gambling,(1564) or by cornering food-supplies to raise the\nmarket price.(1565) The rabbis derive from Scripture the thought that,\njust as \u201cyour balances and weights, your ephah and hin\u201d must be just, so\nshould your yea and nay.(1566) The verse, \u201cJustice, justice shalt them\nfollow,\u201d(1567) is explained thus in a Midrash which is quoted by Bahya ben\nAsher of the thirteenth century: \u201cJustice, whether to your profit or loss,\nwhether in word or in action, whether to Jew or non-Jew.\u201d(1568) This\ncategory of justice covers also regard for the honor of our fellow-men,\nlest we harm it by the tongue of the back-biter,(1569) by the ear that\nlistens to calumny,(1570) or by suspicion cast upon the innocent.(1571)\n\u201cGod in His law takes especial care of the honor of our fellow-men,\u201d say\nthe rabbis, and \u201che who publicly puts his fellow man to shame forfeits his\nshare in the world to come.\u201d(1572)\n\n10. But the Jewish conception of justice is broader than mere abstention\nfrom hurting our fellow-men. Justice is a positive conception.\nRighteousness (_Zedakah_) includes also charity and philanthropy. It\nasserts the claim of the poor upon the rich, of the helpless upon him who\npossesses the means to help. \u201cHe who prevents the poor from reaping the\ncorners of the field or the gleanings of the harvest, or in any way\nwithholds that which has been assigned them by the law of Moses, is a\nrobber,\u201d says the Mishnah, \u201cfor it is written: \u2018Remove not the old\nlandmark, and enter not into the field of the fatherless.\u2019 \u201d(1573) Jewish\nethics holds that charity is not a gift of condescending love, but a duty.\nIt is incumbent upon the fortunate to rescue the unfortunate, since all\nthat we possess is only lent to us by God, the Owner of the world, with\nthe charge that we provide for the needy who are under His special\nprotection. Those who refuse to give the poor their share abuse the divine\ntrust. \u201cIf thou lendest money to My people, to the poor with thee,\u201d(1574)\nsays Scripture, and the rabbis comment on this to the effect that \u201cthe\npoor are called God\u2019s people; do not forget that the turn of fortune which\nmade you rich and them poor may turn, and that you may then be in\nneed.\u201d(1575) Nor is it sufficient merely to give to him who is poor; we\nare bidden to uphold him when his powers fail.(1576)\n\nThis is the very principle of ethics of the Mosaic law, the principle for\nwhich the great prophets fought with all the vigor and vehemence of the\ndivine spirit\u2014social justice. The cry: \u201cWoe unto them that join house to\nhouse, that lay field to field, till there be no room,\u201d(1577) the\ncondemnation of those \u201cthat swallow the needy and destroy the poor of the\nland,\u201d(1578) the curse hurled at him who withholdeth corn,(1579) laid the\nfoundations of a higher justice, which is not satisfied with mitigating\nthe misery of the unfortunate by acts of charity, but insists on a\nreadjustment of the social conditions which create poverty. This spirit\ncreated the poor laws of the Mosaic Code, which were partially adopted by\nboth Christians and Mohammedans. It dictated the Mosaic institutions of\nthe seventh year of release and the Jubilee year for the restoration of\nfields and houses, to prevent the tyranny of wealth from becoming a\npermanent source of oppression. While these were scarcely ever put into\npractice, they remained as a protest and an appeal. Their aim and\npermanent influence tended toward relations between the upper and lower\nclasses, which would insure the latter some degree of independence and\ndignity. In fact, the foundations laid by the Hebrew Scripture underlie\nall our great modern efforts to turn the forces of charity so as to check\nthe sources of evil in our social organism. Modern philanthropy, taking\nits clue from the old Hebrew ideal, aims not to alleviate but to cure, and\nto stimulate the natural good in society, material, moral and\nintellectual, that it may overcome the evil. We are recognizing more and\nmore the principle of mutual responsibility and interdependence of men and\nclasses. Yet this very principle, modern as it seems, was recognized by\nthe Jewish sages, as we see in the remarkable passage where the rabbis\ncomment on the law concerning the case of a slain body found in the field,\nwith the murderer unknown. The Bible commands that in such a case the\nelders of the city should kill a heifer, wash their hands over it, and\nsay: \u201cOur hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen\nit.\u201d(1580) The rabbis then ask: \u201cHow could the elders of a city ever be\nsuspected of the crime of murder?\u201d and their reply is: \u201cEven if they only\nfailed to provide the poor in their charge with the necessary food, and he\nbecame a highway robber and murderer; or if they left him without the\nnecessary protection, and he fell a victim to murderers, they are held\nresponsible for the crime before the higher court of God.\u201d(1581) That is,\naccording to our station we are all responsible for the social conditions\nwhich create poverty and crime, and it is our duty to establish such\nrelations between the individual and the community as will remove the\ncauses of all the evils of society.\n\n11. This, in a way, anticipates the third maxim of Hillel: \u201cIf not now,\nwhen then?\u201d Judaism cannot accept the New Testament spirit of\nother-worldliness, which prompted the teaching: \u201cTake no thought for your\nlife, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink, nor yet for your body what\nye shall put on,\u201d or \u201cResist not evil.\u201d(1582) Such a view disregards the\nvalues and duties of domestic, civic, and industrial life, and creates an\ninseparable gulf between sacred and profane, between religion and culture.\nIn contrast to this, Jewish ethics sets the highest value upon all things\nthat make man more of a human being and increase his power of doing good.\nTo Judaism marriage and home life are regarded as the normal conditions of\nhuman welfare and sane morality, while celibacy is considered\nabnormal.(1583) Labor establishes the dignity of man,(1584) while wealth\nis a source of blessing, a stewardship in the service of society.(1585) In\nopposition to the practice fostered by the Essenes and afterwards adopted\nby the early Church, of devoting one\u2019s whole fortune to charity, the\nrabbis decreed that one should not give over one fifth of one\u2019s\npossessions.(1586) As has well been said, Judaism teaches a \u201crobust\nmorality.\u201d(1587) It regards life as a continual battle for God and right\nagainst every sort of injustice,(1588) for truth against every kind of\nfalsehood. At the same time it fosters also the gentler virtues of\nmeekness,(1589) kindness to animals,(1590) peaceableness and\nmodesty.(1591)\n\n12. Jewish ethics excels all other ethical systems, especially in its\ninsistence on purity and holiness. Not only is any unchaste look, thought,\nor act condemned, exactly as in the Sermon on the Mount,(1592) as\napproaching adultery,(1593) but all profanity of act or speech is declared\nto be an unpardonable offense against the majesty of God.(1594) Modesty in\ndemeanor and dress was both preached and practiced by the Jews throughout\nthe Middle Ages, while in non-Jewish circles coarseness and lewdness\nprevailed among high and low, in minstrel song and monastic life. \u201cThe\nLord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp ... therefore shall thy camp\nbe holy, that He see no unseemly thing in thee, and turn away from\nthee.\u201d(1595) These Biblical words created among the Essenes (the _Zenuim_)\nand later among the entire Jewish people a spirit of chastity and modesty\nwhich made the Jewish home of old a model of purity and sanctity. The\ngreat problem for modern Israel, amid our present allurements of luxury\nand pleasure, is to restore the home to its pristine glory as a sanctuary\nof God, a training school for virtue, so that its influence may extend\nover the whole of life.\n\n13. Thus Jewish ethics derives its sanction from the idea of a God of\nholiness. But it never made life austere, depriving it of joy, or\nbegrudging man his cheerfulness and laughter. On the contrary, the Sabbath\nand many of the holy days are seasons of joy, for gladness should bring\nthe spirit of God near to man.(1596) Moreover, the Talmud holds that we\nshould encourage every means of promoting cheer among men. This is\nillustrated by one of the popular legends of the prophet Elijah, who told\nthe saintly Rabbi Beroka, who prided himself upon his austerity, that his\ncompanions in Paradise were to be two jesters, because they cheered the\ndepressed and increased the joy in the world.(1597)\n\nAs a matter of fact, the Jewish ideal of holiness is all-inclusive. It\naims to hallow every pursuit and endeavor, all social relations and\nactivities, insisting only on a pure motive and disinterested service. As\nthe Ruler of life is the source of all morality, so all of life should be\nmade holy with duty. Man becomes a child of God through his\nresponsibility, instead of remaining a mere product of the social forces\nabout him or of claiming self-sufficient sovereignty and refusing to\nacknowledge a higher Will. Jewish ethics is autonomous, because it insists\non the divine spirit in man.(1598) As we follow the divine Pattern of\nholiness, all that we have and are, body and soul, weal and woe, wealth\nand want, pain and pleasure, life and death, become stepping-stones on the\nroad to holiness and godliness. Life is like a ladder on which man can\nrise from round to round, to come ever nearer to God on high who beckons\nhim toward ever higher ideals and achievements. Man and humanity are thus\ngiven the potentiality of infinite progress in every direction. Science\nand art, industry and commerce, literature and law, every pursuit of man\ncomes within the scope of religion and ethics. For God\u2019s kingdom of truth,\nrighteousness and peace, as beheld by Israel\u2019s seers of old, will be fully\nestablished on earth only when all the forces of material, intellectual,\nand social life have been unfolded, when all the prophetic ideals, the\nvisions and aspirations of all the seers of humanity have been realized,\nand the Zion heights of human perfection have at last been attained. \u201cThe\nwise have no rest, neither in this world nor in the world to come, for it\nis said: \u2018they go from strength to strength, [until] they appear before\nGod on Zion.\u2019 \u201d(1599)\n\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS\n\n\nA. d. R. N. Aboth di Rabbi Nathan\nA. T. Altes Testament\nAb. Z. Aboda Zarah\nAg. Agada\nAnn. Annotations\nAnt. Antiquities (of Josephus)\nAp. Apionem, contra\nApoc. Apocalyptic\nArak. Arakin\nArt. Article\n\nB. Babli (Babylonian)\nb. ben\nB. B. Baba Bathra\nB. H. Beth ha Midrash\nB. K. Baba Kamma\nB. M. Baba Metzia\nBeitr. Beitraege\nBer. Berakoth\nBibl. Bible or Biblical\n\nC. C. A. R. Central Conference of American Rabbis\nCant. Canticles\nChron. Chronicles\nCh. Chapter\nComm. Commentary, -ies\nComp. Compare\nCor. Corinthians, Epistle to\n\nDan. Daniel\nDeut. Deuteronomy\nDict. Dictionary\n\nEccl. Ecclesiastes\nEnc. Encyclopedia\n (_a_) Brit. Britannia\n (_b_) R. a. Eth.... of Religion and Ethics\nEp. Epistle\nEph. Ephesians, Epistle to\nEthnol. Ethnologische\nEx. Exodus\nEz. Ezekiel\n\nG. J. Geschichte der Juden (Graetz)\nG. Jud. Geschichte des Judenthums (Jost)\nG. V. I. Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Schuerer)\nGal. Galatians, Epistle to\nGen. Genesis\nGes. Abh. Gesammelte Abhandlungen\nGes. Schrf. Gesammelte Schriften\nGesch. u. Lit. Geschichte und Literature\nGottesd. Gottesdienstliche\n\nH. Hilkoth\nH. B. Handbuch\nH. J. History of Jews (Graetz)\nH. U. C. Hebrew Union College\nHab. Habakkuk\nHag. Hagigah\nHist. History\nHor. Horayoth\nHul. Hullin\n\nIntrod. Introduction\nIsai. Isaiah\nIsrael. Israelitisch\n\nJ. Journal\nJ. E. Jewish Encyclopedia\nJ. Q. R. Jewish Quarterly Review\nJ. W. Jewish War (Josephus)\nJahrb. Jahrbuch\nJer. Jeremiah\nJew. Jewish\nJosh. Joshua\nJud. Judenthums\nJudg. Judges\nJued. Juedisch\n\nK. A. T. \u201cDie Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament\u201d\nKer. Kerithoth\nKeth. Kethuboth\nKil. Kilayim\n\nL. Literature\nl. c. loco citato, the same place;\n libro citato, the same book (for the usual o. c. = opere\n citato).\nLam. Lamentations\nLev. Leviticus\n\nM. K. Moed Katan\nMacc. Maccabees, Book of\nMaim. Maimonides\nMak. Makkoth\nMal. Malachi\nMas. Masseketh\nMeg. Megillah\nMek. Mekiltha\nMen. Menahoth\nMid. Midrash\nMtschr. Monatsschrift fuer Geschichte und Wissenschaft des\n Judenthums\nMitth. Mittheilungen\n\nNachgel-Schr. Nachgelassene Schriften\nNeh. Nehemiah\nNid. Niddah\nNumb. Numbers\n\nP. d. R. El. Pirke di Rabbi Eliezer\nPars. Parsisch\nPes. Pesahim, -ee\nPes. R. Pesikta Rabbathi\nPesik. Pesikta di Rab Kahana\nPhil. Philosophy or Philosophical\nProv. Proverbs\nProt. Protestantisch\nPs. Psalms\nPsych. Psychologisch\n\nQuel. Quellen\n\nR. Rabbah, also Rabbi, Rabban\nR. h. Sh. Rosh ha Shanah\nR. W. B. Real-Woerterbuch\nref. referring or reference\nRel. Religion\n\nS. O. Seder Olam\ns. v. sub verbo\nSam. Samuel\nSanh. Sanhedrin\nSh. A. Shulhan Aruk\nShab. Shabuoth\nSibyl. Sibylline Books\nSlav. Slavonic\nSoc. Society\nStud. Studien or Studies\nSuk. Sukkah\nSyst. System or Systematic\n\nT. d. b. E. Tanna di be Eliahu\nTanh. Tanhuma\nTeh. Tehillim\nTheol. Theologisch\nTos. Tosefta\nTosaf. Tosafoth\n\nu. und or ueber\n\nW. B. Woerterbuch\nWiss. Wissenschaft or Wissenschaftlich\n\nYalk. Yalkut\nY. B. Yearbook\nYeb. Yebamoth\nYer. Yerushalmi\n\nZech. Zechariah\nZeitschr. Zeitschrift\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\nAaronites, 344 f.\n\nAb, Ninth of, 461, 469\n\nAbba Areka\n _See_ Rab\n\nAbbahu, 153, 422\n\nAbelson, 245, 271, 422\n\nAblat, 403\n\nAbraham, 32, 62, 65 f., 112, 114, 219, 259, 292, 329, 336 f., 417\n\nAbraham ben David of Posquieres, 14, 81, 237, 387\n\nAbraham ibn Daud, 22, 68, 136, 178, 292\n\nAbraham Ibn Ezra, 97, 152, 188, 190, 194, 273\n\nAbrahams, Israel, 192, 346, 348\n\nAbravanel, Isaac, 27\n\nAbstinence\n _See_ Asceticism\n\nAbulafia, Abr., 431\n\nAdam, 222-230, 244, 252; heavenly, 437\n\nAdonai, 59, 61, 221 f., 359\n\nAffliction, 130\n\nAhha, R., 224\n\nAhriman, 301, 382 f.\n\nAkiba, R., 14, 26, 32, 50, 126, 130 f., 150, 176, 216, 222, 232, 257, 259,\n 311, 361, 467\n\nAlbo, Joseph, 24-26, 163 f., 272 f., 294, 309-339\n\nAlenu, 57, 331, 341, 477\n\nAlfarabi, 68\n\nAllegory, 116, 224, 268\n\nAlpha and Omega, 137\n\nAltruism, 482\n\nAm haaretz, 347, 358\n\nAmos, 248, 264, 324\n\nAnaxoras, 37, 67, 84\n\nAngels, 81, 180-188\n\nAnger\n _See_ Wrath\n\nAnimals, 489\n\nAnselm of Canterbury, 68\n\nAnthropology, 204\n\nAnthropomorphism, 74-76, 115 f.\n\nAntigonos of Soko, 480\n\nAntinomian, 428, 439\n\nAntoninus, 403, 422\n\nApicoros\u2014Epicurean, 21, 65\n\nApocalyptic books, 12 f. 232 f., 283\n\nApocryphal books, 12 f.\n\nApologetics, 4\n\nApostate, 6, 424 f.\n\nApostles, 435\n\nApostolic convention, 436\n\nAquilas, 286, 421\n\nArelim, 402\n\nAristeas, 347\n\nAristotelian, 38, 68, 75, 89, 153, 162, 172, 291\n\nAristotle, 1, 67, 84, 87, 152, 215, 359, 405\n\nArnold, Matthew, 121, 131\n\nArt, 480 f.\n\nArticles of faith, 19-28\n\nAryan, 9, 58\n\nAsceticism, 150, 189, 318, 490\n\nAsenath, 416\n\nAssimilation, 12, 396\n\nAtheism, 65, 67\n\nAtonement, 254\n\nAtonement, Day of, 466-469\n\nAttributes of God\n _See_ God\n\nAub, Joseph, 446\n\nAutonomy of morality, 491\n\nAzazel, 190, 194, 466\n\nAzkarah, 263\n\nBabylonian, 11, 15, 75, 118, 128, 140, 181, 220, 240, 356\n\nBacher, W., 76\n\nBahya ben Asher, 486\n\nBahya b. Joseph ibn Pakudah, 3, 68, 175, 291, 473\n\nBanquet of the pious in the future, 305\n\nBaptism, 417, 436\n\nBar Kochba, 361, 384, 385\n\nBathing\n _See_ Baptism\n\nBath Kol, 201\n\nBeck, L., 15\n\nBeecher, W. J., 42\n\nBelief, 20, 65\n _See also_ Faith\n\nBen Azzai, 124, 311, 480\n\nBen Sira, 13, 40, 232, 282, and elsewhere\n\nBen Zoma, 312\n\nBenedictions, Eighteen, 135, 192, 284, 297\n\nBenevolence, 319, 485\n\nBentwich, N., 140, 290\n\nBergson, H., 71, 154\n\nBernays, J., 49, 412\n\nBeroka, R., 490\n\nBerosus, 213\n\nBertholet, A., 409\n\nBeruria, 110, 396\n\nBezold, C., 194\n\nBiblical canon, 11, 43, 201\n\nBloch, M., 12\n\nBloch, Ph., 23, 236\n\nBlood, 48, 123\n\nBody, 209, 214\n\nBoeklen, E., 302 f.\n\nBousset, W., 19, 43 f., 61 f., 74, 84, 123, 128, 143 f., 185, 195, 246,\n 252, 303\n\nBreath of life, 212\n\nBrugsch, H., 288\n\nBuddha, 405, 478\n\nCabbalah, 203, 244, 294, 473\n\nCalendar, Jewish, 460\n\nCalvin, 195\n\nCaro, Joseph, 56\n\nCassel, D., 214, 236, 489\n\nCelibacy, 313, 316\n\nCeremonies, 346, 449 ff.\n\nCharles, R. H., 283\n\nCheerfulness, 318, 490\n\nCheyne, T. K., 409\n\nChristian Science, 178\n\nChristian theology, 5, 123, 192, 248, 252 f., 304, 347, 355\n\nChristian trinity, 56, 86, 116 f., 441 f.\n\nChristianity, 17, 41, 54, 116, 329, 427\n\nChristianity, Paulinian, 12, 51, 116, 439\n\nChrist(os), 86, 221, 433, 437\n\nChurch\u2019s providential mission, 444\n\nCircumcision, 50, 346, 402, 416, 449 f.\n\nCivilization, 316\n\nClemens, Flavius, 421\n\nCohen, Hermann, 196\n\nCommerce, Jewish, 364\n\nCompassion of God\n _See_ God\n\nCompassion of man, 126\n\nCondescension of God\n _See_ God\n\nConfession, 5, 20, 192\n\nConfirmation, 449, 463, 473\n\nConfucius, 405, 478\n\nConscience, 30, 64\n\nConsciousness, Man\u2019s, of God, 29\n\nContinuity of soul\n _See_ Immortality\n\nContinuity with the past, 14\n\nConversion, 418, 423\n\nCosmogony, 148 f.\n\nCosmology, 141\n\nCosmos, 68, 146\n\nCovenant, God\u2019s, 48, 51, 157-161, 235-270, 322\n\nCreation, 147-153\n\nCreative principles, 203\n\nCredo, 22-25, 31\n\nCrescas, Hasdai, 24 f., 131, 163, 172, 194, 236 f., 293, 308 f.\n\nCritical research of Bible\n _See_ Historical research\n\nCross, 438\n\nCulture, 310, 363\n\nCurtiss, S. I., 454\n\nCuzari\n _See_ Jehuda ha Levi\n\nCyrus, 85, 334\n\nDama ben Nethina, 399\n\nDaniel, 288\n\nDarwin, 154\n\nDavid, 242, 291\n\nDavid ben Zimra, 27\n\nDavidson, A. B., 83, 115 f., 139, 167, 182 f., 247, 370\n\nDay of judgment, 394\n\nDay of the Lord\n _See_ JHVH, Day of\n\nDeath, 85, 177, 278 f.\n\nDeism, 79\n\nDelitzsch, Fried., 6\n\nDembitz, L. N., 269\n\nDemons, 190 ff.\n\nDescartes, 68\n\nDeterminism, 255, 330\n\nDeutero-Isaiah, 51, 85, 267, 336, 369\n\nDietary laws, 346, 451 f.\n\nDillmann, A., 30 f., 59, 83 ff., 157 ff., 231\n\nDoctrine, 47\n\nDoellinger, J. J. I. v., 54\n\nDorner, A., 6, 18\n\nDosithean, 13\n\nDraper, J. W., 88\n\nDrummond, J., 69, 72 f., 99 f.\n\nDualism, 85 f., 178, 184, 189, 214, 220, 438\n\nDubno, S., 7\n\nDuran, Simon, 24\n\nDuty, 478\n\nDuty to fellow man, 319, 484\n\nDuty to self, 482\n\nEcclesiastical, 5, 16\n\nEcstasy, 38\n\nEdom\u2014Rome, 430\n\nEinhorn, David, viii, 389, 446, 453 f., 461\n\nElbogen, I., 269\n\nEleazar ben Pedath, 329\n\nElection of Israel\n _See_ Israel\n\nEliezer ben Hyrcanos, 50, 257, 305, 316, 403, 419\n\nElijah, 46, 49\n\nElisha ben Abuyah, 118\n\nElohim, 57 f., 180 f., 210, 405\n\nEmden, Jacob, 427\n\nEnoch, 232, 336\n\nEschatology\n _See_ Future life\n\nEschelbacher, J., 15\n\nEssenes, 12, 40, 163, 183, 185, 191, 316, 419, 434, 481, 489 f.\n\nEternity, 98 f.\n\nEthics, 69, 120, 398, 477, 491\n\nEuken, R., 195\n\nEvil, 176, 179\n\nEvil, Spirits of, 189-196\n\nEvolution, 11, 36, 100\n\nExile, Babylonian, 10 f., 266\n\nEzekiel, 13, 105, 221, 249, 283, 299, 337 f., 345, 392 f.\n\nEzra, 10 f., 17\n\nFaith, 19 f.\n\nFaithfulness of God\n _See_ God\n\nFaithfulness of Israel\n _See_ Israel\n\nFalashas, 13, 457\n\nFamily life, 316\n\nFasting, 483\n\nFate, 168\n\nFatherhood of God, 256-260\n\nFear of God, 29\n\nFeast of Weeks\n _See_ Shabuoth\n\nFelsenthal, B., 19\n\nFestivals, 461-470\n\nFinality, 6, 475 f.\n\nFinkelscherer, 194\n\nFlesh, 212\n\nFormalism, 351, 473\n\nFoster, 62, 271\n\nFrankel, Z., 3, 43\n\nFrederick II, 444\n\nFreedom of will, 171 f., 231, 237\n\nFriedlander, G., 438\n\nFriendship, 318\n\nFuture life, 281-308\n\nGabirol, Solomon Ibn, 80, 89, 98, 141, 187\n\nGamaliel, 77, 97, 129, 152, 289\n\nGehenna, 110\n\nGeiger, Abraham, viii, 2, 12, 14 ff., 35, 43, 58, 110, 201, 446, 453, 472\n\nGenius, 35, 103\n\nGer, 50, 409 ff.\n _See also_ Proselyte\n\nGershom ben Jehuda, 472\n\nGersonides, 13, 156, 194, 236\n\nGinzberg, Asher, 7\n\nGnosticism, 86, 141, 153, 427\n\nGod, 52-145\n\nGod no abstraction, 78, 143\n\nGod of the fathers, 16\n\nGod\u2019s, condescension, 72, 81, 142-144\n essence, 72-81\n eternity, 98-100\n existence, 64-71\n faithfulness, 134-137\n fatherhood, 256-260\n foreknowledge, 105, 167\n goodness, 126, 132\n grace, 114 f., 246 f.\n holiness, 100-109, 149 f.\n immanence, 79 f., 98\n incorporeality\n _See_ Spirituality\n jealousy, 54, 83, 105\n justice, 118, 125\n kingdom\n _See_ Kingdom of God\n knowledge, 138-141\n mercy, 113\n names, 58, 63, 291\n omnipotence, 91-95\n omnipresence, 96-98\n omniscience, 93-95\n personality, 73-76, 98, 106, 144\n relation to the world, 146-151\n self-consciousness, 73\n spirit, 97-200; in man, 216-230\n spirituality, 22, 74-78\n supermundaneity, 99\n transcendence, 74 f., 100\n truthfulness, 134-137\n unity, 82-90, 96 f., 105\n wisdom, 138 f.\n wrath and punishment, 107\n\nGod-childship, Man\u2019s, 27\n\nGod-consciousness, Man\u2019s, 29-31\n\nGods, Heathen, 53, 113, 136, 177\n\nGoel, 256\n\nGog and Magog, 381, 383\n\nGolden rule, 484\n\nGoldziher, I., 22, 441\n\nGoodness, 126, 132, 150\n\nGoy, 400\n\nGrace of God\n _See_ God\n\nGraetz, H., 7, 43, 416, 472\n\nGreek church, 429\n ethics, 443\n philosophy, 12, 23, 66 f., 84 f., 315\n wisdom, 336\n\nGressmann, H., 378\n\nGuedemann, M., 42, 355\n\nGuttmann, J., 22, 306\n\nHabakkuk, 334\n\nHaftarah, 357\n\nHaggada and Halakah, 12 f.\n\nHananel, R., 21\n\nHaninah ben Dosa, 163, 165, 273\n\nHanukkah, 409\n\nHarnack, A., 413\n\nHarper, R. F., 190\n\nHartmann, E. v., 78\n\nHasidim and Hasidean, 62, 127, 163, 266 f., 283, 289, 308, 344, 481\n\nHatred, 398\n\nHeathenism, 52, 57, 83 f., 176, 399 f., 405\n\nHebrew, 16, 470 f.\n\nHelbo, R., 421\n\nHelen of Adiabene, 416\n\nHellenism, 23, 335\n\nHellenistic Judaism, 233, 289, 303, 339, 414\n literature, 12, 258\n philosophy, 232\n propaganda, 251 f., 334, 415 f., 436\n\nHerford, R. T., 439\n\nHezekiah, 281\n\nHillel, 127, 209, 304, 335, 360, 418, 423, 481 ff.\n\nHillel, R., 388\n\nHillul and Kiddush hashem, 348 f.\n\nHirsch, E. G., 19, 458, 480\n\nHirsch, Samson Raphael, 269, 453\n\nHirsch, S. A., 407\n\nHirsch, Samuel, viii, 446\n\nHistorical research, 4, 12, 46\n\nHochmuth, A., 23 f.\n\nHoldheim, Samuel, viii, 462\n\nHoliness, 102, 109, 477 f., 491\n\nHoliness, God\u2019s\n _See_ God\n\nHoliness, Levitical, 104\n\nHoly Land\n _See_ Palestine\n\nHoly spirit, 11, 200 f.\n\nHorowitz, S., 22 f., 37\n\nHorwitz, Sabbathai, 14\n\nHosea, 29, 49, 114 f., 249, 257, 264, 324, 333\n\nHumanity, 51, 310, 315, 398, 475\n\nHusik, 37, 68 ff., 214 f., 291 f.\n\nIbn Daud\n _See_ Abraham ibn Daud\n\nIbn Ezra\n _See_ Abraham Ibn Ezra\n\nIbn Sina, 68\n\nIbn Verga, 431\n\nIhering, R. v., 409\n\nImitatio Dei, 477, 479, 490\n\nImmanence of God\n _See_ God\n\nImmortality, 24, 286, 297\n\nIndividual man, 310\n\nIndustry, 317\n\nInspiration, 39 f.\n\nInstitution of the synagogue\n _See_ Synagogue\n\nIntercession, 200 f., 406 f.\n\nIntermarriage, 444 f.\n\nIntermediary powers, 197-205\n\nInternationalism, 321 f.\n\nIntolerance, 404 f.\n\nIsaac ben Shesheth, 171, 427\n\nIsaac Napaha, 428\n\nIsaiah, 244, 264, 328, 333, 397\n\nIshmael, 430\n\nIslam, 17, 41, 86 f., 329, 427, 441 f.\n\nIslam\u2019s mission, 444\n\nIsrael, 389 f., 397\n\nIsrael\u2019s, characteristics, 326 f.\n commerce, 364\n consecration, 37\n election, 37, 323-330\n hope, 378-391, 392-396\n martyrdom, 33, 130, 349, 367-377\n mission, 328-341, 352-354\n cultural, 363\n priesthood, 342-343\n prophetic genius, 39, 103, 122, 372\n relation to the nations, 9, 397-407\n separateness, 8, 347 f., 364, 374, 445 f., 452\n world-duty, 16\n\nJHVH\u2014Jahveh, 45, 59, 63, 72, 114, 117, 202, 280\n\nJHVH, Day of, 122\n\nJames, Wm., 271\n\nJastrow, J., 296\n\nJastrow, Morris, 128\n\nJealousy of God\n _See_ God\n\nJehuda ha Levi, 25, 38, 70, 105, 110, 141, 163, 187, 194, 228, 291, 329,\n 339, 426, 431, 475\n\nJehuda ha Nasi, 128, 302, 305, 403\n\nJellinek, 210\n\nJeremiah, 30, 45, 126, 249, 252, 257, 265, 320, 410\n\nJerusalem, 335, 365, 423\n\nJesus of Nazareth, 46, 433 f.\n\nJew and Jewry, 7 f., 359, 364, 376\n\nJew hatred, 9\n\nJewish nationality, 8\n\nJewish religion\n _See_ Judaism\n\nJob, 32, 124, 281, 319, 370, 372, 484\n\nJoel, 250\n\nJoel, D., 187\n\nJoel, M., 3, 86, 131, 161, 163, 196, 307 f.\n\nJohanan, R., 79, 306, 309, 327\n\nJohanan ben Zakkai, 222, 258, 403\n\nJohn the Baptist, 434\n\nJohn Hyrcanus, 419\n\nJonah, 127, 250\n\nJose, R., 46, 227\n\nJoseph Ibn Zaddik, 136\n\nJoseph, Morris, 116, 179, 405, 420, 453 f., 458, 489\n\nJosephus, 21, 46 f., 137, 233, 405, 413, 420\n\nJoshua ben Hananiah, 77, 305, 340, 422, 432, 453, 455\n\nJost, M., 7\n\nJoy of life, 318, 490\n\nJuda Ibn Balag, 144\n\nJud\u00e6o-Christians, 427 f., 439\n\nJudaism, Modern or progressive, 51, 104, 342, 364, 422, 445\n\nJudaism, Rabbinic, 143\n\nJudan, R., 186\n\nJustice, 118-124, 485 f.\n\nJustice, Social, 122, 487\n\nKaddish, 304, 331\n\nKant, Immanuel, 65, 69, 189\n\nKaraites, 22, 87, 475\n\nKaufmann, David, 22 f., 68 f., 80, 97, 105, 153, 195 ff.\n\nKedusha, 192\n\nKiddush hashem, 348 f.\n\nKingdom of God, 331-341, 491\n\nKlein, J., 412, 436, 482\n\nKnowledge of God, 29\n\nKnowledge, God\u2019s\n _See_ God\n\nKoeberle, 117\n\nKoheleth, 124\n\nKohler, K., 20, 32, 44, 267, 304, 405, 438, 447, 453 f.\n\nKohler, M. J., 409\n\nKohut, Alex., 42, 199\n\nKrauskopf, J., 443\n\nKremer, A. v., 22, 87\n\nKuenen, A., 337\n\nLabor, 224, 317\n\nLame and blind parable, 302\n\nLandsberg, M., 473\n\nLange, F. A., 87\n\nLauterbach, J. Z., 439, 482 ff., 486\n\nLaw, 45-47, 355-358\n\nLazarus, L., 106\n\nLazarus, M., 14, 101, 106, 349, 477 f.\n\nLecky, W. E. H., 345, 364, 443\n\nLeo Hebraeus, 131\n\nLeo da Modena, 14\n\nLessing, E. G., 430\n\nLevi, R., 268\n\nLevkovits, M., 178\n\nLife a battle, 282\n\nLoew, Leopold, 22, 27, 472\n\nLoewe ben Bezalel, 228\n\nLogos, 198 f.\n\nLove, 31 f., 121, 126-131, 484\n\nLove, God\u2019s\n _See_ God\n\nLoyalty to country, 319 f.\n\nLuria, Isaac, 14\n\nLuther, Martin, 195\n\nLuz, 288\n\nLuzzatto, S. D., 23, 30\n\nMaimonides, 3, 13, 22 f., 30, 38, 72, 87, 110, 138, 153, 162, 170, 178,\n 187, 194, 224, 228, 236 f., 268, 272, 307 f., 321, 339, 386\n f., 404, 426\n\nMakom, 62, 97\n\nMalachi, 249, 263\n\nMan, 182, 206-232\n\nMan, child of God, 256, 260, 310\n\nMan\u2019s, brotherhood, 314, 321\n dual nature, 212-217\n destiny and origin, 218-230\n fall, 221-225\n freedom of will, 208, 231-237\n individuality, 208\n perfectibility, 210, 491\n self-consciousness, 35, 216\n\nManasseh, King, 211, 251\n\nManasseh ben Israel, 339\n\nMankind, 310-315\n\nMargolis, Max, 2\n\nMartyrdom of Israel\n _See_ Israel\n\nMazdaism\n _See_ Persian\n\nMeasure for measure, 124\n\nMedieval Jewry, 361 f., 376, 386, 455\n\nMeir, R., 77, 151, 154, 258, 260, 273, 356, 403, 450, 453\n\nMemra\n _See_ Logos\n\nMendelssohn, M., vii, 19, 30, 68, 142, 165, 295\n\nMercy of God\n _See_ God\n\nMerkabah, 187\n\nMessianic hope, 8, 334 f., 378, 389, 445\n\nMessianic kingdom, 426\n\nMessiah, 25, 333 f., 373, 382 f., 389, 400\n\nMetaphysical, 65, 100, 105\n\nMetatron\u2014Mithras, 185, 199\n\nMicah, 218, 328\n\nMicrocosm, 209\n\nMielziner, M., 446\n\nMill, John Stuart, 181\n\nMilton, J., 195\n\nMinim\u2014Heretics, 86, 424 ff.\n\nMiracle, 36, 160-166\n\nMisanthropy, 9, 398\n\nMission of Israel\n _See_ Israel\n\nModesty, 490\n\nMohammed, 429 f., 441 f.\n\nMohammedan religion\n _See_ Islam\n\nMohammedan theology, 2, 24, 37, 68, 87, 141, 162, 171, 236\n\nMonotheism, 55-183\n Absolute, 428\n Ethical, 23, 54, 69, 415\n\nMontefiore, Claude G., 43, 246, 348, 438, 449\n\nMonth, 459\n\nMoral order, 119-123\n\nMorgenstern, J., 239\n\nMosaic code, 335, 345, 414\n cult, 263-268\n law, 13, 16, 26, 104\n\nMosaism, 283\n\nMoses, 35-37, 46, 113 f., 228, 232 ff., 240 f.\n\nMueller, Max, 58\n\nMutuality, 488\n\nMysticism and mystics, 3, 14, 36, 89, 131, 136, 157, 473\n\nNaaman, 414\n\nNahmanides, 194, 224, 244, 294, 307, 426\n\nNahum of Gimzo, 151, 163\n\nNames of God, 58-63\n\nNationalism, Jewish, 13 f., 335\n\nNationality, Jewish, 8\n\nNature, 148, 156\n\nNature\u2019s laws, 135, 187\n\nNeoplatonism, 2, 37, 87, 92\n\nNestorians, 443\n\nNether world, 279\n _See also_ Sheol\n\nNeumark, David, 19, 22, 70, 92, 98, 172, 284, 297, 406\n\nNew Year\u2019s Day, 465-468\n\nNieto, David, 80\n\nNirvana, 479\n\nNoah, 336, 452\n\nNoahitic laws, 48-51, 110, 404, 412 f., 427\n\nNomism, 13, 44, 355\n\nNomos\u2014Law, 43\n\nOath, 120\n\nObjective and subjective truths, 3\n\n\u0152nomaos of Gadara, 403\n\nOnias the Saint, 165, 268, 273\n\nOntological proof\n _See_ God\u2019s existence\n\nOptimism, 132, 179, 251\n\nOrder, Moral, of the world, 167\n\nOrientalism, 470 f.\n\nOrigin, 374\n\nOrthodoxy, 11, 46\n\nOtherworldliness, 124, 352, 395, 440, 489\n\nPain, 176\n\nPalestine, 3, 38, 335, 394\n\nPantheism, 80\n\nParadise legend, 177, 207, 219, 278\n\nParseeism\n _See_ Persian\n\nParticularism, 446\n\nPassover, 461 f.\n\nPatriotism, 320\n\nPaul and Paulinian dogma, 25, 50 f., 116, 21, 259, 355, 417, 428, 437, 440\n\nPeace, 379, 491\n\nPentecost miracle, 359\n\nPerles, F., 350\n\nPersian, 85, 140, 184-191, 283 ff., 300 f.\n\nPersonality of God\n _See_ God\n\nPessimism, 150, 439 f.\n\nPharaoh, 55\n\nPharisaic and Pharisees, 12, 20, 189, 233 f., 283 f., 302, 344 f., 413,\n 418, 439, 457\n\nPhilanthropy, 486 f.\n\nPhilippson, Ludwig, 165, 210, 444, 446\n\nPhilipson, David, 269, 297, 389, 446, 458\n\nPhilo, 21, 67, 72, 80, 186, 189, 194, 198, 203, 214 f., 233 f., 268, 290,\n 294, 351, 405, 413, 423, 439, 452, 457, 485\n\nPhilosophy, Greek, 66\n Hindoo, 209\n Jewish, 2\n\nPhilosophy of religion, 70\n\nPhineas ben Yair, 163, 165\n\nPhylacteries\n _See_ Tefillin\n\nPlato, 84, 209 f., 215, 405\n\nPlatonism, 141, 285, 289 f.\n\nPloss, H., 449 f.\n\nPorter, F. Ch., 215\n\nPrayer, 261-277\n\nPredetermination, 232\n\nPre\u00ebxistence of the Soul, 289\n\nPriest, 343 f.\n\nPriest code, 263, 351\n\nPriest, High, 317, 466\n\nPriesthood of Israel\n _See_ Israel\n\nProfanation of name\n _See_ Hillul ha Shem\n\nPropaganda, 51, 412-419\n\nProphecy, 35, 38\n\nProphetic books, 42\n\nProselyte, 336 f., 411-423\n\nProtestantism, 363\n\nProvidence, 167-175\n\nPsalmist, 10, 13, 60, 265, 299, 309,480\n\nPsychology, 187, 204\n\nPtolemy Philadelphus, 347\n\nPunishment, Divine\n _See_ Retribution\n\nPurgatory, 304\n\nPurim, 470\n\nPurity, 146, 153, 291, 490\n\nPythagoras, 146, 291\n\nRab-Abba Areka, 203, 305 f.\n\nRabba, 428\n\nRabbinism, 283\n\nRadin, M., 416\n\nRashi, 312, 388\n\nRationalism, 13, 38, 89, 450, 474\n\nRauwenhoff, L. W. E., 2, 65, 101, 106\n\nRedemption, Religion of, 17, 195\n\nReform Judaism, 269, 330, 340, 389\n\nReform liturgy, 269, 297, 340, 389, 469\n\nReformation, 363, 444\n\nReizenstein, R., 310\n\nReligion, Absolute, 19\n\nReligion\u2019s unifying power, 15, 315, 321, 491\n\nRepentance, 246, 257\n\nResponsibility, 233 f., 246, 255, 337, 488-491\n\nResurrection, 282-285, 292, 297 f., 392, 396\n\nRetribution, 107-111, 298\n\nRevelation, 23, 34, 41, 147\n\nReward and punishment\n _See_ Retribution\n\nRhode, E., 290\n\nRitschl, A. B., 74\n\nRitualism, 13\n\nRoman church, 428 f.\n\nRome, 401\n\nRosenau, Wm., 447\n\nRosin, D., 30\n\nRuth, 336, 417\n\nSaadia, 68, 97, 162, 187, 194, 224, 236, 274, 290, 307\n\nSabbath, 50, 346, 455-460\n\nSachs, M., 80, 89, 141\n\nSacrament, 448\n\nSacrifice, 261-270\n\nSadduceeism and Sadducees, 12 f., 127, 284, 300, 434, 439, 456\n\nSalvation, 5, 20, 258, 402\n\nSamaritans, 13, 373, 420, 454\n\nSamuel, 241\n\nSamuel of Nehardea, 127, 320, 386, 403, 420\n\nSanctification of the name, 484\n\nSatan, 86, 189-195, 300\n\nSchechter, S., 3, 6, 13, 19, 27, 76, 78, 145, 208, 223, 239, 263, 275,\n 323, 348, 455, 458\n\nScheyer, S., 214, 292\n\nSchiller, Fr., 132\n\nSchlesinger, W. and L., 19\n\nSchmiedl, 37, 90 ff., 155 f., 197 ff., 393\n\nSchreiber, E., 27\n\nSchreiner, M., 19, 78, 103, 431\n\nSchuerer, E., 159, 410, 413, 416, 448\n\nSchulman, S., 364, 445\n\nScience, Modern, 128, 139, 147 f., 215\n\nScripture, 11, 40, 43\n\nSeeberg, A., 412, 436\n\nSefiroth, Ten, 203\n\nSelf-conquest, 483\n\nSelf-elevation _versus_ self-extinction, 479\n\nSeligman, C., 71, 155, 179\n\nSemikah, 12\n\nSemites and Semitic, 68, 104, 347\n\nSermon on the Mount, 438\n\nSerpent, 193, 221 f.\n\nServant of the Lord, 324, 367-375\n\nSeventy languages, 359\n\nSeventy nations, 403, 464\n\nShabuoth\u2014Feast of the Weeks, 462\n\nShaddai, 59\n\nShammai and Shammaite, 235, 335, 418 f.\n\nShekinah, 46, 97, 183, 197, 204\n\nShema, 20, 57, 61, 426\n\nSheol, 279 f.\n _See also_ Nether world\n\nSiegfried, C., 80 f., 203\n\nSimeon ben Eleazar, 416\n\nSimeon ben Gamaliel, 418\n\nSimeon ben Lakish, 306\n\nSimeon ben Shetach, 350\n\nSimeon ben Yohai, 163, 349\n\nSimhat Torah, 464\n\nSimlai, R., 27, 287, 319, 356\n\nSimon the Just, 345, 357\n\nSin, 231-345\n\nSin, Original, 221-223, 244\n\nSinai, 53, 60\n\nSlavery, 42, 146\n\nSmith, W. R., 58, 409\n\nSociability, 318\n\nSocial justice, 487\n\nSociety, 318 f.\n\nSocrates, 37, 405\n\nSolomon ben Adret, 426\n\nSoul, 24, 212 f., 286 f.\n\nSpiegel, F., 63\n\nSpinoza, B., 80, 131, 309\n\nSpirit of God\n _See_ God\n\nSpirit, Holy, 11\n\nSpirituality of God\n _See_ God\n\nSpitta, F., 434\n\nStade, B., 42\n\nStanley, A. P., 454\n\nState, Duty to the, 319\n\nStave, E., 302\n\nStein, L., 340, 389\n\nSteinschneider, M., 273, 430 f.\n\nSteinthal, H., 146\n\nStoics, 110, 198, 315\n\nStranger, 408-411\n\nStrauss, D. F., 19, 67 f., 74, 83 f., 96 f., 101 f., 119, 153 f., 195\n\nSuffering, 130\n\nSuffering, Israel\u2019s\n _See_ Martyrdom\n\nSuicide, 484\n\nSukkoth festival, 463\n\nSunday, 451 f., 459\n\nSymbolum Apostolicum, 5\n\nSynagogal liturgy and worship, 277, 284, 288, 389, 514\n\nSynagogue, 447, 475\n\nSynagogue, Men of the Great, 40, 79, 201\n\nTabernacles, Feast of\n _See_ Sukkoth\n\nTa\u00ebb, 373\n\nTallith, 454\n\nTamar, 417\n\nTefillin, 346, 453 f.\n\nTeleological proof\n _See_ God\u2019s existence\n\nTemple, Destruction of\n _See_ Ab, Ninth of\n\nTeshubah\n _See_ Repentance Theism, 8\n\nTheocracy, 342\n\nTheology, 1-6\n\nTheology, Christian, 5-6, 342\n\nTheology, Mohammedan\n _See_ Mohammedan\n\nThis-worldliness, Jewish, 17, 124, 477\n\nTihamat, 193, 220\n\nTime, 99\n\nTorah, 11, 23, 42-47, 199, 354 ff.\n\nTorah, Reading from the, 470\n\nToy, C. H., 480\n\nTradition, 12, 14, 43, 46\n\nTranscendentalism, 143\n\nTrinity\n _See_ Christian trinity\n\nTrumbull, H. Clay, 461\n\nTruth, 136\n\nTruthfulness of God\n _See_ God\n\nTylor, E. B., 286, 449\n\nUnifying power, 15\n\nUnity of God, 82-90\n of man, 321, 339 f.\n of the cosmos, 149\n\nUniveralism, 8, 13, 48, 51, 396, 445\n\nUniverse, 146\n\nValues of life, 489\n\nVernacular, 357\n\nVirtue, Hereditary, 328, 406, 489\n\nVision, Prophetic\n _See_ Prophecy\n\nWater libation, 464\n\nWeber, F., 45, 61, 78, 86, 117, 123, 126, 143, 145, 223, 246, 252, 361\n\nWeiss, Isaac Hirsch, 43, 54\n\nWells, H. G., 71\n\nWhite, Andrew D., 443\n\nWill, Freedom of, 138 f., 199\n\nWindelband-Tufts, 67 ff., 290\n\nWindishman, Fr., 305\n\nWisdom, 45, 140\n\nWisdom of God\n _See_ God\n\nWisdom, Book of, 66\n\nWisdom literature, 60\n\nWise, Isaac M., 423, 473\n\nWoman, 222, 472 f.\n\nWorld, Infinitude of, 154, 159\n Moral government of, 171 f.\n Order of, 157\n\nWorlds, Two, 159\n\nWrath of God\n _See_ God\n\nWuensche, A., 430, 439\n\nXenophanes, 84\n\nYavan, 424\n\nYethro, 417\n\nYezer ha ra and ha tob, 193, 215, 223, 239\n\nZealot, 12, 334, 360\n\nZebulon and Issachar, 364\n\nZechariah, 249, 334, 410, 464\n\nZedakah, 121, 486\n\nZekuth Aboth, 406\n\nZeller, E., 310\n\nZerubbabel, 330, 370, 380\n\nZidduk ha Din, 125\n\nZimmels, 131\n\nZimmern, H., 103, 170\n\nZionism, 390, 395\n\nZizith, 454\n\nZoroastrianism\n _See_ Persian\n\nZunz, Leopold, 41, 43, 367, 450, 471\n\n\n\n\n\nThe following pages contain advertisements of a few of the Macmillan books\non kindred subjects.\n\nZionism and the Jewish Future\n\n_BY VARIOUS WRITERS_\n\nEDITED BY HARRY SACHER\n\n_Cloth, 12mo, $1.00_\n\n\u201cThis volume should be read by Zionists so that they should become more\nfamiliar with what even some of them know more or less imperfectly. It\nshould be carefully perused by non- and anti-Zionists so that they may\nbecome informed with a subject which many of them are inclined to censure\nwithout any knowledge of that which they are censuring.\u201d\u2014_B\u2019na B\u2019rith\nMessenger._\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\n\u201c \u2018Zionism and the Jewish Future\u2019 is one of the most illuminating of all\nthe serious-minded books of the year. If we belonged to the Hebrew race we\nwould first master all that is said about Palestine and the movement to\nrestore it to a living place among the Nations. Next, we would go to the\nGreat Jewish Encyclopedia, and look up everything connected with the\nsubject,\u2014also the fifteen or more writers who have made this book. Lastly,\nif we agreed with the movement, we would get in line at once. Note in\nespecial the bibliography of the whole matter (Appendix 4).\n\n\u201cZionism looks \u2018forward, not backward,\u2019 and the vast hope behind it is one\nthat will help the non-Jewish world as much as the children of Abraham.\nMay Israel yet have a Hebrew University in Jerusalem. They are right\u2014these\nidealists. Palestine \u2018is essentially the land of religious influences and\nspiritual association,\u2019 and also of \u2018political and geographical\nimportance.\u2019 The problems in all this are fairly met and fully discussed\nin this book, which Dr. H. Sacher edits.\n\n\u201cAnd how is the Gentile to approach the subject? With a perfectly open\nmind on all its economic, historical and religious questions. If taken up\nin this way the book grows on one; it presents wholly reasonable\naspirations which all right-minded people can endorse and will desire to\naid as far as practicable. To have a \u2018perfectly open mind\u2019 is to take up\nthe problems of these earnest people who discuss \u2018Zionism\u2019 as our friends,\nour neighbors, our fellow-workers. Don\u2019t be \u2018tolerant\u2019 or patronizing\ntowards Jew or Gentile, American, European, Asiatic, African or Islander.\nWe are \u2018all of one blood.\u2019\n\n\u201cOne of the best of Californian novelists, who has enjoyed the book,\nwrites as follows:\n\n\u201c \u2018It is an excellent round-up and exposition of all the vagrant\u2014and\nvague\u2014theories and history of the subject. It makes the evolution and\nlogical being of the question perfectly clear. Whereas in most Jewish\nminds Zionism means a belief in Palestine as the native soil of all Jews\nand the refuge for the oppressed, the motive here expressed is that by\ndrawing the Jewish soul to its ancient Fatherland, it will create a\nspiritual center for all Jewry.\u2019 \u201d\u2014_Daily Fresno Republican._\n\nThe Macmillan Company\nPublishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York\n\n*Jewish Philanthropy*\n\n_An Exposition Of Principles And Methods Of Jewish Social Service In The\nUnited States_\n\nBY BORIS D. BOGEN, PH.D.\n\n_Cloth, 12mo, $2.00_\n\nThis book is an attempt to meet the demand on the part of those who are\nengaged in or are interested in Jewish social service, for a statement of\nthe principles evolved through the experience of the last two decades in\nvarious philanthropic efforts of the Jews of this country. It is primarily\na compilation of the different ideas expressed by the leaders of the\nmovements, as well as a presentation of the actual practical experiences\nthat were met in the different lines of philanthropic activity.\n\nAs the first attempt in this direction the work will render a great\nservice in clarifying the indefinite views in vogue at present among\nJewish Social workers.\n\nContents\n\nINTRODUCTION\u2014The Extent and Scope of Jewish Philanthropy. Dependency Among\nJews. Charity Among Jews. National Organizations. Methods of Fund Raising\nfor Jewish Philanthropic Agencies. Transients. The Immigration Problem.\nDistribution. The Back to the Soil Movement. Resident-Dependents.\nDependent Women and Children. Insufficiency of Income. Standards of\nRelief. Education and Social Organizations. The Education of Immigrants.\nJewish Settlements and Neighborhood Work. Organization and Administration.\nVolunteer Service. Administration. The Federation and the Synagogue.\nBibliography. Index.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe Macmillan Company\nPublishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York\n\n*A History of Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy*\n\nBY ISAAC HUSIK\n\nAssistant Professor of Philosophy in the University of Pennsylvania\n\n_Cloth, octavo, l + 452 pages, $3.00_\n\nThe first complete history of medi\u00e6val Jewish rationalistic philosophy for\nboth the student and the general reader which has as yet been written in\nany modern tongue.\n\nThe story is told simply and interestingly. Dr. Husik is gifted with the\nfaculty of clear insight and he has succeeded in grasping and in\nexhibiting in a very readable manner the essential nature of the various\nproblems treated and the gist of the solutions offered by the different\nJewish philosophers discussed. The author has not attempted to read into\nthe medi\u00e6val thinkers modern ideas which were foreign to them. He has\nendeavored to interpret their ideas from their own point of view as\ndetermined by their history and environment, and the literary sources,\nreligious and philosophical, under the influence of which they came. It is\nan objective and not too critical exposition of Jewish rationalistic\nthought in the middle ages.\n\nIn the words of an eminent reviewer, \u201cTo have compressed a comprehensive\ndiscussion of five centuries of earnest and productive thought upon the\ngreatest of themes into a book of less than four hundred and fifty pages\nis an achievement upon which any author may be congratulated. To have done\nthe work so well and in particular to have expressed profound reflections\nupon abstruse problems in a style so limpid, so fluent, so readily\nunderstood is to have placed all who are interested in thought and\nthinkers under great obligation. That an American-Jewish scholar should\nhave produced a pioneer work that must, for a long time to come, be the\nauthority in its field is a subject of felicitation to all who have at\nheart the perpetuation of Jewish learning in America.\u201d\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe Macmillan Company\nPublishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York\n\nStudies in Judaism\n\nBY RABBI SOLOMON SCHECHTER, LITT.D.\n\nThe author is President of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America\nsince 1902; formerly Reader in Talmudic, Cambridge University, and\nProfessor of Hebrew, University College of London, 1898-1902.\n\n_Cloth, 12mo, 366 pages, $1.50_\n\n\u201cThe book is, to our mind, the best on this subject ever written. The\nauthor condenses a literature of several thousand pages into 564 pages,\nand presents to us his history in a splendid English and splendid order.\nThis work deserves the highest appreciation, and without the slightest\nhesitation do we recommend it to the public at large, and more especially\nto our co-religionists in this country.\u201d\n\n_\u2014Jewish Tribune._\n\n_Contents_\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n1. THE CHASSIDIM.\n\n2. NACHMAN KROCHMAL AND THE \u201cPERPLEXITIES OF THE TIME.\u201d\n\n3. RABBI ELIJAH WILNA, GAON.\n\n4. NACHMANIDES.\n\n5. A JEWISH BOSWELL.\n\n6. THE DOGMAS OF JUDAISM.\n\n7. THE HISTORY OF JEWISH TRADITION.\n\n8. THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE RETRIBUTION IN RABBINICAL LITERATURE.\n\n9. THE LAW AND RECENT CRITICISM.\n\n10. THE HEBREW COLLECTION OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM.\n\n11. TITLES OF JEWISH BOOKS.\n\n12. THE CHILD IN JEWISH LITERATURE.\n\n13. WOMAN IN TEMPLE AND SYNAGOGUE.\n\n14. THE EARLIEST JEWISH COMMUNITY IN EUROPE.\n\nNOTES.\n\nINDEX.\n\nThe Macmillan Company\nPublishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n 1 Compare Heinrici _Theologische Encyclopaedie_, p. 4; Enc. Brit. art.\n Theology.\n\n 2 Heinrici, l. c., p. 14 f., 212; Hagenbach-Kautsch: _Encyc. d.\n theolog. Wiss._, p. 28-30; Rauwenhoff: _Religionsphilosophie_,\n Einl., xiii; Margolis: \u201cThe Theological Aspect of Reformed Judaism,\u201d\n in Yearbook of C. C. A. R., 1903, p. 188-192. Lauterbach, J. E.,\n art. Theology.\n\n 3 See, however, Geiger: _Nachgel. Schriften_, II, 3-8; also Margolis,\n l. c., p. 192-196.\n\n 4 A fine beginning in this direction has been made by Professor\n Schechter in _Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology_, New York, 1909.\n\n 5 See Joel: \u201cD. Mosaismus u. d. Heidenthum,\u201d in Jahrb. f. Jued. Gesch.\n und Lit., 1904, p. 70-73.\n\n 6 See Schaff-Herzog\u2019s Encycl., art. Apostles\u2019 Creed and Symbol.\n\n 7 See Schechter: _Studies in Judaism_, Intr., XXI-XXII; p. 147, 198\n f.; Foster: _The Finality of the Christian Religion_, Chicago, 1906;\n Friedr. Delitzsch: _Zur Weiterentwicklung der Religion_, 1908; and\n comp. Orelli: _Religionsgeschichte_, 276 f., and Dorner: _Beitr. z.\n Weitrentwicklung d. christl. Religion_, 173.\n\n 8 For the origin of the name Judaism, see Esther VIII, 17. Compare\n _Yahduth_, Esther Rabbah III, 7; II Macc. II, 21; VIII, 1, 14, 38;\n Graetz: _G. d. J._, II, 174 f.; Jost: _G.d. Jud._, I, 1-12; _J. E._,\n art. Judaism. Regarding the unfairness of Christian authors in their\n estimate of Judaism, see Schechter, l. c., 232-251; M. Schreiner:\n _D. juengst. Urtheile u. d. Judenthum_, p. 48-58. Dubnow, Asher\n Ginsberg and the rest of the nationalists underrate the religious\n power of the Jew\u2019s soul, which forms the essence of his character\n and the motive power of all his aspirations and hopes, as well as of\n all his achievements in history.\n\n_ 9 Erub._ 13 b.\n\n 10 Neh. VIII, 1-18; Ez. VII, 12-28.\n\n 11 See M. Bloch: _Tekanot_, and art. Tekanot J. E. Regarding\n inspiration see J. E.; Sanh, 99 a; Meg. 7 a; Maim.: _Moreh_, II, 45;\n comp. Yerush. Ab. Zar., I, 40; Horay. III, 48 c; Levit. R. VI, 1;\n IX, 9; and Yoma 9 b. The laying on of hands for ordination\n (_Semikah_) implied originally the imparting of the holy spirit, see\n J. E., art. Authority.\n\n 12 See Geiger, J. Z., I, p. 7.\n\n 13 Aboth d. R. Nathan, I; Shab. 30 b with reference to Ezek.\n XLIII-XLIV.\n\n 14 See Geiger: Z. D. M. G., XII, 536; Schechter, _Wisdom of Ben Sira_,\n p. 35.\n\n 15 See J. E., art. Jubilees, Book of. Very instructive in this\n connection is a comparative study of the Falashas, the Samaritans,\n especially the Dosithean sect, and the still problematical sect\n discovered through the document found by Schechter, edited by him\n under the title _Fragments of a Zadokite Sect_.\n\n 16 See Yer. Hag., I, 76, and elsewhere.\n\n_ 17 Ethics of Judaism_, I, 8-10; Geiger: J. Z., IX, 263.\n\n 18 See _Pesik. R._, V, p. 146; _Midr. Tanhuma_, ed. Buber, Wayera 6 and\n Ki Thissa, 17. Comp. the legend of Moses and Akiba, Men. 29 b.\n\n 19 Comp. Geiger: _Nachgel. Schr._, II, 37-41; also his _Jud. u. s.\n Gesch._, I, 20-35; Beck: _D. Wesen d. Judenthums_; Eschelbacher: _D.\n Judenthum u. d. Wesen d. Christenthums_; Schreiner, l. c., 26-34.\n\n 20 Deut. VI, 7; XI, 19.\n\n 21 See Geiger: _Nachgel. Schr._, II, 37 f.\n\n 22 John XIV, 6. Comp. Dorner, l. c., 173; and his _Grundprobleme d.\n Religionsphilosophie_; Orelli: _Religionsgeschichte_, 276 f.\n\n 23 Gen. R. VIII, 5.\n\n 24 See Schechter: _Studies_, 147-181 and notes 351 f.; Mendelssohn:\n _Ges. Schr._, III, 321. Comp. Schlesinger: _Buch Ikkarim_, 630-632;\n Bousset: _Religion d. Judenthums_, 170 f., 175, and thereto Perles:\n _Bousset_, 112 f.; Martin Schreiner: l. c., 35 f.; J. E., art. Faith\n and Articles of Faith (E. G. Hirsch); Felsenthal, Margolis, and\n Kohler, in Y. B. C. C. A. R., 1897, p. 54; 1903, p. 188-193; 1905,\n p. 83; Neumark: art. Ikkarim in _Ozar ha Yahduth_; D. Fr. Strauss:\n _D. christl. Glaubenslehre_, I, 25.\n\n 25 See Gen. XV, 6; Mek. to Ex. XIV; J. E., art. Faith.\n\n 26 Deut. VI, 1-6; XI, 13-21; Num. XV, 37-41.\n\n 27 See Bousset, II, 224 f. The term _Pistis_ = faith, assumes a new\n meaning in Hellenistic Literature.\n\n 28 See J. E., art. Emeth we Yatzib.\n\n 29 See J. E., art. Alenu.\n\n 30 See J. E., art. Abraham in Apocryphical and Rabbinical Lit.\n\n_ 31 Sifra_ Behukothai, III, 6; _Sanh._ 38 b; _Targ. Y._ to Gen. IV, 8.\n\n 32 Ber. II, 2; see Kohler: _Monatsschrift_, 1883, p. 445.\n\n 33 Kohler, l. c.\n\n 34 The Mishnaic _Apicoros_ corresponded to the Greek, _Epicoureios_,\n and was no longer understood by the Talmudists; see Schechter:\n _Studies in Judaism_, I, 157. It is defined by Josephus:\n _Antiquities_, X, 11, 7: \u201cThe Epicureans ... are in a state of\n error, who cast Providence out of life, and do not believe that God\n takes care of the affairs of the world, nor that the universe is\n governed by a Being which outlives all things in everlasting\n self-sufficiency and bliss, but declare it to be self-sustaining and\n void of a ruler and protector ... like a ship without a helmsman and\n like a chariot without a driver.\u201d Comp. also Oppenheim in\n _Monatsschr._, 1864, p. 149.\n\n 35 See Rappaport; \u201cBiography of R. Hananel,\u201d in _Bikkure ha Ittim_,\n 1842.\n\n_ 36 Contra Apionem_, II, 22. See J. G. Mueller: _Josephus\u2019 Schrift\n gegen Apion_, 311-313.\n\n 37 See Alfred v. Kremer: _Gesch. d. herrsch. Ideen d. Islam_, 39-41;\n Goldziher, D. M. L. Z., XLIV, p. 168 f.; XLI, p. 72 f., which\n passages cast much light upon the Jewish _Ani Maamin_.\n\n 38 See Jost: _Gesch. d. Jud._, II, 330 f.; Frankl: art. Karaites in\n _Ersch und Gruber\u2019s Encyclopaedie_; Loew: _Juedische Dogmen_, Ges.\n s. I, 154; Schechter, l. c.\n\n 39 J. Guttman: _D. Religionsphil, v. Abraham Ibn Daud_; David Kaufmann,\n _Gesch. d. Attributenlehre_; Neumark: _Gesch. d. juedisch. Phil._\n vols. I and II.\n\n 40 Maimonides: Commentary on Mishnah, Sanh., X, 1; Schechter, l. c.,\n 163; Holzer: _Gesch. d. Dogmenlehre_, Berlin, 1901.\n\n 41 See Loew, l. c., 156; Schechter, l. c, 165.\n\n 42 See P. Bloch: \u201cLuzzatto als Religionsphilosoph\u201d in _Samuel David\n Luzzatto_, p. 49-71. Comp. Hochmuth: _Gotteskenntniss und\n Gottesverehrung_, Einleitung.\n\n 43 See Schechter, l. c., 167 and the notes.\n\n 44 See Horowitz: _D. Psychologie u. d. jued. Religionsphilosophie_,\n 1883.\n\n 45 See J. E., art. Albo by E. G. Hirsch, and the bibliography there.\n\n 46 See Schechter, l. c., p. 162.\n\n 47 Isa. XLIX, 9, and elsewhere.\n\n 48 See Schechter, l. c., p. 169.\n\n 49 Aboth, III, 1; Gen. R. XXI, 5.\n\n 50 See Schechter, l. c.\n\n 51 See Loew, l. c., 157, and his \u201c_Mafteah_,\u201d p. 331; Schechter, l. c.\n\n 52 Makk. 23 b.\n\n 53 See J. E., art. Catechism by E. Schreiber.\n\n 54 Gen. XX, 11.\n\n 55 Ps. CXI, 10; Prov. IX, 10; Job XXVIII, 28.\n\n 56 Ex. XX, 20.\n\n 57 Hos. IV, 1, 6; II. 3; XIII, 4-5.\n\n 58 Jer. IX, 23; XXII, 16; XXXI, 32-33.\n\n 59 Deut. IV, 39; VII, 9.\n\n 60 Knowledge as intellect is brought out as early as the Book of\n Wisdom, XIII, 1; see especially Maimonides: _Yesode ha Torah_, I,\n 1-3; _Moreh_, I, 39; III, 28. In opposition, see Rosin: _Ethik des\n Maimonides_, 101; Luzzatto and Hochmuth, l. c.; also Dillmann: H. B.\n d. alttestamentl. Theol., 204 f.\n\n 61 Ch. IV.\n\n 62 Gen. XV, 6; see J. E., art. Abraham.\n\n 63 Shab. 97 a.\n\n 64 Mek. Beshallak 6, p. 41 ab.\n\n 65 Deut. VI, 5; X, 12; XI, 1; XIII, 22; XXX, 6, 16, 20.\n\n 66 Sifre to Deut. VI, 5.\n\n 67 Judges V, 31.\n\n 68 Shab. 88 b.\n\n 69 See Testament of Job, and notes by Kohler, in _Semitic Studies in\n Memory of Alexander Kohut_, 271, and Sota, V, 5.\n\n 70 Sifre, l. c.\n\n 71 See Yoma, 86 a; T. d. El. R., XXIV; Maimonides, _H. Teshubah_, X;\n Crescas: _Or Adonai_, I, 3. Comp. _Testaments Twelve Patriarchs_,\n Simeon 3, 4; Issachar, 5; Philo: Quod omnis probus liber, 12 and\n elsewhere.\n\n 72 Song of Songs VII, 6, 7.\n\n 73 See Sifre Deut. XXVI, 8; Sanh. X, 1; J. E., art. Revelation;\n Dillmann, 61 f.; Geiger, D. Jud. u. s. Gesch. I, 34 f.\n\n 74 See Deut. XIII, 2-6, where prophet forms a parallel to dreamer of\n dreams. God appears in a dream to Abraham (Gen. XV, 1, 12), to\n Abimelek (Gen. XX, 3, 6), to Jacob (XXVIII, 12; XXXI, 11; XLVI, 2),\n to Laban (XXXI, 24), to Balaam (Num. XXIV, 3), and to Eliphaz (Job\n IV, 3-6). Dream-like visions open the prophetic career of Moses\n (Exod. III, 3-6), Samuel (I Sam. III, 1, 15, 21), Isaiah (Is. VI, 1\n f.), Jeremiah (Jer. I, 11 f.), Ezekiel (Ezek. I, 4), and others.\n Revelation in the Bible is _Mahazeh_, _hazon_, and _hizayon_,\n \u201cvision\u201d\u2014whence _hozeh_, \u201cseer\u201d; or _mareh_, \u201csight,\u201d whence _roeh_,\n \u201cseer.\u201d See also Geiger: _Urschrift_, 340; 390. Prophecy without\n dream or vision is claimed for Moses (Num. XII, 6-8; Exod. XXX, 11;\n Deut. XXXIV, 10; see Maimonides: _Moreh_, II, 43-47; Albo,\n _Ikkarim_, III, 8). The revelation on Sinai is described as \u201cthe\n great vision,\u201d or _mareh:_ Exod. III, 3; XXIV, 17; compare Deut. IV,\n 11-V, 23, according to which only a \u201cvoice\u201d is heard. Instead of God\n the later prophets see an angel, as Zach. I, 8, 11; II, 2 f. Compare\n Yebam. 49 b, as to the difference between Isaiah, who saw God in a\n vision, and Moses, who saw Him \u201cin a shining mirror.\u201d He will appear\n in the latter way to the righteous in the future world, Suc. 45 b;\n Lev. R. I, 14; I Cor. XIII, 12.\n\n 75 See Gen. XX, 6; XXXI, 29; Num. XXIV; Job IV, 16 f.; XXXVIII, 1.\n\n 76 The Hebrew word for prophecy is passive,\u2014_nibba\u2019_ or _hithnabbe\u2019_,\n \u201cto be made to speak,\u201d or \u201cto bubble forth,\u201d\u2014the Deity being the\n active power, while the prophet is His mouthpiece.\n\n 77 Ex. XXXIII, 11; Deut. XXXIV, 10.\n\n 78 Ex. XIX, 19; XX, 19.\n\n 79 Ex. XIX, 1-8.\n\n 80 Shab. 88 a after Ex. XXIV, 7.\n\n_ 81 Seder Olam_ R., I and XXI; Lev. Rab. I, 12-14; B. B. 15 b.\n\n 82 Hag. 13 b; Sanh. 89 a; Lev. R. l. c.\n\n 83 See Schmiedl: _Stud. u. jued.-arabische Religionsphilosophie_,\n 191-192; S. Horowitz: _D. Prophetologie i. d. jued.\n Religionsphilosophie_; Sandler: _D. Problem d. Prophetie i. d. jued.\n Religionsphilosophie_; J. E., art. Prophets and Prophecy; _Emunoth_\n III, 4; _Cuzari_, I, 95; II, 10-12; _Emunah Ramah_, II, 5, 1;\n _Moreh_, II, 32-48; _Yesode ha Torah_, VII; _Or Adonai_, II, 4, 1;\n _Ikkarim_, III, 8-12, 17; Nachmanides to Gen. XVIII, 2; Abravanel to\n Gen. XXI, 27; Comp. Husik, _Hist. Med. Jew. Phil._, Index s. v.\n Prophecy; Enc. Rel. Ethics, art. Philosophy and Prophecy.\n\n 84 Horowitz, l. c. p. 11-16; Gen. R. XVII, 6; Lev. R, l. c; Sanh. 17 b;\n Philo: De Decalog., 21; de Migratione Abrahami, 7; comp. I Corinth.\n XIII, 12.\n\n_ 85 Moreh_, l. c.\n\n_ 86 Cuzari_, l. c.\n\n_ 87 Kol Nibra_: _Moreh_, I, 65; _Emunoth_, II, 8; _Cuzari_, I, 89.\n\n 88 According to the rabbis, the working of the holy spirit ceased with\n Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who, with Ezra, were included also\n among the \u201cMen of the Great Synagogue.\u201d See Tos. Sota XIII, 2; Seder\n Olam R. XXX; Sanh. 11 a. See J. E., art. Synagogue, Men of the\n Great; Holy Spirit; Inspiration. Comp. B. B. 14 b, 15 a; Yoma 9 b;\n Meg. 3 a, 7 a; I Macc. IV, 46; Ps. LXXIV, 9; Josephus, _Con.\n Apion._, I, 8; Philo: _Vita Mosis_, II, 7; Aristeas, 305-307. As to\n the difference between the spirit of prophecy and the holy spirit,\n see _Cuzari_, III, 32-35; _Moreh_, II, 35-37. The Essenes claimed\n the holy spirit for their apocryphal writings; see IV Esdras XIV,\n 38; Book of Wisdom VII, 27.\n\n 89 On the disputes concerning canonical books, see Yadayim III, 5; Ab.\n d. R. N., I, ed. Schechter, 2-3; Shab. 30 b; Meg. 7 a. Comp. B. K.\n 92 b, where Ben Sira is quoted as one of the Hagiographa.\n\n 90 See Tos. Pes. I, 27; IV, 2; Sota XIII, 3; Yer. Horay. III, 48 c;\n Lev. R. XXI, 7.\n\n 91 R. h. Sh. 27 a; Mak. 22 b.\n\n 92 Sifre Deut. VI, 4.\n\n 93 On the term Torah see Smend: _Lehrb. d. alttest. Religionsgesch._;\n Stade: Bibl. Theol. d. Alt. Test., Index s. v. Torah; W. J. Beecher:\n _Jour. Bibl. Lit._, 1905, 1-16; \u201cThora a Word Study in the Old\n Testament.\u201d For Torah as _Law_, see Neh. VIII, 1; Joshua I, 7, and\n throughout the Pentateuch; as _moral instruction_, see Hos. IV, 6;\n VIII, 1; Is. I, 10; V, 24; XXX, 9; LI, 4; Mic. IV, 2; Jer. XXXVI, 4\n f.; XXXI, 32; Ps. XVI, 8; Prov. VI, 22; VII, 2; Guedeman: _Quell. z.\n G. d. Unterrichts_, at the beginning; Claude Montefiore: _Hibbert\n Lectures_, 1892, p. 465 f.\n\n_ 94 Nehematha_, which means the Messianic hope; see Kohut: Aruch V, 328\n and Appendix 59.\n\n 95 See B. B. 13 b; Meg. III, 1; IV, 4; comp. Ned. 22 b; Taan. 9 a;\n Shab. 104 a; _Sifra_ Behukothai at end; Eccl. R. I, 10; Ex. R.\n XXXVIII, 6. Zunz: _Gottesd. Vortr._, 46 f., and art. _Canon_ and\n _Bible_ in the various encyclopedias. As to Torah for the whole\n Bible, see Mek. Shira I; Sanh. 37 a, 91 b; Ab. Zar. 17 a; M. K. 5 a;\n comp. I Cor. XIV, 21; John X, 34; XII, 34; XV, 25. For Torah as\n Nomos, or Law, see II Macc. XV, 9.\n\n 96 Bousset, l. c., 128-129.\n\n 97 On the divine origin of the Torah, see Sanh. 99 a; _Sifra_ Kedoshim\n 8; Behar I; Behukothay 8. Regarding the meaning of _metammin eth ha\n yadayim_ in the sense of taboo for the holy writings, see Geiger:\n _Urschrift_, p. 146.\n\n 98 Sanh. 99 a; Maim. H. Teshubah III, 8.\n\n 99 Comp. Kohler: _Hebrew Union College Annual_, 1904, \u201cThe Four Ells of\n the Halakah.\u201d\n\n 100 Deut. XXXIII, 4.\n\n 101 Mak. 23 b.\n\n 102 Jerem. XXXI, 32.\n\n 103 Comp. Schechter, _Aspects_, p. 120-136, and see Ben Sira, XXIV,\n 8-23; XVII, 11; Baruch III, 38 f.; Apoc. Baruch XXXVIII, 4; XLIV,\n 16; IV Esdras VIII, 12; IX, 37; Philo: _Vita Mosis_, II, 3, 9; Gen.\n R. I; P. d. R. El. III.\n\n 104 This apotheosis of the Torah is put in a wrong light by Weber,\n _Juedische Theologie_, 157 f., 197, but is stated better in Bousset,\n l. c., 136-142.\n\n_ 105 Dibre Kabbalah_, R. h. Sh. 7 a, 19 a; Yer. Halla I, 57 b; see Levy,\n W. B., s. v. Kabbalah.\n\n 106 The personality of Moses was at first exalted to almost superhuman\n height; see _Ben Sira_, XLV, 2; _Assumptio Mosis_, I, 14; XI, 16;\n Philo: _Vita Mosis_, III, 39; Josephus: _Antiquities_, IV, 32 b;\n Bousset, l. c., 140 f. In contrast to the Church view of Jesus the\n rabbis later emphasized the human frailties of Moses: \u201cNever did\n divine majesty descend to the habitations of mortal man, nor did\n ever a mortal man such as Moses and Elijah ascend to heaven, the\n dwelling-place of God,\u201d taught Rabbi Jose (Suk. 5 a).\n\n 107 See Deut. IV, 6-8; Jer. XXXI, 34-35; Philo: _Vita Mosis_, II, 14;\n Josephus: _Apion_, II, 277.\n\n 108 See Herodotus, III, 8; IV, 70; Jer. XXIV, 18; H. Clay Trumbull: _The\n Blood Covenant_, New York, 1885; Kraetschmar: _D. Bundervorstellung\n i. A. Test._, 1896; J. E. and Encyl. of Rel. and Ethics, art.\n Covenant.\n\n 109 See Gen. IX, 1-17; Tos. Ab. Zar. VIII, 4; San. 56 a; Gen. R. XVI,\n XXIV; Jubilees VI, 10 f.; Bernays: _Ges. Abh._ I, 252 f., 272 f.;\n II, 71-80.\n\n 110 Gen. XV, 18; XVII, 2 f.; XVIII, 19; Lev. XXVI, 42; Jubilees I, 51.\n\n 111 Ex. XIX, 5; XXIV, 6-8; XXXIV, 28; Deut. IV-V, XXVIII, XXIX; Comp. I\n Kings XIX, 10, 14; Jer. XI; XXXI; XXXIV, 13; Ezek. XVI-XVII.\n\n 112 Hos. II, 18-20.\n\n 113 Jer. XXXI, 30-32, 34-35; XXXIII, 25; Deut. XXIX, 14.\n\n 114 See Ep. Hebrews VIII, 8 f.; Gal. III, 15; I Cor. XI, 25; Matt. XXIV,\n 21, and parallels.\n\n 115 Gen. XVII, 11.\n\n 116 Ex. XXXI, 13-17; comp. Deut. X, 16; Josh. V, 9; Isa. LVI, 4-6. See\n Mek. to Ex. XIX, 5, the controversy between R. Eliezer and R. Akiba,\n whether the Sabbath or circumcision was the essential sign of the\n covenant.\n\n 117 Ker. 9 a; Yeb. 45-48 and see Chapter LVI below.\n\n 118 Ps. XXII, 28 f.; CXV, 11; CXVIII, 4; Is. LVI, 6.\n\n 119 Isaiah XLIX, 6-8.\n\n 120 Acts XV, 20, 29.\n\n 121 See J. E., art. Saul of Tarsus; Enc. Rel. Eth. art. Paul.\n\n 122 Isaac ben Shesheth: Responsa, 119. Comp, J. E., art. Christianity.\n\n 123 See further, Chapter XLIX.\n\n 124 Jer. X, 11; 16 and 10.\n\n 125 Shab. 89 b.\n\n 126 Lev. XVIII, 2, 27 f.; Num. XXV, 3-8; Hos. IV, 10; V, 4.\n\n 127 Num. XV, 39; Ex. XXIII, 24; Deut. XX, 18; Sanh. XII, 5; X, 4-6; Ab.\n Zar. II-IV; Sanh. 106 a: \u201cIsrael\u2019s God hates lewdness.\u201d\n\n 128 Ex. XX, 5; Deut. IV, 24; VI, 15.\n\n 129 See Philo: De Humanitate; Doellinger: _Heidenthum u. Judenthum_,\n 682, 700 f.; I. H. Weiss: _Dor Dor we Doreshav_, II, 19 f.\n\n 130 See J. E., art. Christianity.\n\n 131 Isa. XLII, 8. Scripture always emphasizes the contrast between\n Israel\u2019s God and the heathen gods. See Ex. XII, 12; XV, 11; XVIII,\n 11; Deut. X, 17; also in the prophets, Isa. XL; XLIV, 9; Jer. X; and\n the Psalms, XCVI, CXV, CXXXV. Absolute monotheism was a slow growth\n from this basis.\n\n 132 See Ex. R. V, 18.\n\n 133 Deut. VII; XVII, 2 f.; XX, 16; Maimonides: _H. Akkum_, II-VII;\n _Melakim_, VI, 4; _Yoreh Deah_, CXII-XLVIII.\n\n 134 Ps. XCVI-XCIX.\n\n 135 See Singer\u2019s _Prayerbook_, p, 76-77, and J. E., art. Alenu.\n\n 136 See Cheyne\u2019s Dict. Bibl. art. Name and Names with Bibliography;\n Jacob: _Im Namen Gottes_; Heitmueller, _Im Namen Jesu_, 1903, p.\n 24-25. The _Name_ for the Lord occurs Lev, XXIV, 11, 16; Deut.\n XXVIII, 58; Geiger, _Urschrift_, 261 f.\n\n 137 See Baudissin, _Stud. z. Sem. Religionsgesch._, I, 47; 177; Robinson\n Smith: _Religion of the Semites_; Max Mueller, _Chips from a German\n Workshop_, I, 336-374.\n\n 138 See J. E., art. God. Comp. also Encycl. of Religion and Ethics, art.\n God. Primitive and Biblical; Name of God, Jewish.\n\n 139 Gen. XVII, 11; Ex. VI, 3, and commentators; Gen. R. XLVI. The Book\n of Job, where the name _Shaddai_ is constantly used, refers to the\n patriarchal age.\n\n 140 Ex. III, 14, and commentators, espec. Dillmann. Comp. art. Jahweh in\n Prot. Realencyc. and Cheyne\u2019s Dict. Bible, art. _Names_, \u00a7 109 ff.,\n where different etymologies are given.\n\n 141 Ex. III, 14.\n\n 142 Ex. XIX, 5, 6.\n\n 143 See Prot. Enc., art. Jahveh, p, 530 f.\n\n 144 See J. E., art. Adonai; Bousset, l. c., 352 f.\n\n 145 Ber. 40 b. On the alleged \u201cJudaisirung des Gottesbegriffs,\u201d see\n Weber, l. c., 148-158.\n\n 146 Sifre to Deut. VI, 4.\n\n 147 Gen. XXIV, 3.\n\n 148 Gen. R. XXIV, 3.\n\n 149 Shab. 87 a, 89 b; Mek. Yithro IV.\n\n 150 See J. E., art. Alenu.\n\n 151 See J. E., art. _Abba_ and Names of God; Weber, l. c, 148 f.;\n Bousset, II, 356-361; Schechter: _Aspects_, II, 21-28.\n\n 152 See J. E., art. Heaven; Levy, W. B.: \u201cShamayim.\u201d\n\n 153 See Pes. X, 5; Ber. 16 b; Ab. Zar. 40 b; Gen. R. LXVIII, 9,\n referring to Gen. XXVIII, 11 and Ex. XXXIII, 21; P. d. R. El. XXXV;\n Pes. Rab. 104 a; comp. LXX, Ex. XXIV, 10; see also Siegfried:\n _Philo_, p. 202, 204, 217; Schechter, l. c., 26, 34. The passage in\n Mekilta on Ex. XVII, 7, which refers _Makom_ to the Sanhedrin (after\n Deut. XVII, 8), seems originally to have been a marginal note\n belonging to Ex. XXI, 13, where _Makom_ is the equivalent of\n _Makam_, a place of refuge, and put here at the wrong place by an\n error;\u2014Against Schechter, l. c., 27 note 1, Bousset (p. 591) thinks\n that _ha Makom_ for God is Persian, where both space and time were\n deified. See Spiegel: _Eranisches Alterthum_, II, 15 f.\n\n 154 See Gen. R. XII, 15; XXX, 3; Targum to Psalm LVI, 11; comp. Philo,\n I, 496; Siegfried, l. c., 203, 213.\n\n 155 Metaphysical proofs for God\u2019s existence have been outlawed since\n Kant. God is the postulate of man\u2019s moral consciousness. See\n Rauwenhoff, l. c., 236-357.\n\n 156 See art. Atheism, in J. E. and in Enc. Reli. and Ethics, II, 18 f.\n\n 157 Jer. V, 12; Psalm X, 4; XIV, 1; LIII, 1.\n\n 158 B. B. 16 b; Targ. to Gen. IV, 8.\n\n 159 See above, Chapter IV, 3.\n\n 160 Isa. XL, 12-26; XLVI, 10.\n\n 161 See Bousset, l. c., 295-298.\n\n 162 See J. E., art. Abraham.\n\n 163 Ch. XIII.\n\n 164 Philo: De Somniis, I, 43, 44; Zeller: _D. Philosophie d. Griechen_,\n III, 2, 307 f.; Drummond: _Philo Jud\u00e6us_, II, 4-5.\n\n 165 See D. F. Strauss: _Christl. Glaubenslehre_, I, 364-399; Windelband:\n _Hist. of Phil._, transl. by J. H. Tufts, 2d ed., 1914, p. 54, 98,\n 128, 327.\n\n 166 See Windelband-Tufts, l. c., 145, 292.\n\n 167 See Strauss, l. c.; Kaufmann, l. c., 2-3, 58; _D. Theologie d.\n Bachya_, p. 222 f.; Husik: _Hist. Jew. Phil._, p. 32 ff., 89 ff.\n\n 168 Kaufmann, l. c., p. 341 f., 431 f.; Husik, l. c., 218 f., 254 f.\n\n 169 See D. F. Strauss, l. c.; Windelband-Tufts, p. 292, 393.\n\n 170 D. F. Strauss, l. c., 375, 394; Windelband-Tufts, l. c., 450.\n\n 171 See Windelband-Tufts, l. c., 549-550.\n\n 172 See Kaufmann, l. c., p. 223 f., and, opposed to him, Neumark:\n _Jehuda Halevi\u2019s Philosophy_, Cincinnati, 1909. See also Husik, l.\n c., 157 ff.\n\n 173 Compare C. Seligman: _Judenth. u. moderne Anschauung_. The\n philosophy of Bergson, which eliminates design and purpose from the\n cosmos and places Deity itself into the process as the vital urgent\n of it all, and thus sees God forever in the making, is pantheistic\n and un-Jewish, and therefore cannot be considered in a theology of\n Judaism. This does not exclude our accepting minor elements of his\n system, which contains suggestive hints. H. G. Wells\u2019 _God the\n Invisible King_ (Macmillan, 1917) is likewise a God in the making,\n _man-made_, not the Maker and Ruler of man.\n\n 174 Job XI, 7.\n\n 175 Ex. XXXIII, 23; Maim.; _Yesode ha Torah_, I, 8, 10; _Moreh_, I, 21\n a; Kaufmann, l. c., 431; Philo: Mutatio Nom., 2; Vita Mosis, I, 28;\n Leg. All., I, 29, and elsewhere. See J. Drummond: _Philo Jud\u00e6us_,\n II, 18-24.\n\n 176 Ex. R. XXIX, at the close.\n\n 177 Jer. X, 10.\n\n 178 Isaiah XLIV, 6.\n\n 179 Comp. Dillmann, l. c., 226-235; D. F. Strauss, l. c., I, 525-553.\n\n 180 See J. E., art. Anthropomorphism and Anthropopathism. Comp.\n Schmiedl, l. c., 1-30.\n\n 181 Ps. XXXIII, 13-14.\n\n 182 Deut. IV, 36; Ex. XIX, 20. Comp. Gen. XI, 5.\n\n 183 Isa. XLVI, 1.\n\n 184 Ps. CXXXIX, 7-10.\n\n 185 Ps. XCIV, 9.\n\n 186 See Ab. d. R. Nathan II; Bacher: _D. Exegetische Terminologie_, I,\n 8; Schechter, l. c., 35.\n\n 187 Gen. R. XXVII; Mek. Ex. XV; Pes. d. R. K. 109 b; Tanh. to Ex. XXII,\n 16; Schechter, l. c., 43 f.\n\n 188 Gen. R. IV, 3; comp, Pes. d. R. K. 2 b; Schechter, l. c., 29 f.\n\n 189 Hul. 59, 60; Sanh. 39 a; Philo: De Abrahamo, 16.\n\n 190 Mid. Teh. Ps. CIII, 1; Sanh. 39 a.\n\n 191 See Weber, l. c., 149 f., 157; Bousset, l. c., 302, 313; von\n Hartman: _Das religioese Bewusstsein_. Against this Schreiner, l.\n c., 49-58, and Schechter, _Aspects_ 33 f.\n\n 192 Mek. and Tanh. to Ex. XV, 11.\n\n 193 Deut. IV, 7; Yer. Ber. IX, 13 a.\n\n 194 Isa. LVII, 15. See also Deut. X, 17-18; Ps. LXXXVI, 5-6. Comp. R.\n Johanan, Meg, 31 a.\n\n 195 Ex. R. II, 9; Mid. Teh. Ps. LXVIII, 7.\n\n 196 Ps. XLVI, 2.\n\n 197 Ab. Zar. 3 b.\n\n 198 Ps. CXIII, 5, 6.\n\n 199 Ber. 60 b. Singer\u2019s _Prayerbook_, 291.\n\n 200 On pantheism in Judaism see Seligman, l. c.\n\n 201 See Sachs: _D. religioese Poesie d. Juden. in Spanien_, 225-228;\n Kaufmann: _Stud u. Solomon Ibn Gabirol._\n\n 202 See Siegfried: _Philo_, 199-203, 292; Gen. R. LXVIII, 10; comp.\n Geiger: Zeitschr., XI, 218; Hamburger: R. W. B., II, 986.\n\n 203 See Graetz: G. d. J., X, 319.\n\n 204 See Maimonides: _H. Teshubah_, III, 7 and R. A. B. D., notes.\n\n 205 Jer. XXIII, 23.\n\n 206 Isa. XL, 25.\n\n 207 Lev. XIX, 4; XXVI, 1; Isaiah II, 8, 11; Psalm XCVI, 5.\n\n 208 Comp. Ex. XX, 3; XXII, 19; XXIII, 13; with Deut. VI, 4; IV, 35, 39;\n XXXII, 39; Isaiah XL to XLVIII.\n\n 209 See Dillmann, l. c., 235-241; D. F. Strauss, l. c., 402-408; A. B.\n Davidson: _Theology of O. T._, p. 105; 149 f.\n\n 210 Zach. XIV, 9.\n\n 211 Deut. IV, 19; Jer. X, 2.\n\n 212 Bousset, l. c., 221 f., 348.\n\n 213 See Chapter LVI, below.\n\n 214 Isa. XLV, 5-7.\n\n 215 Lam. III, 38.\n\n_ 216 Shethe Reshuyoth_, see Hag. 15 a; Deut. R. I. 10; Eccl. R. II, 12;\n Weber, l. c., 152; Joel, _Blicke in d. Religionsgesch._, II, 157.\n\n 217 D. F. Strauss, l. c., 409-501; J. E., art. Christianity.\n\n 218 Meg. 13 a.\n\n 219 Comp. Lange: _Gesch. d. Materialismus_, I, 149-158.\n\n 220 Alfred v. Kremer, l. c., 9-33; J. E., art. Arabic and Arabic-Jewish\n Philosophy.\n\n 221 See Draper\u2019s _Conflict between Religion and Science_.\n\n 222 Maim.: _Yesode ha Torah_, I, 7.\n\n 223 Sachs, l. c., 3.\n\n 224 See Schmiedl, l. c., 239-258.\n\n 225 See Hebrew Dictionary, _El_; comp. Dillmann, l. c., 210, 244.\n\n 226 See Levy, W. B.: _Geburah_.\n\n 227 See Septuagint to Job V, 17; VIII, 3, and II Sam. V, 10; VII, 8, and\n Ber. 31 b.\n\n 228 See Schmiedl, l. c., 67 ff. David Neumark thinks that both the\n prophet Jeremiah and the Mishnah knew and rejected the belief in\n angels. See his article _Ikkarim_ in Ozar Ha Yahduth.\n\n 229 Gen. XVIII, 14; Num. XI, 13; Is. XL, 12; Jer. V, 22; X, 12; XXVII,\n 5; XXXII, 17; Zach. VIII, 6; Job XXXVIII, 7; XLII, 1.\n\n 230 Deut. III. 24; XI, 3; XXVI, 8; XXIX, 2; Jer. X, 6; Ps. LXV, 7; LXVI,\n 7; LXIV-LXXVIII; I Chron. XXIX, 11, 12.\n\n 231 Ex. XII, 12; Judges V, 10.\n\n 232 Daniel IV, 35.\n\n 233 Ps. XI, 4; XXXIII, 13 f.; CXXXIX; Jer. XI, 20; XVII, 10; Job XII,\n 13; Dan. II, 20 f.\n\n 234 Aboth II, 1.\n\n 235 Mal. III, 16; Ps. LVI, 9.\n\n 236 See New Year liturgy, Singer\u2019s _Prayerbook_, 249.\n\n 237 Amos III, 7.; Gen. XVIII, 17.\n\n 238 Gen. VI, 5; XI, 5; XVIII, 21.\n\n 239 Isa. LV, 8, 9.\n\n 240 Gen. IV, 16; XI, 5; XVIII, 21; XXVIII, 16; Deut. XXVI, 15; Micah I,\n 3; see Strauss, l. c., I, 548 f.\n\n 241 I Kings VIII, 27; Isa. LXVI, 1.\n\n 242 See above, Chapter XII, 5.\n\n 243 Comp. Amos IX, 2; Jer. XXIII, 24.\n\n 244 Sanh. 39 a.\n\n 245 Comp. Kaufmann, l. c., 70 and 71, notes 130, 131; Strauss, l. c., I,\n 551.\n\n_ 246 Makom_, see above, Chapter X, 8-9; Schechter, _Aspects_, 26 f.\n\n 247 Luk. 45 b; comp. I Corinth. XIII, 12, based on Ex. XXXIII, 28; Ps.\n XVII, 15.\n\n 248 See Kaufmann, l. c., 100 f.\n\n 249 Isa. XLVIII, 12; Ps. XC, 2 f.; CII, 26, 27. On the process of\n development of the idea of eternity, see Neumark, l. c., II, 77.\n\n 250 Adon Olam, Singer\u2019s _Prayerbook_, p. 3.\n\n 251 See Strauss, l. c., 562, 651; Kaufmann, l. c., 306 f.; Drummond:\n _Philo_, II, 46.\n\n 252 See Chapter XXV below.\n\n 253 Tanh. Naso ed. Buber, 8; Gen. R. IX, 9 with reference to Jer. XXIII,\n 24.\n\n 254 Lev. XIX, 1.\n\n 255 Comp. Dillmann, l. c., 252 f.; Strauss, l. c., 593 f.; Rauwenhoff,\n l. c., 498-505; Lazarus: _Ethics of Judaism_, Chapters IV-V.\n\n 256 I Sam. II, 21.\n\n 257 Ps. LXXVII, 14.\n\n 258 Deut. X, 12; XI, 22, and elsewhere.\n\n 259 Gen. XVIII, 19.\n\n 260 Ex. XXXIII, 13-23.\n\n 261 See J. E., art. Holiness. The Assyrian _Kuddisu_ denotes \u201cbright,\u201d\n \u201cpure,\u201d according to Zimmern in _Religion und Sprache_, K. A. T., 3d\n ed., 603.\n\n 262 Deut. XXXIII, 3; Job V, 1; VI, 10; XV, 15; Ps. LXXXIX, 6, 8.\n\n 263 Ex. XIX, 21 f.; XXIV, 17; I Sam. VI, 20; Josh. XXIV, 19; Isa. IV, 3;\n VI, 3, 13; X, 17; XXXI, 9; XXXIII, 14; Hab. I, 13.\n\n 264 Deut. IV, 24; Ex. XXIV, 17.\n\n 265 Comp. the name _Kadesh_ and _Kedesha_ for the hierodules consecrated\n to Astarte. See Deut. XXIII, 18; I Kings XIV, 24; XV, 12; Hosea IV,\n 14. Comp. Zimmern, l. c., p. 423.\n\n 266 Isa. I, 4; V, 12; X, 20; XII, 6; XLI, 14; XLIII, 3 f.; XLV, 11; and\n elsewhere.\n\n 267 Ezek. XX, 12; XXXVII, 28; Ex. XXXI, 13, and elsewhere.\n\n 268 See Sifra and Rabba to Lev. XIX, 2.\n\n_ 269 Cusari_ IV, 3; Kaufmann, l. c., 162 f.\n\n 270 Aboth, I, 3.\n\n 271 Rauwenhoff, l. c., 504.\n\n 272 Hab. I, 13.\n\n 273 Psalm XXIV, 4-5.\n\n 274 L. Lazarus: _Z. Characteristik d. juedisch. Ethik_, 40-45; M.\n Lazarus: _Ethics of Judaism_, p. 184.\n\n 275 Isa. V, 16.\n\n 276 Comp. Dillmann, l. c., 258 f.; J. E., art. \u201cAnger.\u201d\n\n 277 Ex. XX, 5; Isa. XXX, 27 f.; Nahum I, 5 f.\n\n 278 Ex. XXII, 23; Num. XVII, 10 f.; XXV, 3; Deut. XXIX, 19; XXXII, 21;\n Isa. IX, 16.\n\n 279 Hosea XI, 9.\n\n 280 Psalm XXX.\n\n 281 Targum to Ex. XX, 3; Sanh. 27 b.\n\n 282 Isa. XXXIII, 14-17.\n\n 283 Mal. III, 2, 19 f.\n\n 284 Deut. XXXII, 35; comp. Sifre, 325; Geiger: _Urschrift_, 247,\n regarding Samaritan text. Zeph. I, 15; Isa. LXVI, 15-16.\n\n 285 Isa. XVLI, 24.\n\n 286 See J. E., art. \u201cGehenna\u201d; Mid. Teh. to Ps. LXXVI, 11, and LXXIX;\n Ned. 32 a; Taan. 9 b; Yer. Taan. II, 65 b; Ab. Zar. 4 a and b; 18 b;\n Ber. 7 a; Shab. 118 a; Sanh. 110 b; Gen. R. VI, 9; XXVI, 11, et al.;\n comp. Romans II, 5; Eph. V, 6; I Thess. I, 10.\n\n 287 Sibyll. II, 170, 285; III, 541, 556 f., 672-697, 760, 810; Enoch\n XCI, 7-9.\n\n 288 Ber. 10 a; Midr. Teh. to Ps. CIV, 35.\n\n 289 Tan. 23 b.\n\n_ 290 Cusari_ IV, 5; _Moreh_ I, 36, and Commentary to Sanh. X, I.\n\n 291 Testament of Abraham, A, X.\n\n 292 Hab. III, 2.\n\n 293 Ezek. XVIII, 23, 32; XXXIII, 11.\n\n 294 Ex. XXXII-XXXIV, 7. Comp. Num. XIV, 18.\n\n 295 Gen. XIX, 1-28; Ex. XX, 5-6.\n\n 296 Hosea I-III; XI, 1-9; XIV, 5. Comp. Micah XIII, 18; Jer. III, 8-12;\n Isa. LIV, 6-8; LVII, 16 f.; Joel II, 13; Jonah IV, 2, 10 f.; Lam.\n III, 31; Ps. LXXVIII, 38 et al. See Dillmann, l. c., 263 f.;\n Davidson _Theology of O. T._, 132 f.\n\n 297 Gen. VI, 6; I Sam. XV, 11; Jer. XVIII, 7-10; Joel II, 14; Jonah III,\n 10; IV, 2.\n\n 298 Num. XXIII, 19; I Sam. XV, 29; see Targum and commentaries.\n\n 299 See J. E., art. Anthropomorphism and Allegorical Interpretation.\n\n 300 Tanh. Waethhanan, ed. Buber, 3.\n\n 301 Gen. R. VIII, 4-5. See Morris Joseph: _Judaism as Creed and Life_,\n p. 59, 90-95.\n\n 302 R. h. Sh. 17 b; compare, J. Davidson, 134; Koeberle: _Suende und\n Gnade_, 1905, p. 625, 634 f.; but p. 658, 614, are misleading;\n Weber, l. c., 154, 260, 303 f., altogether misrepresents the Jewish\n doctrine of grace.\n\n 303 Gen. XVIII, 19.\n\n 304 Gen. XVIII, 25.\n\n 305 Jer. XII, 1.\n\n 306 Ps. LXXIII, 12.\n\n 307 Job X, 22 f.\n\n 308 Yer. Hag. II, 1; Elisha ben Abuyah.\n\n 309 Ps. LXXXIX, 15.\n\n 310 Ps. XXXVI, 7; see Davidson, l. c., 143 f.; J. E., art. Justice;\n Hamburger: _Realencyclopaedie_, art. Gerechtigkeit; Dillmann, l. c.,\n 270 f.; Strauss, l. c., 596-604. Bousset, 437 f., is misleading.\n\n 311 Deut. XXXII, 4.\n\n 312 Tanh., Jithro 5.\n\n 313 Deut. X, 17-18.\n\n 314 Deut. I, 17.\n\n 315 Yeb. 92 a; Yer. Sanh. I, 18 b.\n\n 316 Amos V, 24; Isa. I, 17, 28; XXVIII, 17; LIV, 14.\n\n 317 Ps. V, 5-6.\n\n 318 Isa. LXVI, 16.\n\n 319 Ps. XCIX, 4; Tanh. Mishpatim 1.\n\n 320 Ps. XCVI, 13; XCVIII, 9.\n\n 321 See Bousset, l. c., 357-366; Weber, l. c., 259-279, and comp. Suk.\n 30 a, where it is stated, referring to Isa. LXI, 8, that \u201cgood deeds\n can never justify evil acts.\u201d\n\n 322 Hosea VI, 6; Ps. XXXVII, 6; I Sam. II, 9.\n\n 323 Sota I, 7-8; Tos. Sota III; Mek. Shirah 4; B. Wisdom XV, 3; XIX, 17\n Jubilees IV, 3, elsewhere, comp. Math. VII, 2, and parallels.\n\n 324 Aboth IV, 2.\n\n 325 See Levy, W. B.: _Zidduk_; comp. Ex. IX, 27; Lam. I, 18; Neh. IX,\n 33.\n\n 326 Gen. R. XLIX, 19; Yoma 37 a.\n\n 327 Prov. X, 25.\n\n 328 See Tos. Sanh. XIII, 2; Sanh. 105 a; Yalkut Isaiah 296; Crescas: _Or\n Adonai_, III, 44.\n\n 329 Gen. R. VIII, 4-5; XII, 15; Midr. Teh. to Ps. LXXXIX, 2; comp. Ben\n Sira, XVIII, 11; Testaments of XII Patr.: Zebulon 9; Ap. Baruch\n XLVIII, 14; IV Esdras VIII, 31; Psalms of Solomon IX, 7; Prayer of\n Manasseh, 8, 13.\n\n 330 See J. E., art. \u201cLove.\u201d Both Weber, l. c., 57 f. and Bousset, l. c.,\n 443 f. show Christian bias.\n\n 331 Ps. CXXX, 4.\n\n 332 Aboth III, 19; comp. B. Wisdom XI, 23, 26; XII, 16, 18; Ben Sira,\n II, 18.\n\n 333 Ps. CXLIV, 8-9; comp. Ben Sira, XVIII, 13.\n\n 334 Tos. Sanh. XIII, 3.\n\n 335 Yer. R. h. Sh. I, 57 a.\n\n 336 Ber. 7 a.\n\n 337 Tos. Sota IV, 1, with reference to Ex. XX, 5-6. The plural,\n _laalafim_, is taken to mean _two thousand_.\n\n 338 Ex. XXII, 26; comp. 21, 23.\n\n 339 See Harper: _Code of Hammurabi_, 1900; Oettli: _D. Gesetz Hammurabis\n und d. Thora Israels_, 1903; Cohn: _D. Gesetz Hammurabis_, Z\u00fcrich,\n 1903; Grimm: _D. Gesetz Chammurabis und Moses_, Cologne, 1903. Also\n M. Jastrow, _Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions_, p. 255-319.\n\n 340 Deut. X, 18; Ps. LXXIII.\n\n 341 Isa. XXV, 4.\n\n 342 Ex. XXII, 24.\n\n 343 Ex. R. XXVII, 5; Eccles. R. to III, 15.\n\n 344 Gen. XXIV, 19.\n\n 345 Ex. XXIII, 5.\n\n 346 Deut. XXV, 4.\n\n 347 Lev. XX, 28; Deut. XXII, 6.\n\n 348 Git. 62 a, with reference to Deut. XI, 15.\n\n 349 Ps. CXLV, 9.\n\n 350 B. M. 85 a; Yer. Kil. IX, 4.\n\n 351 Tos. B. K. IX, 30; Sifre, Deut. 96.\n\n 352 Sifre, Deut. \u00a7 49; Shab. 133 b; comp. Philo: _De Humanitate._\n\n 353 See Concordance to _ahabah_ and _hesed_. Note especially Hos. VI, 6.\n\n 354 Hos. III, 1; XI, 1, 4; XIV, 5.\n\n 355 Jer. XXXI, 2, 19.\n\n 356 Deut. VII, 8; X, 15.\n\n 357 Deut. VIII, 5; see Sifre, Deut. 32.\n\n 358 Prov. III, 13.\n\n 359 Ber. 5 a; Sifre, l. c.; Mek. Yithro 10.\n\n 360 See Mek. and Sifre, l. c.\n\n 361 Ex. IV, 22.\n\n 362 Deut. XXXII, 6, 10 f.\n\n 363 Jer. II, 2.\n\n 364 Song of Songs, R. to III, 7. Comp. Davidson, l. c., 235-287.\n\n 365 See Schreiner, l. c., 103-112; Perles: _Bousset_, 58 f.\n\n 366 Pesik, 16-17; Mek. Yithro 6, at end.\n\n 367 Aboth III, 14.\n\n 368 XI, 23-26.\n\n 369 IV Esdra VIII, 47.\n\n 370 III, 10.\n\n 371 Zohar I, 44 b; II, 97 a.\n\n 372 See _Or Adonai_, I, 3, 5, and Joel: _Crescas_ 36-37.\n\n_ 373 Dialoghi di Amore_; see Zimmels: _Leo Hebraeus_, 1886.\n\n 374 Ethics V, proposition XXXV.\n\n 375 \u201cThe Theosophy of Julius\u201d: \u201cGod.\u201d\n\n_ 376 Middath tobah._\n\n 377 Gen. I, 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 23, 31.\n\n 378 Gen. R. IX, 5, 9; Ber. 60 a; Yer. Ber. IX, 13 c-14 b; Taan. 21 a.\n\n 379 Isa. LXV, 16.\n\n 380 Deut. XXXII, 40.\n\n 381 Deut. XXXII, 4.\n\n 382 Num. XXIII, 19; Isa. XL, 8; Jer. X, 10; Ps. XXXI, 6; comp. Dillmann,\n l. c. 269 f.\n\n 383 Ps. XXXVI, 6; LXXXIX, 3, 38; CXLVI, 6; Benediction at seeing the\n rainbow, Singer\u2019s _Prayerbook_, p. 291.\n\n 384 Gen. IX, 11.\n\n 385 Ps. CIV, 9; Job XXXVIII, 11; Jer. XXXI, 34.\n\n 386 Deut. XXXIII, 27.\n\n 387 Jer. X, 10, 15.\n\n_ 388 Emuna Rama_ 54. See Kaufmann, l. c., 333 f., 352 f.; comp.\n Guttmann: _Religionsphilosophie des Ibn Daud_, 136 f.; Albo II, 27,\n at the end; Maimonides: _Yesode ha Torah_, I, 3-4; Hillel of Verona\n refers even to Aristotle\u2019s \u201cMetaphysics.\u201d See Kaufmann, l. c., 334,\n note; Neumark, l. c., and Husik., l. c. _passim_.\n\n 389 See Yer. Sanh. I, 18 a.\n\n_ 390 Contra Apionem_, II, 22; compare J. E., art. \u201cAlpha and Omega.\u201d\n\n 391 See Yer. Sanh. I, 18 a.\n\n 392 Ber. 33 b.\n\n 393 Jedayah ha Penini.\n\n 394 Ps. LXV, 2.\n\n 395 Jer. X, 12; Amos IV, 13; Job XXXVIII-XXXIX.\n\n 396 Prov. VI, 6.\n\n 397 Job XXXVIII-XXXIX.\n\n 398 Ps. CIV, 24.\n\n 399 Gen. L, 20; see Dillmann, l. c., 280; Strauss, l. c., 575 f.;\n Hamburger, l. c., art. \u201cWeisheit Gottes\u201d; A. B. Davidson, l. c.,\n 180-182.\n\n 400 Gen. XLI, 38; I Kings III, 12; Ex. XXXV, 31; Prov. II, 6.\n\n 401 Isa. XXV, 1; XXVII, 29.\n\n 402 Isa. XL-LV.\n\n 403 Prov. IX, 1. Comp. A. Jeremias: _D. A. Test. i. L. d. i. alt.\n Orients_, 5, 80, 336, 367.\n\n 404 Ben Sira XXIV, 3-6, 14, 21; Enoch XLII, 1-2; Slavonic Enoch XXX, 8;\n Baruch III, 9-IV, 4; comp. Bousset, l. c., 337 f.; J. E., art.\n Wisdom; Bentwich: _Philo_, pp. 141-147.\n\n 405 Targ. Ver. to Gen. I, 1. Gen. R. I. 2, 5. See Schechter: _Aspects_,\n 127-137.\n\n 406 Kaufmann, l. c., 16, 107, 113, 163, 325, 418.\n\n 407 Job IX, 4; _Cuzari_, II, 2.\n\n 408 Sachs, cl, 6, 227.\n\n 409 Ps. XVIII, 36.\n\n 410 Meg. 35 a.\n\n 411 Isa. LVII, 15.\n\n 412 Deut. X, 17-18.\n\n 413 Ps. LXVIII, 5-6.\n\n 414 Ps. CXIII, 5-6.\n\n 415 Weber, l. c., 154.\n\n 416 Deut. IV, 7; Yer. Ber. IX, 19 a, where the plural, _Kerobim_,\n suggests the idea, \u201call kinds of nearness.\u201d\n\n 417 Ps. XXIX, 4; Tanh. Yithro, ed. Buber, 17.\n\n 418 Ps. XCI, 15; Isa. LXIII, 9; Sifre Num. 84.\n\n 419 Ber. 6 a; 7 a; R. ha Sh. 17 b; Hag. 5 b; Sanh. 39 a. Comp.\n Schechter, _Aspects_, p. 21-50.\n\n 420 Weber, l. c., 157-160.\n\n 421 Plutarch: \u201cDe placitis philosophiae,\u201d II, 1; comp. for the entire\n chapter Dillmann, l. c., 284-295; Smend: 1. c., 454 f.; H.\n Steinthal: \u201cDie Idee der Sch\u00f6pfung\u201d in J. B. z. Jued. Gesch. u.\n Lit., II, 39-44.\n\n 422 Ps. XXXIII, 9.\n\n 423 Job XXXVIII; Ps. CIV.\n\n 424 Comp. Albo I, 12, and Schlesinger\u2019s Notes, 625.\n\n 425 Ps. CII, 25-27.\n\n 426 Job XXV, 2.\n\n 427 Ber. 60 b.\n\n_ 428 Gam su le tobah_, an allusion to his own name. Taan. 21 b.\n\n 429 Gen. R. IX, 5.\n\n 430 Gen. R. IX, 9-10.\n\n 431 Sifre Deut. 307.\n\n 432 Jer. X, 11-12 and 10.\n\n 433 See his commentary to Gen. I, 1; comp. Neumark, l. c., I, 70, 71, 80\n f., 87, 412, 439, 515; Husik, l. c., p. 190; D. Strauss, l. c.,\n 619-660.\n\n 434 II Macc. VII, 28.\n\n 435 Gen. R. I, 12; X. 3; Hag. II b-13 a; Slavonic Enoch, XXV; see J. E.,\n art. Cosmogony and Creation; Enc. Rel. and Eth., 151 ff., 167 f.\n\n 436 Gen. R. IX, 1.\n\n 437 See Strauss, l. c., 645 f.\n\n 438 See Schmiedl, l. c., 91-128; Kaufmann, l. c., 280 f., 306, 387 f.\n\n 439 See C. Seligman, _Judenthum und Moderne Weltanchauung_.\n\n 440 The first benediction before the Shema.\n\n 441 Gen. VII, 11; VIII, 2.\n\n 442 Isa. XL, 26.\n\n 443 Job XXXVI, 6.\n\n 444 Job XXXVIII, 25.\n\n 445 Gen. XX, 17-18; XXX, 22.\n\n 446 Ps. CXLVII, 8-9.\n\n 447 Ps. CIV, 27-30.\n\n 448 Gen. I, 11.\n\n 449 Ps. CIV, 8.\n\n 450 Gen. VIII, 22; Job XXXVIII, 33.\n\n 451 Jer. XXXI, 39; XXXIII, 25.\n\n 452 Gen. IX, 12 f.\n\n 453 Job XXV, 2.\n\n 454 See Dillmann, l. c., 295 f.; D. Strauss, l. c., 629-643.\n\n 455 Enoch LXIX, 15-25; Prayer of Manasseh, 3; Suk. 53 a b; Hag. 12 a.\n\n 456 See Singer\u2019s _Prayerbook_, 37, 96, 290, 292.\n\n 457 Ps. CIII, 20.\n\n 458 Shab. 119 b.\n\n 459 Ps. CII, 27; Isa. XXXIV, 4.\n\n 460 Isa. LXV, 17.\n\n 461 See J. E. and Enc. of Rel. and Eth., art. \u201cEschatology\u201d; Schuerer,\n _G. V. I._ II, 545.\n\n 462 Ex. XV, 11.\n\n_ 463 Oth_, sign for miracle, Ex. IV, 8, 17, and elsewhere.\n\n_ 464 Mopheth_, Ex. VII, 3, and elsewhere.\n\n 465 Gen. XVIII, 14.\n\n 466 Num. XI, 23.\n\n 467 Ex. XXXIV, 10; Num. XVI, 30.\n\n 468 Ex. IV, 11.\n\n 469 Josh. X, 12-14. See Joel: \u201cD. Mosaismus u. d. Wunder,\u201d in Jb. d.\n Jued. Gesch. u. Lit., 1904, p. 66-94.\n\n 470 Mek. Beshallah 3; Gen. R. V, 4.\n\n 471 Aboth V, 6; comp. Ab. d. R. N., ed. Schechter, 95; Mek. Beshallah,\n 5; Sifre Debarim, 355; Pes. 54 a; P. d. R. Eli., XIX; Targ. Y. to\n Num. XXII, 28, where a different list of ten wondrous things is\n given.\n\n 472 Emunoth we Deoth II, 44, 68. Comp. Ibn Ezra to Gen. III, 1, and Num.\n XXII, 28.\n\n_ 473 Moreh_, II, 25, 35, 37; III, 24; _Yesode ha Torah_, VII, 7; VIII,\n 1-3. Comp. Joel: _Moses Maimonides_, p. 77.\n\n_ 474 Ikkarim_, I, 18.\n\n 475 Or _Adonai_, III, 5; comp. Joel: _Don Chasdai Crescas_, p. 70.\n\n_ 476 Milhamoth Adonai_, last chapters; comp. J. E., art. Levi ben\n Gershom.\n\n_ 477 Cuzari_, II, 54.\n\n 478 The _Anshe maaseh_, mentioned together with the _Hasidim_ in Suk. V,\n 4, and Sot. IX, 15, are wonderworkers, of whom Haninah ben Dosa, the\n last, is singled out. The same epithet was given to Simeon ben\n Yochai in Aramaic, _Iskan_, see Lev. Rabba XXII, 2, and to R. Assi,\n eod. XIX, 1,\u2014where it means, worker in nature\u2019s realm. Thus Nahum of\n Gimzo is called \u201ctrained in the skill to perform miracles\u201d\u2014Taan. 21\n a; Phinehas ben Jair was also a wonderworker\u2014Hul. 7 a. The whole\n portion regarding rain-miracles seems to be taken from a work on the\n miracles of saints.\n\n 479 Taan, 18 b.\n\n 480 Pes. 118 a; Ned. 41 a.\n\n 481 Shab. 53 b.\n\n 482 Ab. Za. IV, 7; comp. Ber. 4 a, 20 a; Sanh. 97 b.\n\n 483 B. M. 59 b.\n\n 484 Deut. XIII, 2-6.\n\n_ 485 Yesode ha Torah_, VIII, 1-5.\n\n_ 486 Ikkarim_, I, 18.\n\n 487 Mendelssohn: G. Sch., III, 65, 120 f., 320 f.\n\n 488 II Kings VI, 6.\n\n 489 Joshua X, 13.\n\n_ 490 Moreh_, II, 33.\n\n 491 The Hebrew term _Hashgaha_\u2014Providence\u2014is derived from Ps. XXXIII,\n 14, _hishgiah_, \u201cHe observes.\u201d See J. E., art. Providence; Davidson,\n l. c., 178-182; Hamburger, R. W. B. II, art. Bestimmung; Rauwenhoff,\n l. c., 538 f.; Ludwig Philippson: \u201c_Israel. Religionsl._,\u201d II, 98\n f.; Formstecher: \u201c_Religion des Geistes_,\u201d 114-119.\n\n 492 Jer. X, 2. See art. Divination, in J. E.; Dict. Bible; Enc. R. and\n Eth.\n\n 493 See Lev. XVI, 8 f.; Num. XXVI, 56; Josh. XVIII-XIX; Prov. XVIII, 18.\n\n 494 Ex. XVIII, 30; I Sam. see LXX; XIV, 41.\n\n 495 Ex. XXXIII, 32; Ps. LVI, 9; CXXXIX, 16; comp., however, the\n Babylonian \u201ctables of destinies.\u201d\n\n 496 Isa. XL, 21; XLI, 4, 22 f.; Amos III, 7.\n\n 497 Isa. LIV, 16.\n\n 498 Isa. X, 5, 15.\n\n 499 Isa. VIII. 11; Ps. II, 2 f.; Deut. XXIII, 6.\n\n 500 Jer. X, 33.\n\n 501 Aboth III, 15.\n\n 502 Hul. 7 a.\n\n 503 Gen. XXIV, 50; M. K. 18 b.\n\n 504 Ch. XXXIV.\n\n 505 Ber. 33 b.\n\n 506 R. h. Sh. 17 b; New Year\u2019s liturgy.\n\n_ 507 H. Teshubah_, V, 1-2.\n\n 508 See, on the Zagmuk festival, Zimmern, K. A. T., p. 514 f.\n\n 509 Tos. R. h. Sh, I, 13; R. h. Sh. 16 a.\n\n 510 Saadia: _Emunoth_, IV, 7; Bahya: _Hoboth ha Lebaboth_, III, 8; IV,\n 3.\n\n_ 511 H. Teshubah_ V; _Moreh_, I, 23; III, 16-19; comp. _Cuzari_, V,\n 20-21; Albo: _Ikkarim_, IV, 1-11; Gersonides: _Milhamoth_, III, 2;\n VI, 1-18; Isaac ben Shesheth: Responsa, 119; Lipman Heller to Aboth\n III, 15. See Joel: _Levi ben Gerson_, p. 56.\n\n 512 See _Or Adonai_, II, 3; comp. Joel: _Hasdai Crescas_, 41-49, 54-55;\n Neumark: \u201c_Crescas and Spinoza_,\u201d in Y. B. C. C. A. R., 1908, vol.\n XVIII, p. 277-319.\n\n_ 513 Or Adonai_, III, 24.\n\n 514 Gen. R. LXXIX, 16; comp. Matt. X, 29.\n\n 515 B. B. 16 a; comp. Matt. X, 30; Luke XII, 7.\n\n 516 Deut. XXXII, 11.\n\n 517 Mek. Yithro 2; Sifre ad loc.\n\n 518 Shab. 119 b.\n\n 519 Ps. XLVI, 2; CXXI, 4.\n\n 520 See David Kaufmann: \u201c_Theol. d. B. b. Pakudah_,\u201d p. 240.\n\n 521 Mid. Teh. to Ps. XXXIV; L. Ginzberg, _Legends of the Jews_, IV,\n 89-90; _Alphabet of Ben Sira_.\n\n_ 522 Comp. Maasehhbuch_; Tendlau: _Sagen d. jued. Vorzeit_.\n\n 523 See Gen. R. IX, 5, 10, 11; Dillmann, l. c., 309-318; D. F. Strauss,\n l. c., II, 343-384.\n\n 524 Shab. 55 a.\n\n 525 Ber. 5 a, after Deut. VIII, 5; Prov. III, 12.\n\n 526 Isa. XLV, 7.\n\n 527 Deut. XI, 27; see the Midrash ad loc.\n\n_ 528 Emunah Ramah_, ed. Weil, 93 f.; _Moreh_, III, 10.\n\n 529 See M. Lefkovitz, \u201cThe Attitude of Judaism to Christian Science,\u201d in\n Y. B. C. C. A. R. XXII, 300-318.\n\n 530 See Morris Joseph, l. c., p. 108, 127 ff.; C. Seligman, l. c.,\n 50-68.\n\n 531 Gen. VI, 2; Job I, 6; II, 1; XXXIII, 7; Gen. XXXII, 29; XXXIII, 10;\n Jud. XIII, 22; Ps. VIII, 6.\n\n 532 Comp. Mek. Yithro 7 through 10; Hul. 40; Tos. Hul. II, 18; Ab. Z. 42\n b; Maimonides to Sanh. X; Targ. Y. to Ex. XX, 3.\n\n 533 Deut. IV, 39.\n\n 534 Deut. XXXII, 39.\n\n 535 Isa. XLIV, 24; XL, 5.\n\n 536 Gen. XVIII and XVII, 11, 13.\n\n 537 Gen. VI, 1 f.\n\n 538 Comp. Ezek. XXVIII, 13 f.\n\n 539 Ps. LXXVIII, 25.\n\n 540 See Dillmann, l. c., 318-333; Davidson, l. c., 289-300; J. E., art.\n Angelology; Enc. Rel. and Eth. IV, 594-601, art. Demons.\n\n 541 Lev. XVII, 7; Deut. XXXII, 17; Isa. XXXIV, 14.\n\n 542 Gen. XVIII.\n\n 543 Ex. XXIII, 20; II Sam. XXIV, 16; II Kings XIX, 35 _et al._ See J.\n E., art. Angelology.\n\n 544 Ex. III, 2-4; XXIII, 20-21; Isa. LXIII, 9.\n\n 545 Zech. I, 9 f.; II, 1 f.\n\n 546 See J. E., art. Angelology.\n\n 547 Ezek. I, 4-24; X, 1-22; Isa. VI, 2; Dan. IV, 10 f.; VII, 9 f.; VIII,\n 16 f.; X, 13 f; Enoch XV, 1 f., and elsewhere.\n\n 548 See J. E., art. Merkabah, though still doubted by Bousset, l. c., p.\n 406. For Akathriel see Ber. 7 and J. E., art. Sandalfon.\n\n 549 Jubilees II, 2; Slav. Enoch. XXIX, 3; I, 3; Gen. R, III, 11.\n\n 550 Yer. Ber. IX; Sanh. 93 a; Hul. 91 b; Ned. 32 a; Gen. R. VIII, XXI;\n Midr. Teh. to Ps. CIII, 18; CIV, 1.\n\n 551 Neumark, l. c.\n\n 552 Schmiedl, l. c., 69-87.\n\n_ 553 Yesode ha Torah_, II, 4-9; _Moreh_, I, 43; II, 3-7, 41; III, 13;\n Husik, l. c., 303 f.\n\n_ 554 Emunoth_, IV, 1; VI, 2; _Hoboth ha Lebaboth_, I, 6; _Cuzari_, IV,\n 3; _Emunah Ramah_, IV, 2; VI, 1; _Ikkarim_, II, 28, 31.\n\n 555 Zohar, III, 68; Joel: _Religionsphilosophie des Zohar_, 278 f.\n\n 556 Ned. 20 b; Midr. Teh. Ps. CIII, 17-18; Ibn Ezra: Introduction to his\n commentary on the Pentateuch.\n\n 557 Compare Gen. R. to Gen. I, 31.\n\n 558 Ps. CIII, 19-20.\n\n 559 Job I, 6.\n\n 560 See J. E., art. Demonology; Satan; Belial; Enc. Rel. and Eth., art.\n Demons and Spirits, Jewish; Davidson, l. c., 300-306; Dillmann, l.\n c., 334-340; D. F. Strauss, l. c., II, 1-18.\n\n 561 Lev. XVII, 7; Deut. XXXII, 17; Isa. XIII, 21; XXXIV, 14.\n\n 562 Lev. XVI, 8; see Ibn Ezra; J. E. and Enc. Rel. and Eth., art.\n Azazel.\n\n 563 J. E., art. Beelzebub.\n\n 564 J. E., art. Belial.\n\n 565 Enoch VI, 7; J. E., art. Ashmodai; Levy: W. B., Shemachzai.\n\n 566 Levy: W. B., Lilith; Iggereth.\n\n 567 J. E., art. Demonology.\n\n 568 Aboth V, 6; P. d. R. El., XIX; Gen. R. VII, 7.\n\n 569 Enoch VII; Yalkut Gen. 44, 47.\n\n 570 Erubin, 18 b.\n\n 571 P. d. R. El., XIII; Yalkut Gen. 25.\n\n 572 See Abrahams\u2019 Ann. to Singers\u2019 _Prayerb_. XLIV f. and for the\n Church, Enc. Rel, and Eth., Demons and Spirits, Christian.\n\n 573 Abrahams, l. c., p. 7, 196; XX, CCXV.\n\n 574 Ps. CIX, 6.\n\n 575 Zech. III, 1; Job I, 6.\n\n 576 I Chron. XXI, 1.\n\n 577 See B. Wisdom II, 24; P. d. R. El., XIII.\n\n 578 Shab. 146 a; Yeb. 103 b; Ab. Zar. 22 b.\n\n 579 Suk. 52 a.\n\n 580 Targ. to Isa. XI, 4.\n\n 581 B. B. 16 a.\n\n 582 De Gigantibus, 2-4.\n\n 583 Sifra Lev. XVI, 8; Yoma, 67 b.\n\n 584 See the Ethiopic \u201cAdam and Eve\u201d; C. Bezold, _Die Schalzhochle_, p.\n 18; comp. Gen. R. XXVI.\n\n 585 See D. Cassel: _Cuzari_, p. 402 note.\n\n_ 586 Moreh_ III, 29-37, 46; Ibn Ezra to Job I, 6; comp. Finkelscherer:\n _Maimunis\u2019 Stellung zum Aberglauben_, 1894, p. 40-51.\n\n_ 587 Christliche Glaubenslehre_, II, 18.\n\n 588 Euken, _D. Wahrheitsgehalt d. Religion_, p. 384, 402; Bousset,\n _Wesen d. Rel._, p. 239.\n\n 589 See H. Cohen: _Ethik des reinen Willens_, 282 f., 341 f., 428 f.,\n 593: \u201cEine Macht des Boesen gibt es nur im Mythos.\u201d \u201cDieser Mythos\n fuehrt folgerichtig sum mythologischen Gottmenschen.\u201d M. Joel, in\n his article, \u201cDer Mosaismus und das Heidenthum,\u201d in J. B. j. Gesch.\n u. Lit, 1904, p. 49-66, ascribes the belief in demons to Greek\n influence. He holds that the prophetic teaching of God\u2019s unity was\n the best bulwark against demonology and mysticism.\n\n 590 See Dillmann, l. c., 341-351; Weber, l. c., 177-190; Bousset, l. c.,\n 336, 346; Davidson, l. c, 36-38, 115-129; Schechter, Aspects, p.\n 21-45; Schmiedl, l. c., 35-48; J. E., art. Holy Spirit; Logos;\n Memra; Metatron; Name of God; Shekinah; Enc. Rel. and Eth., I,\n 308-312.\n\n 591 Ps. LXXXII, 1.\n\n 592 Ex. XXV, 8.\n\n 593 Ber. 17 a.\n\n 594 See Ber., l. c., Rab\u2019s reference to Ex. XXIV, 11.\n\n 595 John I, 1-6.\n\n 596 Singer\u2019s _Prayerbook_, p. 96, 292.\n\n 597 Ch. XXII. See Prov. VIII, 22.\n\n 598 XXIV, 9 f.\n\n 599 Weber, l. c., 197 f.\n\n 600 L. c., 178 f.\n\n 601 See Kohut: _Jued, Angelologie_, 36-38; Schorr: He Halutz, VIII, 3;\n J. E., art. Merkabah.\n\n 602 See Targ. Yer. to Gen. V, 24; J. E., art. Metatron. Comp. Eth. Enoch\n LXX, 1, and Slav. Enoch III-XXIV.\n\n 603 Gen. I, 2.\n\n 604 Gen. II, 7; VI, 3; Job XXXII, 8.\n\n 605 Num. XI, 17 f.; XXIV, 2; XXVII, 18; Ex. XXVIII, 3; XXXI, 3 f.; Isa.\n XI, 2; LXI, 1; Ezek. I, 12, 20.\n\n 606 Isa. LXIII, 10; Ps. LI, 13.\n\n 607 See J. E., art. Holy Spirit.\n\n 608 See J. E. art., Bath Kol.\n\n 609 See Tos. Sota XIII, 2; XXLV, 11; compare Levy: W. B., _Shem;_\n Geiger: _Urschrift_, 273 f.\n\n 610 Deut. XII, 5, 11; II Sam. XII, 28; Neh. I, 9; Jer. VII, 12, 14.\n\n 611 Ex. XXIII, 21.\n\n 612 Jer. XLIV, 26; Isa. XLV, 23.\n\n 613 Midr. Teh. to Ps. XXXVIII, 8; XCI, 8.\n\n 614 Taan. III, 8.\n\n 615 Prayer of Manasses, 3.\n\n 616 P. d. R. El. III.\n\n 617 See Levy: W. B., _Geburah_.\n\n 618 Ex. XXI, 6.\n\n 619 Ex. XXXIV, 5 f.\n\n 620 Gen. R. XXI, 8; Targ. Ps. LVI, 11, and see Siegfried: _Philo_, 213\n f.\n\n 621 Gen. R. VIII, 5, after Ps. LXXXV, 11-12.\n\n 622 P. d. R. El. III; Midr. Teh. Ps. L, 1, ref. to Prov. III, 19-20.\n\n 623 A. d. R. N. XXXVII, ref. to Prov. III, 19 f.; Ps. LXV, 7; LXXXV,\n 21-22; Job XXVII, 11.\n\n 624 Ref. to Hosea II, 21-22.\n\n 625 Hag. 12 a.\n\n 626 See J. E., art. Sefiroth, the Ten; Yezirah, Sefer.\n\n 627 See J. E., art. Shekinah; _Cuzari_, II, 4; IV, 3.\n\n 628 Gen. I, 26, and the commentaries.\n\n 629 Gen. R. VIII, 9.\n\n 630 Gen. R. XIV, 1.\n\n 631 Gen. I, 28.\n\n 632 Gen. R. VIII, 12; P. d. R. El., XI.\n\n 633 Sanh. IV, 5, correctly preserved in the Yerushalmi, and the addition\n in the Babli, _Me Yisrael_, ought not to have been inserted by\n Schechter, Ab. d. R.N., p. 90.\n\n 634 Lev. R. XXXIV, 3.\n\n 635 Ab. d. R. N. XXXI.\n\n 636 See Jubilees XV, 27; comp. Gen. R. VIII, 7-9; Ab. d. R. N., ed.\n Schechter, p. 153.\n\n 637 See Jellinek: _Bezelem Elohim;_ Philippson, l. c., II, 58-72;\n Dillmann, l. c., 325. The words of Plato (_State_, X, 613, and\n _The\u00e6tetos_, 176), \u201cMan should strive for God-likeness through\n virtue, and be holy, righteous and wise like the Deity,\u201d may have\n influenced the ethical interpretation of the Biblical term.\n\n 638 Gen. R. VIII, 1.\n\n 639 See Gen. I, 26; Comm. of Rashi, Saadia, Ibn Ezra, Nahmanides, and\n Ob. Sforno.\n\n 640 Job XXXII, 8.\n\n 641 Zach. III, 7; see comm.\n\n 642 Gen. VI, 12, 19.\n\n 643 Gen. IX, 21; Lev. XVII, 11, 14.\n\n 644 See Dillmann, l. c., 355-361; Davidson, l. c., 182-203; comp. Gen.\n R. XIV, 11, where these three terms are given, and also _yehidah_,\n Ps. XXII, 21; XXXV, 17, and _hayah_, Ps. XCLIII, 3; Job XXXIII, 1.\n\n 645 De Leg. Alleg. III, 38.\n\n 646 See Horovitz: _D. Psychologie Saadias_; Scheyer: _D. psycholog.\n System d. Maimonides_; Cassel\u2019s _Cuzari_, p. 382-400; Husik, l. c.,\n IX, 41; and see also Index: _Soul_.\n\n 647 Sanh. 91 a, b; Nid. 30 b-31 b; Sifre Deut. 306, ref. to Deut. XXXII,\n 1; Lev. IV, 5-8.\n\n 648 Ab. Z. 5 a; Gen. R. VIII, 1.\n\n 649 B. Wisdom, VIII, 20; Slav. Enoch XXIII, 5; Philo I, 15, 32; II, 356;\n comp. Bousset, l. c., p. 508 f.\n\n 650 Gen. VI, 5; VIII, 21; B. Sira XV, 14; XVII, 31; XXI, 11; Ber. 5 a;\n Kid. 30 b; Suk. 52 a, b; Shab. 152 b; Eccl. R. XII, 7; comp. F. Ch.\n Porter: \u201cThe Yezer ha Ra\u201d in _Biblical and Semitic Studies_, 93-156;\n Bousset, l. c., 462 f.\n\n 651 Suk. 52 a, b.\n\n 652 Gen. R. VIII, 11.\n\n 653 Ab. d. R. N. XXXI.\n\n 654 Aboth III, 18.\n\n 655 Ber. 10 a; Midr. Teh. Ps. CIII, 4-5.\n\n 656 Gen. XVIII, 19; Deut. VIII, 6; X, 12; XXXII, 4.\n\n 657 Micah VI, 8.\n\n 658 Gen. V. 22; VI, 9; XVII, 1-2.\n\n 659 Gen. R. XII, 8; XIV, 6, ref. to Josh. XIV, 15.\n\n 660 Ezek. XXVIII, 14.\n\n 661 Prov. III, 18.\n\n 662 Gen. R. XVI, 10; Shab. 55 b.\n\n 663 B. B. 15 a.\n\n 664 Shab. 146 a; Yeb. 103 b; Ab. Zar. 22 b; Shab. 55 b.\n\n 665 B. Wisdom, II, 24.\n\n 666 Romans V, 12 f.\n\n 667 Shab. 146 a.\n\n 668 Deut. XXIV, 16; Ezek. XVIII, 4.\n\n 669 Shab. 55 a, b.\n\n 670 Shab. 32 b.\n\n 671 B. Sira XXV, 24.\n\n 672 Yer. Shab. II, 5 b.\n\n 673 Gen. R. XIX, 10, ref. to Gen. III, 6-7.\n\n 674 Apoc. Baruch XXIII, 4; XLVIII, 42 f.; LVI, 6; and especially LIV,\n 14-19; IV Esdras III, 7; VII, 11, 118.\n\n 675 Pesik. 160 b; Num. R. XIII, 5.\n\n 676 P. d. R. El., XX; comp. Adam and Eve, I; Erub. 18 b.\n\n 677 Gen. R. XII, 5; XIX, 11; XXI, 4 f.; comp. Shab. 55 b.\n\n 678 See Windishman: _Zoroastrische Studien_, p. 27 f.\n\n 679 Eccl. VII, 29.\n\n 680 Tanh. Yelamdenu to Gen. III, 22.\n\n 681 Eccl. XII, 7.\n\n 682 Shab. 152 b.\n\n 683 Ber. 80 a. The rabbis did not have the belief that the body is\n morally impure and therefore the seat of the _yezer ha ra_, as is\n stated by Weber, l. c., 228 f. See Potter, l. c., 98-107; Schechter:\n _Aspects_, 242-292. It is wrong also to explain Ps. LI, 7, \u201cBehold I\n was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive\n me,\u201d as inherited sinfulness, as Delitzsch and other Christian\n commentators have done, following Ibn Ezra, who refers this to Eve,\n the mother of all men. The correct interpretation is given by R.\n Ahha in Lev. R. XIV, 5; \u201cEvery sexual act is the work of sensuality,\n the _Yezer ha ra_.\u201d Comp. Yoma 69 b. Needless to say that Hosea VI,\n 7; Isa. XLIII, 37; Job XXXI, 33 do not refer to the sin of Adam.\n\n 684 See Ibn Ezra to Gen. III, 1.\n\n 685 See Taan. 10 a; Ber. 34 b; D. comp. Enoch XXIX-XXXII; _Seder Gan\n Eden_, in Jellinek, _Beth ha Midrash_, II, III.\n\n_ 686 Moreh_, II, 30; Nahmanides to Gen. III, 1.\n\n 687 Gen. R. XVI, 8, ref. to Gen. II, 15.\n\n 688 Pes. 111 a; Gen. R. XX, 24.\n\n_ 689 Seder Olam_ at the close; Gen. R. XXIV, 2.\n\n 690 Prov. XX, 27.\n\n 691 Job XXXII, 8.\n\n 692 Isa. XI, 2.\n\n 693 Dan. II, 20-21.\n\n 694 Tanh. Miketz 9; comp. Tanh. Yelamdenu Wayakhel, where the story is\n told differently.\n\n 695 Singer\u2019s _Prayerbook_, p. 46.\n\n 696 Cuzari III, 19.\n\n 697 Ber. 58 a; Singer\u2019s _Prayerb._, p. 291.\n\n_ 698 Yesode ha Torah_, II, 2.\n\n_ 699 Nethibot Olam_, XIV.\n\n 700 Pes. 94 b.\n\n_ 701 Shaare Shamayim_, IV, 3.\n\n 702 R. h. Sh. 21 b.\n\n 703 II Sam. XXIII, 2.\n\n 704 Job IV, 12-16.\n\n 705 Gen. R. XXIV, 7; comp. Jubilees III, 12.\n\n 706 See Dillmann, l. c., 301 f., 375; J. E., art. Freedom of Will.\n\n 707 Gen. IV, 7.\n\n 708 Deut. XXX, 15-19.\n\n 709 Jer. XXI, 8.\n\n 710 See Sifre Deut. 53-54; J. E., art. Didache.\n\n 711 Gen. III, 22; Mek. Beshallah 6; Gen. R. XXI. 5; Mid. Teh. Ps. XXXVI,\n 3; LVIII, 2.\n\n 712 Aboth III, 15, but see Schechter: _Aspects_, 285, note 4.\n\n 713 Ben Sira XV, 11-20.\n\n 714 Enoch XCVIII, 4.\n\n 715 IX, 7.\n\n 716 IV Ezra VII, 127-129; IX, 10-11.\n\n 717 Quod deus immutabilis, 10, I, 279; Di confusione linguarum, 35, I,\n 432; Quod deterius potiori insid.\n\n 718 Josephus, J. W., II, 8, 14; Ant. XVIII, I, 3.\n\n 719 Ber. 33 b.\n\n 720 Gen. R. LXVII, 7. Comp. P. R. El. XV.\n\n 721 Tanh. Toledoth, ed. Buber, 21.\n\n 722 Shab. 104 a; Yoma 38 b-39 a; Yer. Kid. I, 67 d.\n\n 723 Mak. 10 b; ref. to Ex. XXI, 12; Num. XXII, 12; Isa. XLVIII, 17;\n Prov. III, 34.\n\n 724 Ex. IV, 21; VII, 3, and elsewhere; see the Jewish commentaries to\n these passages. Comp. Pes. 165 a; Num. R. XV, 16. See Schechter,\n _Aspects_, 289-292.\n\n 725 Saadia: _Emunoth_, III, 154; IV, 7 f.; Bahya: _Hoboth haleboboth_,\n III, 8; _Cuzari_, V, 20; _Moreh_ I, 23; III, 16; _H. Teshuba_, V;\n Gersonides: _Milhamoth_, III, 106; Albo: _Ikkarim_, IV, 5-10; see\n Cassel notes, _Cuzari_, p. 414.\n\n_ 726 Or Adonai_ II, 4; comp. Bloch: _Willensfreiheit des Hisdai\n Crescas_; Neumark: _Crescas and Spinoza_, Y. B. C. C. A. R. 1908.\n\n 727 Ex. XX, 5.\n\n 728 Sanh. 27 b.\n\n 729 Job XIV, 4.\n\n 730 Pesik. 29 b.\n\n_ 731 H. Teshubah_, V.\n\n 732 See Morgenstern, \u201c_The Doctrine of Sin in the Babylonian Religion_,\u201d\n in Mitth. Vorderas. Gesellsch. 1905.\n\n 733 Gen. VI, 3; Ps. LXXVIII, 39.\n\n 734 Sota 3 a.\n\n 735 Suk. 52 a, b. Comp. Schechter, \u201cThe Evil Yezer, Source of Rebellion\n and Victory over the Evil Yezer,\u201d l. c., 242-292.\n\n 736 Prov. XX, 9.\n\n 737 Eccl. VII, 20.\n\n 738 Job IV, 17; XV, 14 f; XXV, 5.\n\n 739 Num. XX, 12; XXVII, 14.\n\n 740 Yeb. 121 b.\n\n 741 Mid. Teh. Ps. XVI, 2.\n\n 742 Job XV, 15.\n\n 743 Midr. Teh. eodem.\n\n 744 Morgenstern, l. c.\n\n 745 Ex. XXX, 33, 38; Lev. X, 2; XVI, 1-2; Num. XVII, 28; XVIII, 7.\n\n 746 Ezek. XVIII, 6 f.; XX, 13 f.; Isa. LVI, 2 f.\n\n 747 Hos. VI, 6; Mic. VI, 8; Isa. I, 11 f.\n\n 748 I Sam. XV, 22-23.\n\n 749 Job XXXV, 6-8.\n\n 750 Ps. LI, 6.\n\n 751 Sanh. 107 a.\n\n 752 Isa. LIX, 2.\n\n 753 Gen. IV, 13; XV, 16; XIX, 15; Ps. XL, 13.\n\n 754 Gen. XXVI, 10; XLII, 21; Ps. XXXIV, 22.\n\n 755 Lev. IV, 13 f.; Num. V, 6.\n\n 756 Ps. XIX, 13.\n\n 757 Num. R. XXI, 19.\n\n 758 Num. XVI, 22.\n\n 759 Tanh. Korah, ed. Buber, 19.\n\n 760 Habak. I, 13.\n\n 761 Isa. XXXIII, 14.\n\n 762 Isa. VI, 5-7.\n\n 763 Pes. 45 b; Gen. R. XXIII, 9.\n\n 764 See J. E., art. Cabala; Abelson, _Jewish Mysticism_, p. 127 f., 171\n f.\n\n 765 See J. E., art. Repentance; Claude Montefiore: \u201cRabbinical\n Conceptions of Repentance,\u201d in J. Q. R., Jan. 1904; Schechter,\n _Aspects_, 313-343. The works of Weber (p. 261 f.), Bousset (p. 446\n f.), and Davidson (l. c., 327-338) do not do justice to the Jewish\n teachings.\n\n 766 Ezek. XVIII, 4; Ps. XXXIV, 21; Prov. XIV, 12.\n\n 767 Ezek. XVIII, 32; XXXIII, 11.\n\n 768 Prov. XIII, 21.\n\n 769 Ezek. XVIII, 4.\n\n 770 Lev. I, 4; IV, 26-31.\n\n 771 Ps. XXV, 8.\n\n 772 Yer. Mak. II, 37 d; Pesik. 158 b. See Schechter, l. c., p. 294, note\n 1.\n\n 773 Amos V, 4.\n\n 774 Isa. LV, 7.\n\n 775 Deut. IV, 30; XXX, 2-3.\n\n 776 Amos IV, 6 f.\n\n 777 Hos. VI, 1; XIV, 2 f.\n\n 778 Jer. III, 12-13; IV, 3; 14; XVIII, 11.\n\n 779 Ezek. XVIII, 1-32.\n\n 780 Zech. I, 3.\n\n 781 Mal. III, 7.\n\n 782 Joel II, 12-13.\n\n 783 See Ps. XXXII, 1 f.\n\n 784 Jonah III-IV.\n\n 785 The Hebrew _teshubah_ is translated in Greek _metanoia_, meaning a\n change of mind.\n\n 786 Pes. 119 a; P. d. R. El. XLIII.\n\n 787 Pes. 54 a; Gen, R. I, 5; P. d. R. El. III; Singer\u2019s _Prayerb._ 267\n f.\n\n 788 Shab. 56 a; Ab. Z. 4 b-5 a; Midr. Teh. Ps. XL, 3; LI, 13.\n\n 789 Ter. Sanh. X, 78 c; Sanh. 103 a; Pes. 162; Prayer of Manasseh.\n\n 790 Pesik. 160 a-162; Shab. 56 a, b; Gen. R. XI, 6; XXII, 12-13;\n XXXVIII, 9; XLIX, 6; P. R. El. XX; XLIII; Num. R. XVIII, 6; Ab. d.\n R. N. I, 32; Sanh. 102 b.\n\n 791 Yoma 86 a, b; Pes. R. XLIX.\n\n 792 Mek. Shira 5; Gen. R. XXI, 6; XXX, 4; XXXII, 10; XXXVIII, 14;\n LXXXIV, 18; Ex. R. XII, 1; Num. R. XII, 13; B. Wisdom XI, 23; XII,\n 10, 19.\n\n 793 Sanh. 108; Sibyllines, I, 125-198.\n\n 794 Cant. R. VII, 5, ref. to the name _Hadrach_, Zech. IX, 1.\n\n 795 Weber, l. c., 261 f.; Bousset, l. c., 446 f.; comp. Perles:\n _Bousset._\n\n 796 Gen. R. XXII, 27; comp. Sanh 107 b.\n\n 797 Mek. Yithro I.\n\n 798 Erub. 19 a.\n\n 799 Mid. Teh. Ps. I, 21 f.; IX, 13, 15; XI, 5.\n\n 800 See Maimonides, Bahya, and others on _Teshubah;_ comp. J. E., art.\n Repentance; Tobit XIII, 6; XIV, 6; Philo II, 435.\n\n 801 See Schechter, l. c., 323 f.\n\n 802 Sanh. 99 a, Luke XV, 7. The third Gospel more than the others\n preserved the original Jewish doctrines of the Church.\n\n 803 Job XIX, 25. The Hebrew _Goel_ signifies kinsman as well as redeemer\n and avenger, implying blood-relationship. In Job it means\n vindicator.\n\n 804 Deut. XIV, 1.\n\n 805 Mal. II, 10.\n\n 806 Ps. CIII, 13.\n\n 807 Jer. II, 27.\n\n 808 Hosea II, 1.\n\n 809 See Jer. III, 4.\n\n 810 Jer. XXXI, 9; Deut. XXXII, 7; Isa. LXIII, 16; LXIV, 7; Mal. I, 4; I\n Chron. XXIX, 10.\n\n 811 Yoma VIII, 9.\n\n 812 Sota IX, 15.\n\n 813 See next paragraph, and the art. _Abba_ in J. E.\n\n 814 II Sam. VII, 14.\n\n 815 Ps. LXXXIX, 27-28.\n\n 816 Jubilees I, 24.\n\n 817 Wisdom II, 16; V, 5.\n\n 818 Psalms of Solomon XVII, 27.\n\n 819 Taan. III, 8.\n\n 820 Ber. V, 1.\n\n 821 Midr. Teh. Ps. CXXI, 1.\n\n 822 Mek. Yithro 11.\n\n 823 Sifre Deut. 96; Hosea I, 10.\n\n 824 Ex. IV, 22.\n\n 825 Sifre Deut. 49.\n\n 826 Sifre Deut. 96.\n\n 827 Beza 32 b.\n\n 828 Yeb. 61 a.\n\n 829 Aboth III, 13, quoted above, Chap. XXXIV, par. 6.\n\n_ 830 Sifra Ahare_ 13, p. 86.\n\n 831 Ps. XLII, 3.\n\n 832 Mal. I, 11.\n\n 833 With its _azkarah_, the flame of incense rising in \u201cpyramidal\u201d form,\n generally translated \u201cmemorial,\u201d or \u201cmemorial-part.\u201d Lev. II, 9, 16.\n For sacrifice as means of atonement see Schechter: _Aspects_,\n 295-301.\n\n 834 Amos V, 21-24.\n\n 835 Hosea VI, 6.\n\n 836 Isa. I, 11-18.\n\n 837 Jer. VII, 21-23.\n\n 838 Ps. L, 7-13.\n\n 839 Ps. XL, 7.\n\n 840 I Sam. I, 13-14.\n\n 841 Often mentioned in the Psalms, under such terms as \u201cthe congregation\n of the righteous,\u201d \u201cthe holy ones,\u201d \u201cthe devout ones,\u201d etc.\n\n 842 See I Kings VIII, 48; Dan. VI, 11.\n\n 843 Isa. LVI, 7.\n\n 844 Tamid V, 1; comp. Kohler: Monatsschr., 1893, p. 441.\n\n 845 Sifre Deut. 41: \u201cWhat is meant by, \u2018To serve Him with all your\n heart?\u2019 this is prayer.\u201d\n\n 846 Ber. 26 a.\n\n 847 Ber. 32 b; Midr. to Sam. I, 7.\n\n 848 P. d. R. El. XVI.\n\n 849 R. ha Sh. 17 b.\n\n 850 Meg. 31 b; Yer. Taan. IV, 68 c. But compare Isaac Aboab: _Menorath\n ha Maor_, III, 3 a; Bahya ben Asher: _Kad ha Kemah_, art.\n _Tefillah_.\n\n 851 Jer. VI, 22.\n\n 852 Lev. R. XXII, 5.\n\n_ 853 Cuzari_, II, 25, see note by Cassel; _Moreh_, III, 32; comp.\n Midrash Tadshe 12; I, 177 f.; comp. Hebrews IX-X; _Barnabas_, I, 25.\n S. R. Hirsch in _Horeb_ p. 639 f.\n\n 854 See Philipson: _The Reform Movement in Judaism_ for the various\n views and debates on sacrifice and prayer. I. Elbogen: _D. jued.\n Gottesdienst i. s. geschichtl. Entwicklung_, p. 374 f., 435 f., is\n written in a more conservative spirit and unfavorable to American\n Reform Judaism. Comp. for the traditional liturgy: Dembitz: _Jewish\n Services in the Synagogue and Home_, especially on the Prayerbook,\n p. 233-246, and for America, 497-499.\n\n 855 Ex. XV, 2.\n\n 856 Ps. LXV, 3. See Wm. James: _Varieties of Rel. Experience_, 463-477;\n Foster: _Function of Religion_, 183-185; Abelson: _Jewish\n Mysticism_, p. 15 and elsewhere.\n\n 857 Yoma 53 b.\n\n 858 Yeb. 64 a; Ex. R. XXI, 6.\n\n 859 Ber. 55 a.\n\n 860 Ber. 10 a.\n\n 861 Ber. 7 a.\n\n 862 Taan. III, 8; Ber. V, 6; Babl. 34 b; Yer. 9 d.\n\n 863 Pes. R. XXII, p. 114 b; Midr. Teh. Ps. XCI, 8; see Schechter:\n _Aspects_, 156; 42.\n\n 864 I Sam. II, 31.\n\n 865 Prov. XVI, 32.\n\n 866 Gen. R. LIX, 1; Yeb. 105 a, where R. Johanan ben Zakkai is mentioned\n instead of R. Meir; Albo: _Ikkarim_, IV, 18.\n\n 867 See Steinschneider: _Abraham Ibn Ezra_, 126 ff.\n\n 868 Ps. CXLV, 18.\n\n 869 Ps. CXXXIX, 4.\n\n 870 Ps. LV, 23.\n\n 871 Ber. 29 b; Tos. Ber. III, 7; comp. Albo: _Ikkarim_, IV, 24.\n\n 872 Job XVI, 17; Ex. R. XXII, 4; comp. Schechter: _Aspects_, 228.\n\n 873 Ab. Z. 76.\n\n 874 Ber. 8 a.\n\n 875 Ber. 30 a.\n\n 876 Hab. II, 20.\n\n 877 Sifre Deut. 41.\n\n 878 Isa. LV, 6.\n\n 879 Ps. LXXIII, 25, 28.\n\n 880 Gen. III, 22.\n\n 881 Gen. V, 24; II Kings II, 1.\n\n 882 Isa., XXV, 8.\n\n 883 Isa. XXXVIII, 11; Ps. CXVI, 9.\n\n 884 Ps. XVIII, 5, and J. E., art. Belial.\n\n 885 Ps. CXV, 17; LXXXVIII, 13.\n\n 886 Isa. XXVI, 14, 19; Ps. LXXXVIII, 11; Prov. IX, 18; Job XXVI, 5.\n\n 887 Ps. XLIX, 15.\n\n 888 See Isa. VIII, 19; XXVIII, 15, 18; I Sam. XXIX, 7-14.\n\n 889 Job XVIII, 14; Ps. XLIX, 15.\n\n 890 Ps. XLIX, 16; Job XIV, 13.\n\n 891 Ps. CXXXIX, 8.\n\n 892 Ps. XVI, 10-11; Hosea XIII is a late emendation of the text.\n\n 893 Deut. XXX, 19; Jer. XXI, 8; Ezek. XX, 11; Lev. XVIII, 5; Ps. XXXIV,\n 3; Prov. III, 22; V, 5 f.\n\n 894 Isa. XXXVIII, 10-20.\n\n 895 Ps. LXXIII, 25-28.\n\n 896 Job XIX, 25 f., challenges God to be his vindicator on earth or on\n his tomb, testifying to his righteousness. Resurrection is denied\n directly: VII, 8-21; XIV, 12-22. The whole argument of the book\n excludes the thought.\n\n 897 Ber. 64 a, with ref. to Ps. LXXXIV, 4.\n\n 898 Isa. XXVI, 19. Read, \u201c_thy_ dead instead of _My_ dead.\u201d The\n translation given here differs from the new translation.\n\n 899 I Sam. II, 6.\n\n 900 II Kings IV, 20-37.\n\n 901 Ezek. XXXVII, 1-14.\n\n 902 Dan. XII, 2, and comp. II Macc. VII, 9-36; XII, 43, and the\n Apocalyptic books such as Enoch, Test. Twelve Patriarchs, Jubilees,\n Psalms of Solomon, IV Ezra and Baruch Apocalypse, whereas I Macc.,\n Judith and Tobit, belonging to the Sadducean circles, never allude\n to the future life.\n\n 903 Passages like Ps. IX, 18; XI, 6; XLIX, 15, comp. with Isa. XXXIII,\n 14; LXV, 24; Mal. III, 19, lent themselves especially to this\n conception of Sheol as a fiery place of punishment identified\n afterwards with _Gehinnom_. Jer. VII, 31 f.; XIX, 6. See J. E., art.\n Gehenna, and R. H. Charles, _Hebrew, Jewish and Christian\n Eschatology_, 2d, 1913, p. 75 f., 132, 160 f., 292 f.\n\n 904 Midr. Teh. Ps. XI, 5-6; Erub. 19 a.\n\n 905 Sanh. 90 b; comp. Matt. XXII, 32.\n\n 906 Sanh. X, 1; see J. E., art. Resurrection, and Neumark, art. Ikkarim\n in l. c.\n\n 907 See Singer\u2019s _Prayerb._, 44 f., and Abrahams\u2019 Notes, LIX.\n\n 908 Prov. XII, 28, comp. LXX, and see Kittel: _Bibl. Hebr._, note.\n\n 909 Ps. XLVIII, 15; see Kittel, note; Midr. Teh. to Psalms and note by\n Buber; Yer. Meg. II, 73 b; M. K. 83 b; Lev. R. XI, 9.\n\n 910 See Tylor: _Primitive Culture_, Index, s. v. Soul.\n\n 911 Gen. II, 7.\n\n 912 Eccl. XII, 7.\n\n 913 See J. E., art. Birds as Souls.\n\n 914 Prov. XX, 27.\n\n 915 Ber. 60 b; Singer\u2019s _Prayerb._, 5.\n\n 916 Isa. XXVI, 19; Dan. XII, 2.\n\n 917 Ezek. XXXVII, 1 f.\n\n 918 Eccl. R. XII, 5: J. E., art. Luz.\n\n 919 Judg. I, 26.\n\n 920 Sota 46 b.\n\n 921 Brugsch: _Religion u. Mythologie d. alt. Aegypten_, p. 618, 634.\n\n 922 P. d. R. El. XXXIV.\n\n 923 Ber. 18 b.\n\n 924 Shab. 152 b.\n\n 925 Midr. Teh. Ps. CIII, 1.\n\n 926 Sanh. 39 b.\n\n 927 Nid. 30 b.\n\n 928 B. Wisd. VIII, 19; Slav. Enoch XXII, 4, comp, Bousset, l. c., 313 f.\n\n 929 Philo: Leg. All. III, 38; Migrat. Abrah. 12; De Concupiscentia, 2;\n De Fortitudine, 3; Drummond: _Philo_, I, 318 f.; Bentwich: _Philo_,\n 178, 181; Windleband-Tufts on Plato, 123 f., on Philo, 231, comp.\n Bousset, l. c., 508; Rhode: _Psyche_, 557 f.\n\n_ 930 Emunoth_, Ch. VI; Schmiedl, l. c., 135 f.; Neumark, l. c., I, 536\n f.; Husik, l. c., 376.\n\n 931 Neumark, l. c., 495; Husik, l. c., 108 f.; J. E., art. Bahya.\n\n_ 932 Cuzari_, V, 12. See Cassel, notes; Schmiedl, l. c., 141; Neumark,\n l. c., 561; Husik, l. c., 179 f.\n\n 933 Schmiedl, l. c., 149; Neumark, l. c., 536 f., 551, 558, 573, 586;\n Husik, l. c., 281 f. Comp. Scheyer: _d. Psychol. Syst. d. Maim._;\n Simon, _Aspects of the Hebrew Genius_, 75-78, 86.\n\n_ 934 Or Adonai_, II, 6; Joel: \u201c_Crescas_\u201d; Husik, l. c., 400.\n\n_ 935 Emunah Ramah_, 39; Husik, l. c., 259 b.\n\n_ 936 Emunoth_, VII.\n\n 937 H. _Teshubah_, VIII, 2.\n\n_ 938 Maamar Tehiyyath ha Metim_, see Schmiedl, l. c., 172.\n\n_ 939 In Schaar ha Gemul._\n\n_ 940 Ikkarim_, IV, 35.\n\n_ 941 Zohar_, I, 96 b; _Yalk. Reubeni_ to Deut. XIX, 2; J. E., art.\n Cabala.\n\n 942 See Kayserling: _Moses Mendelssohn_, 148 ff.\n\n 943 Ps. XVII, 15.\n\n 944 See J. Jastrow: _Fact and Fable in Psychology._\n\n 945 Singer\u2019s _Prayerb._, 45. The Rabb. Conf. of Philadelphia in 1869\n passed the resolution: \u201cThe belief in the Resurrection of the Body\n has no religious foundation (in Judaism), and the doctrine of\n Immortality refers to the after-existence of the Soul only,\u201d Comp.\n D. Philipson: l. c., p. 489 and 492.\n\n 946 Jer. XXXII, 18.\n\n 947 Targ. to Ex. XX, 5; Sanh. 27 b.\n\n 948 Deut. XXIV, 16.\n\n 949 Ezek. XVIII, 2.\n\n 950 Ezek. XVIII, 20.\n\n 951 XVIII, 23, 32.\n\n 952 Ex. XVIII, 11; XXI, 23-25; Sota I, 7-9; Tos. Sota III-IV; Sanh. 90\n a; B. Wisdom XVI-XIX; Jubilees IV, 31; II Macc. V, 10; XV, 32.\n\n 953 Prov. XI, 31; XIII, 21.\n\n 954 See especially Sanh. 90 b-92 b, ref. to Ex. VI, 4; Deut. XI, 9; IV,\n 5; XXXI, 16; Isa. XXVI, 19; Dan. XII, 13; Ps. LXXII, 16; also Ex.\n XV, 1; Josh. VIII, 30; and Song of Songs, VII, 10. On the Second\n Death see _Targ._ to Deut. XXXIII, 6; Isa. XIV, 19; LXV, 6; Jer. LI,\n 39; and Revelation XX, 6, 14; XXI, 8.\n\n 955 IV Ezra VII, 31 f.; comp. Baruch Apoc. 42 ff.; Adam et Eva, 42; II\n Sibyll., 220-236; IV Sibyll., 180 f.\n\n 956 Aboth IV, 22.\n\n 957 See Stave, _Ueb. d. Einfluss d. Parsismus a. d._ Judenth., 145 ff.;\n Boecklen: _D. Verwandtschaft d. jued, christl. u. d._ pars.\n _Eschatologie_; Schorr: _He Haluz_, VII-VIII.\n\n 958 Sanb. 91 a, b; Matt. XXII, 31 f.\n\n 959 The parable is found in an Apocryphon ascribed to the prophet\n Ezekiel, see Epiphanius Haeres, LXIV, ed. Dindorf, II, 683 f. and\n ascribed to R. Ishmael, Lev. R. IV, 5; in Sanh. 91 a, b it is given\n in a dialogue with Antonius; in Tanh. Wayithro, ed. Buber, \u00a7 12, it\n is anonymous.\n\n 960 Ps. L, 4.\n\n 961 Isa. LXVI, 24; see Yalkut; Bousset, 308-321; J. E., art.\n Eschatology.\n\n 962 Aboth III, 1, 19, 20; Ber. 28 b.\n\n 963 Aboth IV, 21.\n\n 964 Tos. Sanh. XIII, 3; R. H. 16 b; see J. E., art. Purgatory.\n\n 965 See Testament of Abraham XIV; comp. Kohler in J. Q. R. VII, 587.\n\n 966 T. d. b. El. Zuta XVII, ed. Friedman, p. 23. See note, Kalla R. II.,\n J. E., art. Kaddish, but comp. IV Ezra VII, 102-115.\n\n 967 Tos. Sanh. XIII, 2; Sanh. 105 a; Midr. Teh. Ps. IX, 18: \u201cThe wicked\n shall return to Sheol, all the nations that forget God,\u201d R. Joshua\n taking the last sense as restrictive and R. Eliezer as a\n generalization.\n\n 968 For the banquet of the pious see Aboth. III, 16; Shab. 153 a; Pes.\n R. XLI; comp. Luke XIII, 28; XXII, 30, and parallels. The idea rests\n on Isa. LXV, 13, which is taken literally, and Ps. XXIII, 5; see\n Midr. Teh., ad loc. For the Leviathan and Behemoth see Job XL,\n 15-30; B. B. 74 b-75 a; Enoch LX, 7 f.; IV Ezra VI, 52; Baruch Apoc.\n XXIX, 4; Targ. Ps. CIV, 26; Lev. R. XIII, 3. For the giant bird Ziz\n see Ps. L, 40-41; Targ. and Midr. Teh., ad loc.; Tanh. Beshallah,\n ed. Buber, 24; Jellinek, B. H. III, 76, 80. For the heavenly manna\n Ps. LXXVIII, 24; Joma 75 b; Hag. 12 b; Tanh. Beshallah, ed. Buber,\n 21; Sibyll. Pr\u0153mium 87; II, 318; III, 746; IV Ezra IX, 19. For the\n wine see Ex. R. XXV, 10; Ber. 34 b; Sanh. 99 a; Matt. XXVI, 29;\n comp. also Num. R. XIII, 3 for other fruits of Paradise. For the\n Persian origin of these ideas see _Bundahish_, XIX, 13; XXX, 25. The\n Behemoth corresponds with the primeval ox Hadhayos, whose flesh\n produces the sap of immortality; the giant fish and bird with\n _Bundahish_, XVIII, 5-8; XIX, 16-19; the wine corresponds with the\n Parsee Hom: _Bundahish_, XXX, 25. See Windishman: _Zoroastr. Stud._,\n 92 f., 252 f., and Boeklen, l. c., p. 68.\n\n 969 Shab. 153 a, with ref. to Isa. LXV, 13-14; LXVI, 24; IV Ezra VII,\n 83, 93.\n\n 970 Ber. 17 a.\n\n 971 Ber. 34 b; with ref. to Isa., LXIV, 3.\n\n 972 Ab. Zar. 36 with ref. to Mal. III, 19-22.\n\n 973 See Jellinek, B. H. I, II and III, the Treatise on _Gehinnom_ and\n _Gan Eden_.\n\n_ 974 Emunoth_ VII, IX, and comp. J. Guttman; _Religionsphil. des\n Saadia_, 208 f., 249 f.\n\n 975 See Joel, _Religionsphil. d. Mose b. Maimon_., p. 40.\n\n_ 976 Cuzari_, I, 15; V, 14; _Or Adonai_ III, 4, 2. See Joel: _Crescas_,\n p. 74 f.; Albo: _Ikkarim_, IV, 29-41.\n\n 977 Nahmanides, l. c., last chapter; Manasse b. Israel in _Nishmat\n Chayim_.\n\n 978 Aboth. IV, 2.\n\n 979 Com. to Sanh. XI and _H. Teshubah_, VIII.\n\n 980 Ps. LXXIII, 28.\n\n_ 981 Or Adonai_, II, 55; VI, 1; comp. Joel, l. c., 56-62; comp. Bahya:\n _Hoboth, Halebaboth, Shaar Bitahon_.\n\n 982 See Joel: _Z. Gen. d. Lehre Spinoza_, p. 64.\n\n_ 983 Ikkarim_, IV, 35-38.\n\n 984 Ber. 64 a, with ref. to Ps. LXXXIV, 8; see also Midr. Teh. ad loc.\n\n 985 See J. E., art. Adam, and Jellinek: _Bezelem Elohim_, Sermon IV. The\n term _humanity_ arose among the Stoics. See Reizenstein: _Wesen u.\n Werden d. Humanit\u00e4t_; comp. Schmidt, _Ethik d. Griechen_, II, 324,\n 477; and Zeller, _Griech. Philo._ III, 1, 287, 299. For the\n rabbinical _Berioth_ for humanity see B. Sira, XVI, 16.\n\n 986 Ps. CXXXIX, 16.\n\n 987 Midr. Teh., ad loc.; Pesik. R. XXIII; Gen. R. XXIV, 2; Sanh. 38 b\n after _Seder Olam_ at the close.\n\n 988 Gen. R. VIII, 1.\n\n 989 Eodem; Midr. Teh. to Ps. CXXXIX, 5; Ber. 61 a.\n\n 990 Gen. R. XXIV, 8.\n\n 991 Tos. Ber. VII, 2; Ber. 58 a.\n\n 992 Ber. 6 b; Shab. 30 b; see Rashi (against Bacher: _Ag. Tann._, I,\n 432).\n\n 993 I Sam. II, 2.\n\n 994 Gen. R. LVI, 9.\n\n 995 Isa. LXV, 18; see Yeb. 62 a.\n\n 996 Gen. R. XVII, 2.\n\n 997 For the term _Aguddah Ahath_ in the New Year and Atonement Day\n Prayer, Singer\u2019s _Prayerbook_, p. 239, comp. Gen. R. LXXXVIII, 6,\n and XXXIX, 3.\n\n 998 Isa. XLV, 18.\n\n 999 Yeb. 62 a, b\n\n 1000 Yoma I, 1.\n\n 1001 Prov. XXII, 29.\n\n 1002 Ps. CXXVIII, 2.\n\n 1003 Ber. 8 a.\n\n 1004 Ned. 49 b.\n\n 1005 Keth. V, 5, 59 b.\n\n 1006 Kid. 29 a; comp. R. Simeon b. Yohai, Mek. Beshallah, 56.\n\n 1007 Kid. 82 a.\n\n 1008 Abot. I, 10; II, 2; B. B. 11 a.\n\n 1009 Taan. 11 a.\n\n 1010 Yer. Kid. IV at the close.\n\n 1011 Taan. 23 a.\n\n 1012 Abot. V, 19.\n\n 1013 Prov. XXVII, 17.\n\n 1014 Taan. 7 a.\n\n 1015 See J. E., art. Abraham.\n\n 1016 Abot. IV, 1; B. K. 79 b; Ber. 19 b.\n\n 1017 Sota 14 a.\n\n 1018 Jer. XXIX, 7; comp. Abot. III, 2.\n\n 1019 B. K. 113 a and elsewhere.\n\n 1020 Ber. 58 a.\n\n 1021 Ex. XIX, 4-5.\n\n 1022 Deut. VII, 6-8; X, 15; XIV, 2. Comp. Schechter: _Aspects_, 57 ff.\n\n 1023 See Singer\u2019s _Prayerbook_, 226 f.\n\n 1024 Hos. XI, 1; XII, 10; XIII, 4.\n\n 1025 Jer. II, 3.\n\n 1026 Amos III, 2.\n\n 1027 Isa. XLI, 8 f.; XLII, 6; XLIII, 10; XLIX, 8.\n\n 1028 CV, 7 f., comp. Neh. IX, 7.\n\n 1029 Singer\u2019s _Prayerb._, p. 40.\n\n 1030 Isa. LII, 3-LIII, 12.\n\n 1031 Meg. 16 a.\n\n 1032 Beza 25 b.\n\n 1033 Yeb. 79 a.\n\n 1034 Shab. 88 a.\n\n 1035 Cant. R. IV, 2; Tanh. Tezaveh 1.\n\n 1036 Menah. 53 b with ref. to Jer. XI, 16.\n\n 1037 Sifre to Deut. XIV, 2.\n\n 1038 Deut. VII, 6; XIV, 2.\n\n 1039 Isa. II, 3; Micah IV, 2\u2014passages considered by modern critics to be\n of exilic origin.\n\n 1040 See Bousset, l. c., 60-99.\n\n 1041 Gen. R. to Gen. XII, 4, and see J. E., art. Abraham.\n\n 1042 Pes. 87 b. with ref. to Hosea II, 25.\n\n_ 1043 Cuzari_ IV, 23; Maim. H. Melakim XI, 4.\n\n 1044 See Geiger: Zeitschr. 1868, p. 18 ff.; 1869, 55 ff.\n\n 1045 J. E., art. _Alenu_; Singer\u2019s _Prayerb._, 76 f.\n\n 1046 J. E., art. Kaddish.\n\n 1047 Zech. XIV, 9.\n\n 1048 See Schechter: _Aspects_, 89 f., 93 f.\n\n 1049 Isa. XLIX, 6.\n\n 1050 Isa. LII, 10\n\n 1051 Micah V, 6.\n\n 1052 Judg. VIII, 23.\n\n 1053 I Sam. VIII, 7; XII, 12, 17 f.\n\n 1054 Hos. XIII, 11.\n\n 1055 Isa. IX, 5; XI, 1-10.\n\n 1056 Isa. IV, 2; Jer. XXIII, 5; XXXII, 15; and Zech. III, 8; VI, 12. Here\n Zerubbabel is referred to.\n\n 1057 Isa. XLI, 21; XLIII, 15; XLIV, 6. Comp. XLIII, 22.\n\n 1058 Isa. XLV, 1.\n\n 1059 Isa. XI, 9; Hab. II, 14.\n\n 1060 Isa. VI, 5; XXIV, 23. Comp. Jer. XLVI, 18; XLVIII, 15.\n\n 1061 Zech. XIV, 9; Mal. I, 14.\n\n 1062 Ps. XXII, 29; XCIII, 1; XCV, 99.\n\n 1063 Jer. X, 7. This chapter is post-exilic; comp. Jer. XLVI, 18; XLVIII,\n 15 and I Chron. XXIX, 11.\n\n 1064 Singer\u2019s _Prayerb._, 239.\n\n 1065 Ps. XLVIII, 3.\n\n_ 1066 Cont. Apion_, II, 16, 7.\n\n 1067 Dan. VII, 27.\n\n 1068 See J. E., art. Zealots.\n\n 1069 Shab. 31 a.\n\n 1070 Ps. XXII, 28; LXVII, 3; LXXXVI, 10; CXVII, 1.\n\n 1071 Ps. CV, 15.\n\n 1072 Ps. LXXXVII, 5. See Commentaries and LXX.\n\n 1073 Ruth II, 12. Comp. Lev. R. II, 8.\n\n 1074 See both Enoch books and B. Sira XLIV, 16.\n\n 1075 Sibyll. I, 128-170; Sanh. 108 a.\n\n 1076 Gen. R. XXXIX, 21.\n\n 1077 Sifre Deut. 313, with ref. to Gen. XXIV, 3.\n\n 1078 See Dillmann\u2019s Comm. to Gen. XII, 2; XXII, 18; and Kuenen: _The\n Prophets and Prophecy_, 373, 457.\n\n 1079 Gen. XVII, 5.\n\n 1080 Ezek. XX, 33.\n\n 1081 Sifre, l. c.\n\n 1082 P. D. R. El. XI; Mek. Yithro 6; Lev. R. II, 4.\n\n_ 1083 Sifra_ Behukkothai VIII with ref. to Ezek. XX, 33; Sanh. 105 a.\n\n 1084 Mek. Beshallah X, p. 52.\n\n 1085 Tanh. Lek leka 6.\n\n 1086 Tobit XIII, 1-11; Sibyll. III, 47, 76 b.\n\n 1087 Ps. CXVII; CXVIII, 4. See chapter LVI.\n\n 1088 Singer\u2019s _Prayerb._, 48.\n\n 1089 Mek. Amalek at close; Cant. R. II, 28; IV Ezra VI, 9-10.\n\n 1090 B. Wisdom V, 16; Sibyll. III, 76 b.\n\n_ 1091 Sifra_ Kedoshim at close; Sifre Deut. 323.\n\n_ 1092 Cuzari_ IV, 23; Maim. _H. Melakim_ XI, 4.\n\n 1093 Maim.: Commentary to Eduyoth at close.\n\n 1094 Pes. R. XXXIV, p. 158 ref. to Zeph. III, 8. See Friedman\u2019s note.\n\n 1095 Zech. IV, 6.\n\n 1096 Tos. Sanh. XIII, 2.\n\n 1097 P. 374-378.\n\n 1098 Isa. LXVI, 22.\n\n 1099 Part II, p. 332.\n\n 1100 Isa. LXI, 6.\n\n 1101 Ex. XIX, 22 f.\n\n 1102 Lev. XXI, 6; XXII, 2.\n\n 1103 Lev. VIII, 2, 8.\n\n 1104 Num. XVIII, 7.\n\n 1105 M. K. 28 b.\n\n 1106 Ezek. XL-XLVIII.\n\n 1107 Deut. X, 16. Comp. Jer. IX, 24.\n\n 1108 Gen. XVII, 9.\n\n 1109 Lev. XXV, 1-24.\n\n 1110 Deut. XIV, 2-11; Lev. XI. Comp. Ezek. XLIV, 31, and Judg. XIII, 4.\n\n 1111 Num. XV, 40.\n\n 1112 See J. E., art. Pharisees.\n\n 1113 II Macc. II, 17.\n\n 1114 Aboth. I, 1.\n\n 1115 See Perles: _Bousset_, 68, 89.\n\n 1116 Aristeas 139-152.\n\n 1117 Ned. 20 a.\n\n 1118 See Schechter, _Studies_, I, 233 ff. I. Abrahams in J. Q. R. XI, 62;\n b ff., and Claude Montefiore, J. Q. R. XIII, 161-217.\n\n 1119 Lev. XXII, 32.\n\n_ 1120 Sifra Emor._ IX.\n\n_ 1121 Yesode ha Torah_ V. Comp. Lazarus: _Ethics_, 29, 184.\n\n 1122 Isa. XLIII, 12.\n\n 1123 Pesik. 102 b.\n\n 1124 Perles, l. c., 68 f.\n\n 1125 Yer. B. M. II, 8 c.\n\n_ 1126 Sifra_ Kedoshim 1.\n\n 1127 Mak. 23 b.\n\n 1128 Ps. XXIV, 3-4; XV, 1-5.\n\n 1129 Deut. XXXIII, 4.\n\n 1130 Num. XI, 29.\n\n 1131 Jer. XXXI, 34.\n\n 1132 Isa. LIV, 13.\n\n 1133 Deut. IV, 6.\n\n 1134 Isa. XLII, 4.\n\n 1135 Isa. II, 3; Micah IV, 2.\n\n 1136 See Guedemann: _Das Judenthum_, 67 f.; _Jued. Apologetik_, 12b;\n Schechter: _Studies_, I, 233 f., and _Aspects_, I, 116 f.\n\n 1137 II Kings XXII, 8 f.\n\n 1138 Neh. VIII-X.\n\n 1139 See Gunkel: _Israel u. Babylonien_; Jeremias: _Moses u. Hammurabi_;\n H. Grimme: _D. Gesetz Chammurabi\u2019s u. Moses\u2019_; George Cohen: _D.\n Gesetze Hammurabi\u2019s_; D. M. Mueller: _D. Gesetz Hammurabi\u2019s u. d.\n mosaische Gesetzgebung_.\n\n 1140 See Chapter LIX.\n\n 1141 Sota 14 a.\n\n 1142 Yer. Kid. IV, 1; 65 c.\n\n_ 1143 Sifra_ Ahare Moth 13.\n\n 1144 Deut. VI, 7; XI, 19; XXX, 14; Ex. XIII, 9.\n\n 1145 Deut. XXXI, 12.\n\n 1146 See Elbogen: _D. Jued. Gottesdienst_, 174 f.\n\n 1147 Isa. LI, 4, 7-8.\n\n 1148 Ps. XIX, 7-10.\n\n 1149 Aboth I, 2.\n\n 1150 Mek. Beshallah 45 b, note by Friedman; Yalkut Yithro 286.\n\n 1151 B. Sira XXIV, 8-10; comp. Bousset, l. c., 136 f.\n\n 1152 See Josephus: _Cont. Apion._ II, 36 f., 39; Aristobulus in Eusebius:\n Prep. Ev. XIII, 121, 413; _Cuzari_, I, 63 f.; II, 66; comp. Cassel,\n l. c. ad loc.\n\n 1153 Josephus, l. c., I, 22; Gutschmidt: _Kleine Schriften_, IV, 578; Th.\n Reinach: _Textes Relatifs au Judaism_, 11-13.\n\n 1154 J. E., art. Adonai.\n\n 1155 Ps. CXV, 11; CXVIII, 4; comp. Bernays: _Ges. Abh._, II, 71;\n Schuerer, l. c., III, 124 f.\n\n 1156 Shab. 88 b.; Ex. R. V, 9; Tanh. Shemoth, ed. Buber, 22; Midr. Teh.\n Ps. LXVIII, 6; Acts II, 6; Spitta: _Apostelgeschichte_, 27,\n referring to Philo II, 295.\n\n 1157 Sifre Deut. XXXIII, 2; XXVII, 8; Sota 35 b.\n\n 1158 Shab., 88 a, b.\n\n 1159 Aboth I, 12.\n\n 1160 J. E., art. Zealots.\n\n 1161 Ber. 61 b.\n\n 1162 Weber, l. c., 46-56; he fails completely to grasp this spirit.\n\n 1163 Song of Songs, V, 2.\n\n 1164 Aboth. III, 21.\n\n 1165 Deut. XXXIII, 18. See Gen. R. XCIX, 11.\n\n 1166 Gen. L, 20.\n\n 1167 See J. E., art. \u201cCommerce\u201d; American Encyclopedia, art. Jewish\n Commerce; Publ. Am. Hist. Soc. X, 47; Schulman in _Judaean\n Addresses_, II, 77 ff., and Lecky: _Rationalism in Europe_, II, 272.\n\n 1168 See Saadia: _Emunoth_, III, 17, quoted by Schechter: _Aspects_, 105.\n\n 1169 Isa. II, 2; Micah IV, 1; see Pesik 144 b; Midr. Teh. Ps. XXXVI, 6;\n LXXXVII, 3.\n\n 1170 Ps. XLIV, 12-25.\n\n 1171 Ezek. XXXIX, 23-26.\n\n 1172 Lev. XXVI, 40-42.\n\n 1173 I Kings VIII, 47-50.\n\n 1174 Ps. CXIX, 92.\n\n 1175 Pesik. 139 b.\n\n 1176 Ezek. XVIII, 2.\n\n 1177 Isa. XL, 2.\n\n 1178 Job I, 8; II, 3; XLII, 7, 8.\n\n 1179 Isa. XLII, 1 f.; XLIX, 1; L, 4; LII, 13-LIII, 12.\n\n 1180 See Ibn Ezra, quoting Saadia; Ewald and Giesebrecht, commentaries;\n Sellin: _Serubabel_, 96 f., 144 f.; also Davidson, l. c., p.\n 356-398.\n\n 1181 Isa. LII, 13-LIII, 12. In LIII, 9, we should read \u201cthe evil-doers\u201d\n instead of \u201cthe rich\u201d by a slight amendment of the text.\n\n 1182 Isa. L, 6.\n\n 1183 Isa. XLII, 4.\n\n 1184 Isa. XLIX, 1-6.\n\n 1185 Job XLII, 10-17.\n\n 1186 The disappointment is especially voiced in Ps. LXXX, 16 f.; LXXIX,\n 40-46.\n\n 1187 See Targum and Abravanel to Isa. LII, 13; comp. Pes. R.\n XXXVI-XXXVII; Sanh. 98 b.\n\n 1188 He is called Taeb \u201cMoses redivivus,\u201d after Deut. XVIII, 18. Merk, E.\n _Samarit. Fragment ueb. d. Taeb_. See Bousset, l. c., 258; J. E.,\n art. Samaritans.\n\n 1189 Suk. 52 a; Jellinek: B. H. III, 141 f; Schuerer, l. c., II, 535.\n\n 1190 J. E., art. Messiah.\n\n 1191 Contra Celsum I, 155.\n\n 1192 See commentaries of Cheyne, Duhm, Giesebrecht, and others.\n\n 1193 Isa. L, 8-9.\n\n 1194 Comp. Pesik. 131 b; Ex. R. II, 7.\n\n 1195 Zech. II, 12. See Geiger: _Urschrift_, 324, as to the Soferic\n Emendation.\n\n 1196 Pesik. 76 a; Eccl. R. III, 19; Lev. R. XXVII, 5.\n\n 1197 Yoma 23 a, referring to Jud. V, 31.\n\n 1198 See Gressmann: _Urspr. d. israel. u. jued. Eschatologie_,\u2014an\n instructive work, but full of unsubstantiated assertions, thus\n failing to do justice to the creative genius of the Jewish prophets.\n\n 1199 Isa. XI, 1-8.\n\n 1200 Isa. IX, 5; the note in the new Jewish translation takes the words\n in a different sense.\n\n 1201 Jer. XXIII, 5; XXXIII, 15; Zech. III, 8; VI, 12; see Sellin. l. c.\n Compare Ps. LXXX, 16 f.; LXXXIV, 10; LXXXIX, 39, 52; CXXX, 10; see\n Ewald\u2019s commentary.\n\n 1202 Ezek. XXXVIII-XXXIX; Sibyll. III, 663; J. E., art. Gog u. Magog;\n Bousset, l. c., 231 f.\n\n 1203 For the prince of peace, see, for example, Zech. IX, 9.\n\n 1204 See Bousset, l. c., 255-261.\n\n 1205 See Targum to Isa. XI, 4, where the older Mss. read Arimalyus, later\n on corrupted into Armillus. See Bousset, l. c., 589.\n\n 1206 Dan. II; VII; IX; see J. E., art. Eschatology.\n\n 1207 Sota IX, 15; Enoch XCIX, 4; C, 1; Matt. XXIV, 8; Bousset, l. c.,\n 286.\n\n 1208 Mal. III, 23; B. Sira XLVIII, 10 f.; Sibyll. II, 187.\n\n 1209 Isa. XXVII, 13; B. Sira XXXVI, 13; Tobit XIII, 13; Enoch XC, 32; II\n Macc. II, 18; Bousset, l. c., 271.\n\n 1210 See Chap. LII.\n\n 1211 IV Ezra VIII, 28.\n\n 1212 Sanh. 96 f.; J. E., art. Eschatology; Bousset, l. c.\n\n 1213 Sanh. 97 a, b, 99.\n\n 1214 Midr. Teh. Ps. CXLVI, 4; see Buber\u2019s note.\n\n 1215 Ket. 111-112; comp. Iren\u00e6us: Adver. Haeres. V, 32.\n\n 1216 See Ekah. R. II, 2; J. E., art. Bar Kokba.\n\n 1217 Pesik. 144 a, b.\n\n 1218 Ber. 34 b.\n\n 1219 Sanh. 97 b.\n\n 1220 Sanh. 97 a.\n\n 1221 Sanh. 98 b.\n\n 1222 Commentary to San. X; Yad, H. _Melakim_, XI-XII; _H. Teshubah_\n VIII-IX.\n\n 1223 Notes of R. A. B. D. to Maimuni.\n\n_ 1224 Ikkarim_, IV, 42.\n\n 1225 See Philipson: _The Reform Movement in Judaism_, 246 f.\n\n 1226 See Einhorn: Sinai I, 133; Leopold Stein: _Schrift des Lebens_, 320,\n 336. For the term Messiah comp. Ps. LV, 15; Hab. III, 13; also Ps.\n XXVIII, 8; LXXXIV, 10; LXXXIX, 39, 52.\n\n 1227 See J. E., art. Resurrection.\n\n 1228 Deut. XXXII, 39; see Sifre ad loc.\n\n 1229 I Sam. II, 6; see Midr. Sh\u2019muel, ad loc.\n\n 1230 Isa. XXVI, 19; Dan. XII, 2.\n\n 1231 Hosea VI, 1-2; comp. XIII, 14.\n\n 1232 Ezek. XXXVII, 1-14.\n\n 1233 Isa. XXV, 8.\n\n 1234 Isa. XXVI, 19. Instead of \u201cmy dead bodies\u201d in the new Bible\n translation, read \u201cthy dead,\u201d and instead of \u201clight\u201d translate\n _oroth_, after II Kings IV, 39, \u201cherb,\u201d which means \u201cdew of\n revival\u201d; the last is also a rabbinic term.\n\n 1235 Dan. XII, 2.\n\n 1236 See II Macc. VII, 9-36; XII, 43; XIV, 46; Sibyll. II, 47; Midr. Teh.\n Ps. XVII, 13.\n\n 1237 See Joel IV, 2; Erub. 19 a, ref. to Isa. XXXI., 9; Enoch XXVIII, 1.\n\n 1238 Isa. LX, 21.\n\n 1239 Sanh. X, 1.\n\n 1240 Kid. I, 10; Matt. V, 5, ref. to Ps. XXXVII, 11; Enoch V, 7.\n\n 1241 Ezek. XXVI, 20.\n\n 1242 Isa. XLII, 5.\n\n 1243 Keth. 111 a.\n\n 1244 Ps. CXVI, 9; Yer. Keth. XII, 35 b; Pesik. R, I, 2 b.\n\n 1245 Ber. 15 b; Alphabet d. R. Akiba in Jellinek, B. H. III, 31; Targum\n Yer. to Ex. XX, 15; I Cor. XV, 52.\n\n 1246 Keth. l. c.\n\n 1247 Ex. IV, 22.\n\n 1248 Isa. XIX, 25.\n\n 1249 Isa. XLII, 4; XLV, 23; LI, 5; Zeph. III, 9; Zech. VIII, 22; XIV, 9.\n\n 1250 Lev. XX, 26; Deut. XX, 16-18; comp. Gen. R. II, 4; III, 10.\n\n 1251 Weber. l. c., 57-79.\n\n 1252 Gen. XIV, 13; XXI, 32.\n\n 1253 I Kings XX, 31.\n\n 1254 Amos I-II; Isa. XXIX-XXXIII; Jer. XXV f.; Hab. I.\n\n 1255 Gen. XVIII, 25.\n\n 1256 Gen. XX, 3.\n\n 1257 Job XXXI.\n\n 1258 Kid. 31 a.\n\n 1259 Tos. Sanh. XIII, 2; B. B. 10 b.\n\n 1260 See Lazarus: _Ethics_, 49 and appendix.\n\n 1261 Ex. XXIII, 32.\n\n 1262 Deut. VII, 2; XX, 16 f.\n\n 1263 Shab. 27 b; Jubil. XXII, 16.\n\n 1264 Isa. LX, 12; LXIII, 6; LXVI, 14 f.; Zech. XIV, 2 f.; Joel IV, 9-19;\n Jer. X, 25; Ps. IX, 16, 18, 20; X, 17.\n\n 1265 Tos. Sanh. XIII, 2.\n\n 1266 Jonah III-IV.\n\n 1267 Isa. LXVI, 19-21.\n\n 1268 Zech. IX, 1; Cant. R. VII, 10.\n\n 1269 Sanh. 108 a; Sibyll. I, 129 f.\n\n 1270 B. B. 15 b; Seder Olam R. XXI.\n\n 1271 Mek. Yithro V; Ab. Z. 2 b-3 a.\n\n 1272 Deut. IV, 19; XXIX, 25; Jer. X, 16; B. Sira XVIII, 17; comp.\n Bousset, l. c., 350.\n\n 1273 Jubil. XI, 3-5; XIX, 20; Enoch XV; XIX; XCIX, 7; see Bousset, l. c.,\n 350-351.\n\n 1274 Yeb. 98 a, ref. to Ezek. XXIII, 20; Ab. Z., l. c. In this sense we\n must take the Talmudic passage: \u201cIsrael are really men, not the\n heathen,\u201d Yeb. 61 a; B. M. 114 b; B. B. 16 b; whereas the passage,\n Lev. XVIII, 5, \u201cwhich man doth to live thereby,\u201d is declared to\n include all who observe the laws of humanity, _Sifra_ eodem; Midr.\n Teh. Ps. I, 1-2.\n\n 1275 Lazarus, l. c., 49.\n\n 1276 Tos. Sanh. XIII, 2.\n\n 1277 Yer. R. Sh. I, 57 a.\n\n 1278 Ezek. XXVIII, 10; XXXI, 18; XXXII, 19-32. Possibly the prophet in\n speaking of _arelim_ had in mind the Babylonian _Arallu_, \u201cthe\n nether-world\u201d; see Ex. R. XIX, 5; Gen. R. XL; VIII, 7; Tanh. Lek\n Leka, ed. Buber, 27.\n\n 1279 Tos. Sanh. XIII, 4-5; Rosh ha Shana, 17 a.\n\n 1280 B. B. 10 b; A. d. R. N. IV.\n\n 1281 Suk. 55 b; Pesik. 193 b; Philo; Vita Mosis, 2 f; De Special; I, 3;\n II, 104, 227. 238.\n\n_ 1282 Sifra_, Ahare Moth 13.\n\n 1283 Gen. R. L; LXV, 16; Ruth R. I, 8; J. E., art. \u0152nomaos.\n\n 1284 J. E. art. Antoninus in the Talmud; Kraus: _Antoninus_.\n\n 1285 Ab. Z. 30 a.\n\n 1286 Deut. VII, 3; Sanh. 57 a-59 b.\n\n 1287 H. Melakim VIII, 9-10.\n\n 1288 H. Shemitta we Yobel XIII, 13.\n\n 1289 Mal. I. 11.\n\n 1290 Ex. XXII, 26; Philo II, 166; Josephus: _Ant._, IV, 8, 10; _Con.\n Apio._, II, 34; comp. Kohler: \u201cThe Halakic Portions in Josephus\u2019\n Antiquities,\u201d in H. U. C. Monthly III, 117.\n\n 1291 See Meg. 16 a; J. E., art. Aristotle; Neumark, l. c., Index:\n Aristoteles, Plato, Plotin; comp. Bahya: _Hoboth ha Lebaboth_, and\n other medieval philosophic works.\n\n 1292 Deut. IV, 37.\n\n 1293 Ex. XXXIII, 12; Lev. XXVI, 42; Ex. R. XLIV, 7-8; Lev. R. XXXVI, 2-5.\n\n 1294 Cant. R. I, 5.\n\n 1295 Isa. LIV, 10; Shab. 55 a; comp. S. Hirsch: \u201cThe Doctrine of Original\n Virtue\u201d in Jew. Lit. Annual, 1905; Schechter, l. c., 170 f.\n\n 1296 Ex. XXII, 20; XXIII, 9.\n\n 1297 Deut. X, 18-19.\n\n 1298 Lev. XIV, 22.\n\n 1299 Gen. XXIII, 4; Lev. XX, 35. On the term _Ger_ see W. R. Smith: _The\n Religion of the Semites_, 75 ff.; Bertholet: _Die Stellung d.\n Israeliten und Juden zu den Fremden_, 28, 178; Schuerer, l. c., III,\n 150-188; Encyc. Biblica, art. Stranger and Sojourner; Cheyne,\n _Bampton Lectures_, 1889, p. 429. Commerce between the Phoenicians\n and Greeks was protected by the Greek god of the stranger (Zeus\n Xenios); see Ihering: _D. Gastfreundschaft im Alterthum, Deutsche\n Rundschau_, 1887, showing how the Phoenicians developed the _Ger_\n idea in the direction of international commerce, just as the Jews\n developed it toward international religion; M. J. Kohler: \u201cRight of\n Asylum\u201d in Am. Law Review, LI, p. 381.\n\n 1300 Ex. XX, 10.\n\n 1301 Lev. XVI, 29; XVII, 8-15; XVIII, 26; XXIV, 16-29.\n\n 1302 Ex. XII, 48; see Yeb., 46 a-47 b; Mas. Gerim I-III. The opinion of\n Bertholet and Schuerer concerning the semi-proselyte or _Ger Toshab_\n is contradicted by both the Book of Jubilees and the Talmudic\n sources, as will be shown below.\n\n 1303 Jer. XVI, 19.\n\n 1304 Zech. VIII, 21-23.\n\n 1305 Isa. XIV, 1.\n\n 1306 Ps. XXII, 30; LXVII, 3; LXVIII, 30 f; LXXXVII, 4 f.\n\n 1307 II. Chron. II, 16; XXX, 25.\n\n 1308 Ps. CXV, 11; CXVIII, 4; CXXXV, 20; comp. LXVII, 8; CII, 16; Job I,\n 1; Tobit LXIV, 6; Sibyll. III, 572, 756; Acts X, 2; XXI, 13; V, 26\n f.; XVI, 44; XVII, 4; XVIII, 7; Midr. Teh. Ps. XXII, 29; Lev. III,\n 2; Mek. to Ex. XXII, 20; see Bernays: Ges. Abh., II, 74.\n\n 1309 Tos. Ab. Z. IX, 4; Sanh. 56 b-57; Gen. R. XXXIV, 7; Jubil. VII, 20\n f.; Sibyll. III, 38, 762. For the thirty commandments, see Yer. Ab.\n Z. II, 40 c; Midr. Teh. Ps. II. 5; Gen. R. XCVIII, 9; J. Q. R.,\n 1894, p. 259. Comp. also Pseudo-Phocylides in Bernays\u2019 _Ges. Abh._,\n I, 291 ff.; Seeberg: _D. beiden Wege u. d. Aposteldecret_, p. 25.\n Klein: _Der aelteste christl. Katechismus_; J. E., art.\n Commandments.\n\n 1310 See Schuerer, l. c., 165, 175; Harnack, _D. Mission u. Ausbreitung\n d. Christentums_, chapter I.\n\n 1311 Ant. XVI, 7.\n\n 1312 Gen. R. XXVIII, 5; Cant. R. I, 4; see Matt. XXIII, 15; Jellinek, B.\n H. VI, Introd., p. XLVI.\n\n 1313 II Kings C, 1-15; see LXX to verse 14; Sanh 96 b.\n\n 1314 See Sota, 12 b; Sibyll. IV, 164; comp. Gen. R. II, 5; J. E., art.\n Baptism and Birth, New; Enc. Religion and Ethics, art. Baptism,\n Jewish.\n\n 1315 See J. E., art. Asenath, and the passages quoted there.\n\n 1316 Sifre and Targum to Deut. XXIII, 16-19.\n\n 1317 Tos. Negaim VI, 2; Mas. Gerim III.\n\n 1318 Philo, De Monarchia, I, 7.\n\n 1319 Ps, XV, 1-2; see Cheyne\u2019s Commentary.\n\n 1320 The article _ha Zedek_ seems to point to Jerusalem, called \u201cthe\n city\u201d or \u201cdwelling place of righteousness\u201d (Zedek). See Isa. I, 21;\n Jer. XXXI, 23; L, 7. Comp. \u201cGates of righteousness\u201d (Zedek) for the\n Temple gates, in Ps. CXVIII, 19, and the ancient legendary hero of\n Jerusalem, _Malki-Zedek_, Gen. XIV, 18; Josephus, J. W. VI, 10;\n Epis. Heb. VII, 10; and _Adoni Zedek_, first king of Jerusalem,\n Josh. X, 3.\n\n 1321 Sifre and Targum to Deut. XXXIII, 19.\n\n 1322 Singer\u2019s _Prayerb._ p. 48.\n\n 1323 See Mek. Mishpatim XVIII; comp. A. d. R. N. XXXVI ref. to Isa. XLIV,\n 5.\n\n 1324 Arak. 29 a.\n\n 1325 Vita 25.\n\n 1326 J. W. II, 20, 2.\n\n 1327 Josephus: Ant. XIII, 9, 1; 11, 3; XVIII, 3, 5; XX, 8, 11; Mek. Bo\n XV: Beluria (Fulvia or Valeria); Schuerer, III, 176; _Gemeindeverf.\n v. Juden in Rome_; Graetz: _D. juedisch, Proselyten im Roemerreich_;\n Radin: _Jews among Greeks and Romans_, p. 389. See also Crooks: _The\n Jewish Rate in Ancient and Roman History._\n\n 1328 Josephus: Ant. XX, 2-4; Yoma III, 10; Yoma 37 a.; Suk. 2 b; B. B. 11\n a; Gen. R. XLVI, 8.\n\n 1329 Midrash Tadshe in Jellinek: B. H. III, 111; Epstein: Jued.\n _Alierthumskunde_, XLIII.\n\n 1330 See J. E., art. Asenath.\n\n 1331 Comp. Sifre Num. 178.\n\n 1332 I Chron. IV, 18; Meg. 13 a.\n\n 1333 Meg. 15 b.\n\n 1334 Philo: De Nobilitate, 6; II, 443.\n\n 1335 Ruth II, 12.\n\n 1336 Ab. d. R. N., ed. Schechter, 53 f.; Shab. 31 a; Lev. R. II, 8.\n\n 1337 See Bertholet, l. c., 285-287.\n\n 1338 Ab. d. R. N., l. c.\n\n 1339 Mek. to Ex. XVIII, 27.\n\n 1340 Gen. R. XXXIX, 14; Yeb. 22 a; comp. Pes. VIII, 8.\n\n 1341 Yeb. 46 a; comp. Josephus: Ant. XX, 2-4.\n\n 1342 Shab. 31 a.\n\n 1343 Lev, R. II, 8.\n\n 1344 Gen. R. LXX, 5; B. M. 59 b.\n\n 1345 Mekilta, l. c.; comp. Ab. d. R. N. XXXVI, ed. Schechter, 107.\n\n 1346 Midr. Teh. Ps. CXLVI, 9; Num. R. VIII, 2.\n\n 1347 Prov. VIII, 17; Num. R., l. c.\n\n 1348 Schuerer, l. c., III, 4; Radin, l. c.\n\n 1349 Yeb. 24 b; Yer. Kid., IV, 65 b.\n\n 1350 Apion, II, 10, 3.\n\n 1351 Yeb. 47 a; comp. Mas. Gerim I.\n\n 1352 See J. E., art. Didache and Klein, l. c.\n\n 1353 Git. 56 b; Ab. Z. 10 b; on Clemens see Graetz: H. J. II, 387-389;\n but see literature in Schuerer, l. c., III, 169.\n\n 1354 Git. 56 b-57.\n\n 1355 Ex. R. XIX, 4; comp. Midr. Teh. Ps. LXXXVII, 4, ref. to I Sam. II,\n 36 and Isa. LXVI, 2; comp. Bacher: _Agada d. Palest. Amorder_., III,\n 45, 363.\n\n 1356 Yeb. 47 b; 109 b; Kid. 70 b, ref. Isa. XIV to Lev. XIV, 56.\n\n 1357 Ex. R. XIX, 5.\n\n 1358 See Bacher, l. c., II, 115-118.\n\n 1359 Num. R. VIII, 1.\n\n 1360 Gen. R. LXX, 5.\n\n 1361 Ab. Z. 3 b.\n\n 1362 B. M. 59 b.\n\n 1363 Midr. Teh. Ps. XXII, 34; here also a later Haggadist removes the\n reference to the half-proselytes. See Buber, l. c.; Yer. Meg. I, 72\n b.\n\n 1364 Num. R. VIII, 10.\n\n 1365 Shab. 31 a.\n\n 1366 See com. to Ps. LXXXVII, and LXX version.\n\n 1367 Yearb. C. C. A. R., 1891, 1892, 1895.\n\n 1368 Isa. XXVI, 2.\n\n 1369 Philo, De Penitentia, 2.\n\n 1370 See J. E., art. Apostasy and Apostates.\n\n 1371 See J. E., art. Apologetic and Polemical Literature.\n\n 1372 Ber. 28 a; Singer\u2019s _Prayerb._ 48.\n\n 1373 Cant. R. I. 6.\n\n 1374 Deut. XXV, 3 and Sifre ad loc.; Sanh. 44 a.\n\n_ 1375 Sifra_ Wayikra 2.\n\n 1376 Sifre Num. 112; R. H., 17 a; Tos. Sanh. XIII, 5.\n\n 1377 Zech. XIV, 8-9.\n\n_ 1378 Cusari_, IV, 23; Maim.: H. Melakim XI, 41; _Responsa_, 58;\n Nahmanides: _Derashah_, ed. Jellinek, 5; see Rashi and Tosafot to\n Ab. Z. 2 a, 57 b; Sanh. 63 b.\n\n 1379 Solomon ben Adret; _Responsa_, 302; Yore Deah CXLVIII, 12; Jacob\n Emden, Comm. to Abot. V, 17; comp. Chwolson: _D. Blutanklage_,\n 64-79.\n\n 1380 Isaac ben Sheshet\u2019s _Responsa_, 119.\n\n 1381 Yer. Shab. XIV, 14 d; Ab. Z. II, 40 d; Sota, 47 a; Sanh. 103 a;\n Eccl. R. I, 24-25.\n\n 1382 See J. E., art. Christianity; Ebionites; Minim; and comp. the\n various Church Histories.\n\n 1383 See J. E., art. Saul of Tarsus.\n\n 1384 Sanh. 97 a.\n\n 1385 Lev. XIII, 13: _Kullo happak laben_, instead of _laban_.\n\n 1386 Ab. d. R. N. XXXIV; Lev. R. XIII, 4 ref. to Ps. LXXX, 14; Midr. Teh.\n Ps., l. c.\n\n 1387 H. Akkum IX, 4.\n\n 1388 Tosaf. Sanh. 63 b; Isserles Sh. Ar. Orah Hayim, 156; comp. J. E.\n art. Sanhedrin, Napoleonic.\n\n 1389 Edom, the name for Rome since the time of the Idumean Herod, became\n the name for the Church of Rome, while _Yavan_ = Greek was the name\n given to the Greek Church.\n\n 1390 On Ishmael and Edom see Steinschneider: _Polemisch. u. Apologet.\n Literatur_, 256-273; on Mohammed, eodem, 302-388.\n\n 1391 See Wuensche: \u201cUrspr. d. Parabel v. d. drei Ringen\u201d in\n _Lessing-Mendelssohn Gedenkbuch_, Leipzig, 1879; comp.\n Steinschneider, l. c., 37, 317, 319; _Hebr. Bibliogr._ IV, 79; XII,\n 21; Dunlop-Liebrecht: _Gesch. d. Prosadichtung_, p. 221, note to 294\n f.\n\n 1392 See Schreiner: _D. juengst. Urteile u. d. Judenth._, 3-5.\n\n_ 1393 Shebet Yehudah_, ed. Wiener, p. 107. See Steinschneider: Heb.\n Bibl., l. c.\n\n 1394 Deut. XXXIII, 2; see Steinschneider: \u201cPol. u. Apol. Lit.,\u201d 317 f.\n\n 1395 Tos. Sanh. XIII, 2; Sanh. 105 a; Maimonides: H. Teshubah III, 5.\n\n 1396 Matt. III, 2; Luke III, 3; Josephus: Ant. XVIII, 5, 2; see J. E.,\n art. John the Baptist. Perhaps John was identical with Hanan, \u201cthe\n hidden one,\u201d a popular saint called \u201cfather\u201d by the people, and\n believed to be a descendant of Moses, a grandson of Onias the\n rainmaker, and a rain-invoking saint himself. See Taan. 23 b; Tanh.\n Waera, ed. Buber, II, 37.\n\n 1397 Matt. III, 33; Mark I, 7; Luke III, 21; John I, 29-40.\n\n 1398 Matt. IV, 12; XIV, 10.\n\n 1399 J. E., art. Christianity; Jesus; New Testament; Simon Kaifa. Among\n the Gospels, that of Luke has the oldest records, rather than Mark.\n See also Spitta: _D. Synoptische Grundschrift_.\n\n 1400 See J. E., art. John the Baptist.\n\n 1401 Matt. XXI, 12, and parallels; comp. Yer. Taan. IV, 8; Tos. Menah.\n XIII, 21.\n\n 1402 Matt. XXVII, 37-42, and parallels.\n\n 1403 John XX; the latter part of the Gospel of John belonged originally\n to Matthew.\n\n 1404 Matt. XIV, 24 f.; XVII, 1; see Wellhausen: Comm.\n\n 1405 See J. E., art. Ebionites.\n\n 1406 See J. E., art. Apostles.\n\n 1407 J. E., art. Didache and Didascalia; Klein, l. c.\n\n 1408 Acts XV, 5-29; comp. R. Seeberg: _Das Aposteldecret; Didache u. d.\n Urchristenheit_.\n\n 1409 J. E., art. Saul of Tarsus.\n\n 1410 Paul\u2019s opposition to the law includes the moral law, and even the\n Decalogue. See Romans VII-VIII; X, 4; XIV; I Cor. VI, 1-3, 15; VII,\n 31; VIII; II Cor. III, 3.\n\n 1411 See J. E., art. Cross.\n\n 1412 Luke VI, 20-49; comp. with Matt. V-VII; XXIII, 15-36. See Claude\n Montefiore, _The Synoptic Gospels_, I and II; G. Friedlander,\n _Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount_; Kohler: \u201cD.\n Naechstenliebe im Judenth.,\u201d _Judaica_, Berlin, 1912.\n\n 1413 Matt. V, 17-18.\n\n 1414 See J. E., and Enc. Rel. and Ethics, art. Pharisees; Lauterbach,\n \u201cThe Sad. and Phar.,\u201d in _Stud. in Jew. Lit._, Berlin, 1913;\n Herford: _Pharisaism_; Wuensche: _Neue Beitr. z. Erl\u00e4uterung d.\n Evangelien_.\n\n 1415 See J. E., art. Mohammed; Islam; and the works of Muir, W. Robertson\n Smith, Hirschfeld; of Geiger, Weil, Sprenger, von Kremer, Noeldeke,\n Grimme, Dozy, and above all Goldziher, on the Koran, Mohammed and\n Islam; also Enc. Religion and Ethics, VIII, 871-907.\n\n 1416 See Draper, _Conflict of Religion with Science_; _Intellectual\n Development of Europe_; Lecky, _History of Rationalism_; Andrew D.\n White: _Warfare between Religion and Science_; Krauskopf: _Jews and\n Moors in Spain_.\n\n 1417 Zech. XIV, 6-9.\n\n 1418 Isa. LXVI, 20.\n\n 1419 Isa. XXVIII, 16.\n\n 1420 Ex. XIX, 6; Num. XXIII, 9; Deut. VII, 2-6; Isa. LXI, 6; 9; Maim. H.\n Issure Biah XII, 1; Sh. A. Eben ha Ezer XVI, 1; Einhorn in _Jewish\n Times_ 1876, against Sam. Hirsch; Samuel Schulman in Y. B. C. C. A.\n R. 1909, comp. D. Philipson, l. c. Index s. v. Intermarriage; J. E.,\n art. Intermarriage; also Mielziner: _The Jewish Law of Marriage and\n Divorce_, p. 45-54, where the opinions of L. Philippson, Geiger,\n Aub, Einhorn and I. M. Wise are quoted.\n\n 1421 Lazarus, l. c., \u00a7 159.\n\n 1422 See Kohler: \u201cOrigin a. Function of Ceremonies in Judaism,\u201d in Y. B.\n C. C. of Am. R., 1907. Rosenau: _Jewish Ceremonies, Institutions a.\n Customs_, 1912.\n\n 1423 See art. Synagogue, in various encyclopedias; Enelow: _The Synagogue\n in Modern Life_; Schuerer, l. c., II, 429; Bousset, l. c., 197 ff.\n\n 1424 See Chapter LVI above; J. E., art. Proselyte.\n\n 1425 See J. E., art. Bar Mizwah and Confirmation.\n\n 1426 Gen. XVII, 10-14.\n\n 1427 Singer\u2019s _Prayerb._, p. 305.\n\n 1428 Ex. IV, 25; see commentaries; Ebers: _\u00c6gypten_, B. M. I, 183.\n\n 1429 Josephus: Ant. XX, 2,4; Shab. 130 b, 133 b, 156 a; Men. 42 a; Ab. Z.\n 26 b; comp. Gen. R. XLVI, 9.\n\n 1430 Ab. Z. 27 a.\n\n 1431 Ex. IV, 25; Josh. V, 2; comp. Tylor: _Early History of Mankind_,\n 217-222; J. E. and Encyc. of Rel. and Ethics, art. Circumcision;\n Ploss: _Knabenbeschneidung_, p. 11.\n\n 1432 Gen. XVII, 10-14; comp. Deut. X, 16; Jer. IX, 25; Claude Montefiore:\n Hibbert Lectures, 229, 337.\n\n 1433 I Macc. I, 15, 48, 60; Josephus: Ant. XII, 5, 1; Aboth III, 11; Tos.\n Shab. XV, 9; Yer. Peah I, 16 b; Gen. R. XLVI, 9; Jubil. XV, 26 f.\n\n 1434 Yer. Shab. XIX, 6; Yeb. 71 b.\n\n 1435 Gen. R. XLVIII, 7; Tanh. Lek Leka, ed. Buber, 27; Singer\u2019s\n _Prayerb._, 304, after Tos. Ber. VI, 12, 13; Shab. 137 b.\n\n 1436 P. d. R. El. XIX.\n\n 1437 Ploss: _Geschicht. u. Ethnol. ue. Knabenbeschneidung_, 1844; Encyc.\n Rel. and Ethics, art. Circumcision.\n\n 1438 Zunz: _Ges. Schr._ II, 197; comp. _Rabbin Gutachlen ue. d.\n Beschneidung_, 1844; Frankel: Zeitsch., 1844, p. 66-67.\n\n 1439 See J. E., art. Circumcision; Sam. Cohn: _Gesch. d. Beschneidung b.\n d. Juden_ (Hebrew), Cracaw, 1903, for the extensive literature.\n\n 1440 Philo II, 210; Josephus: Con. Apion. II, 13; Saadia: _Emunoth_, III,\n 10; Maimonides: _Moreh_, III, 49; Michaelis: _Mosaisches Recht_, IV,\n 184-186.\n\n 1441 Maimonides, l. c., III, 48; Samuel ben Meir to Lev. XI, 3;\n Michaelis, l. c., IV, 202.\n\n 1442 Lev. XI; Deut. XIV, 3-21; Ex. XXII, 30; Lev. VII, 23; XVII, 9 f.;\n see Kalisch\u2019s: commentary to Lev. vol. II, 2-189; J. E., art.\n Dietary Laws.\n\n 1443 Lev. XX, 24-26, which belongs to Lev. XI, 1-47; comp. Deut. XIV,\n 3-21.\n\n 1444 See Ezek. XLIV, 31; IV, 14; Jud. XIII, 7, 14. The law in Ex. XXII,\n 30, \u201cYe shall be holy men unto Me, therefore ye shall not eat any\n flesh that is torn of beasts in the field,\u201d seems to have been\n originally only for priests and other holy men.\n\n 1445 See _Laws of Manu_, V, 7; 11-20 in _Sacred Books of the East_, XXV,\n 171 f.; comp. II, 64; XIV, 38-48; 74; 184; _Bundahish_, XIV; S. B.\n E. V, 47; Chwolson: _Die Szabier_, II, 7; 102; Porphyrius: _De\n Abstinentia_, IV, 7; Sommer, _Bibl. Abh._ 271-322; J. E., l. c.,\n 599.\n\n 1446 Ex. XIX, 6.\n\n 1447 Gen. VII, 2, 8.\n\n 1448 II Macc. VI, 18; VII, 41.\n\n 1449 Aristeas, 144-170.\n\n 1450 Sifra to Lev. XX, 26; Tanh. to Lev. XI, 2.\n\n 1451 Shab. 17 b; Ab. Z. 36 b, 38 a, 8 a; Sanh. 104 a; P. d. R. El. XXIX.\n\n_ 1452 Moreh_, III, 25; see also Morris Joseph, l. c., 180-189.\n\n 1453 For the orthodox view, see S. R. Hirsch: _Horeb_, Chap. LXVIII; M.\n Friedlander: _The Jewish Religion_, 237; for the reform, Einhorn:\n _Sinai_, 1859; Kohler: _Jewish Times_, 1872; Geiger: _Ges. Schr._ I,\n 253 f.\n\n 1454 Deut. VI, 8-9; XI, 18-20; Num. XV, 38-39.\n\n 1455 Comp. Prov. III, 3; Samuel ben Meir to Ex. XIII, 9.\n\n 1456 Ex. XIII, 9 and commentaries.\n\n 1457 Stanley: _Hist. of the Jewish Church_, I, 561; Peterman: _Reisen im\n Orient_, I, 237.\n\n 1458 Curtiss: _Ursemitische Religion_, Chap. XX-XXI; Kohler:\n _Monatsschrift_, 1893, p. 445, note.\n\n 1459 Ber. 6 a, 14 b, 23 a, b; Tos. Ber. VII, 25; Midr. Teh. to Ps. VI, 1;\n Yer. Peah I, 15 d; Targum Song of Songs, VIII, 3; Pes. III b;\n Schorr: _HeHalutz_, VII, 56-57; Baentsch: Comm. to Num. XV, 37; also\n Schuerer, G. V. II, 483-486.\n\n 1460 Cant. R. III, 11; Sifre Deut. 43; M. K. 16 b.\n\n 1461 Kohler, l. c.: comp. Schechter: _Studies_, I, 249; Morris Joseph, l.\n c., p. 178, where he quotes Maimonides H. Tefillin IV, 25.\n\n 1462 See art. Sabbath in various encyclopedias and the Babel-Bibel\n controversies; Zimmern and Schrader: K. A. T., II, 592 f.; Jastrow:\n American Journal of Theology, 1898, p. 315-352.\n\n 1463 Ex. XX, 8-11; XVI, 23-29; XXXV, 2-3; XXXI, 13; comp. Jer. XVIII,\n 21-27; Neh. XIII, 15-18.\n\n 1464 Deut. V, 12-15; Ex. XXIII, 12; XXXIV, 21; comp. Isa. LVIII, 13.\n\n 1465 See Jubilees II, 23-30; L, 6; Geiger, _Zeitsch._, 1868, 116;\n _Nachgel. Schr._, III, 286 f.; V, 142 f.; Schechter: _Document of a\n Jewish Sect_, I; XXV; XLVIII-L; Halevi: _The Commandments of the\n Sabbath for the Falashas_, 1902; Harkavy L. K., II, 69 f., for the\n Karaites.\n\n 1466 Shab. VII, 2, 70 a; Mek. Wayakhel.\n\n 1467 Mek. Ki Thisla I, comp. Mark II. 2 f.\n\n 1468 Isa. LVIII; Shab. 118 a, b; Mek. Yithro VII; Pes, R. XXIII, p. 121.\n\n 1469 II Kings IV, 23.\n\n 1470 Philo II, 137, 166, 281, 631.\n\n 1471 See Schechter: _Studies_, I, 249 f.; Morris Joseph, l. c., 202-214.\n\n 1472 See David Philipson: _Reform Movement in Judaism_, 275-302, 503-508;\n E. G. Hirsch in J. E., art. Sabbath; Sabbath and Sunday.\n\n 1473 See Schaff-Herzog Encyc., art. Sunday.\n\n 1474 See I Sam. XX, 5-27, where the two new-moon days are spoken of as\n approaching, proving the use of the Babylonian month of four weeks\n of seven days each, and two new-moon days.\n\n 1475 II Kings IV, 23; Prov. VII, 20; comp. Ps. LXXXI, 4, _Kese_.\n\n 1476 Ex. XX, 11; Gen. II, 2-3.\n\n 1477 II Kings IV, 23; Isa. I, 13; LXVI, 23.\n\n 1478 Num. XXVIII, 11 f.\n\n 1479 Mek. Bo I; Pes. R. XV; P. d. R. El. LI; Sanh. 42 a; Singer\u2019s\n _Prayerb._, 292.\n\n 1480 Isa. XXX, 26; LX, 20.\n\n 1481 Ex. XII, 11-27; Deut, XVI, 1; see the commentaries, also Clay\n Trumbull: _The Threshold Covenant_; Curtiss, l. c.\n\n 1482 In Deut. the Passover sacrifice was the first-born of the flock, see\n Deut. XVI, 2, comp. with Ex. XIII, 2-16, and the celebration took\n place on the night of the new moon. The Priestly Code observed it on\n the full moon, with a lamb instead of the first-born sheep or\n cattle. Ex. XII, 3 f.; Lev, XXIII, 5 (the Holiness Code); Josh. V,\n 10.\n\n 1483 About the watch-night, see Jubilees XLVIII, 5; Pesah. 109 b.\n\n 1484 See Einhorn\u2019s _Prayerbook_, 485; Holdheim: _Prediglen_, 1853, II,\n 189, referring to Jer. XXIII, 7-8; Tos. Ber. I, 12; Ber. 12 b.\n\n 1485 Ex. XXIII, 16; XXXIV, 22; Deut. XVI, 9; Lev. XXIII, 10-17.\n\n 1486 Ex. R. XXXI, 17, with reference to Ex. XIX, 1; Jubilees VI, 17-21.\n\n 1487 See J. E., art. Confirmation.\n\n 1488 Deut. XVI, 13; Lev. XXIII, 34-43; comp. I Kings VIII, 65; Ezek. XLV,\n 23; R. h. Sh. I, 2.\n\n 1489 See Ex. XII, 37; XIII, 20; Num. XXXIII, 5, and comp. Mek. Bo 14;\n _Sifra_ Emor XVII.\n\n 1490 Zech. XIV, 16-19; comp. Is. XII, 3; Suk. V, 1-4; Tos. Suk. IV, 1-9;\n _Piyut_ to the Sukkoth festival.\n\n 1491 Suk. I-IV; Talmud and Codes.\n\n 1492 Ibn Yarchi: _Manhig_, H. Suk. 53-60; T. O. Ch. DCLXIX; J. E., art.\n Simhath Torah.\n\n 1493 Pesik. 193 b; Suk. 55 b; Philo: De Victimis, I, 2, II, 238-239.\n\n 1494 Lev. XXIII, 24-32; comp. Neh. VIII, 1-18.\n\n 1495 J. E., art. New Year\u2019s Day; Life, Book of.\n\n 1496 R. h. Sh. IV, 6-7; Tos. R. h. Sh. IV, 4-9; R. h. Sh. 27 a; Singer\u2019s\n _Prayerb._, 247-254, and Abrahams Ann. CXCV, 111 f.; and _Union\n Prayer Book_, II, 70-75.\n\n 1497 Lev. XVI, 2-34; comp. Ezek. XLV, 18-20.\n\n 1498 Yoma VI; Kalish\u2019s commentary to Lev. XVI; Taan. IV, 8; comp. Jud.\n XXI, 21; see Morgenstern in Journal Oriental Soc., 1917, and J.Q.R.\n 1917, p. 94.\n\n 1499 Yoma IV-VI; comp. Lev. R. XXI, 11; V, 1.\n\n 1500 Num. XIV, 20; XV, 26.\n\n 1501 Lev. XVI, 30; _Sifra_ Ahare VI; Yoma 30 b; Yer. Yoma V, 42 c.\n\n 1502 Yoma VIII, 9.\n\n 1503 P. d. R. El. XLVI; Taan. 30 b; B. B. 121 a; S. Olam R. VI; T. d. El.\n Zutta IV; Ex. R. LI, 4. Jubilees XXXIV, 18-19 connects the Day of\n Atonement with the repentance of Joseph\u2019s brethren.\n\n 1504 Yoma, l. c.\n\n 1505 Comp. above, Chapter XXXIX.\n\n 1506 Josephus J. W. VI, 4, 5; Meg. Taan. V; Taan. IV, 4; Taan. 12 a, 29\n ab. J. E., art. Ab, Ninth of; see also Pes. R. XXVI-XXXIII; Pesik.\n 110 b-148 a.\n\n 1507 Zech. IV, 6; J. E., art. Hanukka; Maccabees.\n\n 1508 Meg. IV, 5; 18 a, 21 b; J. E., art. Purim; Esther; Sifre to Deut.\n 296.\n\n 1509 Ber. 13 a.\n\n 1510 Deut. IV, 6.\n\n 1511 See Zunz: _Gottesdienstliche Vortraege_.\n\n 1512 Yoma 66 b; comp. R. Eliezer\u2019s other dictum, Sota III, 4.\n\n 1513 Num. XII, 2.\n\n 1514 See Geiger\u2019s _Zeitschr._, 1836, 1 f., 354; 1839, 333 f.\n\n 1515 Graetz, _H. J._ III, 244 f.; L. Loew: _Ges. Sch._ III, 57.\n\n 1516 See Landsberg in J. E., art. Confirmation; L. Loew: _Lebensalter_,\n 17.\n\n 1517 See his Introduction.\n\n 1518 Comp. Schechter: _Studies_, II, 148 f., 202 f.\n\n 1519 Deut. XXIX, 28.\n\n 1520 Deut. XXX, 11-14.\n\n 1521 Isa. LVI, 7.\n\n 1522 Zech. XIV, 9.\n\n_ 1523 Cuzari_, I, 103; II, 12.\n\n 1524 Sifre to Deut. VI, 5.\n\n 1525 Hab. II, 14.\n\n 1526 Singer\u2019s _Prayerb._, 8.\n\n 1527 Lev. XIX, 2; comp. on the whole E. G. Hirsch in J. E., art. Ethics.\n\n 1528 See Alenu in Singer\u2019s _Prayerb._, 67 f.; _Union Prayerbook_, I, 48,\n 104 f.\n\n 1529 Shab. 119 b.\n\n 1530 Deut. XI, 22; Sifre Deut. 49.\n\n 1531 Deut. XIII, 5; Sota 14 a; see Schechter: _Aspects_, 200-203.\n\n 1532 Aboth. I, 3; IV, 2; E. G. Hirsch in J. E., art Ethics. See Toy:\n _Judaism and Christianity_, p. 260.\n\n 1533 Deut. X, 19.\n\n 1534 Micah VI, 8.\n\n 1535 Ps. XXIV, 3-4.\n\n 1536 See J. E., art. Essenes, Hasidim and Test. Twelve Patriarchs: Iss.\n V, 2; VII, 6; Dan. V, 3.\n\n 1537 Lev. XIX, 14, 32; _Sifra_ ad loc. B. M. 58 b.\n\n 1538 Shab. 31 a; comp. J. E., art. Didache and Klein, l. c.\n\n 1539 Tanh. Shemini, ed. Buber, \u00a7 12; comp. Lauterbach, _Ethics of\n Halakah_, p. 12.\n\n 1540 Aboth. I, 14.\n\n 1541 Sanh. IV, 5.\n\n 1542 Yer. Kid. IV, 66 d.\n\n 1543 Taan. 22 b; Ned. 10 a.\n\n 1544 Lev. R. XXXIV, 3, ref. to Prov. XI, 17.\n\n 1545 Sanh. 18 a, 19 a.\n\n 1546 Keth. V, 5.\n\n 1547 Prov. XVI, 32; Shab. 105 b; Ned. 22 b; Sota 4 b; Ber. 43 b.\n\n 1548 Ps. LXXXI, 10.\n\n 1549 See above, chapter L, par. 6.\n\n 1550 Semakot II; R. Eleazar in B. K. 91 b with reference to Gen. IX, 5.\n Prof. Lauterbach referred me to _Shebet Mussar_, XX, obviously a\n quotation from some lost Midrash.\n\n 1551 Job XLII, 7.\n\n 1552 Lev. XXV, 42, 55; Tos. B. K. VII, 5; Kid. 22 d.\n\n 1553 Targ. to Lev. XIX, 18; Tobit IV, 15; Philo II, 236.\n\n 1554 Ex. XXIII, 4-5; Prov. XXIV, 17; XXV, 21.\n\n 1555 Ab. d R. N., ed. Schechter, 53, 60.\n\n 1556 Eodem, 64.\n\n 1557 Aboth. I, 12.\n\n 1558 Philo II, 284 f.\n\n 1559 Deut. X, 18-19.\n\n 1560 Isa. XXVI, 9.\n\n 1561 Isa. XXXIII, 15.\n\n_ 1562 Sifra_ Behar IV; B. M. 58 b.\n\n 1563 Tos. B. K. VII, 8; B. M. III, 27; B. B. 88 a-90 b; Makk. 24 a.\n\n 1564 Sanh. 24 b.\n\n 1565 B. B. 90 b.\n\n 1566 Lev. XIX, 36; B. M. 49 a.\n\n 1567 Deut. XVI, 20.\n\n_ 1568 Kad ha Kemah_, s. v. _Gezelah_.\n\n 1569 Ps. XV, 3.\n\n 1570 Pes. 118 a.\n\n 1571 Shab. 97 a; Yoma 19 b.\n\n 1572 Mek. Mishpatim 82; B. K. 79 b; B. M. 58 b-59 a; Lauterbach l. c.\n 20-21.\n\n 1573 Peah V, 6; Prov. XXIII, 10.\n\n 1574 Ex. XXIII, 24.\n\n 1575 Tanh. Mishpatim. ed. Buber, 8.\n\n 1576 Lev. XXV, 35; Sifra ad loc.\n\n 1577 Isa. V, 8.\n\n 1578 Amos VIII, 4.\n\n 1579 Prov. XI, 26.\n\n 1580 Deut. XXI, 1-8.\n\n 1581 Sifre ad loc.; Sota IX, 7.\n\n 1582 Matt. VI, 25-28, V, 39; comp. Cor. VI, 6-7.\n\n 1583 Yeb. 62 a, 63 a.\n\n 1584 Prov. XXII, 29; Ned. 49 b.\n\n 1585 Ber. 8 a, ref. to Ps. CXXVIII, 2.\n\n 1586 Keth. 50 a.\n\n 1587 Morris Joseph in _Religious Systems of the World_, 1892, p. 701.\n\n 1588 Deut. I, 17; see Schmiedl: _D. Lehre v. Kampf um\u2019s Recht_, 1875.\n\n 1589 Ps. XXXVII, 11; Shab. 88 b.\n\n 1590 Ex. XXIII, 5; Deut. XXV, 4; Prov. XII, 10; Git. 62 a.\n\n 1591 Aboth. I, 12; IV, 4, 12; Taan. 20 b.\n\n 1592 Matt. V. 17-30.\n\n 1593 Job XXXI, 1; Pes. R. XXIV; Lev. R. XXIII, 12; Ber. 12 b; Nid. 13 a.\n\n 1594 Shab. 33 a, referring to Isa. IX, 17; Ben Sira XXIII, 13; Test.\n Twelve Patriarchs, _passim_.\n\n 1595 Deut. XXIII, 14.\n\n 1596 Deut. XVI, 11; 14 f.; Shab. 118 a; Pes. R. XXIII; Meg. 16 b; Shab.\n 30 b; Ber. 31 a; comp. M. Lazarus, l. c., 254-261.\n\n 1597 Taan. 22 a.\n\n 1598 See Lazarus, l. c., 99.\n\n 1599 Ber. 64 a, refer. to Ps. LXXXIV, 8; comp. Lazarus, l. c., p. 280.","title":"Jewish Theology, Systematically and Historically Considered","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":163728}