THE THIRTEEN PRINCIPLES OF OUR CREED.

The main source of our creed is the Bible, and among the Biblical books, chiefly the Pentateuch (‏תורה‎). In these books we find many truths taught by God Himself, or by His inspired messengers, and they form the substance of our creed. It matters little how we arrange them, how we collect them into groups, and subdivide these again, provided we believe in them implicitly. In the Bible they are not arranged systematically; they are intermingled with, and are contained implicitly in, the history and the laws that form the subject-matter of the Scriptures; it is the observance of those laws which constitutes the best evidence of the belief seated in the heart. No declaration or recital of a creed is commanded in the Pentateuch; no tribunal is appointed for inquiring whether the belief of a man is right or wrong; no punishment is inflicted or threatened for want of belief. It became, however, necessary to formulate the truths taught in the Bible, when disputes arose as to their meaning and to their validity. The Mishnah, therefore, declares certain opinions as un-Jewish and contrary to the teaching of the Divine Word. Later on, when controversies multiplied between the various sections of the Jewish nation, as well as between Jews and Christians and Jews and Mohammedans, it was found most important to settle the form and arrangement of our beliefs. Moses Maimonides, the great religious philosopher, taught, in his Commentary on the Mishnah, thirteen principles of faith, which found general acceptance among the Jews, and are known as the Thirteen Principles. They have found their way into the Prayer-book in two different forms, one in prose and one in poetry. Maimonides, in commending them to the reader, says: “Read them again and again and study them well, and let not your heart entice you to believe that you have comprehended their full meaning after having read them a few times; you would then be in a great error, for I have not written down what occurred to my mind at first thought. I first thoroughly studied and examined what I was going to write, compared the various doctrines, the correct ones and the incorrect ones, and when I arrived at what we ought to accept as our creed, I was able to prove it by arguments and reasoning.” The thirteen articles as put forth by Maimonides, and called by him principles and foundations of our religion, are the following:—

1. The first principle: The belief in the existence of the Creator; that is, the belief that there exists a Being who requires no other cause for His existence, but is Himself the cause of all beings.

2. The second principle: The belief in the Unity of God; that is, the belief that the Being who is the cause of everything in existence is One; not like the unity of a group or class, composed of a certain number of individuals, or the unity of one individual consisting of various constituent elements, or the unity of one simple thing which is divisible ad infinitum, but as a unity the like of which does not exist.

3. The third principle: The belief in the Incorporeality of God; that is, the belief that this One Creator has neither bodily form nor substance, that He is not a force contained in a body, and that no corporeal quality or action can be attributed to Him.

4. The fourth principle: The belief in the Eternity of God; that is, the belief that God alone is without a beginning, whilst no other being is without a beginning.

5. The fifth principle: The belief that the Creator alone is to be worshipped, and no other being, whether angel, star, or ought else, all these being themselves creatures.

6. The sixth principle: The belief in Prophecy; that is, the belief that there have been men endowed with extraordinary moral and intellectual powers, by which they were enabled to reach a degree and kind of knowledge unattainable to others.

7. The seventh principle: The belief that our teacher Moses was the greatest of all prophets, both those before him and those after him.

8. The eighth principle: The belief in the Divine origin of the Law; the belief that the whole Pentateuch was communicated to Moses by God, both the precepts and the historical accounts contained therein.

9. The ninth principle: The belief in the integrity of the Law; that both the written and the oral Law are of Divine origin, and that nothing may be added to it or taken from it.

10. The tenth principle: The belief that God knows and notices the deeds and thoughts of man.

11. The eleventh principle: The belief that God rewards those who perform the commandments of His Law, and punishes those who transgress them.

12. The twelfth principle: The belief that Messiah will come at some future time, which it is impossible for us to determine; that he will be of the house of David, and will be endowed with extraordinary wisdom and power.

13. The thirteenth principle: The belief in the revival of the dead, or the immortality of the soul.

These thirteen principles (‏שלשה עשר עקרים‎) may be divided into three groups, according to their relation to the three principles:—1. Existence of God. 2. Revelation. 3. Reward and punishment. The first group includes the first five principles, the second the next four, and the third the remaining four. In this order they will now be considered.

1. Existence of God ‏מציאות הבורא‎.

The notion of the existence of God, of an invisible power which exercises its influence in everything that is going on in nature, is widespread, and common to almost the whole human race. It is found among all civilised nations and many uncivilised tribes. The existence of God may be regarded as an innate idea, which we possess from our earliest days. This is the origin of Natural Religion. Thinkers of all ages and nations have attempted to confirm this innate idea by convincing arguments. Prophets and divine poets have frequently directed the attention of those whom they addressed to the marvels of nature in order to inspire them with the idea of an All-wise and All-powerful Creator.

“Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these? Who is He who bringeth them forth by number? All of them He calleth by name, by the greatness of His might, and for that He is strong in power, not one is lacking” (Isa. xl. 26). “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handywork” (Ps. xix. 2).

The regularity in the rising and setting of the heavenly bodies, which enables us to foretell the exact time and duration of an eclipse of the sun or the moon, is certainly a strong argument for the belief that there is a mighty and wise Creator who fixed the laws in accordance with which these luminaries move.

“Beautiful are the luminaries which our God has created. He has formed them with knowledge, reason, and understanding; He endowed them with power and strength to rule in the midst of the world. Full of splendour and beaming with light, they illumine the whole world; they rejoice when they rise, they are glad when they set, doing in reverence the will of their Master” (Sabbath Morning Service).

A similar regularity we notice when looking on the face of the earth. The various seasons of the year, each with its peculiar aspect and influence, the sequence of day and night at regular intervals, the gradual and systematic development of vegetable and animal life—all point forcibly to the fact that these things do not owe their existence to chance, but to the will of an Almighty and All-wise Creator.

Again, if we consider the structure of a single plant, or of a single animal, we find that every one of the members and parts of which it is composed has its peculiar function or purpose in the economy of the whole plant or the whole animal. Let one of these component parts refuse its function or cease to fulfil its purpose and the whole is disorganised. Certainly there must be a Being who makes the different members of an organism co-operate for the development and advantage of the whole. The idea of purpose which regulates this co-operation cannot have originated in the parts nor in the whole, but in the conception of Him by whose Will these were created.

“The finger of God” is further recognised in the important events of the life of the individual as well as in the history of whole nations. We are frequently reminded of the lesson, “The heart of man deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his step” (Prov. xvi. 9). “Salvation is the Lord’s, and on Thy people it is incumbent to bless Thee” (Ps. iii. 9).

Another argument in support of the belief in the existence of God is taken from the moral consciousness which every human being possesses. This points to the existence of a higher Being, perfect in goodness, as the origin and cause of the moral consciousness in our own heart.

These and similar arguments are employed to strengthen and purify our belief in God. The question, however, arises, are these arguments alone sufficient to convince us? Are they strong enough to resist the attacks of scepticism?

On examining them thoroughly we shall find them of excellent service to the believer. His belief is strengthened against many doubts by which he may be assailed; and scepticism will be kept at bay by these arguments. But of themselves and unsupported they may not always suffice to establish belief in God; and if they carry conviction with them for the moment, we are not sure whether fresh arguments of opponents might not again unsettle the mind. Another method was therefore chosen by the Almighty, by which certainty is attained, and a sure guide is given for our moral and religious life. It is Revelation. Of this we shall speak later on.

The principal forms of religion or worship that sprang from the natural belief in God are Polytheism, Pantheism, Atheism, Theism, and Deism.

1. The first form of Divine worship of which history and archæology give us information is Polytheism. The creating and ruling power of some invisible Being was noticed everywhere. Every manifestation of such influence was ascribed to its peculiar deity, which was worshipped according to the peculiar conception of the deity in the mind of the individual person, family, or nation. This is chiefly the kind of idolatry mentioned in the Bible and combated by the prophets.

A very general object of worship were the stars. Rabbi Jehudah ha-Levi, in Kuzari iv. 1, in trying to explain the origin of this practice, says as follows:—“The spheres of the sun and the moon do not move in the same way. A separate cause or god was therefore assumed for each, and people did not think that there was a higher force on which all these causes depended.” The ancient monuments and the treasures stored up in our museums show how great was the variety of forms which idolatry took, and to how great an extent people adhered, and still adhere, to this kind of worship. But there have been thinkers and philosophers even among the idolatrous nations who sought a unity in the construction and working of the universe, and early arrived at the idea of a First Cause as the sole source of all that exists.

2. The fact that the influence of the Divine power makes itself perceptible to the observing eye of man everywhere produced another kind of human error: Pantheism (All-God). Modern Pantheism dates from Spinoza; but long before Spinoza, when the secret forces at work in the changes noticed by us in all material objects were recognised as properties inherent in the substance of things, these forces were considered as the sole independent causes of the existing universe, and the combination of these forces, called Nature, was considered to be the First Cause, or God. A modification of this theory is contained in the philosophy of Spinoza. According to this great philosopher’s system, the universe in its entirety has the attributes of the Deity: there exists nothing but the Substance (God), its attributes, and the various ways in which these attributes become perceptible to man. Spinoza tried to defend himself from the reproach of describing God as corporeal, but he did not succeed. The attribute of extension or space which God possesses, according to Spinoza, is only conceivable in relation to corporeal things. The philosophy of Spinoza is in this dilemma: either God is corporeal, or the corporeal world does not exist. Both assumptions are equally absurd. It is true, in one of his letters he complains that he has been misrepresented, as if he believed God to consist of a certain corporeal mass. But we cannot help assuming the existence of a certain corporeal mass, and if this is not God, we must distinguish in our mind God and something that is not God, contrary to the fundamental doctrine of Pantheism. Besides, there are many incongruities and improbabilities involved in this theory. It has no foundation for a moral consciousness. The wicked and the good are alike inseparable from God. They both result with necessity from the attributes of God, and they cannot be otherwise than they actually are. If we, by the consideration that injury done to us by our fellow-man was not done by that person alone, but by a series of predetermined necessary causes, may be induced to conquer hatred against the apparent cause of our injury, we may equally be induced by the same reasoning to consider the kindness and benefits of our friends not worthy of gratitude, believing that they were compelled to act in this manner, and could not act otherwise.

3. Pantheism, by teaching All in One and One in All, is opposed to the theory of man’s responsibility to a higher Being, denies the existence of God in the ordinary sense of the word, and is, in its relation to true religion, equal to atheism.

In the Bible atheism is stigmatised as the source of all evils. Thus the patriarch Abraham suspected the people of Gerar, that there was “no fear of God” in the place, and was afraid “they might slay him” (Gen. xx. 11); whilst Joseph persuaded his brothers to have confidence in him by the assertion, “I fear God” (Ib. xlii. 18). The first instance of an atheist we meet in Pharaoh, king of Egypt, when he defiantly said, “I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go” (Exod. v. 2). Another form of atheism is warned against in the words of Moses: “Lest thou sayest in thine heart, My strength and the power of my hand has got for me all this wealth” (Deut. viii. 17); and “Lest they say, Our hand is high, and it is not the Lord that hath done all this” (Ib. xxxii. 27). The prophets likewise rebuke the people for want of belief in God. In the Psalms, the crimes and evil designs of oppressors are traced to godlessness. “The wicked says in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. xiv. 1). But this atheism of the Bible is not a theoretical or dogmatic one; it is not the result of thought, or of deep inquiry into the causes of things, but merely the voice of an evil inclination which tempts man to act contrary to the command of God, and assures him of immunity, under the impression that his actions are not watched by a higher authority. In post-Biblical literature we meet with the phrase, ‏לית דִּין ולית דַּיָּן‎ “There is no judgment, and there is no judge,” as the basis of atheism.

4. Although the conviction of man’s responsibility to a higher authority is the essential element in the belief in God, yet the notion of godlessness was so intimately connected with crime and wickedness, that those who rejected the authority and mastership of the Deity refused to be called godless or atheists. Many philosophers retained the name “God” (theos, deus) for their “First Cause” of the universe, although it is deprived of the chief attributes of God. Thus we have as the principal religious theories resulting from philosophical investigations, Theism and Deism. Literally these two terms denote, Theory of God, or Belief in God; the one word being derived from the Greek theos, the other from the Latin deus, both meaning “God.”

There is, however, an essential difference between the two theories. Theism and Deism have this in common, that both assume a spiritual power, a divine being, as the cause and source of everything that exists. They differ in this: to Theism this power is immanent in us and the things round us; Deism considers this power as separate from the things. Revelation or prophecy is altogether denied by the Deists, whilst the Theists would accept it after their own fashion and rationalise it.

All these various systems of religion have this in common, that they attempt to remove from religion everything that cannot be comprehended by human reason. But all attempts to substitute human reason for Divine authority have failed. A limit has been set to human reason, and that cannot be overcome. In every system of religion—the natural and the rational included—there is a mystic element, which may be enveloped in a mist of phrases, but remains unexplained. Whether we call the Creator and Ruler of the universe God, Deus, or Theos, His relation to the universe, and to man in particular, cannot be determined by the laws which determine the natural phenomena in the universe, created by His Will.

What is our conception of the Deity? The fundamental idea, from which all our notions concerning God are derived, and which we have in common with all other believers in God, is that He is the First Cause, the Creator of the universe. This idea expressed in the term ‏הבורא יתברך שמו‎ forms the basis of our creed. It is the Creator that is described in it. Seven of the articles begin, “I believe with a perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name,” &c.

We do not use the term “First Cause,” because it is too narrow; it only expresses part of the truth, not the whole of it. By “First Cause” some understand the cause of the gradual development of the primitive matter into the innumerable variety of things contained in the universe; the development of the original chaos into system and order. It is true that the Creator is the cause of all this; but He is more than this: He is the cause of the primitive matter, and of the original chaos. For He has created the world out of nothing. The first verse of the Bible teaches us creation from nothing (creatio ex nihilo): “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. i. 1); that is, the whole universe. It is true that there were men who explained the meaning of the Hebrew root ‏ברא‎ in a different manner, and desired to assign to it the meaning: cutting out, forming out of a given material. But they certainly misunderstood the spirit of the Scriptures. The eternal coexistence of God and matter would imply a dualism utterly incompatible with the teaching of the Bible. The frequently repeated declaration, “He is our God; there is none besides” (‏אין עוד‎), clearly excludes every form of dualism. Those who assert that the universe could not come from nothing belong to the class of people of whom the Psalmist says, “And they returned and tempted God, and set limits to the Holy One of Israel” (Ps. lxxviii. 41).

If we cannot understand the act of the Creation, it is our own intellect that is limited; and if we were to persuade ourselves that we understand better the eternity of matter, we should deceive ourselves. We cannot conceive matter without form as existing in reality, nor can we have a clear notion of anything infinite. We are human beings, endowed by the will and wisdom of the Creator with limited physical and intellectual faculties, and in things that surpass our powers we cannot do better than follow the guidance of the Divine Word. If we do so we may be sure that we shall be on the right way to truth.

The first principle declared in our creed is this: God is not only the Creator of the heavens and the earth, with all their hosts; He is also the constant ruler of all created beings; He is ‏בורא ומנהיג‎. We therefore praise Him in our daily Morning prayer as “Doing wonders; renewing in His goodness the work of the creation every day.” When we observe the ordinary phenomena in nature, occurring in accordance with certain fixed laws which have been discovered and described by man, we see in them the greatness of the Creator by whose will these laws are still in force, and by whose will any or all of these laws may one day cease to continue.

It has been asserted that any interruption or change of these fixed laws would indicate a weakness and want of foresight on the part of the Creator, and a fault in the plan of the Creation. This notion has led people either to deny the truth of the Biblical accounts concerning the miracles wrought by the Almighty, or to admit the correctness of the facts while denying their miraculous character, or to consider the fixed laws of nature, together with their exceptions, as designed in the original plan of the Creation. How short-sighted is man! He cannot even fully comprehend his own short-sightedness! God made him ruler over the works of His hands, and he presumes to be the ruler of God Himself! When we learn from numerous observations and experiments the law that seems to regulate certain recurring phenomena, have we then fathomed the infinite wisdom of God in the Creation? Do we know the reason which led Him to produce certain things according to certain laws, and not otherwise? Have we in discovering a law of nature obtained the power of prescribing the same law to God, and disallowing Him to deviate therefrom? Far be it from us human beings, dust and ashes, to arrogate to ourselves such a right! It may even be one of the objects with which miracles were wrought to teach us that we do not yet know all things, that events may happen which we are unable to foresee, that phenomena may appear which we are unable to explain according to the laws hitherto discovered; in short, that our knowledge and wisdom are limited.

The fact that God has created the universe ex nihilo has been expressed by Jewish philosophers as follows:—God is the only Being who demands no cause for His existence; the very idea of God implies existence, and cannot be conceived without it. All other beings owe their existence to certain causes, in the absence of which they would not exist. God alone is therefore only active, without ever being passive, only cause without ever being effect, whilst every other being is both active and passive, cause and effect; it has been produced by certain causes, and is in its turn the cause of the existence of other beings. In the first article a phrase expressing this idea has been added: “And He alone is the active cause of all things, whether past, present, or future.” By the addition of this sentence it was intended to deny the Eternity of matter (‏קדמות העולם‎). The reference to past, present, and future is to emphasise the constant action of the Creator, and the dependence of the natural forces on His Will. The first principle has, therefore, the following form:—

Before passing on to the second principle concerning God, let us briefly answer a question that has frequently been asked: What is the relation between the theory of evolution, or in general the results of modern science, and the history of the creation as related in the Bible? In the Biblical account of the creation the various kinds of plants and animals are described as the result or different and distinct acts of the Creator, whilst according to the theory of Evolution one creative act sufficed, and the great variety of creatures is the result of gradual development according to certain laws inherent in the things created. The Bible tells us of six days of the creation, whilst according to the theory of evolution it must have taken millions of years before the various species could have developed the one from the other. Whilst the Biblical account describes the earth as the centre of the universe, astronomy shows that the earth is one of the most insignificant of the bodies that fill the infinite space of the universe. According to astronomy and geology, the age of the earth numbers millions of years; from the Biblical account we infer that the earth is comparatively young. In the Bible man is described as the aim and end of the whole creation; natural history and the theory of evolution consider man simply as one of the forms resulting from a natural development of the animal world. What shall be our decision in this discrepancy? Shall we shut our eyes to the results of modern science in our firm belief in the truth of the Bible? Or shall we accept the former and abandon the latter?

We should adopt neither of these alternatives. We have great confidence in our reasoning power, and in the results of science based on reason, but we have still greater confidence in the truthfulness of Divine teaching. The conflict is not a modern product; it existed in former times as well. When the Jews first became acquainted with Greek literature and philosophy, faith was shaken in the heart of many a Jew that was led away by the attractive language and the persuasive arguments of the Greek. Such was the case with the Jews in Alexandria, who were almost more Greek than Jewish. Feeling that their faith in their old traditions was beginning to give way, they looked about them for the means of reconciling faith and philosophy. Where the literal sense of Holy Writ was awkward, the allegorical interpretation was substituted for it; but the authority of the Bible was recognised. Later on, in the Middle Ages, when Aristotle, as understood and interpreted in the Arabic schools, was infallible, perplexity again became general, among the educated and learned, as to the course to be pursued in case of a conflict; whether to remain true to the Bible or to join the banner of Aristotle. The most prominent amongst the Jewish theologians who sought the way of reconciliation was Moses Maimonides. This philosopher wrote his famous work, “Guide of the Perplexed,” expressly for those scholars who, whilst firmly adhering to the inherited faith, had been trained in the study of philosophy, and were unwilling to abandon either. Maimonides shows the way how to explain Biblical passages implying statements contrary to philosophical teachings, and how to reconcile theology and philosophy. A similar task was undertaken in modern times by Moses Mendelssohn in his “Jerusalem” and “Morgenstunden,” in order to show that strict adherence to the Jewish religion is quite compatible with the teaching of philosophy. The various systems of philosophy in Alexandria, in the Mohammedan countries in the Middle Ages, and in Germany in the last century, which threatened to endanger our religion, have lived their time and have gone to their fathers, giving way to new systems and new ideas, whilst the authority of the Word of God has maintained its place. This having been the case in former days, there is no reason why we should not in the present conflict assume, primâ facie, that the scientific and philosophical dogmas now in favour, alike with Jews and non-Jews, will have their time, and will ultimately give way to other theories, and the present conflict will then likewise terminate, dying a natural death. This reflection should put us on our guard lest we be persuaded by the plausibility of the modern philosophical and scientific dogmas, and throw aside our religious faith and traditions. We ought to bear in mind that, however correct the conclusions of modern science may appear that can be tested by our senses, theories which are not subject to such tests are in reality nothing but hypotheses to which a greater or lesser degree of probability attaches.

Suppose now—always bearing in mind the imperfect character of our powers of observation—we were to observe that certain plants or species of animals developed by training and circumstances into new species, or to see plants being transformed into animals, or even to notice literally “the foal of a wild ass born a man,” what would all this prove? That the Creator endowed the species of plants and animals with such properties as would enable them to transform into new species, or into any other of the species already in existence; but it does not follow that the Creator must have adopted the same method in the act of creation. He created as many species as His wisdom determined, although they might all have been able to develop from one single species. Suppose the problem which the Alchymists of the Middle Ages proposed to themselves, viz., to produce an animal being by mere chemical combination, had actually been solved, would any one have believed that all animals had been produced in that way? Or does the success of artificial hatching of eggs convince any person that all birds have sprung from artificially hatched eggs? The same argument applies to the geological formation of the earth. We notice changes brought about through natural forces, and mark the amount of change effected in a certain period; we are then able to calculate what time would be required for such or such a change—provided that only those laws be in force which we have noticed in our calculation. Is it reasonable or logical to apply to the act of creation the laws which have been brought into force through this very act? “He said, and it was: He commanded, and they were created” (Ps. xxxiii. 9). The word of God produced in a moment what the natural forces established by the Creator would effect by gradual development in millions of years.

It is true that the earth is one of the most insignificant bodies in the universe, and man is a small portion of the creatures on earth, and yet it is neither impossible nor unreasonable to believe that the benefits which man derives from the various parts of the creation, from the sun, the moon, and the stars, were essential elements in the scheme of the All-wise Creator.

Attempts have frequently been made to interpret the Biblical account of the creation in such a manner as to reconcile it with the scientific theories of the time. Thus it has been argued that the period between the creation of “heaven and earth” and the creation of “the light” is not described in the Bible, and may have been millions of millions of years. It has likewise been suggested that the term “day” is to be understood in the sense of “period.” It has further been pointed out that the account of the creation of animals indicates a process of development rather than a creatio ex nihilo; for it says, “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly living beings,” &c. (Gen. i. 20). “Let the earth bring forth living beings,” &c. (Ibid. 24). These interpretations may be true, and may suffice temporarily to check sceptical ideas that rise in our mind; but without the firm belief in the Word of God, and the consciousness of the insufficiency of human reason thoroughly to understand the plans and ways of God, our faith can never be safe. Supported by this belief we shall always be able to brave the ever-recurring billows of scepticism.

2. The next principle contained in our Creed concerning God is the Unity of God.

“I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage: thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exod. xx. 2–3). This is the first lesson the Israelites were taught when God revealed Himself to them on Mount Sinai. The words, “Hear, O Israel; the Lord is our God, the Lord is One” (Deut. vi. 4), are proclaimed by us thrice every day; we recite them when we rise; keep them in memory during the day, and repeat them in the evening before we go to rest; they form our watchword throughout our life, and with these words upon our lips we end our earthly existence. The Unity of God is the doctrine that distinguishes the Jews from other religious sects, in so far as the Jews were the first nation of Monotheists. From them Monotheism has spread among other peoples, who, however, did not always receive or preserve it in its original purity. We not only proclaim God as One, refusing to recognise as divine any power beside Him, but refrain also from attributing to God anything that might directly or indirectly involve any notion contrary to the Unity of God.

For this reason certain Jewish philosophers considered it unlawful to assign to God any positive attribute. They feared this might lead to dualism, to believe in God and in His attribute as two distinct beings, because attributes are so easily personified and addressed as separate deities. Some theologians even were of opinion that the admission of God’s attributes is itself a form of dualism which must be excluded from our faith. Nevertheless, attributes are assigned to God both in the Scriptures and in our Prayers. We must not, however, forget that such attributes do not describe anything inherent in the Divine Being, but only God’s relation to man and His actions in such terms as are intelligible to human beings. Most of the attributes are interpreted as being of a negative character, indicating what we must not say of God. When we speak of the Will, Wisdom, and Spirit of God, we do not speak of anything separate from the Divine Being, but of the Divine Being Himself. The Jewish doctrine of the Unity of God does not admit any kind of dualism in the Divine Being, and therefore rejects the existence of Divine Attributes as distinct from God Himself. He is One, simple and indivisible. Even this property of being One seemed to some theologians to be contrary to strict unity, and we are therefore taught that we must not understand it in the sense of a numerical unit, in which sense the term is used when applied to created beings. The second article therefore declares: “The Creator is One, and there is no Oneness like His in any way.”

The Unity of God is the creed which the Jews have always proclaimed by word of mouth, to which they have given expression throughout their literature, and for which they have willingly sacrificed their lives as martyrs. When persecuted by Mohammedans or Christians the Jews were frequently forced to break the Sabbath, to ignore the dietary laws, and to neglect Divine worship. They bore all this patiently when under pressure of persecution, but when they were asked to renounce the belief in God’s Unity they did not doubt for a moment as to what their duty was; they adhered firmly to ‏יחוד השם‎ “the belief in God’s Unity,” and sacrificed their lives for ‏קדוש השם‎ “the sanctification of God’s name.”

The Jews have been victorious. In spite of persecution and oppression they have maintained their faith. The doctrine of the Unity of God, for which they had to suffer so much in past centuries, is now admitted as true by most of their former persecutors.

In order to make clear what we mean by unity, and to express that God could not be conceived as existing at any time in a double form, we add the words: “And He alone was, is, and will be our God.” The second article runs therefore as follows:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, is One; that there is no Oneness like His, in any way, and that He alone was, is, and will be our God.”

3. The strict Unity of God, in the sense explained above, implies His Incorporeality, which forms the subject of the third article. Corporeality implies substance and form, a dualism which must be rigidly excluded from God. It would not have been necessary to formulate a special article for the exclusion of corporeality from the idea of God but for the fact that many erroneous notions have been entertained on the subject. Besides the fact that the corporeality of God was assumed by certain religious sects, there have been scholars among the Jews who defended the literal sense of anthropomorphic phrases in the Scriptures.

In the Bible anthropomorphic expressions are employed in order to illustrate the different acts of Divine Providence in such a way as to render them more intelligible to us human beings. We consist of body and soul, and we produce an impression or exercise an influence on others by means of our body and by the activity of our bodily organs. How an incorporeal being acts upon the corporeal world we are unable fully to comprehend, much less to describe. If we desire to picture to ourselves or to others the fact that through Divine Providence something has been produced on earth, we must employ the same phrases which we use in describing human acts which effect a similar result. In reality, however, there is no comparison or similarity between God and corporeal beings, between His actions and ours.

When we therefore speak of the house of God we mean the house which we devote to our prayers, in which we feel the omnipresence of the Almighty more than in any other place. The heaven is called the throne of God and the earth His footstool only to express the idea that the majesty of God is far beyond comparison with that of any earthly ruler, and that the house of God built by human hands is not intended to satisfy the requirements of the Supreme Being but those of man. We call Him our Father and He calls us His children, because we love Him as we love our father, and He loves us as a father loves his children. In the same sense the Psalmist (ii. 7) repeats the words of God to him, “Thou art my son; I have this day begotten thee.” Such expressions as these are anthropomorphic.

The Bible frequently exhorts us not to imagine or ascribe to God any form or likeness. Comp. Deut. iv. 15, “Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of form on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of fire.” In the same sense the prophet asks in the name of God (Isa. xl. 18), “To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness will you compare unto Him?” “To whom then will you liken Me, that I should be equal to Him? saith the Holy One” (Ibid. 25).

We declare therefore in the third article:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, is not a body, that corporeal relations do not apply to Him, and that there exists nothing that is in any way similar to Him.”

4. The next property we declare of God in the Creed is the eternity of God. As He is the cause of everything in existence, and requires no cause for His existence, and as it is impossible to separate the idea of existence from the idea of God, it follows that God is always in existence, and that neither beginning nor end can be fixed to His existence. Maimonides, in expressing his belief in the eternity of God, lays stress only on God being without a beginning, and in this sense he interprets the phrase Dip ‏אלהי קדם‎ (Deut. xxxiii. 27), “the eternal God” who is without a beginning. That God is without end is equally true, but Maimonides did not desire to introduce this idea into the fourth article as a distinguishing characteristic, as it is not necessary to believe that the universe will once come to an end. If it please the Almighty to give the universe existence for ever, it will continue for ever. Following, however, the example of the prophets, who told us in the name of God, “I am the first, and I am the last,” we express this idea in our Creed, and understand it thus: If, by the will of the Almighty, the entire universe should come to an end, God’s existence would still continue. Thus the Psalmist says, “Of old hast Thou laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment: as a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall be changed: but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall have no end” (Ps. cii. 26–28).

The fourth article is:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, was the first, and will be the last.”

6. After having declared our faith in God as the sole Ruler of the universe, who is One, incorporeal and eternal, we proclaim Him as our Supreme Master, who alone is capable of granting our petitions. All existing things are under His control; all forces in nature only work at His will and by His command. No other being possesses the power and independence to fulfil our wishes of its own accord, if it were approached by us with our prayers. It is, therefore, to Him alone that we can reasonably address our petitions, and in doing so we have confidence in the efficacy of our prayers, for “the Lord is nigh to all those who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth” (Ps. cxlv. 18).

This article, although expressly directed against idolatry, and primarily against the worship of “the angels, the stars, and the spheres,” implies our belief in God as the Omnipotent, who can do everything, and can help us when we have not any prospect of relief.

We therefore declare in the fifth article:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, alone is worthy of being worshipped, and that no other being is worthy of our worship.”

The Omnipotence of God is also implied in the first article, which declares Him the Creator and the Ruler of the universe. That Maimonides does not directly make omnipotence, like unity, incorporeality, &c., the subject of a separate article has its good reason, and is not “the result of mere chance.” Silly questions were frequently asked; e.g., how far the omnipotence of God extended, whether it implied the power of making twice two equal to three, or the whole of a magnitude larger than the sum of its parts, and similar logical impossibilities. To avoid misunderstanding, Maimonides did not express our belief in the omnipotence of God in a separate article, but the first and the fifth articles imply it.

We believe of God that He is immutable or unchangeable. It is, however, not necessary to express this in a separate article. By declaring the Unity of God we proclaim also His Immutability, since unity, in the sense in which we conceive it, is incompatible with any kind of change. Whatever the change might be that we assumed in God, it would destroy the idea of His unity.

There are other qualities which we ascribe to God. We call Him perfect, all-wise, good, kind, merciful, long-suffering, and the like; in short, whatever we find in our own person good and noble we believe to be present in God in a higher degree, in the most perfect form. But these attributes approach very closely anthropomorphisms, which Maimonides rigidly excludes from the Creed. They express rather the impressions produced in our soul by the different acts of God’s Providence, and do not describe God Himself.

Of this class of attributes are the thirteen divine attributes, ‏שלש עשרה מדות‎ (Exod. xxxiv. 6). They describe in thirteen terms the goodness and mercy of God towards man in his various conditions of innocence, guilt, and repentance. These are not distinctly mentioned in our Creed, but when we declare that He is the only Being whom we can address in our prayers, we are certainly conscious and convinced that He, being good, kind, and merciful, listens to our supplications.

2. Revelation, ‏תורה מן השמים‎.

The second group of principles refers to Revelation. The real process of revelation, by what means and in what manner the infinite and incorporeal Being makes His Will known to man, and how the latter becomes conscious and convinced of the fact that a Divine communication has been made to him, remains a mystery to all but those privileged persons who have been actually addressed by the Almighty. “As the blind man who had never possessed the sense of sight is incapable of comprehending the actual process of seeing, so are we, born without that wonderful prophetic eye, without the prophetic faculty of the mind, incapable of comprehending and depicting the process of inspiration that goes on within the mind of the privileged” (Schmiedl, Studien, p. 183). God reveals Himself also in nature, in the power and wisdom displayed in its phenomena. He reveals Himself in the history of nations, and especially in the history of Israel. He reveals Himself in the intelligence of man. In all these cases the revelation is made to all alike. Those who have eyes may see, those who have ears may hear, and recognise, every one according to his capacity, the presence of the Almighty in the working of the laws of nature, in the development and fates of nations, and in the life of every individual person. In all these cases we can test and prove the revelation by ourselves, and need not exclusively rely on authority. When, however, a Divine communication is made to one privileged individual, through whom it is made known to a whole community, or to mankind, there is no other means of testing the correctness of the revelation than the trustworthiness of the privileged individual.

The first lesson or proof given to the Israelites of the fact that such revelation was not only possible, but had actually been vouchsafed by the Almighty, was the revelation on Mount Sinai, the ‏מעמד הר סיני‎, which became the foundation of the faith of Israel. “And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and may also believe thee for ever” (Exod. xix. 9). The trustworthiness of Moses having thus been tested and established “for ever,” his teaching remained the foundation of the teaching of all succeeding prophets, and the test of their truthfulness and genuineness. A prophet who taught anything opposed to the law of Moses could not be a true prophet, although he supported his words by signs and miracles (Deut. xiii. 2, sqq.). Besides, revelation of the Divine Being had taken place before. God revealed Himself to the first man. Adam heard the voice of God; he felt the presence of the Almighty, and learnt the amount of evil man brings upon himself by disobeying the word of God. The consciousness of the existence of God, and of the fact that He has revealed Himself to man, has been inherited by the descendants of Adam. It has not been preserved in all men in the same strength and purity. The notion of a Divine Being, and of His revelation to man, became in course of time corrupt, and led to the corruption of the human race, with the exception of Noah and his family. “Noah was a righteous man; perfect he was in his generations: with God did Noah walk” (Gen. vi. 9). The inherited consciousness of God’s existence and of His rule over man was strengthened in him by fresh, direct revolution of God. He was told that the wicked would be destroyed by a flood, and that he with his family would be saved. “The righteous man” witnessed the infliction which the wicked brought upon themselves by evil deeds, and also that protection of himself and his family which had been promised and granted by the Almighty. After Noah had left the ark the word of God was again communicated to him, promising that never again would a flood be sent to destroy all living beings—a promise which succeeding generations up to the present have seen fulfilled. In the midst of rain the “sign of covenant,” the rainbow, reminds us still of His promise and its fulfilment. Of the descendants of Noah the Semites alone seem to have preserved the belief in God’s existence and His revelation to man in its original purity; and of the Semites it was Abraham who was chosen by Providence to be the founder of a family of faithful believers in God, who formed, as it were, the centre from which the true faith should spread in all directions over the whole face of the earth. Abraham received Divine communications, and so also his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob. Even when the children of Israel were in Egyptian slavery, and when they did not hearken to Moses “because of anguish of spirit, and because of cruel bondage,” the memory of these revelations was never entirely extinguished in their minds; and when again addressed by Moses and Aaron “the people believed; and when they heard that the Lord had visited the children of Israel, and that He had seen their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped” (Exod. iv. 31). Their faith was strengthened when they witnessed the fulfilment of the Divine message which was brought to them by Moses: “And they believed in the Lord, and in Moses His servant” (Ibid. xiv. 31).

The foundation of the belief in the possibility of Divine revelation having thus been laid, that belief was further strengthened through the revelation on Mount Sinai, when every Israelite heard and understood the words addressed to him by God, “who had brought them out of Egypt, of the house of bondage;” they heard the very words which Moses subsequently told them in the name of God, and they were convinced of the truth of the words of Moses. He taught them that there would be other persons chosen by God to bring messages from Him to the children of Israel or to mankind, and at the same time he laid down the rule by which the truth of such messages could be tested.

It is our belief that God would not reveal Himself to any one that is unworthy of such distinction. As a conditio sine quâ non it was necessary that the prophets distinguished themselves in every kind of virtue, that they set to their fellow-men an example of purity in thought, loftiness in speech, and nobility in action. As regards general knowledge and experience they were inferior to none of their contemporaries. In the Talmud the saying occurs: ‏אין השכינה שורה על אדם אלא אם כן היה חכם גבור ועשיר‎ “The Divine spirit does not rest on man, unless he is wise, strong, and rich” (Babyl. Talm. Shabbath, 92a). This is certainly a true conception of the character of a prophet, “strong” and “rich” being understood in a figurative sense: “strong” in possessing mastery over his passions, and “rich” in being contented with what he has (Aboth iv. 1). It was a matter of indifference, however, whether the prophet was strong in body or weak, whether he had many earthly possessions or none at all.

In spite of his distinction from his fellow-men in wisdom, moral strength, and contentedness, the prophet remained a human being; he was, like every other person, exposed to the temptation to sin and liable to error. The sins and errors of prophets are recorded in order to save us from despair when we are conscious of our sinfulness, and to show us the way to repentance. This is illustrated especially in the history of the prophet Jonah. The records of the sins of prophets serve as a warning that we should not consider any man as perfect or deify him.

Although the prophet is assumed to have been wise, surpassing his fellow-men in knowledge and wisdom, it is by no means necessary to believe that he was familiar with all sciences, or that he knew any of the discoveries made in later times. The prophet had frequently to inform his brethren of what would happen in future, to tell them of things which no human eye could foresee. But he had in general no greater knowledge of coming events than other men, except in reference to those events concerning which he had received a message from God for His people or for mankind.

Can a man be trained for the office of a prophet? Was there a school or institution for this purpose? Every one could certainly be trained in the primary conditions of a prophet, in the exercise of all human virtues, and in the acquisition of all available knowledge; and it was the duty and the aim of the prophets to encourage all their brethren to such training by their own example. But the principal element in prophecy the Divine communication, depended solely on the Will of God. “The sons of the prophets” are generally believed to be the pupils of the prophets; they formed “the schools of the prophets.” These schools, however, could not have been schools or colleges in the ordinary sense of the word. The sons of the prophets were instructed by the prophets, but not with the purpose of training them as prophets. It seems that the sons of the prophets served as agents for promulgating the inspired messages of their chief. Most probably they led a simple, pious life, were God-fearing, and spent their time when meeting together in music and song, repeating hymns and lessons taught by their master.

An account of some of the messages and deeds of the prophets is given in the Biblical books; some of their speeches also are preserved, in the section of the Bible called “Latter Prophets,” ‏נביאים אחרונים‎. The speeches of the prophets were in some cases prepared and written down before they were spoken, in others delivered ex tempore without preparation, and were written down afterwards from memory, either by the prophet himself or by one of his hearers, or were handed down vivâ voce from generation to generation before they were committed to writing.

There is another kind of Divine revelation which did not find expression in any message to the Israelites or to mankind, but in a certain supernatural impulse given to the thought or will of a person as regards his words and actions. Such an impulse is called inspiration, and the inspired person is moved to speak or act by the ‏רוח יי‎ “spirit of the Lord.”

It was the spirit of the Lord that moved Samson to heroic deeds against the enemies of his people; David likewise felt that Divine impulse when pouring forth his heart before the Lord in his Psalms. He says: “The spirit of the Lord spake in me, and His word was on my tongue” (2 Sam. xxiii. 2). It was the spirit of the Lord that filled the hearts of those who collected and sifted the Holy Writings containing law, history, prophecies, and poetry, and gave them the form in which we possess them now.

We are not quite certain as to the form of the letters in the original copies of the Holy Writings; but from the way in which the Pentateuch is written now in the Synagogue scrolls, we may infer with certainty that the ancient copies of the Torah contained no vowels or accents, and that these have come down to us by oral tradition.

For the multiplication of copies, human copyists had to be employed. It is by no means contrary to our faith in the Bible to assume that, as far as the human work of these copyists is concerned, it must have been subject to the fate of all human work, to error and imperfection. And, in fact, there are many copies of the Bible that abound in mistakes; there are passages in Scripture that vary in the different manuscripts; hence the numerous variæ lectiones met with in the critical editions of the Bible. But, on the other hand, it would not be reasonable to assume that the holy literature and the national treasure, very limited in size, should have been neglected by the religious authorities of the time to such an extent that no reliable, correct copy was kept, to be consulted in case of doubt or difference of opinion. This being the case with all Biblical books, it applies with special force to the Torah or Pentateuch, which contains the Divine commandments. The least alteration made by copyists—unknowingly or knowingly—might involve a question of life and death. Must it not have been the duty of the judicial authority to keep a correct authorised copy in a safe place? It is certainly most reasonable to assume that such a copy was kept, and that there were in every generation among the priests or prophets men who had a thorough knowledge of the Law, and could easily detect any interference with the text. As the laws do not form a separate section of the Bible, but are interwoven with a historical account of important events from the Creation to the death of Moses, the entire Pentateuch, composed of both laws and history, was preserved with the same anxiety and watchfulness. That great care was taken in copying the Law we learn from the fact mentioned in the Talmud, that Ezra minutely examined the three scrolls he found in the Temple, and in three passages noticed different readings, of which he adopted the one found in two copies.

The other books of the Bible are of less importance, but the exclusion of error on the part of the copyist, though it has not the same, has yet a high degree of certainty, inasmuch as they too formed part of the holy, national literature. If a mistake should be clearly proved, it would not be contrary to our religious principles to admit it. But we shall find, after thorough study and examination of the impugned passages, that there is in each case far greater doubt as to the correctness of any of the numerous emendations suggested than of the traditional and Massoretic text before us. It may frequently occur that some emendations appear strikingly correct, and yet after due reflection they are found more doubtful than the original. It is therefore our duty thoroughly to examine each proposed emendation, and to hesitate long before admitting the incorrectness of the received text and the correctness of the emendation.

One of the means of preserving the text of the Scriptures in its integrity has been the Massorah. The notes which are found in the margin of Biblical books form part of the Massorah. At first the Massorah was part of the oral tradition; exceptional forms of letters, punctuation, and words were probably taught vivâ voce, and learnt by heart, especially by scribes, readers, and teachers. Where a confounding with other and similar forms was apprehended, attention was called to the fact, and by certain notes and rules it was guarded against. The material for the Massorah increased in the course of time, in the same degree as, with the multiplication of copies of the Scriptures, the number of misreadings and misinterpretations increased. Although these notes were arranged and written down at a late period, they helped to preserve the Biblical text in its integrity, and it is therefore stated in the Mishnah (Aboth iii. 13): “Massorah (tradition) is a fence to the Law.”

As to the name of the author of each book or section, and the time and place of its composition, we are guided by the headings where such are extant; in the absence of these we are left to the resources of our own judgment or fancy. There is no reason whatever to doubt the correctness of these headings, as the religious and learned authorities of the time were trustworthy men, who would not add a heading where none was handed down to them by tradition. Several books and many psalms are therefore left without a heading; there was no sure tradition about them. How far the heading of a book or section extends, whether it was meant only for the beginning or for the whole of it, is in some cases doubtful, and must be decided by the nature and contents of the book. For instance, the second part of Isaiah, from chap. xl. to the end, has no heading of its own; it is therefore open to discussion whether the heading in the first verse of the first chapter describes only the first thirty-nine or all the sixty-six chapters of the book. It is possible that Psalms, ascribed, according to their heading, to David, consist of two or more parts, of which one only was composed by David. The names of the books do not necessarily imply a reference to the author. The Book of Joshua, e.g., may have received its name from its contents, the history of the Israelites under Joshua being contained in it. The two books of Samuel could not have been written by Samuel, not even the whole of the first book, since the death of Samuel is therein recorded; but they owe their name to the fact that the first book commences with the history of Samuel.

The Books of the Bible, ‏תנ״ך‎

The collection of books known by these names are ‏ספרי קדש‎ or ‏כתבי קדש‎ “holy books” or “holy writings,” because the authors of these books were holy men their object is a holy one, viz., to train man to holiness, and the contents of the books is holy, free from all blemish and error. The books vary greatly in character, in style, and in purpose, but truthfulness is common to all of them. Whether they narrate events or proclaim God’s decrees, or instruct or edify their hearers, what they say is true.

The name Bible is derived from the Greek βιβλιον, “book.” ‏תנ״ך‎ (pronounced tenach) has no meaning in itself, and is a word formed of the initials of ‏תורה נביאים כתובים‎. Sometimes ‏אנ״ך‎ (the initials of the Chaldee ‏אוריתא נביאין כתיבין‎) is used instead of ‏תנ״ך‎. Another name is ‏מקרא‎ “text for reading,” as opposed to vivâ voce tradition. A passage quoted from the Bible is called ‏קרא‎ or ‏מקרא‎ or ‏כתוב‎. Christians call the books of the Hebrew Bible the Old Testament as distinguished from the New Testament.

1. ‏תורה‎ Law.

The Torah or Law is divided into five books, and is therefore called ‏חומש‎ or Pentateuch (Fivefold or Five-book). The names of the five books are: (1) ‏בראשית‎ Genesis (Creation); (2) ‏שמות‎ Exodus (departure, scil., of the Israelites from Egypt); (3) ‏ויקרא‎ Leviticus (on the laws concerning the Levites or priests), also called ‏תורת כהנים‎ “law of the priests;” (4) ‏במדבר‎ Numbers; (5) ‏דברים‎ Deuteronomy, a Greek term denoting “second-law” or “repetition of the law,” a translation of the Hebrew ‏משנה תורה‎.

These names are derived from the beginnings of the books. The Hebrew names are either the first word of the book, as is the case in the first and the third books (‏בראשית‎ and ‏ויקרא‎), or the first characteristic word, as is the case in the other three books (‏שמות‎ the second word, ‏במדבר‎ the fifth, ‏דברים‎ the second). The English or Greek names describe the subject-matter of the first section of the book. This applies also to the rest of the Biblical writings.

The contents of the five books are as follows:—

The first book (‏בראשית‎).—It begins with the important lesson, the basis of all that is taught in the whole Bible: that God is the Creator of the whole universe. Then follows an account of the Creation, the history of the first man and the first woman, their transition from the state of innocence and happiness to the state of sin and toil, their descendants, the beginnings of industry and civilisation, the deterioration of mankind, the flood, Noah, and the succeeding generations to Abraham; the history of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or Israel; the immigration of Jacob with his family into Egypt; and with the death of Joseph, the son of Jacob, the book concludes.

The book contains principally history, but mention is made also of some religious institutions. Reference is thus made to the institution of marriage (ii. 23–25); Sabbath (ii. 1–3); the Covenant of Abraham or the commandment of circumcision (xvii. 1–14); the prohibition of eating flesh cut off from an animal while alive (ix. 4, ‏אבר מן החי‎), of murder (ix. 5–6), and of eating “the sinew that shrank” (xxxii. 33, ‏גיד הנשה‎).

The second book (‏שמות‎).—The history of the family of Jacob, the Israelites, is continued: their sojourn in Egypt, the Exodus, the journey to Mount Sinai, the Revelation, the erection of the Tabernacle, and the events in the camp of the Israelites during their stay in the wilderness of Sinai.

The Divine precepts take a more prominent place in this book. Chief among these are the institution of the Jewish Calendar, appointing the month of Abib—Nisan—to be the first month (xii. 2); the Sacrifice of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (chap. xii.); the Sabbath (xvi. 22–30); the Decalogue (chap. xx. 1–12); civil legislation (xxi. to xxiii.); the year of release (xxiii. 10, 11); and the ‏שלש רגלים‎ or festivals of pilgrimage to the sanctuary of the Lord; viz., Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles (‏פסח‎, ‏שבועות‎ and ‏סכות‎ xxiii. 14–17).

The third book (‏ויקרא‎) contains the laws revealed during the stay of the Israelites near Mount Sinai. A few historical incidents are mentioned in illustration of the Law. Leviticus contains the laws concerning the sacrifices (i. to vii.); the initiation of Aaron and his sons as priests (viii. to x.); dietary laws (xi.); laws about cleanness and uncleanness (‏טהרה וטומאה‎) in man and woman (xii. to xv.); the Day of Atonement (xvi.); prohibition of blood (xvii. 10–14); marriage laws (xviii. and xx. 10–22); laws concerning the holiness of man (xix.); laws concerning the priests (xxi., xxii. 16) and sacrifices (xxii. 17–33); the Festivals of the Lord (xxiii.); the year of release and the year of jubilee, and land-laws connected with these (xxv.); laws concerning the transfer of property to the sanctuary and the priests.

The fourth book records the departure of the Israelites from Mount Sinai, their journeyings until they came to the east of the Jordan in the plains of Moab; the chief incidents during these travels, viz., the consecration of the altar, and the instalment of the Levites as assistants to the priests in the performance of the Divine Service; the first appointment of a council of seventy elders; the punishment of Miriam for slander; the spies; the rebellion of Korah; death of Miriam; Moses and Aaron’s sin at Meribah, and their punishment; death of Aaron; wars with Sihon and Og; the blessings of Bileam instead of his intended cursings; the zeal and distinction of Phineas; war against Midian; the appointment of Joshua as future leader of Israel.

There is also in the book a list of all the stations where the Israelites had encamped during their travels through the Arabian desert (chap. xxxiii.), and a minute description of the boundaries of the land of Canaan (chap. xxxiv.).

The following are the principal laws mentioned in Numbers: the laws concerning Nazirites; concerning a woman suspected of faithlessness against her husband; the second Passover (‏פסח שני‎) for those who could not fulfil their duty on the 14th of Nisan; the law of fringes (‏ציצת‎); the law of purification of persons who have become unclean through contact with the dead body of any person (‏פרה אדומה‎ chap. xix.); the law of inheritance (xxvii.); the sacrifices for the festivals (xxviii., xxix.); the laws of vows (xxx.); laws concerning murder and cities of refuge (xxxv.).

The fifth book (‏דברים‎) contains speeches of Moses which he addressed to the Israelites during the last year of his life, reminding them of their repeated disobedience to the Divine command, and their want of confidence in Him, and exhorting them to be faithful to God. He frequently emphasises the truth that blessing and happiness can only be obtained through obedience, trouble and curses being the certain result of sin and transgression. Chapter xxviii., called ‏תוכחה‎ “exhortation” or “rebuke” (see also Lev. xxvi.), is especially devoted to this principle. In the song ‏האזינו‎ (chap, xxxii.), which all the people were to learn by heart, Moses rebukes his brethren for their ingratitude to God, and foretells them that, in the remote future, similar conduct will be visited severely, and that after a period of punishment God will show mercy to them, and again restore them to a state of happiness and glory. Before his death he gives a special blessing to each tribe. The book concludes with the death of Moses, the succession of Joshua, and the praise of Moses as the greatest of all prophets.

Many of the commandments are repeated in the course of the exhortations: the Decalogue, the laws concerning the three agricultural and national festivals (‏שלש רגלים‎), and such other laws as Moses considered necessary to impress on the heart of the Israelites before he departed from among them. The Israelites being near Jordan, and about to take possession of the promised land, their attention is called to such laws as would then come into practice, e.g., those which refer to the political and judicial arrangements of the country (xvi. to xviii.); and the solemn declaration of allegiance to the Will of God (xxvii.).

The Pentateuch is divided into verses (‏פסוקים‎), paragraphs (‏פסקות‎), and into sections called ‏סדרות‎ or “weekly portions.” The division into chapters is of comparatively modern origin.

2. The Prophets

are divided into two groups: Earlier and Latter Prophets (‏נביאים ראשונים ונביאים אחרונים‎).

The Earlier Prophets do not contain prophecies in the usual meaning of the word. They contain the history of Israel from the accession of Joshua to the leadership of Israel, to the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. They are, nevertheless, called “Prophets,” for two reasons:—

(1.) The history is written in a prophetic spirit, with the view of illustrating the principle that obedience to the word of God was the cause of Israel’s prosperity and success, disobedience the cause of trouble and misery.

(2.) The Earlier Prophets include the history of Deborah, Samuel, Nathan, Ahijah, Elijah, Elisha, and a few anonymous prophets.

No collection of their speeches has been made or preserved in the Scriptures, and they are thus distinguished from the latter prophets, whose prophecies have been collected and form the contents of the “Latter Prophets.”

The following books belong to the Earlier Prophets:—

1. The Book of Joshua (‏יהושע‎), containing the history of the conquest and division of the land of Canaan by the Israelites, from their crossing the Jordan to the death of Joshua.

2. The Book of Judges (‏שופטים‎) contains episodes of the history of the Israelites from the death of Joshua to the days of the high-priest Eli. The name “Judge” is identical with that of chief magistrate, or simply chief or leader. The judges were persons chosen by God, and inspired with an extraordinary spirit of courage and bravery, to be the liberators of the country, or part of the country, from the tyranny of oppressors. The virtues that were required in order to qualify them for this mission were patriotism and courage. Some of them may have continued in power after the restoration of peace and order, but on the whole their mission as judges was fulfilled with the cessation of war. They were not the religious teachers of the nation, nor are they set up as examples of piety.

During the period of the judges the tribes of Israel were not united (song of Deborah, Judges v. 15–17). There was no common government, or if there was one, it must have possessed little power and influence. The people became degraded; many worshipped idols and altogether ignored the Divine commandments. But the conscience of the nation was roused when a shocking crime was committed at Gibeah in the tribe of Benjamin, and all Israel united in demanding the punishment of the evil-doers (chaps. xix. to xxi.). The book contains two beautiful poetical passages, the song of Deborah (v.) and the parable of Jotham (ix.).

3. The two books of Samuel (‏שמואל א׳ וב׳‎)—also called the first and second books of Kings—contain the history of Israel during the time of the high-priest Eli, the prophet Samuel, and Saul, the first king of Israel (Book I.); and the reign of David (Book II.).

The following passages are noteworthy:—

ii. 6–7: “The Lord killeth and maketh alive; He bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up. The Lord maketh poor and maketh rich; He bringeth low and lifteth up.”

xii. 22: “The Lord will not forsake His people, for His great name’s sake; because it hath pleased the Lord to make you His people.”

xv. 22–23: “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry; because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, He hath also rejected thee from being king.”

xvi. 7: “The Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.”

xxiv. 14: “Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked.”

II., xxiv. 14: “I am in a great strait; let us fall now into the hand of the Lord; for His mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.”

The following poetical passages of the book should also be marked:—

The prayer of Hannah (ii. 1–10); David’s lament over Saul’s death (II., i. 18–27); Parable of the prophet Nathan (xii. 1–6); Song of thanksgiving by David (xxii.); David’s faith in God’s justice (xxiii. 1–7).

4. The first and the second books of Kings (‏מלכים א׳ וב׳‎), also called the third and fourth books of Kings, contain the history of Israel from the death of David to the Babylonian exile. The first book describes the last days of King David, the reign of Solomon, the division of the country into two kingdoms, Judah and Israel, the history of the kingdom of Judah from Rehoboam to Jehoshaphat, and the history of the kingdom of Israel from Jeroboam to Ahab. The second book continues the history of the kingdom of Israel from Ahab to the conquest of Samaria by Shalmanessar, king of Assyria, and that of the kingdom of Judah from Abijam, son of Jehoshaphat, to the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.

I., ii. 2: “I go the way of all the earth; be thou strong therefore, and show thyself a man.”

xviii. 21: “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God. follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him.”

Note, besides, prayer of Solomon (I., viii. 12–61) and message of Isaiah to King Hezekiah (II., xix. 21–31).

The ‏נביאים אחרונים‎ Latter Prophets, contain the following books:—

I. Isaiah (‏ישעיהו‎).—Isaiah prophesied chiefly during the Assyrian invasions in Palestine in the reign of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. The book is divided into two main sections, separated from each other by the narrative of Sennacherib’s invasion and defeat, Hezekiah’s illness and recovery, and the congratulatory message of the Babylonian king to Hezekiah (chaps, xxxvi. to xxxix.). The first section is divided into five parts with separate headings:—

(1.) Chap. i.—This prophecy was probably repeated by Isaiah many times from the beginning to the end of his prophetic mission. The Israelites in Jerusalem and Judah are rebuked for their rebellion against God, which has brought a series of misfortunes upon the nation; God does not accept their sacrifices unless they return to Him and improve their conduct. They will be punished, but the punishment is only the means for their purification. When this effect is obtained their redemption will follow.

(2.) Chaps. ii. to v.—The fulfilment of the mission of the Israelites—the Messianic period—is depicted, when the Israelites will be so perfect in the knowledge and the worship of God, that all nations will seek enlightenment and guidance in the house of the God of Jacob. The prophet shows his brethren how they receded from that aim, and, estranging themselves from the Almighty, trusted in things that are powerless. But all these things, grand and high as they may appear, will prove worthless, and the glory of God will in the end be recognised. The prophet illustrates the conduct of the Israelites and their punishment in the beautiful parable of the vineyard (v. 1–7). As special sins are named: greediness, lust, mockery, and injustice. The punishment threatened is the invasion of a cruel conqueror.

(3.) Chap. vi.—On the occasion of the death of King Uzziah, who had presumed to approach God and to offer incense in the Holy of Holies, contrary to the Law, and was punished with leprosy, Isaiah had a vision in which he despairingly contrasted the infinite holiness of the Almighty with his own sinfulness, living as he did among people of unclean lips. He is reassured, and shown that his sin is removed when his words are inflamed by the holy fire taken from the altar of God. He must, nevertheless, not expect a speedy effect from his words to the people; they will continue in disobedience and bring upon themselves continued punishments, but ultimately, when the leaves have fallen off, the stem will remain—a seed of holiness.

(4.) vii. to xii.—The invasion of Judah by Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of Aram, brings to light the want of faith in God and His word on the part of Ahaz, king of Judah. Isaiah, taking with him his son Sh’ar-yashub (“A-remnant-will-return”), a reminder of punishment and of redemption, rebukes Ahaz, and gives him a sign (‏אות‎): “The young woman is with child, and will bear a son, and call his name Immanuel” (‏עמנו אל‎ “God-is-with-us”). “Cream and honey shall he eat, when he will know to reject the evil and to choose the good.” By this sign Ahaz is informed (1) that at the time of the birth of the child Judah will be freed from the armies of the two kings, and the name Immanuel was to be the expression of thanks for the delivery; (2) another more serious invasion of the Assyrians will come and devastate the country; and after their departure the Israelites will not have any corn or bread; “cream and honey will every one eat that is left in the midst of the land.”

(5.) xiii. to xxxv.—This group of prophecies was probably delivered during the Assyrian invasion. Isaiah takes a survey of the neighbouring states, their conduct in times of success, and their well-deserved punishment in the immediate or the remote future. The prophecies are directed against Babylon, Plesheth, Moab, Damascus, Egypt, Ashdod, Babylon, Dumah, Arab, the Assyrian Shebnah, Tyre, Edom, and Ephraim. Great confusion will ensue, amid which Judah will suffer much, but he will ultimately be delivered through the Divine intervention, and will thus be strengthened in his faith in God. Isaiah rebukes Judah for seeking help from Egypt against Assyria, because such an act indicates want of faith in God. It is only the Almighty that can help in times of distress.

(6.) xxxvi. to xxxix.—The historical chapters which intervene between the two large prophetical sections of the book conclude with an account of Hezekiah’s conduct towards the Babylonian ambassadors, and the rebuke he received of Isaiah, who announced to the king that the Babylonians would one day be conquerors of Jerusalem.

(7.) xl. to xlviii.—The prediction of the Babylonian exile is followed by comforting messages and by the good tidings of the promised Restoration. Contrasting the omnipotence of God with the helplessness of earthly powers and idols, the prophet calls for absolute faith in God, who has already appointed the conqueror of Babylon and the liberator of the exiled Jews.

(8.) xlviii. to liv.—It is not only deliverance from exile that the Jews have to hope for, but far greater things. The people of the Lord are to become glorious, and to be the source of salvation to all mankind. They will suffer at the hand of the nations, but the latter will ultimately see what wrong they have done to Israel. Notwithstanding all apparent obstacles, this prophecy will be fulfilled.

(9.) lv. to lx.—The prophet exhorts the people to follow the word of God, to abandon idolatry, and to be sincere in their prayer and repentance; only then might they hope for salvation. God has punished Israel, but the redeemer will come unto Zion.

(10.) lxi. to lxvi.—Encouragement is given especially to the ‏ענוים‎ “the meek,” “the broken-hearted;” the day of vengeance is announced against the haughty and sinners. The prophet prays to God, and God answers him with the promise of the ultimate triumph of the ‏ענוים‎ and ‏יראי יי‎ “the meek and the God-fearing.”

2. Jeremiah (‏ירמיה‎).—Jeremiah prophesied in the thirteenth year of Josiah, and continued to prophesy during his reign and that of his successors, and after the fall of Jerusalem, but it is not certain how long he lived after the destruction of the Temple, and where he died. He was the son of Hilkiah, of the priests in Anathoth, in the tribe of Benjamin. He was exposed to cruel persecutions, but these did not deter him from delivering the Divine message with which he was entrusted to the king and to the people. The prophecies of Jeremiah were written down by Baruch, at Jeremiah’s dictation (chap. xxxvi.), but the book was seized by King Jehoiakim, and burnt by him. The Book of Jeremiah, in our Bible, is probably the copy made later on by Baruch, and mentioned in Jer. xxxvi. 32.

The book is composed of the following parts:—

(1.) Chap. i.—The appointment of Jeremiah as prophet “over the nations and the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, and to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant” (ver. 10).

(2.) Chaps, ii. to vi.—Jeremiah addresses the inhabitants of Jerusalem. “Israel is a holy portion, belonging to the Lord; whosoever eats of it is guilty, and will be punished.” Israel ought therefore to be faithful to God. This they are not, in spite of the benefits bestowed on them; they are exhorted to repentance: in vain. They are therefore threatened with a hostile invasion from the north.

(3.) Chaps, vii. to x.—The prophet addresses the people in the gate of the Temple, exhorting them to true repentance. Without obedience to God the Temple and sacrificial service have no value. The foundation of the Law is, “You shall be to me a people, and walk in the way which I command you.” You have not obeyed, and punishment is determined upon. Jeremiah, foreseeing the desolation of the country and the ruin of the nation, laments and weeps, but he is sure that God is ‏עשה חסד משפט וצדקה‎ “one who doth loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness,” and that those nations which indulged in cruelties against the Israelites when under Divine punishment will themselves not escape retribution.

(4.) xi. to xiii.—“The covenant was: Hear my voice, and do what I command you: ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.” You have broken this covenant and worshipped idols; evil must come upon you. This Jeremiah proclaimed in “the cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem,” and probably also in Anathoth; whereupon he was threatened with death. Such conduct gave occasion to further prophecies concerning the wickedness of the people and their impending punishment. The fact that Israel has been chosen to be the people of the Lord and has shown himself unworthy of the distinction, is symbolised by a girdle, forming at first an ornament to man, but which when rotten by moisture in the crevices of rocks, is no longer of any use.

(5.) Chaps, xiv. to xvii.—Drought visits Judah; Jeremiah prays to God for relief from famine. God rejects his petition. The prophet is disappointed, but he is assured that God will protect him from the attacks of the people, if he tries “to bring forth a precious thing from the vile.” He tries, but in vain.

(6.) xvii. 19–27.—Exhortation to keep the Sabbath, to abstain from all manner of work, and from carrying burdens out of or into the town.

(7.) xviii.—God changes His decrees according to the deeds of man, as a potter transforms the clay from one vessel to another. Jeremiah is again insulted and threatened, and he prays to God against his persecutors.

(8.) xix. and xx.—In the valley of Hinnom, Jeremiah denounces the idolatry of Israel, and as a symbol of the impending ruin of Israel, he breaks a pot of earthenware. Returning from the valley, he announces the coming evil in the court of the Temple in the presence of the people; he is taken into prison by Pashchur, the chief of the Temple, for one day. When released he repeats the same prophecy, but feels that he has given offence, and in utter despair curses the day of his birth.

(9.) Chaps, xxi. to xxiv.—Nebuchadnezzar attacked Judah, and Zedekiah (later king of Judah) sent to Jeremiah asking him to pray for the safety of the people. But Jeremiah prophesied defeat and disgrace on account of their iniquity. He went even by the command of God to the royal palace, and repeated there the Divine decree against the royal family, Shallum (= Joahaz), Jojakim, and Coniah (= Jeboiachin). There will come, however, one day a righteous offspring of David, who will rule justly and prosperously; He shall be called “The Lord is our salvation.” For the present it would be better to submit to the Babylonian rule. They are false prophets who flatter and speak in the name of God of victories over the Babylonians. The false prophets will all be punished—those who proclaim as their own prophecy the very words they heard from true prophets, those who in different words reproduce messages of the true prophets as their own, and those who invent falsehood. The advisability of submitting to the Babylonian power is also illustrated by the vision of two baskets of figs; good figs representing those who will submit, and bad figs those who prefer war with the Babylonians.

(10.) xxv. to xxvii.—Jeremiah continues, during the reign of Jehoiakim, his prophecies in favour of a peaceful submission to the Babylonians, with the Divine promise of a redemption from the exile and the restoration to their own country and dominion.

(11.) xxviii.—The same prophecy is continued during the reign of Zedekiah. He was opposed by the false prophet Hananiah, to whom Jeremiah foretold that he would be punished and die the same year; this came also to pass.

(12.) xxix. to xxxi.—To the Jews already in Babylon Jeremiah sends a letter of consolation and encourages them in their hopes for the redemption from exile. Of the same tenor were the messages spoken by Jeremiah to all Jews. In days to come a new covenant will be instituted; new in so far as it will not be broken again, the Law remaining permanently written on their heart, “I shall be their God, and they shall be my nation.”

(13.) xxxii. and xxxiii.—Jeremiah, kept in prison, bought property from his uncle Hanamel, wrote and signed the document of transfer, and handed it to Baruch. By this he expressed his conviction that the Jews would return from exile and take possession of their land. In addition to this he sent forth from the prison a Messianic prophecy, describing the future greatness of the seed of David, and the restoration of the priests and Levites to the sacrificial service.

(14.) xxxiv. and xxxv.—Jeremiah exhorts the people to keep “the year of release,” and held up the family of the Rechabites as patterns of piety, who could not be induced to break their vow of abstinence, though it was voluntarily undertaken.

(15.) xxxvi. to xlv.—Jeremiah continues to prophesy, advising, though fruitlessly, submission to the Babylonian king. Zedekiah made war against Nebuchadnezzar, was defeated, and Jerusalem was taken by the Babylonians. When some Jews wanted to emigrate to Egypt, Jeremiah warned them in the name of God not to do so. He was not listened to; he was even forced to go with them; but he prophesied against them, and foretold their ruin. Baruch, to whom Jeremiah dictated his prophecies, was discontented at being driven from place to place; Jeremiah appeased and encouraged him.

(16.) xlvi. to lii.—Jeremiah prophesies against Egypt, the Philistines, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar, Elam, and Babylon. The book concludes with an account of the fall of Jerusalem, similar to that given at the end of the second book of Kings.

3. Ezekiel (‏יחזקאל‎)—Ezekiel prophesied in exile.

(1.) Chap. i. to vii.—In the fifth year of the exile of Joiachin, Ezekiel, in the vision of the chariot, representing the rule of God over the universe, is appointed a Divine messenger, to warn the people and tell them of the impending danger, that they might not be ignorant of the fate awaiting them, whether they listened or forbore to listen. The message with which he is inspired is represented as a scroll which he swallows. The threatened danger he indicates by symbolic acts, followed by their explanation. The siege of Jerusalem is illustrated by the prophet besieging a brick representing Jerusalem, and the ruin of the nation by cutting and scattering the hair of his head and beard.

(2.) viii. to xi.—In the sixth year, on the sixth day of the fifth month, in the presence of the elders of Judah, Ezekiel is carried in a prophetic vision to Jerusalem, is shown there the sins committed by the Israelites in the very Temple, and the consequent departure of the Divine Presence from the Temple. Israel will suffer for his sins, but will at last repent and improve. God promises, “I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh; that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God” (xi. 19, 20).

(3.) xii. and xiii.—The prophet indicates the coming captivity by the symbolic act of preparing the things necessary for going into exile. The false prophets and prophetesses, who tell the people to have no dread of any coming exile, will be disappointed and punished. The falsehood of the proverb, “In the length of time every vision faileth,” will then be evident.

(4.) xiv. to xix.—Ezekiel describes the sinfulness of Israel, and exhorts them to return to God, or else the threatened calamity will overcome them. He illustrates the approaching calamity by the figure of a cedar-tree and the eagle. Although the fathers have sinned, if the sons abstain from sinning they may prevent the catastrophe; for the proverb, “The fathers have eaten the sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge,” will prove untrue. If they do not improve, the catastrophe must take place which the prophet depicts in the parables of the lioness caught and of the vine consumed by fire.

(5.) xx.—In the seventh year, the Elders of Israel came to Ezekiel “to inquire of the Lord,” ‏לדרש את ה‎. Ezekiel describes the wickedness of Israel, and the punishment they deserved.

(6.) xxi. to xxiii.—Comparing Jerusalem and Samaria to two sisters, Oholibah and Oholah, he complains that the former, having witnessed the punishment of the latter, has not profited by it.

(7.) xxiv.—On the tenth day of the tenth month in the ninth year Ezekiel prophesies the siege and fall of Jerusalem on the very day on which the siege commenced. The greatness of the calamity, to express which the usual outward signs of grief would be inadequate, is indicated by the Divine command that the prophet on the death of his wife should exhibit no signs of mourning.

(8.) xxv. to xxxii.—Like Isaiah and Jeremiah, he foretells the fate of the neighbouring nations, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Philistines, Tyrians, and Egyptians. The last-named are promised recovery after forty years’ desolation of their country.

(9.) xxxiii. and xxxiv.—The prophet describes the duties and responsibilities of watchmen and shepherds, and blames those of his own time as not fulfilling their duties: “But I will save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey; and I will judge between cattle and cattle. And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David: he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David prince among them” (xxxiv. 22–24).

(10.) xxxv.—He prophesies against Seir, for their enmity against Israel.

(11.) xxxvi. and xxxvii.—Ezekiel foretells the restoration of Israel in the parable of the dry bones. The union of Israel and Judah is symbolically shown by the union of two staves.

(12.) xxxviii. and xxxix.—Gog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, will make the last efforts for the destruction of Israel. All his preparations will be in vain. He and his army will fall in the land of Israel. And the Divine promise is given: “They shall know that I am the Lord their God, in that I caused them to go into captivity among the nations, and have gathered them into their own land, and I will leave none of them any more there: neither will I hide my face any more from them; for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord God” (xxxix. 28, 29).

(13.) xl. to xlviii.—In the fourteenth year after the fall of Jerusalem, in the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, Ezekiel is carried in a vision to the land of Israel, and is shown there the rebuilding of the future Temple, and the division of the land among the twelve tribes, the Levites and the priests.

4. The Twelve Minor Prophets, ‏תרי עשר‎—

(1.) Hosea (‏הושע‎).—Hosea, a contemporary of Isaiah, prophesied about the sinfulness of the northern kingdom of the ten tribes, and turns his attention to Judah only in so far as Judah participated in the sins of Israel, and their consequences.

(a.) Chaps, i. to iii.—In an allegory of a faithless woman and her three children the sin of the ten tribes is represented, who faithlessly turned away from the worship of God in Jerusalem. The consequent three stages of punishment are represented by the names of the three children: Jezreel, referring to the catastrophe of the house of Ahab, ending in the death of Jezebel in Jezreel; Lo-ruhama (“Not pitied”), indicating the fall of the house of Jehu, from which the mercy of God was withdrawn after it had been shown in the successes of King Jeroboam II.; and the third, Lo-ami (“Not-my-people”), predicting the final dissolution of the kingdom. But a time of mercy and Divine protection is foretold by the prophet when he said in the name of God, “I will betroth thee unto me for ever; and I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness and judgment and in loving-kindness and in mercy; and I will betroth thee unto me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord; and I will sow them unto me in the land, and I will show mercy to Lo-ruhama; and I will say to Lo-ami, Thou art my people; and he shall say, My God” (ii. 21, 22, 25). This happy time, however, will only come after a period of trial, represented in the allegory by the period of trial of a faithless woman before the husband has again full confidence in her. “For many days shall the children of Israel dwell without king, without prince, without sacrifice, without a statue, and without ephod and teraphim. After that the children of Israel will return and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and they will anxiously hasten to the Lord and to His goodness in latter days” (iii. 4, 5).