(See Bk. II ch. ii.)

I. The Maccabean Family.

Mattathias   

John Simon Judas Eleazar Jonathan   

Mattathias Judas John Hyrcanus   

Aristobulus I. Antigonus Alexander Jannaeus m. Alexandra   

Hyrcanus II. Aristobulus II.   

Alexandra   m. Alexander Antigonus   

Aristobulus III. Mariamme  

II. Herodian Family.

Antipas   

Antipater, m. Kypros Joseph, m. Salome   

Phasaelus Herod I. m. Joseph Pheroras Salome, m.   

1st Joseph 2nd Costobarus 3rd Alexas   

Phasaelus, m. Salampso 1st Doris 2nd Mariamme I. 3rd Mariamme II. 4th Mathake 5th Cleopatra Berenice, m. Aristobulus   

Kypros, m. Agrippa I.   

Antipater Alexander m. Glaphyra Aristobulus m. Berenice Salampso m. Phasaelus Kypros Herod Philip m. Herodias Archelaus m. Glaphyra Antipas m. Herodias Philip m Salome   

Herod of Chalcis m. Berenice Agrippa I m. Kypros Herodias m. 1st Herod Philip 2nd Antipas Salome m. Philip   

Agrippa II. Berenice m. 1st Herod of Chalcis 2nd Polemon of Cilicia Drusilla m. 1st Azizus 2nd Felix  

III. List of High-Priests from the Accession of Herod the Great to the Destruction of Jerusalem.

Appointed by:   

Herod the Great 1. Ananel.   

2. Aristobulus.   

3. Jesus, son of Phabes.   

4. Simon, son of Boethos.   

5. Matthias, son of Theophilos.   

6. Joazar, son of Boethos.   

Archelaus 7. Eleazar, son of Boethos.   

8. Jesus, son of Sie.   

Quirinius 9. Ananos (Annas).   

Valerius Gratus 10. Ishmael, son of Phabi.   

11. Eleazar, son of Ananos.   

12. Simon, son of Camithos.   

13. Joseph (Caiaphas).   

Vitellius 14. Jonathan, son of Ananos.   

15. Theophilos, son of Ananos.   

Agrippa I. 16. Simon Cantheras, son of Boethos.   

17. Matthias, son of Ananos.   

18. Elionaios, son of Cantheras.   

Herod of Chalcis 19. Joseph, son of Camithos.   

20. Ananias, son of Nedebaios.   

Agrippa II. 21. Ishmael, son of Phabi.   

22. Joseph Cabi, son of Simon.   

23. Ananos, son of Ananos.   

24. Jesus, son: of Damnaios.   

25. Jesus, son of Gamaliel.   

26. Matthias, son of Theophilos.   

The People during the last war 27. Phannias, son of Samuel.  

IV. List of Procurators of Judea.

3 b.c. to 66a.d. 1. Ethnarch Archelaus.   

2. Coponius.   

3. M. Ambivius.   

4. Annius Rufus.   

5. Valerius Gratus.   

6. Pontius Pilate.   

7. Marcellus.   

8. King Agrippa.   

9. Cuspius Fadus.   

10. Tiberius Alexander.   

11. Ventidius Cumanus.   

12. Antonius Felix.   

13. Porcius Festus.   

14. Albinus.   

15. Gessius Florus.  

V. List of Roman Governors of Syria.

6 b.c. to 69a.d. 1. P. Quinctilius Varus.   

2. M. Lollius.   

3. C. Marcius Censorinus(?)   

4. L. Volusius Saturninus.   

5. P. Sulpic. Quirinius.   

6. Qu. Caecilius Creticus Silanus.   

7. Cn. Calpurn. Piso.   

8. Cn. Sent. Saturninus(?)   

9. Aelius Lamia.   

10. L. Pompon. Flaccus.   

11. L. Vitellius.   

12. P. Petronius.   

13. C. Vibius Marsus.   

14. C. Cass. Longinus.   

15. C. U. Quadratus.   

16. Domitius Corbulo.   

17. C. Itius (conjoined).   

18. Cestius Gallus.   

19. C. Lic. Mucianus.

(Book II. ch. iii, and other passages.)

So much, that is generally accessible, has of late been written on this subject, and such accord exists on the general question, that only the briefest statement seems requisite in this place, the space at our command being necessarily reserved for subjects which have either not been treated of by previous writers, or in a manner or form that seemed to make a fresh investigation desirable.

At the outset it must be admitted, that absolute certainty is impossible as to the exact date of Christ’s Nativity – the precise year even, and still more the month and the day. But in regard to the year, we possess such data as to invest it with such probability, as almost to amount to certainty.

1. The first and most certain date is that of the death of Herod the Great. Our Lord was born before the death of Herod, and, as we judge from the Gospel-history, very shortly before that event. Now the year of Herod’s death has been ascertained with, we may say, absolute certainty, as shortly before the Passover of the year 750 a.u.c., which corresponds to about the 12th of April of the year 4 before Christ, according to our common reckoning. More particularly, shortly before the death of Herod there was a lunar eclipse (Jos. Ant. xvii. 6. 4), which, it is astronomically ascertained, occurred on the night from the 12th to the 13th of March of the year 4 before Christ. Thus the death of Herod must have taken place between the 12th of March and the 12th of April – or, say, about the end of March (comp. Ant. xvii. 8. 1). Again, the Gospel-history necessitates an interval of, at the least, seven or eight weeks before that date for the birth of Christ (we have to insert the purification of the Virgin – at the earliest, six weeks after the Birth – The Visit of the Magi, and the murder of the children at Bethlehem, and, at any rate, some days more before the death of Herod). Thus the birth of Christ could not have possibly occurred after the beginning of February 4 b.c., and most likely several weeks earlier. This brings us close to the ecclesiastical date, the 25th of December, in confirmation of which we refer to what has been stated in Book II. chap. vi., see especially note . At any rate, the often repeated, but very superficial objection, as to the impossibility of shepherds tending flocks in the open at that season, must now be dismissed as utterly untenable, not only for the reasons stated in Book II. chap. vi., but even for this, that if the question is to be decided on the ground of rain-fall, the probabilities are in favour of December as compared with February – later than which it is impossible to place the birth of Christ.

2. No certain inference can, of course, be drawn from the appearance of ‘the star’ that guided the Magi. That, and on what grounds, our investigations have pointed to a confirmation of the date of the Nativity, as given above, has been fully explained in Book II. chap. viii. (see specially near note ).

3. On the taxing of Quirinius, see Book II. chap. vi.

4. The next historical datum furnished by the Gospels is that of the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry, which, according to Luke, was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and when Jesus was ‘about thirty years old’ (Luk_3:23). The accord of this with our reckoning of the date of the Nativity has been shown in Book II. chap. xi., at note .

5. A similar conclusion would be reached by following the somewhat vague and general indication furnished in Joh_2:20.

6. Lastly, we reach the same goal if we follow the historically somewhat uncertain guidance of the date of the Birth of the Baptist, as furnished in this notice (Luk_1:5) of his annunciation to his father, that Zacharias officiated in the Temple as one of ‘the course of Abia’ (see here Book II. chap. iii.). In Taan. 29a we have the notice, with which that of Josephus agrees (War vi. 4. 1, 5), that at the time of the destruction of the Temple ‘the course of Jehoiarib,’ which was the first of the priestly courses, was on duty. That was on the 9-10 Ab of the year 823 a.u.c., or the 5th August of the year 70 of our era. If this calculation be correct (of which, however, we cannot feel quite sure), then counting ‘the courses’ of priests backwards, the course of Abia would, in the year 748a.u.c. (the year before the birth of Christ) have been on duty from the 2nd to the 9th of October. This also would place the birth of Christ in the end of December of the following year (749), taking the expression ‘sixth month’ in Luk_1:26; Luk_1:36, in the sense of the running month (from the 5th to the 6th month, comp. Luk_1:24). But we repeat that absolute reliance cannot be placed on such calculations, at least so far as regards month and day. (Comp. here generally Wieseler, Synopse, and his Beiträge.)

(Book II. ch. iii.)

To complete the evidence, presented in the text, as to the essential difference between the teaching of the ancient Synagogue about ‘the Forerunner of the Messiah’ and the history and mission of John the Baptist, as described in the New Testament, we subjoin a full, though condensed, account of the earlier Rabbinic traditions about Elijah.

Opinions differ as to the descent and birthplace of Elijah. According to some, he was from the land of Gilead (Bemid. R. 14), and of the tribe of Gad (Tanch. on Gen_49:19). Others describe him as a Benjamite, from Jerusalem, one of those ‘who sat in the Hall of Hewn Stones’ (Tanch. on Exo_31:2), or else as paternally descended from Gad and maternally from Benjamin. Yet a third opinion, and to which apparently most weight attaches, represents him as a Levite, and a Priest – nay, as the great High-Priest of Messianic days. This is expressly stated in the Targum Pseudo-Jon. on Exo_11:10, where it also seems implied that he was to anoint the Messiah with the sacred oil, the composition of which was among the things unknown in the second Temple, but to be restored by Elijah (Tanch. on Exo_23:20, ed. Warsh. p. 91a, lines 4 and 5 from the top). Another curious tradition identifies Elijah with Phinehas (Targum Pseudo-Jon. on Exo_6:18). The same expression as in the Targum (‘Phinehas – that is Elijah’) occurs in that great storehouse of Rabbinic tradition, Yalkut (vol. 1 p. 245b, last two lines, and col. c). From the pointed manner in which reference is made to the parallelism between the zeal of Phinehas and that of Elijah, and between their work in reconciling God and Israel, and bringing the latter to repentance, we may gather alike the origin of this tradition and its deeper meaning.

For (as fully explained in Book II. ch. v.) it is one of the principles frequently expressed by the ancient Synagogue, in its deeper perception of the unity and import of the Old Testament, that the miraculous events and Divine interpositions of Israel’s earlier history would be re-enacted, only with wider application, in Messianic days. If this idea underlay the parallelism between Phinehas and Elijah, it is still more fully carried out in that between Elijah and Moses. On comparing the Scriptural account of these two messengers of God we are struck with the close correspondence between the details of their history. The Synagogue is careful to trace this analogy step by step (Yalkut, vol. 2 p. 32d) to the final deliverance of Israel, marking that, as that by Moses had for ever freed his people from the domination of Egypt, so would the final deliverance by Elijah for ever break the yoke of all foreign rule. The allusion here is to the part which Elijah was expected to take in the future ‘wars of Gog and Magog’ (Seder Olam R. c. xvii.). Indeed, this parallelism is carried so far, that tradition has it, that, when Moses was commissioned by God to go to Pharaoh, he pleaded that God should rather send by him whom He designed to send for the far greater deliverance in the latter days. On this it was told him that Elijah’s mission would be to Israel, while he (Moses) was sent to Pharaoh (Pirqé de R. Eliez. 40). Similarly, it is asserted that the cave from which Moses beheld the Divine Presence passing before him (Exo_33:22) was the same as that in which Elijah stood under similar circumstances – that cave having been created, not with the rest of the world, but specially on the eve of the world’s first Sabbath (Siphré on Deut., ed. Friedmann, p. 147a, last line). Considering this parallelism between them, the occurrence of the somewhat difficult expression will scarcely surprise us, that in the days of the Messiah Moses and Elijah would come together – ‘as one’ (Debar. R. 3, at the end).

It has been noted in the text that the activity of Elijah, from the time of his appearance in the days of Ahab to that of his return as the forerunner of the Messiah, is represented in Jewish tradition as continuous, and that he is almost constantly introduced on the scene, either as in converse with some Rabbi, or else as busy about Israel’s welfare, and connected with it. Thus Elijah chronicles in heaven the deeds of man (Seder Olam R. xvii.), or else he writes down the observance of the commandments by men, and then the Messiah and God seal it (Midrash on Rth_2:14, last line, ed. Warsh, p. 43b). In general, he is ever interested in all that concerns Israel’s present state or their future deliverance (Sanh. 98a). Indeed, he is connected with the initiatory rite of the covenant, in acknowledgment of his zeal in the restoration of circumcision, when, according to tradition, it had been abrogated by the ten tribes after their separation from Judah. God accordingly had declared: ‘Israel shall not make the covenant of circumcision, but thou shalt see it,’ and the sages decreed that (at circumcision) a seat of honour shall be placed for the Angel of the Covenant (Mal_3:2; Pirqé de R. Eliez. 29, end). Tradition goes even further. Not only was he the only ambassador to whom God had delegated His three special ‘keys:’ of birth, of the rainfall, and of waking the dead (Yalkut, vol. 2 32c), but his working was almost Divine (Tanch. Bereshith 7; ed. Warsh. p. 6b, last line, and 7a).

We purposely pass over the activity of Elijah in connection with Israel, and especially its Rabbis and saints, during the interval between the Prophet’s death and his return as the Forerunner of the Messiah, such as Jewish legend describes it. No good purpose could be served by repeating what so frequently sounds not only utterly foolish and superstitious, but profane. In Jewish legend Elijah is always introduced as the guardian of the interests of Israel, whether theologically or personally – as it were the constant living medium between God and his people, the link that binds the Israel of the present – with its pursuits, wants, difficulties and interests – to the bright Messianic future of which he is the harbinger. This probably is the idea underlying the many, often grotesque, legends about his sayings and doing. Sometimes he is represented as, in his well-meant zeal, going so far, as to bear false witness in order to free Rabbis from danger and difficulty (Berach. 58a). In general, he is always ready to instruct, to comfort, or to heal, condescending even to so slight a malady as the toothache (Ber. R. 96, end). But most frequently is he the adviser and friend of the Rabbis, in whose meetings and studies he delighteth. Thus he was a frequent attendant in Rabh’s Academy – and his indiscretion in divulging to his friends the secrets of heaven had once procured for him in heaven the punishment of fiery stripes (Babha Mets. 85b). But it is useless to do more than indicate all this. Our object is to describe the activity of Elijah in connection with the coming of the Messiah.

When, at length, the time of Israel’s redemption arrived – then would Elijah return. Of two things only are we sure in connection with it. Elijah will not ‘come yesterday’ – that is, he will be revealed the same day that he comes – and he will not come on the eve of either a Sabbath or feast-day, in order not to interrupt the festive rest, nor to break the festive laws (Erub. 43b, Shabb. 33a). Whether he came one day (Er. 43b) or three days before the Messiah (Yalkut, vol. 2 p. 53c, about the middle) his advent would be close to that of the Messiah (Yalkut, vol. 1 p. 310a, line 21 from bottom). The account given of the three days between the advent of Elijah and of the Messiah is peculiar (Yalkut, vol. 2 p. 53c). Commenting on Isa_3:7, it is explained, that on the first of those three days Elijah would stand on the mountains of Israel, lamenting the desolateness of the land, his voice being heard from one end of the world to the other, after which he would proclaim: ‘Peace’ cometh to the world; ‘peace’ cometh to the world! Similarly on the second day he would proclaim, ‘Good’ cometh to the world; ‘good’ cometh to the world! Lastly, on the third day, he would, in the same manner as the two previous days, make proclamation: ‘Jeshuah’ (salvation) cometh to the world; Jeshuah  (salvation) cometh to the world,’ which, in order to mark the difference between Israel and the Gentiles, would be further explained by this addition: ‘Saying unto Zion – Thy King cometh!’

The period of Elijah’s advent would, according to one opinion (Pirqé de R., Eliez. 43), be a time of genuine repentance by Israel, although it is not stated that this change would be brought about by his ministry. On the other hand, his peculiar activity would consist in settling ceremonial and ritual questions, doubts, and difficulties, in making peace, in restoring those who by violence had been wrongfully excluded from the congregation and excluding those who by violence had been wrongfully introduced Bab. Mets. i. 8; ii. 8; iii. 4, 5; Eduy. vii. 7). He would also restore to Israel these three things which had been lost: the golden pot of Manna (Exo_16:33), the vessel containing the anointing oil, and that with the waters of purification – according to some, also Aaron’s rod that budded and bore fruit. Again, his activity is likened to that of the Angel whom God had sent before Israel to drive out and to vanquish the hostile nations (Tanch. on Exo_23:20, §18 at the close; ed. Warsh. p. 106b). For Elijah was to appear, then to disappear, and to appear again in the wars of Gog and Magog (Seder Olam R. xvii.). But after that time general peace and happiness would prevail, when Elijah would discharge his peculiar functions. Finally, to the ministry of Elijah some also ascribed the office of raising the dead (Sotah ix. 15, closing words).

Such is a summary of ancient Jewish tradition concerning Elijah as the forerunner of the Messiah. Comparing it with the New Testament description of John the Baptist, it will at least be admitted that, from whatever source the sketch of the activity and mission of the Baptist be derived, it cannot have been from the ideal of the ancient Synagogue, nor yet from popularly current Jewish views. And, indeed – could there be a greater contrast than between the Jewish forerunner of the Messiah and him of the New Testament?

Appendix IX. List of Old Testament Passages Messianically Applied in Ancient Rabbinic Writings.

(Book II. ch. v.)

The following list contains the passages in the Old Testament applied to the Messiah or to Messianic times in the most ancient Jewish writings. They amount in all to 456, thus distributed: 75 from the Pentateuch, 248 from the Prophets; and 138 from the Hagiographa, and supported by more than 558 separate quotations from Rabbinic writings. Despite all labour and care, it can scarcely be hoped that the list is quite complete, although, it is hoped, no important passage has been omitted. The Rabbinic references might have been considerably increased, but it seemed useless to quote the same application of a passage in many different books. Similarly, for the sake of space, only the most important Rabbinic quotations have been translated in extenso. The Rabbinic works from which quotations have been made are: the Targumim the two Talmuds, and the most ancient Midrashim, but neither the Zohar (as the date of its composition is in dispute), nor any other Kabbalistic work, nor yet the younger Midrashim, nor, of course, the writings of later Rabbis. I have, however, frequently quoted from the well-known work Yalkut, because, although of comparatively late date, it is really, as its name implies, a collection and selection from more than fifty older and accredited writings, and adduces passages now not otherwise accessible to us. And I have the more readily availed myself of it, as I have been reluctantly forced to the conclusion that even the Midrashim preserved to us have occasionally been tampered with for controversial purposes. I have quoted from the best edition of Yalkut (Frankfort a. M., 1687), but in the case of the other Midrashim I have been obliged to content myself with such more recent reprints as I possessed, instead of the older and more expensive editions. In quoting from the Midrashim, not only the Parashah, but mostly also the folio, the page, and frequently even the lines are referred to. Lastly, it only remains to acknowledge in general that, so far as possible, I have availed myself of the labours of my predecessors – specially of those of Schoettgen. Yet, even so, I may, in a sense, claim these references also as the result of my own labours, since I have not availed myself of quotations without comparing them with the works from which they were adduced – a process in which not a few passages quoted had to be rejected. And if any student should arrive at a different conclusion from mine in regard to any of the passages hereafter quoted, I can at least assure him that mine is the result of the most careful and candid study I could give to the consideration of each passage. With these prefatory remarks I proceed to give the list of Old Testament passages Messianically applied in ancient Rabbinic writings.

In Gen_1:2, the expression, ‘Spirit of God,’ is explained of ‘the Spirit of the King Messiah,’ with reference to Isa_11:2, and the ‘moving on the face of the deep’ of ‘repentance,’ according to Lam_2:19. So in Ber. R. 2, and in regard to the point also in Ber. R. 8, in Vayyik. R. 14, and in other places.

Gen_2:4 : ‘These are the generations – תולדות – of the heavens and of the earth,’ taken in connection with Gen_3:15 and Rth_4:18. Here we note one of the most curious Messianic interpretations in Ber. R. 12 (ed. Warsh. p. 24b). It is noted that the word ‘generations’ (תולדות) is always written in the Bible without the ו which is the equivalent for the numeral 6, except in Gen_2:4 and Rth_4:18. This to indicate that subsequent to Gen_2:4 the Fall took place, in which Adam lost ו – six – things: his glorious sheen (Job_14:20); life (Gen_3:19); his stature (Gen_3:8 – either by 100, by 200, by 300, or even by 900 cubits); the fruit of the ground; the fruits of the trees (Gen_3:17); and the heavenly lights. We have now seen why in Gen_2:4 – that is, previous to the Fall – the ו is still in תולדות, since at that time these six things were not yet lost. But the ו reappears in the word תולדות in Rth_4:18, because these six things are to be restored to man by ‘the son of Pharez’ – or the Messiah (comp. for each of these six things: Jdg_5:31; Isa_66:22; Lev_26:13; Zec_8:12; Isa_30:26). It is added that although – according to the literal rendering of Psa_49:12 (in Heb ver. 13) – man did not remain unfallen one single night, yet, for the sake of the Sabbath, the heavenly lights were not extinguished till after the close of the Sabbath. When Adam saw the darkness, it is added, he was greatly afraid, saying: Perhaps he, of whom it is written, ‘he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel,’ cometh to molest and attack me, and he said, ‘Surely the darkness shall cover me.’ This curious extract at least shows in what context the Synagogue applied Gen_3:15. The same occurs substantially in Shem. R. 30.

Gen_3:15. This well-known passage is paraphrased, with express reference to the Messiah, in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the so-called Jerusalem Targum. Schoettgen conjectures that the Talmudic designation of ‘heels of the Messiah’ (Sot. 49b, line 2 from top) in reference to the near Advent of the Messiah in the description of the troubles of those days (comp. Mat_10:35, Mat_10:36) may have been chosen partly with a view to this passage.

Gen_4:25. The language of Eve at the birth of Seth: ‘another seed,’ is explained as meaning ‘seed which comes from another place,’ and referred to the Messiah in Ber. R. 23 (ed. Warsh. p. 45b, lines 8, 7 from the bottom). The same explanation occurs twice in the Midrash on Rth_4:19 (in the genealogy of David, ed. Warsh. p. 46b), the second time in connection with Psa_20:8 (‘in the volume of the book it is written of me’ – bimegilaṯ sep̱er – Ruth belonging to the class מגלת).

In connection with Gen_5:1 it is noted in Ber. R. 24, that King Messiah will not come till all souls predestined for it have appeared in human bodies on earth.

In Gen_8:11 the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan notes that the olive-leaf, brought by the dove, was taken from the Mount of the Messiah.

Gen_9:27. The promise, that Japhet shall dwell in the tents of Shem, is paraphrased in the Targum Pseudo-Jon. as meaning, that his descendants should become proselytes, and dwell in the schools of Shem – which seems to refer to Messianic times.

In connection with Gen_14:1, we are reminded in Ber. R. 42, that when we see the nations warring together, we may expect the coming of the Messiah.

The promise in Gen_15:18 is expected to be finally fulfilled in the, time of Messiah, in Ber. R. 44.

In connection with Gen_18:4, Gen_18:5 it is noted (Ber. R. 48, ed. Warsh. p. 87b) that the words of Abraham to his Angelic guests were to be returned in blessing to Abraham’s descendants, in the wilderness, in the land of Canaan, and in the latter (Messianic) days. Referring only to this last point, the words ‘let a little water be fetched,’ is paralleled with the ‘living waters’ in Zec_14:8; ‘wash your feet,’ with Isa_4:4 (the washing away of the filth of the daughters of Zion); ‘rest under the tree,’ with Isa_4:6 ‘there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the daytime’ from the heat;’ ‘I will fetch a morsel of bread,’ with the provision, Psa_72:16 : ‘there shall be a handful of corn in the earth,’ etc. So also the words: ‘Abraham ran unto the herd,’ are paralleled with Isa_7:21 (which is most significantly here applied to Messianic times); and lastly, the words, ‘he stood by them,’ with Mic_2:13 : ‘the breaker is come up before them.’ The same interpretation occurs in Bemid. R. 14 (ed. Warsh. p. 55a), the references to Messianic days there being to Isa_14:2; Isa_30:25; Isa_41:18; Isa_4:4; and Isa_4:6.

The last clause of Gen_19:32 is interpreted (Ber. R. 51, ed. Warsh. p. 95a), as referring, like the words of Eve about Seth, to the Messiah – the sin of the daughters of Lot being explained on the ground of their believing that all mankind had been destroyed in the judgment that overthrew Sodom.

The promise in Gen_22:18 is also explained Messianically in Bemid. R. 2 (ed. W. p. 5b), in connection with Num_2:32, where it is somewhat curiously shown in what sense Israel is to be like the sand of the sea.

Gen_33:1. The Midrash conjoins this with Isa_66:7, and notes that, before the first oppressor was born, the last Redeemer was already born.

In Gen_35:21 the Targum Pseudo-Jon. paraphrases ‘the tower of Eder’ (at Bethlehem) as the place whence the Messiah would be revealed.

On Gen_38:1, Gen_38:2 there are very remarkable Messianic comments in Ber. R. 85.

Gen_49:1. The Targum Pseudo-Jon. notes, that the end for which the Messiah would come was not revealed to Jacob. A similar statement is found in the Midrash on the passage (Ber. R. 98, ed. Warsh. p. 173a), where it is said of Jacob and Daniel that they saw the end, and yet it was afterwards hid from them. The passage quoted in the case of Daniel is Dan_12:4.

Gen_49:9. The expression ‘lion’s whelp,’ is explained of the Messiah in Yalkut 160 (vol. 1 p. 49c), no less than five times; while the term ‘he couched,’ is referred to the Messiah in Ber. R. 98.

Gen_49:10. This well-known prediction (on which see the full and interesting discussion in Raym. Martini, Pugio Fidei) is in Yalkut, u.s., applied to the Messiah, with a quotation of Psa_2:9. The expression ‘Shiloh’ is also applied to the Messiah, with the curious addition, that in the latter days all nations would bring gifts to Him. Alike the Targum Onkelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, and the Jerusalem Targum, as well as Sanh. 98b, the Midrash on the passage, and that on Pro_19:21, and on Lam_1:16, where it is rendered shelo, ‘whose’ it is, refer the expression ‘Shiloh,’ and, indeed, the whole- passage, to the Messiah; the Midrash Ber. R. (99, ed. Warsh. p. 178b) with special reference to Isa_11:10, while the promise with reference to the ass’s colt is brought into connection with Zec_9:9, the fulfilment of this prophecy being expected along with that in Eze_36:25 (‘I will sprinkle clean water’). Another remarkable statement occurs in the Midrash on the passage (Ber. R. 98, ed. Warsh. p. 174b), which applies the verse to the coining of Him of Whom it is written, Zec_9:9. Then He would wash his garment in wine (Gen_49:11), which is explained as meaning the teaching of the Law to Israel, and His clothes in the blood of grapes, which is explained as meaning that He would bring them back from their errors. One of the Rabbis, however, remarks that Israel would not require to be taught by the King Messiah in the latter days, since it was written (Isa_11:10). ‘to it shall the Gentiles seek.’ If so, then why should the Messiah come, and what will He do to the congregation of Israel? He will redeem Israel, and give them thirty commandments, according to Zec_11:12. The Targum Pseudo-Jon. and the Jer. Targum also apply Zec_11:11 to the Messiah. Indeed, so general was this interpretation, that, according to popular opinion, to see a palm-tree in one’s dreams was to see the days of the Messiah (Berach. 57a).

Gen_49:12 is also applied to the Messiah in the Targum Pseudo-Jon. and the Jerusalem Targum. So also is 49:18, although not in express words.

In Gen_49:17, last clause, in its connection with Gen_49:18, the Midrash (Ber. R. 98) sees a reference to the disappointment of Jacob in mistaking Samson for the Messiah.

In the prophecy of Gad in Gen_49:19 there is an allusion to Messianic days, as Elijah was to be of the tribe of Gad (Ber. R. 99, ed. Warsh. p. 179a). There is, however, in Ber. R. 71, towards the close, a dispute whether he was of the tribe of Gad, or of the tribe of Benjamin, at the close of which Elijah appears, and settles the dispute in a rather summary manner.

On Gen_50:10 the Midrash, at the close of Ber. R., remarks that as they had mourned, so in Messianic days God would turn their mourning into joy, quoting Jer_31:13 and Isa_51:3.

Exo_4:22 is referred to the Messiah in the Midr. on Psa_2:7.

On Exo_12:2, ‘let this be the beginning of months,’ it is remarked in Shem. R. 15 (ed. Warsh. p. 24b) that God would make new ten things in the latter days, these being marked by the following passages: Isa_51:19; Eze_47:9; Eze_47:12; Eze_16:55; Isa_54:11; Isa_11:7; Hos_2:20; Isa_65:19; Isa_25:8; Isa_35:10. Similarly on Num_12:1 we have, in Shem. R. 51, a parallelism between Old Testament times and their institutions and those of the latter days, to which Isa_49:12 and Isa_60:8 are supposed to apply.

On Exo_12:42 the Jerus. Targum notes that there were 4 remarkable nights: those of creation, of the covenant with Abraham, of the first Passover, and of the redemption of the world; and that as Moses came out of the desert, so would the Messiah come out of Rome.

Exo_15:1. It is noted in Mekhilta (ed. Weiss, p. 41a) that this song would be taken up in Messianic days, only with far wider reach, as explained in Isa_60:5; Isa_58:8; Isa_35:5, Isa_35:6; Jer_31:13; and Psa_126:2.

Exo_16:25 is applied to the Messiah, it being said that, if Israel only kept one Sabbath according to the commandment, the Messiah would immediately come (Jer. Taan. 64a).

Exo_16:33. This manna, it is noted in: Mechil. ed. Weiss, p. 59b, was to be preserved for the days of the Messiah. Isa_30:15 is similarly explained in Jer. Taan. i. 1.

Exo_17:16 the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan refers to Messianic times.

Exo_21:1. Shem. R. 30, ed. Warsh. p. 44b, 45a, notes on the word ‘judgments’ a number of things connected with judgment, showing how Balaam could not have wished the advent of the future deliverance (Num_24:17), since he was to perish in it; but that Israel should cleave to the great hope pressed in Gen_49:18; Isa_56:1 Isa_59:16; and especially Zec_9:9, of which a different rendering is proposed.

On Exo_40:9, Exo_40:11 there is in the Targum Pseudo-Jon. distinct reference to the King Messiah, on whose account the anointing oil was to be used.

The promise (Lev_26:12) is also referred to the latter, or Messianic, days in Yalkut 62 (vol. 1 p. 17b).

Lev_26:13 is applied to Messianic times. See our remarks on Gen_2:4.

The promise of peace in the Aaronic benediction Num_6:26 is referred to the peace of the Kingdom of David, in accordance with Isa_9:7 (Siphré on Nu par. 42, ed. Friedmann, p. 12b).

Num_7:12. In connection with this it is marked that the six blessings which were lost by the Fall are to be restored by the son of Nahshon, i.e. the Messiah (Bem. R. 18, ed. W. p. 51a).

In the Jerusalem Targum on Num_11:26 the prophecy of Eldad and Medad is supposed to have been with regard to the wars of the latter days against Jerusalem, and to the defeat of Gog and Magog by the Messiah.

In Num_23:21 the, term ‘King’ is expressly referred to the Messiah in Targum Pseudo-Jon. So also Num_24:7 in the Jer. Targum.

In Num_24:17 Balaam’s prediction of the Star and Sceptre is referred to the Messiah in the Targum Onkelos and the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, as well as in Jer. Taan. iv. 8; Deb. R. 1; Midr. on Lam_2:2. Similarly, Num_24:20 and Num_24:24 of that prophecy are ascribed in the Targum Pseudo-Jon. to the Messiah.

Num_27:16. In connection with this verse it is noticed that His one Spirit is worth as much as all other spirits, according to Isa_11:1 (Yalkut, vol. 1 p. 247a).

Deu_1:8 is applied to the days of the Messiah in Siphré, 67a.

In the comments of Tanchuma on Deu_8:1. (ed. Warsh. p. 104b, 105a) there are several allusions to Messianic days.

Deu_11:21 is applied in Siphré, Par. 47 (ed. Friedmann, p. 83a) to the days of the Messiah.

In Deu_16:3 the record of the deliverance from Egypt is supposed to be carried on to the days of the Messiah, in Siphré, Par. 130 (ed. Freidmann, p. 101a). See also, Ber. i. 5.

On Deu_19:8, Deu_19:9 it is noted, in Siphré on Deut., Par. 185 (ed. Friedm. p. 108b), that as three of these cities were in territory never possessed by Israel, this was to be fulfilled in Messianic times. See also Jer. Macc. ii. 7.

In Tanchuma on Deu_20:10 (Par. 19, ed. Warsh. p. 114b) the offer of peace to a hostile city is applied to the future action of Messiah to the Gentiles, in accordance with Zec_9:10; Isa_2:4; and Psa_68:32; while, on the other hand, the resistance of a city to the offer of peace is likened to rebellion against the Messiah, and consequent judgment, according to Isa_11:4.

Deu_23:11 is typically applied to the evening of time, when God would wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion (Isa_4:4); and the words: ‘when the sun is down’ to when King Messiah would come (Tanchuma on Par. Ki Thetse 3, ed. Warsh. p. 115b).

Deu_25:19 and Deu_30:4 are referred by the Targum Pseudo-Jon. to Messianic times. In the latter passage the gathering of dispersed Israel by Elijah, and their being brought back by Messiah, are spoken of. Comp. also Bem. R., last three lines.

On Deu_32:7 Siphré (Par. 210, ed. Friedm. p. 134a) makes the beautiful observation, that in all Israel’s afflictions they were to remember the good and

comfortable things which God had promised them for the future world, and in connection with this there is special reference to the time of the Messiah.

On Deu_32:30 Siphré (p. 138a) marks its fulfilment in the days of the Messiah.

On Deu_33:5 the Jer. Targum speaks of a king whom the tribes of Israel shall obey, this being evidently the King Messiah.

Deu_33:17. Tanchuma on Gn 1 Par. 1 (ed. Warsh. p. 4a) applies this to the Messiah. So also in Bemidb. R. 14.

Deu_33:12. The expression, ‘he shall cover him,’ is referred to this world; ‘all the day long,’ to the days of the Messiah; and ‘he shall dwell between his shoulders,’ to the world to come (Sebach. 118b).

Jdg_5:31 : ‘let them that love Him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might,’ is applied to Messianic times in Ber. R. 12. See our remarks on Gen_2:4.

On Rth_2:14 : ‘come hither at the time of meat,’ the Midr. R. Ru 5 (ed. Warsh. p. 43a and b), has a very remarkable interpretation. Besides the application of the word ‘eat,’ as beyond this present time, to the days of the Messiah, and again to the world to come, which is to follow these days, the Midrash applies the whole of it mystically to the Messiah, viz. ‘Come hither,’ that is, draw near to the Kingdom, ‘and eat of the bread,’ that is, the bread of royalty, ‘and dip thy morsel in vinegar’ – these are the sufferings, as it is written in Isa_53:5, ‘He was wounded for our transgressions.’ ‘And she sat beside the reapers’ – because His Kingdom would in the future be put aside from Him for a short time, according to Zec_14:2; ‘and he reached her parched corn’ – because He will restore it to Him, according to Isa_11:4. R. Berachiah, in the name of R. Levi, adds, that the second Redeemer should be like the first. As the first Redeemer (Moses) appeared, and disappeared, and reappeared after three months, so the second Redeemer would also appear, and disappear, and again become manifest, Dan_12:11, Dan_12:12 being brought into connection with it. Comp. Midr. on Cant. ii. 9; Pesik. 49a, b. Again, the words, ‘she ate, and was sufficed, and left,’ are thus interpreted in Shabb. 113b: she ate – in this world; and was sufficed – in the days of the Messiah; and left – for the world to come.

Again, the Targum on Rth_1:1 speaks of the Messiah; and again on Rth_3:15 paraphrases the six measures of barley as referring to six righteous ones, of which the last was the Messiah, and who were each to have six special blessings.

Rth_4:18. The Messiah is called ‘the son of Pharez,’ who restores what had been lost to humanity through the fall of Adam. See our remarks on Gen_2:4.

The Messianic interpretation of Rth_4:20 has already been given under Gen_4:25.

1Sa_2:10. The latter clause of this promise is understood by the Targum (and also in some of the Midrashim) as applying to the Kingdom of the Messiah.

2Sa_22:28. In a Talmudic passage (Sanh. 98a, line 19, etc., from the bottom), which contains many references to the coming of the Messiah, His advent is predicted in connection with this passage.

2Sa_23:1 is applied by the Targum to the prophecy of David concerning the latter Messianic days.

2Sa_23:3. The ‘ruling in the fear of God’ is referred in the Targum to the future raising up of the Messiah.

In 2Sa_23:4 the morning light at sunrise is explained in the Midrash on the passage (par. 29, ed. Lemberg, p. 56b, lines 7-9 from the top), as applying to the appearance of the Messiah.

The expression, 1Ki_4:33, that, Solomon spoke of trees, is referred in the Targum to his prophecy concerning kings that were to reign in this age, and in that of the Messiah.

On the name ‘Anani,’ in 1Ch_3:24, the Targum remarks that this is the Messiah, the interpretation being that the word Anani is connected with the word similarly written (not punctuated) in Dan_7:13, and there translated ‘clouds,’ of which the explanation is given in Tanchuma (Par., toledoṯ 14, p. 37b).

Psa_2:1-12, as might be expected, is treated as full of Messianic references. To begin with, Psa_2:1 is applied to the wars of Gog and Magog in the Talmud (Berach. 7b, and Abhod. Zarah 3b), and also in the Midrash on Psa_2:1-12. Similarly, PsPsa_2:2 is applied to the Messiah in Abhod. Zarah, u.s., in the Midrash on Psa_92:11 (ed. Warsh. p. 70b, line 8 from the top); in Pirqué de R. Eliez. c. 28 (ed. Lemberg, p. 33b, line 9 from top). In Yalkut (vol. 2 par. 620, p. 90a, line 12 from the bottom), we have the following remarkable simile on the words, ‘against God, and His Messiah,’ likening them to a robber who stands defiantly behind the palace of the king, and says, If I shall find the son of the king, I shall lay hold on him, and crucify him, and kill him with a cruel death. But the Holy Spirit mocks at him, ‘He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh.’ On the same verse the Midrash on Psa_2:1-12 has a curious conceit, intended to show that each who rose against God and His people thought he was wiser than he who had preceded him. If Cain had killed his brother while his father was alive, forgetful that there would be other sons, Esau proposed to wait till after his father’s death. Pharaoh, again, blamed Esau for his folly in forgetting that in the meantime Jacob would have children, and hence proposed to kill all the male children, while Haman, ridiculing, Pharaoh’s folly in forgetting that there were daughters, set himself to destroy the whole people; and, in turn, Gog and Magog, ridiculing the shortsightedness of all, who had preceded them, in taking counsel against Israel so long as they had a Patron in heaven, resolved first to attack their heavenly Patron, and after that Israel. To which apply the words, ‘against the Lord, and against His Anointed.’

But to return. Psa_2:4 is Messianically applied in the Talmud (Abhod. Z. u.s.). Psa_2:6 is applied to the Messiah in the Midrash on 1Sa_16:1 (Par. 19, ed. Lemberg, p. 45a and b), where it is said that of the three measures of sufferings one goes to the King Messiah, of whom it is written (Isa_53:1-12) ‘He was wounded for our transgressions.’ They say to the King Messiah: Where dost Thou seek to dwell? He answers: Is this question also necessary? In Sion My holy hill (Psa_2:6). (Comp. also Yalkut ii. p. 53c.)

Psa_2:7 is quoted as Messianic in the Talmud, among a number of other Messianic quotations (Sukk. 52a). There is a very remarkable passage in the Midrash on Psa_2:7 (ed. Warsh. p. 5a), in which the unity of Israel and the Messiah in prophetic vision seems clearly indicated. Tracing the ‘decree’ through the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, the first passage quoted is Exo_4:22 : ‘Israel is My first-born son;’ the second, from the Prophets, Isa_52:13 : ‘Behold My servant shall deal prudently,’ and Isa_42:1 : ‘Behold My servant, whom I uphold;’ the third, from the Hagiographa, Psa_110:1 : ‘The Lord said unto my Lord,’ and again, Psa_2:7 : ‘The Lord said unto Me, Thou art My Son,’ and yet this other saying (Dan_7:13): ‘Behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven.’ Five lines further down, the same Midrash, in reference to the words ‘Thou art My Son,’ observes that, when that hour comes, God speaks to Him to make a new covenant, and thus He speaks: ‘This day have I begotten Thee’ – this is the hour in which He becomes His Son.

Psa_2:8 is applied in Ber. R. 44 (ed. Warsh. p. 80a) and in the Midrash on the passage, to the Messiah, with the curious remark that there were three of whom it was said ‘Ask of Me’ – Solomon, Ahaz, and the Messiah. In the Talmud (Sukk. 52a) the same passage is very curiously applied, it being suggested that, when the Messiah, the Son of David, saw that the Messiah, the Son of Joseph, would be killed, He said to the Almighty, I seek nothing of Thee except life. To which the reply was: Life before Thou hadst spoken, as David Thy father prophesied of Thee. Psa_21:4.

Psa_2:9 will be referred to in our remarks on Psa_120:1-7

Psa_16:5 is discussed in Ber. R. 88, in connection with the cup which Pharaoh’s butler saw in his dream. From this the Midrash proceeds to speak of the four cups appointed for the Passover night, and to explain their meaning in various manners, among others, contrasting the four cups of fury, which God would make the nations drink, with the four cups of salvation which He would give Israel in the latter days, viz. Psa_16:5; Psa_116:13; Psa_23:5. The expression, Psa_116:13, rendered in our A.V. ‘the cup of salvation,’ is in the original, ‘the cup of salvations’ – and is explained as implying one for the days of the Messiah, and the other for the days of Gog.

On Psa_16:9, the Midrash on the passage says My glory shall rejoice in the King Messiah, Who in the future shall come forth from me, as it is written in Isa_4:5 : “upon all the glory a covering.”’ And the Midrash continues ‘my flesh also shall dwell in safety’ – i.e. after death, to teach us that corruption and the worm shall not rule over it.

Psa_18:31 (32 in the Hebrew). The Targum explains this in reference to, the works and miracles of the Messiah.

Psa_18:50 is referred in the Jer. Talmud (Ber. ii. 4, p. 5a, line 11 from the top), and in the Midr. on Lam_1:16, to the Messiah, with this curious remark, implying the doubt whether He was alive or dead: ‘The King Messiah, whether He belong to the living or the dead, His Name is to be David, according to Psa_18:50.’

Psa_21:1 (2 in the Hebrew) – the King there spoken of is explained by the Targum to be the King Messiah. The Midrash on the passage identifies him with Isa_11:10, on which Rabbi Chanina adds that the object of the Messiah is to give, certain commandments to the Gentiles (not to Israel, who are to learn from God Himself), according to the passage in Isaiah above quoted, adding that the words ‘his rest shall be glorious’ mean that God gives to King Messiah from the glory above, as it is said: ‘In Thy strength shall the king rejoice,’ which strength is a little afterwards explained as the Kingdom (ed. Warsh. p. 30a and b).

Psa_21:3 is Messianically applied in the Midrash on the passage.

Psa_21:3 (4 in the Hebrew). Only a few lines farther down in the same Midrash, among remarkable Messianic applications, is that of this verse to the Messiah, where also the expressions ‘Jehovah is a man of war,’ and ‘Jehovah Zidkenu,’ are applied to the Messiah. Comp. also Shemoth R. 8, where it is noted that God will crown Him with His own crown.

Psa_21:4 is Messianically applied in Sukk. 52a.

Psa_21:5 (6 in the Hebrew). The first clause of this verse Yalkut on Num_27:20 (vol. 1 p. 248a, line 10 from the bottom) applies to the glory of the King Messiah, immediately quoting the second clause in proof of its Messianic application. This is also done in the Midrash on the passage. But perhaps one of the most remarkable applications of it is in Bemidbar R. 15, p. 63b, where this passage is applied to the Messiah.

Finally in Psa_21:7 (8 in the Hebrew), the expression ‘king’ is applied in the Targum to the Messiah.

On the whole, then, it may be remarked that Psa_21:1-13 was throughout regarded as Messianic.

On Psa_22:7 (8 in the Hebrew) a remarkable comment appears in Yalkut on Isa 60, applying this passage to the Messiah (the second, or son of Ephraim), and using almost the same words in which the Evangelists describe the mocking behaviour of the Jews at the Cross.

Psa_22:15 (16 in the Hebrew). There is a similarly remarkable application to the Messiah of this verse in Yalkut.

The promise in Psa_23:5 is referred in Bemid. R. 21 to the spreading of the great feast before Israel in the latter days.

Psa_31:19 (20 in the Hebrew) is in the Midrash applied to the reward that in the latter days Israel would receive for their faithfulness. Also in Pesiqta, p. 149b, to the joy of Israel in the presence of the Messiah.

The expression in Psa_36:9, ‘In Thy light shall we see light,’ is applied to the Messiah in Yalkut on Isaiah 60 (vol. 2 p. 56c, line 22 from the bottom).

The application of Psa_40:7 to the Messiah has already been noted in our remarks on Gen_4:25.

Ps 45 is throughout regarded as Messianic. To begin with, the Targum renders Psa_45:2 (3 in the Hebrew): ‘Thy beauty, O King Messiah, is greater than that of the sons of men.’

Psa_45:3 (4 in the Hebrew) is applied in the Talmud (Shabb 63a) to the Messiah, although other interpretations of that verse immediately follow.

The application of Psa_45:6 (7 in the Hebrew), to the Messiah in a MS. copy of the Targum has already been referred to in another part of this book, while the words, ‘Thy throne is for ever and ever’ are brought into connection with the promise that the sceptre would not depart from Judah in Ber. R. 99, ed. Warsh. p. 178b, line 9 from the bottom.

On Psa_45:7 the Targum, though not in the Venice edition (1568), has: ‘Thou, O King Messiah, because Thou lovest righteousness,’ etc. Comp. Levy, Targum. Woerterb. vol. 2 p. 41a.

The Midrash on the Ps deals exclusively with the inscription (of which it has several and significant interpretations) with the opening words of the Psalm, and with the words (Psa_45:16), ‘Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children,’ but at the same time it clearly indicates that the Ps applies to the latter, or Messianic, days.

On Psa_50:2 Siphré (p. 143a) notes that four times God would appear, the last being in the days of King Messiah.

Psa_60:7. Bemidbar R. on Num_7:48, Parash. 14 (ed. Warsh. p. 54a) contains some very curious Haggadic discussions on this verse. But it also breaches the opinion of its reference to the Messiah.

Psa_61:6 (7 in the Hebrew). ‘Thou shalt add days to the days of the king,’ is rendered by the Targum: ‘Thou shalt add days to the days of King Messiah.’ There is a curious gloss on this in Pirqé d. R. Eliez. c. 19 (ed. Lemberg, p. 24b), in which Adam is supposed to have taken 70 of his years, and added them to those of King David. According to another tradition, this accounts for Adam living 930 years, that is, 70 less than 1,000, which constitute before God one day, and so the threatening had been literally fulfilled: In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die.

Psa_61:8 (9 in the Hebrew). The expression, ‘that I may daily perform my vows,’ is applied in the Targum to the day in which the Messiah is anointed King.

Psa_68:31 (32 in the Hebrew). On the words ‘Princes shall come out of Egypt,’ there is a very remarkable comment in the Talmud (Pes. 118b) and in Shemoth R. on Exo_26:15, etc. (ed. Warsh. p. 50b), in which we are told that in the latter days all nations would bring gifts to the King Messiah, beginning with Egypt. ‘And lest it be thought that He (Messiah) would not accept it from them, the Holy One says to the Messiah: Accept from them hospitable entertainment,’ or it might be rendered, ‘Accept it from them; they have given hospitable entertainment to My son.’

Ps 72 This Ps also was viewed by the ancient Synagogue as throughout Messianic, as indicated by the fact that the Targum renders the very first verse: ‘Give the sentence of Thy judgment to the King Messiah, and Thy justice to the Son of David the King,’ which is re-echoed by the Midrash on the passage (ed. Warsh. p. 55b) which applies it explicitly to the Messiah, with reference to Isa_11:1. Similarly, the Talmud applies Psa_72:16 to Messianic times (in a very hyperbolical passage,, Shabb. 80b, line 4 from the bottom). The last clause of Psa_72:16 is applied, in Keth. 111b, line 21 from top, and again in the Midr. on Ecc_1:9, to the Messiah sending down manna like Moses.

Psa_72:17. In Sanh. 98b; Pes. 54a; Ned. 39b, the various names of the Messiah are discussed, and also in Ber. R. 1; in Midr. on Lam_1:16, and in Pirqé de R. Eliez. c. 3. One of these is stated to be Jinnon, according to Psa_72:17.

Psa_72:8 is applied in Pirqé de R. El. 100:11, to the Messiah. Yalkut (vol. ii.) on Isa_55:8 (p. 54c), speaks of the ‘other Redeemer’ as the Messiah, applying to him Psa_72:8.

In commenting on the meeting of Jacob and Esau, the Midr. Ber. R. (78, ed. Warsh. p. 141b) remarks that all the gifts which Jacob gave to Esau, the nations of the world would return to the King Messiah – proving it by a reference to Psa_72:10; while in Midrash Bemidbar R. 13 it is remarked that as the nations brought gifts to Solomon, so they would bring them to the King Messiah.

In the same place, a little higher up, Solomon and the Messiah are likened as reigning over the whole world, the proof passages being, besides others, Psa_72:8, Dan_7:13, and Dan_2:35.

On the application to the Messiah of Psa_72:16 we have already spoken, as also on that of Psa_72:17.

Psa_80:17 (in the Hebrew 18). The Targum paraphrases ‘the Son of Man’ by ‘King Messiah.’

Psa_89:22-25 (23-26 in the Hebrew). In Yalkut on Isa_60:1 (vol. 2 p. 56c) this promise is referred to the future deliverance of Israel by the Messiah.

Again, Psa_89:27 (28 in the Hebrew) is applied in Shemoth R. 19, towards the end, to the Messiah, special reference being made to Exo_4:22, ‘Israel is My first-born son.’

Psa_89:51 (52 in the Hebrew). There is a remarkable comment on this in the Midrash on the inscription of Ps 18 (ed. Warsh. p. 24a, line 2 from the bottom), in which it is set forth that as Israel and David did not sing till the hour of persecution and reproach, so when the Messiah shall come – ‘speedily, in our days’ – the song will not be raised until the Messiah is put to reproach, according to Psa_89:52 (51), and till there shall fall before Him the wicked idolaters referred to in Dan_2:42, and the four kingdoms referred to in Zec_14:2. In that hour shall the song be raised, as it is written Psa_98:1.

In the Midr. on Cant. ii. 13 it is said: If you see one generation after another blaspheming, expect the feet of the King Messiah, as it is written, Ps 89:53.

Psa_90:15. The Midr. (ed. Warsh. p. 67b) remarks: The days wherein Thou hast afflicted us – that is, the days of the Messiah. Upon which follows a discussion upon the length of days of the Messiah, R. Eliezer holding that they are 1,000 years, quoting the words ‘as, yesterday,’ one day being 1,000 years. R. Joshua holds that they were 2,000 years, the words ‘the days’ implying that there were two days. R. Berachiah holds that they were 600 years, appealing to Isa_65:22, because the root of the tree perishes in the earth in 600 years. R. José thinks that they are 60 years, according to Psa_72:5, the words ‘throughout all generations’ (dor dorim) being interpreted: Dor = 20 years; Dorim = 40 years: 20 + 40 = 60. R. Akiba says: 40 years, according to the years in the wilderness. The Rabbis say: 354 years, according to the days in the lunar year. R. Abahu thinks 7,000 years, reckoning the 7 according to the days of the bridegroom.

On Ps 90 the Midrash concludes by drawing a contrast between the Temple which men built, and which was destroyed, and the Temple of the latter or Messianic days, which God would build, and which would not be destroyed.

Psa_92:8, Psa_92:11, and Psa_92:13 (7, 10, and 12 in our A.V.), are Messianically interpreted in Pirqé de R. El. 100:19. In the Midrash on Psa_92:13 (12 in our A.V.), among other beautiful applications of the figure of the Psalm, is that to the Messiah the Son of David. The note of the Midrash on the expression ‘like a cedar of Lebanon,’ as applied to Israel, is very beautiful, likening it to the cedar, which, although driven and bent by all the winds of heaven, cannot be rooted up from its place.

Psa_95:7, last clause. In Shem. R. 25 and in the Midrash on Cant. v. 2 (ed. Warsh. p. 26a), it is noted that, if Israel did penitence only one day [or else properly observed even one Sabbath], the Messiah the Son of David would immediately come. [The whole passage from which this reference is taken is exceedingly interesting. It introduces God as saying to Israel: My son, open to Me a door of penitence only as small as a needle’s eye, and I will open to you doors through which carriages and wagons shall come in. It almost seems a counterpart of the Saviour’s words (Rev_3:20): ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear My voice and open the door, I will come in to him.’] Substantially the same view is taken in Sanh. 98a, where the tokens of the coming of the Messiah are described – and also in Jer. Taan. 64a.

Psa_102:16 (17 in the Hebrew) is applied in Bereshith R. 56 (ed. Warsh. p. 104b) to Messianic times.

Psa_106:44. On this there is in the Midrash a long Messianic discussion, setting forth the five grounds on which Israel is redeemed: through the sorrows of Israel through prayer, through the merits of the patriarchs, through repentance toward God, and in the time of ‘the end.’

Psa_110:1-7 is throughout applied to the Messiah. To begin with, it evidently underlies the Targumic rendering of Psa_110:4. Similarly, it is propounded in the Midr. on Psa_2:1-12 (although there the chief application of it is to Abraham). But in the Midrash on Psa_18:36 (35 in our A.V.), Psa_110:1, ‘Sit thou at My right hand’ is specifically applied to the Messiah, while Abraham is said to be seated at the left.

Psa_110:2, ‘The rod of Thy strength.’ In a very curious mystic interpretation of the pledges which Tamar had, by the Holy Ghost, asked of Judah, the seal is interpreted as signifying the kingdom, the bracelet as the Sanhedrin, and the staff as the King Messiah, with special reference to Isa 11 and Psa_110:2 (Beresh. R. 85, ed. Warsh. p. 153a). Similarly in Bemid. R. 18, last line, the staff of Aaron, which is said to have been in the hands of every king till the Temple was destroyed, and since then to have been hid, is to be restored to King Messiah, according to this verse; and in Yalkut on this Ps (vol. 2 Par. 869, p. 124c) this staff is supposed to be the same as that of Jacob with which he crossed Jordan, and of Judah, and of Moses, and of Aaron, and the same which David had in his hand when he slew Goliath, it being also the same which will be restored to the Messiah.

Psa_110:7 is also applied in Yalkut (u.s. col.d) to Messianic times, when streams of the blood of the wicked should flow out, and birds come to drink of that flood.

Psa_116:9 is in Ber. R. 96 supposed to indicate that the dead of Palestine would live first in the days of the Messiah.

Psa_116:13 has been already commented upon.

On Psa_119:33 the Midrash remarks that there were three who asked wisdom of God: David, Solomon, and the King Messiah, the latter according to Psa_72:1.

Psa_120:7 is applied to the Messiah in the Midrash (p. 91a, ed. Warsh.), the first clause being brought into connection with Isa_57:19, with reference to the Messiah’s dealings with the Gentiles, the resistance being described in the second clause, and the result in Psa_2:9.

Psa_121:1 is applied in Tanchuma (Par. toledoṯ 14, ed. Warsh. p. 37b. See also Yalkut, vol. 2 878, p. 127c) to the Messiah, with special reference to Zec_4:7 and Isa_52:7.

Psa_126:2. In Tanchuma on Exo_15:1 :(ed. Warsh. p. 87a) this verse is applied to Messianic times in a rapt description, in which successively Isa_60:5, Isa_58:8, Isa_35:5, Isa_35:6, Jer_31:13, and Psa_126:2, are grouped together as all applying to these latter days.

The promise in Psa_132:18 is applied in Pirké de R. El. 100:28 to Messianic times, and Psa_132:14 in Ber. R. 56.

So is Psa_133:3 in Ber. R. 65 (p. 122a), closing lines.

The words in Psa_142:5 are applied in Ber. R. 74 to the resurrection of Israel in Palestine in the days of Messiah.

The, words, ‘When thou awakest,’ in Pro_6:22 are Messianically applied in Siphré on Dt (ed. Friedmann, p. 74b).

In Midr. on Ecc_1:9 it is shown at great length that the Messiah would re-enact all the miracles of the past.

The last clause of Ecc_1:11 is applied to the days of the Messiah in the Targum.

Ecc_7:24 is thus paraphrased in the Targum: ‘Behold, it is remote from the sons of men that they should know what was done from the beginning of the world, but a mystery is the day of death – and the day when shall come King Messiah, who can find it out by his wisdom?’

In the Midr. on Ecc_11:8 it is noted that, however many years a man might study, his learning would be empty before the teaching of Messiah. In the Midr. on Ecc_12:1 it is noted that the evil days are those of the woes of Messiah.

Canticles. Here we have first the Talmudic passage (Sheb. 35b) in which the principle is laid down, that whenever throughout that book Solomon is named, except in Ecc_8:12, it applies, not to Solomon, but to Him Who was His peace (there is here a play on these words, and on the name Solomon).

To Son_1:8 the Targum makes this addition: ‘They shall be nourished in the captivity, until the time that I shall send to them the King Messiah, Who will feed them in quietness.’

So also on Son_1:17 the Targum contrasts the Temple built by Solomon with the far superior Temple to be built in the days of the Messiah, of which the beams were to be made of the cedars of Paradise.

Son_2:8, although applied by most authorities to Moses, is by others referred to the Messiah (Shir haShirim R., ed. Warsh., p. 15a, about the middle; Pesiqta, ed. Buber, p. 47b). Son_2:9 is Messianically applied in Pesiqta, ed. Buber, p. 49, a and b.

The same may be said of Son_2:10; while in connection with Son_2:12, in similar application, Isa_52:7 is quoted.

In connection with Son_2:13, in the same Midrash (p. 17a), Rabbi Chija bar Abba speaks of a great matter as happening close to the days of the Messiah, viz., that the wicked should be destroyed, quoting in regard to it Isa_4:3.

Son_3:11, ‘the day of his espousals.’ In Yalkut on the passage (vol. 2 p. 178d) this is explained: ‘the day of the Messiah, because the Holy One, blessed be His Name, is likened to a bridegroom as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride”’ – and ‘the day of the gladness of his heart,’ as the day when the Sanctuary is rebuilt, and Jerusalem is redeemed.

On Son_4:5 the Targum again introduces the twofold Messiah, the one the son of David, and the other the son of Ephraim.

Son_4:16. According to one opinion in the Midrash (p. 25b, line 13 from the bottom) this applies to the Messiah, Who comes from the north, and builds the Temple, which is in the south. See also Bemidbar R. 13, p. 48b.

On Son_5:10 Yalkut remarks that He is white to Israel, and red to the Gentiles, according to Isa_63:2.

On Son_6:10 Yalkut (vol. 2 p. 184b) has some beautiful observations, first, likening Israel in the wilderness, and God’s mighty deeds there, to the morning; and then adding that, according to another view, this morning-light is the redemption of the Messiah: For as, when the morning rises, the darkness flees before it, so shall darkness fall upon the kingdoms of this world when the Messiah comes. And yet again, as the sun and moon appear, so will the Kingdom of the Messiah also appear – the commentation going on to trace further illustrations.

Son_7:6. The Midrash thus comments on it (among other explanations): How fair in the world to come, how pleasant in the days of the Messiah!

On Son_7:13, the Targum has it: ‘When it shall please God to deliver His people from captivity, then shall it be said to the Messiah: The time of captivity is past, and the merit of the just shall be sweet before Me like the odour of balsam.

Similarly on Son_8:1, the Targum has it: ‘And at that time shall the Messiah be revealed to the congregation of Israel, and the children of Israel shall say to Him, Come and be as a brother to us, and let us go up to Jerusalem and there suck with thee the meaning of the Law, as an infant its mother’s breast.’

On Son_8:2 the Targum has it: ‘I will take Thee, O King Messiah, and make thee go up into my Temple, there Thou shalt teach me to tremble before the Lord, and to walk in his ways. There we shall hold the feast of leviathan, and drink the old wine, which has been kept in its grapes from the day the world was created, and of the pomegranates and of the fruits which are prepared for the just in the Garden of Eden.’

On Son_8:4 the Targum says ‘The King Messiah shall say: I adjure you, My people, house of Israel, why should you rise against the Gentiles, to go out of captivity, and why should you rebel against the might of Gog and Magog? Wait a little, till those nations are consumed which go up to fight against Jerusalem, and then shall the Lord of the world remember you, and it shall be His good will to set you free.’

Son_8:11 is applied Messianically in the Talmud (Shebhu. 35b), and so is Son_8:12 in the Targum.

(It should, however, be remarked that there are many other Messianic references in the comments on the Song of Solomon.)

Isa_1:25, Isa_1:26, is thus explained in the Talmud (Sanh. 58a): ‘The Son of David shall not come till all the judges and rulers in Israel shall have ceased.’

Similarly Isa_2:4 is Messianically interpreted in Shabb. 63a.

Isa_4:2 the Targum distinctly applies to the times of the Messiah.

Isa_4:4 has been already commented upon in our remarks on Gen_18:4, Gen_18:5, and again on Deu_23:11.

Isa_4:5 and Isa_4:6 are brought into connection with Israel’s former service in contributing to, and making the Tabernacle in the wilderness and it is remarked that in the latter days God would return it to them by covering them with a cloud of glory. This, in Yalkut (vol. 1 p. 99c), and in the Midrash on Psa_13:1-6, as also in that on Psa_16:9.

Isa_6:13 is referred in the Talmud (Keth. 112b) to Messianic times.

The reference of Isa_7:21 to Messianic times has already been discussed in our notes on Gen_18:7.

Isa_8:14 is also Messianically applied in the Talmud (Sanh. 38a).

Isa_9:6 is expressly applied to the Messiah in the Targum, and there is a very curious comment in Debarim R. 1 (ed. Warsh., p. 4a) in connection with a Haggadic discussion of Gen_43:14, which, however fanciful, makes a Messianic application of this passage – also in Bemidbar R. 11.

Isa_9:7, ‘Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end,’ has already been referred to in our comments on Num_6:26.

Isa_10:27 is in the Targum applied to the destruction of the Gentiles before the Messiah. Isa_10:34, is quoted in the Midrash on Lam_1:16, in evidence that somehow the birth of the Messiah was to be connected with the destruction of the Temple.

Isa 11, as will readily be believed, is Messianically interpreted in Jewish writings. Thus, to begin with, in the Targum on Isa_11:1 and Isa_11:6; in the Talmud (Jer. Berach. 5a and Sanh. 93b); and in a number of passages in the Midrashim. Thus, Isa_11:1 in Bereshith R. 85 on Gen_38:18, where also Psa_110:2 is quoted, and in Ber. R. 99, ed. Warsh., p. 178b. In Yalkut (vol. 1 p. 247d, near the top), where it is described how God had shown Moses all the spirits of the rulers and prophets in Israel, from that time forward to the Resurrection, it is said that all these had one knowledge and one spirit, but that the Messiah had one spirit which was equal to all the others put together, according to Isa_11:1.

On the Psa_11:2 see our remarks on Gen_1:2, while in Yalkut on Pro_3:19, Pro_3:20 (vol. 2 p. 133a) the verse is quoted in connection with Messianic times, when by wisdom, understanding, and knowledge the Temple will be built again. On that verse see also Pirq. d. R. El. 3.

On Isa_11:8 the Talmud (Sanh. 93b, lines 21 etc. from the top) has a curious explanation. After quoting Isa_11:2 as Messianic, it makes a play on the words, ‘of quick understanding,’ or ‘scent,’ as it might be rendered, and suggests that this word והריחו is intended to teach us that God has laden Him with commandments and sufferings like millstones (כריחיים). Immediately afterwards, from the expression ‘He shall not judge after the sight of His eyes, but reprove with equity for the meek of the earth,’ it is inferred that the Messiah knew the thoughts of the heart, and it is added that, as Bar Kokhabh was unable to do this, he was killed.

Isa_11:4, ‘he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth,’ is Messianically applied in the Midrash on Psa_2:2, and in that on Rth_2:14 – also in Yalkut on Isa lx.

Isa_11:7 has been already noticed in connection with Exo_12:2.

On Isa_11:10 see our remarks on Gen_49:10 and Psa_21:1.

Isa_11:11 is Messianically applied in Yalkut (vol. 1 p. 31b and vol. 2 38a), as also in the Midrash on Psa_107:2.

Isa_11:12 is Messianically applied in that curious passage in the Midrash on Lam_1:2, where it is indicated that, as the children of Israel sinned from א to ת, so God would in the latter days comfort them from א to ת (i.e. through the whole alphabet), Scripture passages being in each case quoted.

The Messianic application of Isa_12:3 is sufficiently established by the ancient symbolic practice of pouring out the Water on the Feast of Tabernacles.

In connection with Isa_12:5 the Midrash on Psa_118:23 first speaks of the wonderment of the Egyptians when they saw the change in Israel from servitude to glory on their Exodus, and then adds, that the words were intended by the Holy Ghost to apply to the wonders of the latter days (ed. Warsh. p. 85b).

On Isa_14:2, see our comments on Gen_18:4, Gen_18:5.

Isa_14:29, IsaIsa_15:2, Isa_16:1, and Isa_16:5 are Messianically applied in the Targum.

Isa_18:5 is similarly applied in the Talmud (Sanh. 98a); and Isa_23:15 in Sanh. 99a.

Isa_21:11, Isa_21:12 is in Jer. Taan. 64a, and in Shem. R. 18, applied to the manifestation of the Messiah.

In Isa_23:8 the Midr. on Ecc_1:7 sees a curious reference to the return of this world’s wealth to Israel in Messianic days.

Isa_23:15 is Messianically applied in the Talmud (Sanh. 99a) where the expression ‘a king’ is explained as referring to the Messiah.

Isa_24:23 is Messianically applied in the curious passage in Bemidbar R. quoted under Gen_22:18; also in Bemidbar R. 13 (ed. Warsh. p. 51a).

The remarkable promise in Isa_25:8 is applied to the times of the Messiah in the Talmud (Moed Q. 28b), and in that most ancient commentary Siphra. (Yalkut i. p. 190d applies the passage to the world to come). But the most remarkable interpretation is that which occurs in connection with Isa_60:1 (Yalkut ii. 56c, line 16 from the bottom), where the passage (Isa_25:8) is, after an expostulation on the part of Satan with regard to the Messiah, applied to the casting into Gehenna of Satan and of the Gentiles. See also our remarks on Exo_12:2. In Debar. R. 2, Isa_25:8 is applied to the destruction of the Jetser ha-Ra and the abolishing of death in Messianic days; in Sham. R. 30 to the time of the Messiah.

Isa_25:9. Tanchuma on Deuteronomy opens with a record of how God would work all the miracles, which He had shown in the wilderness, in a fuller manner for Zion in the latter days, the last passage quoted in that section being Isa_25:9. (Tanchuma on Dt ed. Warsh. p. 99a, line 5 from the bottom).

Of Isa_26:19 there is Messianic application in the Midrash on Ecc_1:7.

On Isa_27:10 Sham. R. 1, and Tanchuma on Exo_2:5 (ed. Warsh. p. 64b) remark that, like Moses, the Messiah, Who would deliver His own from the worshippers of false gods, should be brought up with the latter in the land.

Isa_27:13 is quoted in the Talmud (Rosh. haSh. 11b) in connection with the future deliverance. So also in Yalkut. 1 p. 217d, and Pirqé de R. El. 100:31.

Isa_28:5 is thus paraphrased in the Targum: ‘At that time shall the Messiah of the Lord of hosts be a crown of joy.’

Isa_28:16 the Targum apparently applies to the Messiah. At least, so Rashi (on the passage) understands it.

Isa_30:18 is Messianically applied in Sanh. 97b; Isa_30:15 in Jer. Taan. i. l.

The expression in Isa_30:19, ‘he shall be very gracious unto thee,’ is applied to the merits of the Messiah in Yalkut on Zep_3:8 (p. 84c).

On Isa_30:25 see our remarks on Gen_18:4.

Isa_30:20 is applied to Messianic times in the Talmud (Pes. 68a, and Sanh. 91b), and similarly in Pirqé de R. El. 51, and Shemoth R. 50. So also in Ber. R. 12. See our remarks on Gen_2:4.

Isa_32:14, Isa_32:15. On this passage the Midrash on Lam_3:49 significantly remarks that it is one of the three passages in which mention of the Holy Ghost follows upon mention of redemption, the other two passage being Isa_60:22, followed by Isa_61:1, and Lam_3:49.

Isa_32:20. The first clause is explained by Tanchuma (Par. 1, ed. Warsh. p. 4a, first three lines) to apply to the study of the Law, and the second to the two Messiahs, the son of Joseph being likened to the ox, and the son of David to the ass, according to Zec_9:9; and similarly the verse is Messianically referred to in Deb. R. 6 (ed. Warsh. vol. 3 p. 15b), in a very curious play on the words in Deu_22:6, Deu_22:7, where the observance of that commandment is supposed to hasten the coming of King Messiah.

Isa_35:1. This is one of the passages quoted in Tanchuma on Deu_1:1 (ed. Warsh. p. 99a) as among the miracles which God would do to redeemed Zion in the latter days. So also is Isa_35:2.

Isa_25:5, Isa_25:6 is repeatedly applied to Messianic times. Thus, in Yalkut i. 78c, and 157a; in Ber. R. 95; and in the Midrash on Psa_146:8.

Isa_35:10 is equally applied to Messianic times in the Midrash on Psa_107:1, while at the same time it is noted that this deliverance will be accomplished by God Himself, and not either by Elijah, nor by the King Messiah. A similar reference occurs in Yalkut (vol. 2 p. 162d), at the close of the Commentary on the Book of Chronicles, where it is remarked that in this world the deliverance of Israel was accomplished by man, and was followed by fresh captivities, but in the latter or Messianic days their deliverance would be accomplished by God, and would no more be followed by captivity. See also Shemoth R. 15 and 23.

Isa_40:1 is one of the passages referred to in our note on Isa_11:12, and also on Isa_35:1.

The same remark applies to Isa_40:2 and Isa_40:3.

Isa_40:5 is also Messianically applied in Vayyikra R. 1; Yalk. 2 77b about the middle.

On Isa_40:10 Yalkut, in discussing Exo_32:6 (vol. 1 p. 108c) broaches the opinion, that in the days of the Messiah Israel would have a double reward, on account of the calamities which they had suffered, quoting Isa_40:10.

Isa_41:18 has been already noted in our remarks on Gen_13:4, Gen_13:5.

Isa_40:25 is Messianically applied in Bem. R. 13, p. 48b.

The expression ‘The first,’ in Isa_41:27, is generally applied to the Messiah; in the Targum, according to Rashi; in Bereshith R. 63; in Vayyikra R. 30; and in the Talmud (Pes. 5a); so also in Pesiqta (ed. Buber) p. 185b.

Isa_42:1 is applied in the Targum to the Messiah, as also in the Midrash on Psa_2:1-12; and in Yalkut 2 p. 104d. See also our comments on Psa_2:7.

On Isa_43:10, the Targum renders ‘My servant’ by ‘My servant the Messiah.’

The promise in Isa_45:22 is also among the future things mentioned in the Midrash on Lamentations, to which we have referred in our remarks on Isa_11:12.

Isa_49:8. There is a remarkable comment on this in Yalkut on the passage, to the effect that the Messiah suffers in every age for the sins of that generation, but that God would in the day of redemption repair it all (Yalk. 2 p. 52b).

Isa_49:9 is quoted as the words of the Messiah in Yalkut (vol. 2 p. 52b).

Isa_49:10 is one of the passages referred to in the Midrash on Lamentations, quoted in connection with Isa_11:12.

Isa_49:12 has already been noticed in our remarks on Exo_12:2.

From the expression ‘comfort’ in Isa_49:13, the Messianic title ‘Menachem’ is derived. Comp. the Midrash on Pro_19:21.

Isa_49:14 is Messianically applied in Yalkut 2 p. 52c.

Isa_49:21 is also one of the passages referred to in the Midrash on Lamentations, quoted under Isa_11:12.

On Isa_49:23 it is remarked in Vayyikra R. 27 (ed. Warsh. p. 42a), that Messianic blessings were generally prefigured by similar events, as, for example, the passage here quoted in the case of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel.

A Messianic application of the same passage also occurs in Par. 33 and 36, as a contrast to the contempt that Israel experiences in this world.

The second clause of Isa_49:23 is applied to the Messiah in the Midrash on Psa_2:2, as to be fulfilled when the Gentiles shall see the terrible judgments.

Isa_49:26 is similarly applied to the destruction of the Gentiles in Vayyikra R. 33 (end).

Isa_51:12 is one of the passages referred to in the Midrash on Lamentations, quoted in our comments on Isa_11:12.

Isa_51:12 and Isa_51:17 are among the passages referred to in our remarks on Isa_25:9.

Isa_52:3 is Messianically applied in the Talmud (Sanh. 97b), while the last clause of Isa_52:2 is one of the passage quoted in the Midrash on Lamentations (see Isa_11:12).

The well-known Evangelic declaration in Isa_52:7 is thus commented upon in Yalkut. (vol. 2 p. 53c): In the hour when the Holy One, blessed be His Name, redeems Israel, three days before Messiah comes Elijah, and stands upon the mountains of Israel, and weeps and mourns for them, and says to them: Behold the land of Israel, how long shall you stand in a dry and desolate land? And his voice is heard from the world’s end to the world’s end, and after that it is said to them: Peace has come to the world, peace has come to the world, as it is said: How beautiful upon the mountains, etc. And when the wicked hear it, they rejoice, and they say one to the other: Peace has come to us. On the second day he shall stand upon the mountains of Israel, and shall say: Good has come to the world, good has come to the world, as it is written: That bringeth good tidings of good. On the third day he shall come and stand upon the mountains of Israel, and say: Salvation has come to the world, salvation had come to the world, as it is written: That publisheth salvation.

Similarly, this passage is quoted in Yalkut on Psa_121:1. See also our remarks on Son_2:13.

Isa_52:8 is one of the passages referred to in the Midrash on Lamentations quoted above, and frequently in other places as Messianic.

Isa_52:12 is Messianically applied in Shemoth R. 15 and 19.

Isa_52:13 is applied in the Targum expressly to the Messiah. On the words ‘He shall be exalted and extolled’ we read in Yalkut 2 (Par. 338, p. 53c, lines 7 etc. from the bottom): He shall be higher than Abraham, to whom applies Gen_14:22; higher than Moses, of whom Num_11:12 is predicated; higher than the ministering angels, of whom Eze_1:18 is said. But to Him there applies this in Zec_4:7 : ‘Who art thou, O great mountain?’ ‘And He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities, and the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed.’ R. Huna says, in the name of R Acha: All sufferings are divided into three parts; one part goes to David and the Patriarchs, another to the generation of the rebellion (rebellious Israel), and the third to the King Messiah, as it is written (Psa_2:7), ‘Yet have I set My King upon My holy hill of Zion.’ Then follows a curious quotation from the Midrash on Samuel, in which the Messiah indicates that His dwelling is on Mount Zion, and that guilt is connected with the destruction of its walls.

In regard to Isa_53:1-12 we remember, that the Messianic name of ‘Leprous’ (Sanh. 98b) is expressly based upon, it. Isa_53:10 is applied in the Targum on the passage to the Kingdom of the Messiah.

Isa_53:5 is Messianically interpreted in the Midrash on Samuel (ed. Lemberg, p. 45a, last line), where it is said that all sufferings are divided into three parts, one of which the Messiah bore – a remark which is brought into connection with Rth_2:14. (See our comments on that passage.)

Isa_54:2 is expected to be fulfilled in Messianic times (Vayyikra R. 10).

Isa_54:5. In Shemoth R. 15 this is expressly applied to Messianic days.

Isa_54:11 is repeatedly applied to the Messianic glory, as, for example, in Shemoth R. 15. (See our comments on Exo_12:2.)

So is Isa_54:13, as in Yalkut (vol. 1 p. 78c); in the Midrash on Psa_21:1 and in other passages.

Isa_55:12 is referred to Messianic times, as in the Midrash on Psa_13:1-6.

Isa_56:1. See our comments on Exo_21:1.

Isa_56:7 is one of the passages in the Midrash on Lamentations which we have quoted under Isa_11:12.

On Isa_57:14 Bemidbar R. 15 (ed. Warsh. p. 64a) expresses a curious idea about the stumbling-block, as mystically the evil inclination, and adds that the promise applies to God’s removal of it in the world to come, or else it may be in Messianic days.

Isa_57:16 receives in the Talmud (Yeb. 62a and 63b) and in the Midr. on Ecc_1:6 the following curious comment: ‘The Son of David shall not come till all the souls are completed which are in the Guph’ – (i.e. the pre-existence of souls is taught, and that they are kept in heaven till one after another appears in human form, and that the Messiah is kept back till all these shall have appeared), proof of this being derived from Isa_57:16.

Similarly Isa_59:15 is applied to Messianic times in Sanh. 97a, and Midr. on Cant. ii. 13; and Isa_59:19 in Sanh. 98a.

Isa_59:17 is applied to Messianic times in Pesiqta, ed. Buber, p. 149a.

Isa_59:20 is one of the passages mentioned in the Midrash on Lamentations quoted above. (See Isa_11:12.)

Isa_59:19, Isa_59:20, is applied to Messianic times in Sanh. 98a. In Pesiqta 166b it is similarly applied, the peculiar form (plene) in which the word goel (Redeemer) is written being taken to indicate the Messiah as the Redeemer in the full sense.

Isa_60:1. This is applied in the Targum to Messianic times. Similarly, it is explained in Ber. R. i. with reference to Dan_2:2; in Ber. R. 2; and also in Bemidbar R. 15 and 21. In Yalkut we have some very interesting remarks on the subject. Thus (vol. 1 Par. 363, p. 99c), commenting on Exo_25:3 etc., in a very curious description of how God would in the world to come return to Israel the various things which they had offered for the Tabernacle, the oil is brought into connection with the Messiah, with reference to Psa_132:17 and Isa_60:1. Again, on p. 215c (at the commencement of the Parashah Behaalothekha) we have, first, a very curious comparison between the work of the Tabernacle and that of the six days of Creation, after which the question is put: Why Moses made seven lights, and Solomon seventy? To this the reply is given, that Moses rooted up seven nations before Israel, while Solomon reigned over all the seventy nations which, according to Jewish ideas, constitute the world. Upon this it is added, that God had promised, that as Israel had lighted for His glory the lights in the Sanctuary, so would He in the latter days fill Jerusalem with His glory, according to the promise in Isa_60:1, and also set up in the midst of it lights, according to Zep_1:12. Still more clearly is the Messianic interpretation of Isa 60 brought out in the comments in Yalkut on that chapter. One part of it is so curious that it may here find a place. After explaining that this light for which Israel is looking is the light of the Messiah, and that Gen_1:4 really referred to it, it is added that this is intended to teach us that (God looked forward to the age of the Messiah and His works before the Creation of the world, and that He hid that light for the Messiah and His generation under His throne of glory. On Satan’s questioning Him for whom that light was destined, the answer is: For Him Who in the latter days will conquer thee, and cover thy face with shame. On which Satan requests to see Him, and when he is shown Him, falls on his face and says: I confess that this is the Messiah Who will in the latter days be able to cast me, and all the Gentiles, into Gehenna according to Isa_25:8. In that hour all the nations will tremble, and say before God: Who is this into Whose hand we fall, what is His Name, and what is His purpose? On which God replies: This is Ephraim, the Messiah [the second Messiah, the son of Joseph]; My Righteousness is His Name. And so the commendation goes on to touch on Psa_89:23, Psa_89:24, and Psa_89:26, in a most deeply interesting, but which it would be impossible here fully to give (Yalkut, vol. 2 Par. 359, p. 56c). In col. d there are farther remarkable discussions about the Messiah, in connection with the wars in the days when Messiah should be revealed, and about Israel’s final safety. But the most remarkable passage of all, reminding us almost of the history of the Temptation, is that which reads as follows (line 22 etc. from the top): It is a tradition from our Rabbis that, in the hour when King Messiah comes, He stands on the roof of the Temple, and proclaims to them, that the hour of their deliverance has come, and that if they believed they would rejoice in the light that had risen upon them, as it is written (Isa_60:1), ‘Arise, shine, for thy light is come.’ This light would be for them alone, as it is written (Isa_60:2), ‘For darkness shall cover the earth.’ In that hour also would God take the light of the Messiah and of Israel, and all should walk in the light of Messiah and of Israel, as it is written (Isa_60:3), ‘The Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.’ And the kings of the nations should lick the dust from under the feet of the Messiah, and should all fall on their faces before Him and before Israel, and say: Let us be servants to Thee and to Israel. And so the passage goes on to describe the glory of the latter days. Indeed, the whole of this chapter may be said to be full of Messianic interpretations.

After this it will scarcely be necessary to say that Isa_60:2, Isa_60:3, and Isa_60:4 are similarly applied in the Midrashim. But it is interesting to notice that Isa_60:2 is specifically applied to Messianic times in the Talmud (Sanh. 99a), in answer to the question when the Messiah should come.

On Isa_60:4 the Midrash on Cant. i. 4, on the words ‘we will be glad and rejoice in thee,’ has the following beautiful illustration. A Queen is introduced whose husband and sons and sons- in-law go to a distant country. Tidings are brought to her: Thy sons are come back. On which she says: Cause for gladness have I, my daughters-in-law will rejoice. Next, tidings are brought her that her sons-in-law are coming, and she is glad that her daughters will rejoice. Lastly, tidings are brought: The king, thy husband, comes. On which she replies: This is indeed perfect joy, joy upon joy. So in the latter days would the prophets come, and say to Jerusalem: ‘Thy sons shall come from far’ (Isa_60:4), and she will say: What, gladness is this to me! – ‘and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side; and again she will say: What gladness is this to me! But when they shall say to her (Zec_9:9): ‘Behold, thy king cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salvation; then shall Zion say: This indeed is perfect joy, as it is written (Zec_9:9), ‘Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion,’ and again (Zec_2:10), ‘Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion.’ In that hour she will say (Isa_61:10): ‘I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God.’

Isa_60:7 is Messianically applied in the Talmud (Abod. Sar. 24a).

Isa_60:8 is Messianically applied in the Midrash on Psa_48:13.

In connection with Isa_60:19 we read in Yalkut (vol. 1 p. 103b) that God said to Israel: In this world you are engaged (or busied) with the light for the Sanctuary, but in the world to come, for the merit of this light, I send you the King Messiah, Who is likened to a light, according to Psa_132:17 and Isa_60:19, ‘the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light.’

Isa_60:21 is thus alluded to in the Talmud (Sanh. 98a): ‘Rabbi Jochanan said, The Son of David shall not come, until all be either just or all be unjust: the former according to Isa_60:21, the latter according to Isa_59:16.

Isa_60:22 is also Messianically applied in the Talmudic passage above cited.

Isa_61:1 has already been mentioned in our remarks on Isa_32:14, Isa_32:15.

On Isa_61:5 there is a curious story related (Yalkut, vol. 1 Par. 212, p. 64a, lines 23-17 from the bottom) in which, in answer to a question, what was to become of the nations in the days of the Messiah, the reply is given that every nation and kingdom that had persecuted and mocked Israel would see, and be confounded, and have no share in life; but that every nation and kingdom which had not so dealt with Israel would come and be husbandman and vinedressers to Israel in the days of the Messiah. A similar statement to this is found in the Midrash on Ecc_2:7.

Isa_61:9 is also applied to Messianic times.

Isa_61:10 is one of the passages referred to in Tanchuma on Deu_1:1 quoted under Isa_25:9. In Pesiqta, ed. Buber, p. 149a, the verse is explained as applying to the glory of Messiah’s appearance.

Isa_62:10 has already been referred to in our remarks on Isa_57:14.

Isa 63 is applied to the Messiah, Who comes to the land after having seen the destruction of the Gentiles, in Pirqé de R. Eliez. 100:30.

Isa_63:2 has been referred to in our comments on Son_5:10. It is also quoted in reference to Messianic days in Pesiqta, ed. Buber, p. 149a.

Isa_63:4 is explained as pointing to the days of the Messiah, which are supposed to be 365 years, according to the number of the solar days (Sanh. 99a); while in other passages of the Midrashim, the destruction of Rome and the coming of the Messiah are conjoined with the day of vengeance. See also the Midr. on Ecc_12:10.

Isa_64:4 (3 in the Hebrew). In Yalkut on Isa 60 (vol. 2 p. 56d, line 6, etc., from the bottom) Messianic application is made of this passage in a legendary account of the seven tabernacles which God would make for the Messiah, out of each of which proceed four streams of wine, milk, honey, and pure balsam. Then God is represented as speaking of the sufferings which Messiah was to undergo, after which the verse in question is quoted.

Isa_65:17 is quoted in the Midrash on Lamentations, referred to in our remarks on Isa_11:12.

Isa_65:19 is one of the passages referred to in Tanchuma on Deu_1:1. See Isa_25:9.

To Isa_65:25 we have the following curious illustrative reference in Ber. R. 20 (ed. Warsh. p. 38b, line 6 from the bottom) in connection with the Fall: In the latter days everything shall be healed again (restored again) except the serpent (Isa_65:25) and the Gibeonites (Eze_48:19). But a still more strange application of the verse occurs in the same Midrash (Par. 96, ed. Warsh. p. 170a), where the opening clauses of it are quoted with this remark: Come and see all that the Holy One, blessed be His Name, has smitten in this world, He will heal in the latter days. Upon which a curious disquisition follows, to prove that every man would appear after death exactly as he had been in life, whether blind, dumb, or halting, nay, even in the same dress, as in the case of Samuel when Saul saw him – but that afterwards God would heal the diseased.

Isa_66:7 is applied to Messianic times in Vayyvikra R. 14 (last line), and so are some of the following verses in the Midrashim notably on Gen_33:1.

Isa_66:22 is applied to Messianic times in Ber. R. 12. See our remarks on Gen_2:4.

Jer_3:17 is applied to Messianic days in Yalkut on Jos_3:9 etc. (vol. 2 p. 3c, line 17 from the top), and so is Jer_3:18 in the commentation on the words in Son_1:16 ‘our bed is green,’ the expression being understood of the ten tribes, who had been led captive beyond the river Sabbatyon; but when Judah’s deliverance came, Judah and Benjamin would go to them and bring them back, that they might be worthy of the days of the Messiah (vol. 2 p. 176d, line 9 etc. from the bottom).

Jer_5:19 is mentioned in the Introd. to Echa R. as one of three passages by which to infer from the apostasy of Israel the near advent of Messiah.

The expression ‘speckled bird’ in Jer_12:9 is applied to the Messiah in Pirqé de R. Eliez. c. 28.

The last word in Jer_16:13 is made the basis of the name Chaninah, given to the Messiah in the Talmud (Sanh. 98b), and in the Midr. on Lam_1:16.

On Jer_16:14 Mechilta has it, that in the latter days the Exodus would no more be mentioned on account of the greater wonders then experienced.

On Jer_23:5, Jer_23:6, the Targum has it: ‘And I will raise up for David the Messiah the Just.’ This is one of the passages from which, according to Rabbinic views, one of the Names of the Messiah is derived, viz.: Jehovah our Righteousness. So in the Talmud (Babha Bathra 75b), in the Midrash on Psa_21:1, Pro_19:21, and in that on Lam_1:16.

On Jer_22:7 see our remarks on Jer_16:14. In the Talmud (Ber. 12b) this verse is distinctly applied to Messianic days.

Jer_30:9 is Messianically applied in the Targum on the passage.

Jer_30:21 is applied to the Messiah in the Targum, and also in the Midrash on Psa_21:7.

On Jer_31:8, Jer_31:3 clause, Yalkut has a Messianic interpretation, although extremely far-fetched. In general, the following verses are Messianically interpreted in the Midrashim.

Jer_31:20 is Messianically applied in Yalkut (ii. p. 66c, end), where it is supposed to refer to the Messiah when imprisoned, when, all the nations mock and shake their heads at Him. A more remarkable interpretation still occurs in the passage on Isa_60:1, to which we have already referred. Some farther extracts from it may be interesting. Thus, when the enemies of the Messiah flee before Him, God is supposed to make an agreement with the Messiah to this effect: The sins of those who are hidden with Thee will cause Thee to be put under an iron yoke, and they will do with Thee as with this calf, whose eyes are covered, and they will choke Thy spirit under the yoke, and on account of their sins Thy tongue shall cleave to Thy mouth. On which the Messiah inquires whether these troubles are to last for many years, and the Holy One replies that He has decreed a week, but that if His soul were in sorrow, He would immediately dispel these sorrows. On this the Messiah says: Lord of the world, with gladness and joy of heart I take it upon Me, on condition that not one of Israel should perish, and that not only those alone should be saved who are in My days, but also those who are hid in the dust; and that not only the dead should be saved who are in My days, but also those who have died from the days of the first Adam till now; and not only those, but also those who have been prematurely born. And not only these, but also those who have come into Thy knowledge to create them, but have not yet been created. Thus I agree, and thus I take all upon Me. In the hebdomad when the Son of David comes, they shall bring beams of iron, and shall make them a yoke to His neck, until His stature is bent down. But He cries and weeps, and lifts up His voice on high, and says before Him: Lord of the world, what is My strength, My spirit, and My soul, and My members? Am I not flesh and blood? In that hour David (the Son of David) weeps, and says: ‘My strength is dried up like a potsherd.’ In that hour the Holy One, blessed be His Name, says: Ephraim the Messiah, My righteous one, Thou best already taken this upon Thee before the six days of the world, now Thy anguish shall be like My anguish; for from the time that Nebuchadnezzar, the wicked one, has come up and destroyed My house, and burned My Sanctuary, and I have sent into captivity My children among the children of the Gentiles, by My life, and by the life of Thy head, I have not sat down on My throne. And if Thou wilt not believe Me, see the dew which is on My head, as it is said (Son_5:2) ‘My head is filled with dew.’ In that hour the Messiah answers Him: Lord of the world, now I am quieted, for it is enough for the servant that he is as his Master (this reminding us of our Lord’s saying, Mat_10:25). R. Isaac then remarks that in the year when the King Messiah shall be revealed, all nations shall rise up against each other (we have already quoted this passage in another place, as also that about the Messiah standing upon the roof of the Temple). Then follows this as a tradition of the Rabbis: In the latter days the Fathers shall stand up in the month of Nisan, and say to Him: Ephraim, the Messiah, our Righteousness, though we are Thy Fathers, yet Thou art better than we, because Thou hast borne all the sins of our sons, and hard and evil measure has passed upon Thee, such as has not been passed either upon them before or upon those after. And Thou hast been for laughter and derision to the nations for the sake of Israel, and Thou hast dwelt in darkness and in mist, and Thine eyes have not seen light, and Thy light clung to Thee alone, and Thy body was dried up like wood, and Thine eyes were darkened through fasting, and Thy strength was dried up like a potsherd. And all this on account of the sins of our children. Is it Thy pleasure that our sons should enjoy the good thing which God had displayed to Israel? Or perhaps on account of the anguish which Thou hast suffered for them, because they have bound Thee in the prison-house, wilt Thou not give unto them thereof? He says to them: Fathers of the world, whatever I have done I have only done for your sakes, and for the sake of your children, that they may enjoy that goodness which the Holy One, blessed be He, has displayed to Israel. Then say to Him the Fathers of the world: Ephraim, Messiah, our Righteousness, be Thou reconciled to us, because Thou hast reconciled Thy Maker and us. R. Simeon, the son of Pasi, said: In that hour the Holy One, blessed be His Name, exalts the Messiah to the heaven of heavens, and spreads over Him the splendour of His glory, because of the nations of the world, and because of the wicked Persians. Then the Fathers of the world say to Him: Ephraim, Messiah, our Righteousness, be Thou their judge, and do to them what Thy soul desireth. For unless mercies had been multiplied on Thee, they would long ago have exterminated Thee suddenly from the world, as it is written (Jer_31:20) ‘Is Ephraim My dear son?’ And why is the expression: ‘I will surely have mercy’ [in the Hebrew reduplicated: ‘having mercy I will have mercy’], but that the first expression ‘mercy ‘refers to the hour when He was bound in prison, when day by day they gnashed with their teeth, and winked with their eyes, and nodded with their heads, and wide-opened their mouths, as it is written in Psa_22:7 [8 in Hebrew]; while the second expression ‘I will have mercy’ refers to the hour when He came out of the prison-house, when not only one kingdom, nor two, came against Him, but 140 kingdoms came round about Him, and the Holy One, blessed be His Name, save to Him: Ephraim, Messiah, My righteous one, be not afraid, for all these shall perish by the breath of Thy mouth, as it is written (Isa_11:4). Long as this quotation may be, its interest seems sufficient to warrant its insertion.

Jer_31:31, Jer_31:33, and Jer_31:34 are applied to Messianic times in Yalkut (vol. 1 p. 196c; 78c; and in vol. 2 p. 54b, and p. 66d).

Jer_33:13. The close of the verse is thus paraphrased in the Targum: ‘The people shall yet learn by the hands of the Messiah,’ while in Yalkut (vol. 1 p. 105d) mention is made of a tenfold gathering together of Israel, the last – in connection with this verse – in the latter days.

On Lam_1:16 there is in the Midrash R. (ed. Warsh. p. 64b) the curious story about the birth of the Messiah in the royal palace of Bethlehem, which also occurs in the Jer. Talmud.

Lam_2:22, first clause. The Targum here remarks: Thou wilt proclaim liberty to Thy people, the house of Israel, by the hand of the Messiah.

Lam_4:22, first clause. The Targum here remarks: And after these things my iniquity shall cease, and thou shalt be set free by the hands of the Messiah and by the hands of Elijah the Priest

Eze_11:19 is applied to the great spiritual change that was to take place in Messianic days, when the evil desire would be taken out of the heart (Deb. R. 6, at the end; and also in other Midrashic passages).

Eze_16:55 is referred to among the ten things which God would renew in Messianic days – the rebuilding of ruined cities, inclusive of Sodom and Gomorrah, being the fourth (Shem. R. 15, ed. Warsh. p. 24b).

Eze_17:22 and Eze_17:23 is distinctly and very beautifully referred to the Messiah in the Targum.

Eze_25:14 is applied to the destruction of all the nations by Israel in the days of the Messiah in Bemidbar R. on Num_2:32 (Par. 2, ed. Warsh. p. 5b).

Eze_29:21 is among the passages applied to the time when the Messiah should come, in Sanh. 98a.

So is Eze_32:14.

Eze_36:25 is applied to Messianic times alike in the Targum and in Yalkut (vol. 1 p. 235a), as also in the Talmud (Kidd. 72b).

On Eze_36:27 see our remarks on Eze_11:19.

Eze_39:2 is Messianically applied in Bemidbar R. 13, ed. Warsh. p. 48b.

Eze_47:9 and Eze_47:12 are quoted as the second and the third things which God would renew in the latter days (Shem. R. 15) – the second being, that living waters should go forth out of Jerusalem, and the third, that trees should bear fruit every month, and the sick be healed by them.

On Eze_48:19 the Talmud (Baba B. 122a) has the following curious comment, that the land of Israel would be divided into thirteen tribes, the thirteenth belonging to the Prince, and this verse is quoted as proof.

Dan_2:22 is Messianically applied in Bar. R. 1, and in the Midr. on Lam_1:16, where it gives rise to another name of the Messiah: the Lightgiver.

Dan_2:35 is similarly applied in the Pirqé de R. Eliez. c. 1, and ii. 44 in c. 30.

Dan_7:9. This passage was interpreted by R. Akiba as implying that one throne was set for God, and the other for the Messiah (Chag. 14a).

Dan_7:13 is curiously explained in the Talmud (Sanh. 98a), where it is said that, if Israel behaved worthily, the Messiah would come in the clouds of heaven, if otherwise, humble, and riding upon an ass.

Dan_7:27 is applied to Messianic times in Bem. R. 11.

Dan_8:13, Dan_8:14. By a very curious combination these verses are brought into connection with Gen_3:22 (‘man has become like one of us’), and it is argued, that in Messianic days man’s primeval innocence and glory would be restored to him, and he become like one of the heavenly beings, Ber. R. 21 (ed. Warsh. p. 41a).

Dan_4:24. In Naz. 32b it is noted that this referred to the time when the second Temple was to be destroyed. So also in Yalkut vol. 2 p. 79d lines 16 etc. from the bottom.

Dan_12:3 is applied to Messianic times in a beautiful passage in Shem. R. 15 (at the end).

Dan_12:11, Dan_12:12. These two verses receive a peculiar Messianic interpretation, and that by the authority of the Rabbis. For it is argued that, as Moses, the first Redeemer, appeared, and was withdrawn for a time, and then reappeared, so would the second Redeemer; and the interval between His disappearance and reappearance is calculated at 45 days, arrived at by deducting the 1,290 days of the cessation of the sacrifice (Dan_12:11) from the 1,335 days of Dan_12:12 (Midr. on Rth_2:14, ed. Warsh. p. 43b).

Hos_2:2 is explained in the Midr. on Psa_45:1 as implying that Israel’s redemption would be when they were at the lowest.

Hos_2:13 is one of the three passages referred to on Jer_5:19.

Hos_2:18 is quoted in Shem. R. 15 (on Exo_12:2) as the seventh of the ten things which God would make new in Messianic days.

Hos_3:5 is applied to the Messiah in the Targum, and from it the Jer. Talm. (Ber. 5a) derives the name David as one of those given to the Messiah.

Hos_6:2 is Messianically applied in the Targum.

Hos_13:14 is applied to the deliverance by the Messiah of those of Israel who are in Gehinnom, whom He sets free; – the term Zion being understood of Paradise. See Yalk. on Isa Par. 269, comp. Maas. de R. Joshua in Jellinek’s Beth ha-Midr. ii. p. 50.

Hos_14:7 is Messianically applied in the Targum.

Joe_2:28 is explained in the Midrashim as referring to the latter days, when all Israel will be prophets (Bemidbar R. 15; Yalkut i. p. 220c, and other places).

Joe_3:18 is similarly applied in the Midrashim, as in that on Psa_13:1-6 and in others. The last clause of this verse is explained in the Midr. on Ecc_1:9 to imply that the Messiah would cause a fountain miraculously to spring up, as Moses did in the wilderness.

Amo_4:7 is in Midr. on Cant. ii. 13 applied to the first of the seven years before Messiah come.

Amo_5:18 is one of the passages adduced in the Talmud (Sanh. 98b) to explain why certain Rabbis did not wish to see the day of the Messiah.

Amo_8:11 is applied to Messianic times in Ber. R. 25.

Amo_9:11 is a notable Messianic passage. Thus, in the Talmud (Sanh. 96b) where the Messiah is called the ‘Son of the Fallen,’ the name is explained by a reference to this passage. Again, in Ber. R. 88, last three lines (ed. Warsh. p. 157a), after enumerating the unexpected deliverances which Israel had formerly experienced, it is added: Who could have expected that the fallen tabernacle of David should be raised up by God, as it is written (Amo_9:11) and who should have expected that the whole world should become one bundle (be gathered into one Church)? Yet it is written Zep_3:9. Comp. also the long discussion in Yalkut on this passage (vol. 2 p. 80 a and b).

Oba_1:18 and Oba_1:21 are applied to the Kingdom and time of the Messiah in Deb. R. 1.

Mic_2:13. See our remarks on Gen_18:4, Gen_18:5. The passage is also Messianically quoted in the Midrash on Pr 6 (ed. Lemberg, p. 5a, first two lines).

The promise in Mic_4:3 is applied to the times of the Messiah in the Talmud (Shabb. 63a).

So is the prediction in Mic_2:5 in Shemoth R. 15; while Mic_2:8 is thus commented upon in the Targum: ‘And thou Messiah of Israel, Who shalt be hidden on account of the sins of Zion, to thee shall the Kingdom come.’

The well-known passage, Mic_5:2, is admittedly Messianic. So in the Targum, in the Pirqé de R. Eliez. c. 3, and by later Rabbis.

Mic_5:8 is applied in the Talmud to the fact that the Messiah was not to come till the hostile kingdom had spread for nine months over the whole world (Yoma 10a), or else, over the whole land of Israel (Sanh. 98b).

Similarly Mic_7:6 is applied to Messianic times in Sanh. 97a, and in Sotah 49b; also in the Midr. on Cant. ii. 13. And so is Mic_7:15 in Yalkut (vol. 2 p. 112b.

In Mic_7:8, the expression, Jehovah shall be light to me, is referred to the days of the Messiah in Deb. R. 11, ed. Warsh. vol. 5 p. 22a.

Nah_2:1. See our remarks on Isa_52:7.

Hab_2:3. This is applied to Messianic times in a remarkable passage in Sanh. 97b, which will be quoted in full at the close of this Appendix; also in Yalkut, vol. 2 p. 83b.

Hab_3:18 is applied to Messianic times in the Targum.

Zep_3:8. The words rendered in our A.V. ‘the day that I rise up to the prey’ are translated ‘for testimony’ and applied to God’s bearing testimony for the Messiah (Yalkut, vol. 2 p. 84c, line 6 from the top).

Zep_3:9 is applied to the voluntary conversion of the Gentiles in the days of the Messiah in the Talmud (Abhod. Zarah, 24a); and in Ber. R. 88; and Zep_3:11 in Sanh. 98a.

Hag_2:6 is expressly applied to the coming redemption in Deb. R. 1 (ed. Warsh. p. 4b, line 15 from the top).

Zec_1:20. The four carpenters there spoken of are variously interpreted in the Talmud (Sukk. 62b), and in the Midrash (Bemidbar R. 14). But both agree that one of them refers to the Messiah.

Zec_2:10 is one of the Messianic passages to which we have referred in our remarks on Isa_60:4. It has also a Messianic cast in the Targum.

Zec_3:8. The designation ‘Branch’ is expressly applied to King Messiah in the Targum. Indeed, this is one of the Messiah’s peculiar names.

Zec_3:10 is quoted in the Midrash on Ps 72 (ed. Warsh. p. 56a, at the top) in a description of the future time of universal peace.

Zec_4:7 is generally applied to the Messiah, expressly in the Targum, and also in several of the Midrashim. Thus, as regards both clauses of it, in Tanchuma (Par. toledoṯ 14, ed. Warsh. p. 37b and 38a).

Zec_4:10 is Messianically explained in Tanchuma (u.s.).

Zec_6:12 is universally admitted to be Messianic. So in the Targum, the Jerusalem Talmud (Ber. 5a), in the Pirqé de R. Eliez. 100:48, and in the Midrashim.

Zec_8:13 is one of the three passages supposed to mark the near advent of Messiah. See our remarks on Jer_5:19.

Zec_8:12 is applied to Messianic times in Ber. R. 12. See our remarks on Gen_2:4.

Zec_8:23 is one of the predictions expected to be fulfilled in Messianic days, it being however noted that it refers to instruction in the Law in that remarkable passage on Isa_60:1 in Yalkut 2 p. 56d, to which we have already referred.

In Zec_9:1 the name ‘Chadrakh’ is mystically separated into ‘Chad,’ sharp, and ‘rakh,’ gentle, the Messiah being the one to the Gentiles and the other to the Jews (Siphré on Dt p. 65a, Yalkut 1 p. 258b).

Zec_9:9. The Messianic application of this verse in all its parts has already repeatedly been indicated. We may here add that there are many traditions about this ass on which the Messiah is to ride; and so firm was the belief in it, that, according to the Talmud, ‘if anyone saw an ass in his dreams, he will see salvation’ (Ber. 56b). The verse is also Messianically quoted in Sanh. 98a, in Pirqé de R. Eliez. c. 31, and in several of the Midrashim.

On Zec_9:10 see our remarks on Deu_20:10.

Zec_10:4 is Messianically applied in the Targum.

Zec_11:12 is Messianically explained in Ber. R. 98, but with this remark, that the 30 pieces of silver apply to 30 precepts, which the Messiah is to give to Israel.

Zec_12:10 is applied to the Messiah the Son of Joseph in the Talmud (Sukk. 52a), and so is Zec_12:12, there being, however, a difference of opinion whether the mourning is caused by the death of the Messiah the Son of Joseph, or else on account of the evil concupiscence (Yetser haRa).

Zec_14:2 will be readily understood to have been applied to the wars of Messianic times, and this in many passages of the Midrashim, as, indeed, are Zec_14:3, Zec_14:4, Zec_14:5, and Zec_14:6.

Zec_14:7. The following interesting remark occurs in Yalkut on Psa_139:16, Psa_139:17 (vol. 2 p. 129d) on the words ‘none of them.’ This world is to last 6,000 years; 2,000 years it was waste and desolate, 2,000 years mark the period under the Law, 2,000 years that under the Messiah. And because our sins are increased, they are prolonged. As they are prolonged, and as we make one year in seven a Sabbatic year, so will God in the latter days make one day a Sabbatic year, which day is 1,000 years – to which applies the verse in Zechariah just quoted. See also Pirqé de R. Eliez. c. 28.

Zec_14:8 is Messianically applied in Ber. R. 48. See our remarks on Gen_18:4, Gen_18:5.

Zec_14:9 is, of course, applied to Messianic times, as in Yalkut 1 p. 76c, 266a, and vol. 2 p. 33c, Midr. on Cant. ii. 13, and in other passages.

Mal_3:1 is applied to Elijah as forerunner of the Messiah in Pirqé de R. Eliez. 100:29.

Mal_3:4. In Bemidbar R. 17; a little before the close (ed. Walsh. p. 69a), this verse seems to be applied to acceptable sacrifices in Messianic days.

On Mal_3:16 Vayyikra R. 34 (ed. Warsh. p. 51b, line 4 from the bottom) has the following curious remark: If any one in former times did the Commandment, the prophets wrote it down. But now when a man observes the Commandment, who writes it down? Elijah and the King Messiah and the Holy One, blessed be His Name, seal it at their hands, and a memorial book is written, as it is written Mal_3:16.

The promise in Mal_3:17 is extended to Messianic days in Shemoth R. 18.

On Mal_4:1 (in Hebrew 3:19) the following curious comment occurs in Bereshith R. 6 (p. 14b, lines 15 etc. from the bottom): ‘The globe of the sun is encased, as it is said, He maketh a tabernacle for the sun (Psa_19:1-14). And a pool of water is before it. When the sun comes out, God cools its heat in the water lest it should burn up the world. But in the latter days the Holy One takes it out of its sheath, and with it burns up the wicked, as it, is written Mal_4:1.’

Mal_4:2 (3:20 in Hebrew) is in Shemoth R. 31 quoted in connection with Exo_22:26, and explained ‘till the Messiah comes.’

Mal_4:5 is, of course, applied to the forerunner of the Messiah. So in many places, as in the Pirqé de R. Eliez. c. 40; Debarim R. 3; in the Midrash on Cant. i. 1; in the Talmud, and in Yalkut repeatedly.

To the above passages we add some from the Apocryphal Books, partly as indicating the views concerning the Messiah which the Jews had derived from the Old Testament, and partly because of their agreement with Jewish traditionalism as already expounded by us. These passages must therefore be judged in connection with the Rabbinical ideas of the Messiah and of Messianic days. It is in this sense that we read, for example, the address to Jerusalem, Tobit 13:9 to the end. Comp. here, for example, our quotations on Amo_9:11.

Similarly Tobit 14:5-7 may be compared with our quotations on Ps 90, Isa_60:3, and especially on Zec_8:23, also on Gen_49:11.

Wisdom of Solomon 3:7, 8 may be compared with our remarks on Isa_61:1.

Ecclus. 44:21 etc. and 47:11 may be compared with our quotations on Psa_89:22-25; Psa_132:18; Eze_29:21.

Ecclus. 48:10, 11. See the comments on Isa_52:7, also our references on Mal_3:1; Mal_4:5; Deu_25:19 and Deu_30:4; Lam_2:22. In Sotah ix. 15 Elijah is represented as raising the dead.

Baruch 2:34, 35; 4:29 etc.; and 5 are so thoroughly in accordance with Rabbinic, and, indeed, with Scriptural views, that it is almost impossible to enumerate special references.

The same may be said of 1 Macc. 2:57; while such passages as 4:46 and 14:41 point forward to the ministry of Elijah as resolving doubts, as this is frequently described in the Talmud (Shekalim ii. 5; Men. 45a, Pes. 13a; and in other places).

Lastly, 2 Macc. 2:18 is fully enlarged on in the Rabbinic descriptions of the gathering of Israel.

Perhaps it may be as well here to add the Messianic discussion in the Talmud, to which such frequent reference has been made (Sanhedrin, beginning at the two last lines of p. 96b, and ending at p. 99a). The first question is that asked by one Rabbi of the other, whether he knew when the Son of the Fallen would come? Upon which follows an explanation of that designation, based on Amo_9:11, after which it is added that it would be a generation in which the disciples of the sages would be diminished, and the rest of men consume their eyes for sorrow, and terrible sorrows so follow each other, that one had not ceased before the other began. Then a description is given of what was to happen during the hebdomad when the Son of David would come. In the first year it would be according to Amo_4:7; in the second year there would be darts of famine; in the third year great famine and terrible mortality, in consequence of which the Law would be forgotten by those who studied it. In the fourth year there would be abundance, and yet no abundance; in the fifth year great abundance and great joy, and return to the study of the Law; in the sixth year voices (announcements); in the seventh wars, and at the end of the seventh the Son of David would come. Then follows some discussion about the order of the sixth and seventh year, when Psa_89:51 it referred to. Next we have a description of the general state during those days. Sacred places (Academies) would be used for the vilest purposes, Galilee be desolated, Gablan laid waste, and the men of Gebul wander from city to city, and not find mercy. And the wisdom of the scribes would be corrupted, and they who fear sin be abhorred, and the face of that generation would be like that of a dog, and truth should fail, according to Isa_59:15. (Here a side issue is raised.) The Talmud then continues in much the same terms to describe the Messianic age as one, in which children would rebel against their parents, and as one of general lawlessness, when Sadduceeism should universally prevail, apostasy increase, study of the Law decrease; and, generally, universal poverty and despair of redemption prevail – the growing disregard of the Law being pointed out as specially characterising the last days. R. Kattina said: The world in to last 6,000 years, and during one millennium it is to lie desolate, according to Isa_2:17. R. Abayi held that this state would last 2,000 years, according to Hos_6:2. The opinion of R. Kattina was, however, regarded as supported by this, that in each period of seven there is a Sabbatic year – the day here = 1,000 years of desolateness and rest – the appeal being to Isa_2:17; Psa_92:1, and Psa_90:4. According to another tradition the world was to last 6,000 years: 2,000 in a state of chaos, 2,000 under the Law, and 2,000 being the Messianic age. But on account of Israel’s sins those years were to be deducted which had already passed. On the authority of Elijah it was stated that the world would not last less than eighty-five jubilees, and that in the last jubilee the Son of David would come. When Elijah was asked whether at the beginning or at the end of it, he replied that he did not know. Being further asked whether the whole of that period would first elapse or not, he similarly replied, his meaning being supposed to be that until that term people were not to hope for the Advent of Messiah, but after that term they were to look for it. A story is related of a man being met who had in his hands a writing in square Hebrew characters, and in Hebrew, which he professed to have got from the Persian archives, and in which it was written that after 4,290 years from the Creation the world would come to an end. And then would be the wars of the great sea-monsters, and those of Gog and Magog, and the rest of the time would be the times of the Messiah, and that the Holy One, blessed be His Name, would only renew His world after the 7,000 years; to which, however, one Rabbi objects, making it 5,000 years. Rabbi Nathan speaks of Hab_2:3 as a passage so deep as to go down to the abyss, reproving the opinion of the Rabbis who sought out the meaning of Dan_7:25, and of Rabbi Samlai, who similarly busied himself with Psa_80:5, and of Rabbi Akiba, who dwelt upon Hag_2:6. But the first kingdom (Babylonian?) was to last seventy years; the second (Asmoraean?) fifty-two years; and the rule of the son of Kozebhah (Bar Kokhabh, the false Messiah) two and a half years. According to Rabbi Samuel, speaking in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: Let the bones of those be broken who calculate the end, because they say, The end has come, and the Messiah has not come, therefore He will not come at all. But still expect Him, as it is said (Hab_2:3), ‘Though it tarry, wait for it.’ Perhaps thou wilt say: We wait for Him, but He does not wait for it. On this point read Isa_30:18. But if so, what hinders it? The quality of judgment. But in that case, why should we wait? In order to receive the reward, according to the last clause of Isa_30:18. On which follows a further discussion. Again, Rabh maintains that all the limits of time as regards the Messiah are past, and that it now only depends on repentance and good works when He shall come. To this Rabbi Samuel objected, but Rabh’s view was supported by Rabbi Eliezer, who said that if Israel repented they would be redeemed, but if not they would not be redeemed. To which Rabbi Joshua added, that in the latter case God would raise over them a King whose decrees would be hard like those of Haman, when Israel would repent. The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer was further supported by Jer_3:22, to which Rabbi Joshua objected by quoting Isa_52:3, which seemed to imply that, Israel’s redemption was not dependent on their repentance and good works. On this Rabbi Eliezer retorted by quoting Mal_3:7, to which again Rabbi Joshua replied by quoting Jer_3:14, and Rabbi Eliezer by quoting Isa_30:15. To this Rabbi Joshua replied from Isa_49:7. Rabbi Eliezer then urged Jer_4:1, upon which Rabbi Joshua retorted from Dan_12:7, and so effectually silenced Rabbi Eliezer. On this Rabbi Abba propounded that there was not a clearer mark of the Messianic term than that in Isa_36:8. To which Rabbi Eliezer added Zec_8:10. On this the question is raised as to the meaning of the words ‘neither was there any peace to him that went out or came in.’ To this Rabh gave answer that it applied to the disciples of the sages, according to Psa_119:165. On which Rabbi Samuel replied that at that time all the entrances would be equal (i.e. that all should be on the same footing of danger). Rabbi Chanina remarked that the Son of David would not come till after fish had been sought for the sick and not found, according to Eze_32:14 in connection with Eze_29:21. Rabbi Chamma, the son of Rabbi Chanina, said that the Son of David would not come until the vile dominion over Israel had ceased, appealing to Isa_18:5, Isa_18:7. R. Seira said that Rabbi Chanina said: The Son of David would not come till the proud had ceased in Israel, according to Zep_3:11, Zep_3:12. Rabbi Samlai, in the name of Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Simeon, said that the Son of David would not come till all judges and rulers had ceased in Israel, according to Isa_1:26. Ula said: Jerusalem is not to be redeemed, except, by righteousness according to Isa_1:27. We pass over the remarks of Rabbi Papa, as not adding to the subject. Rabbi Jochanan said: If thou meet a generation that increasingly diminishes, expect Him, according to 2Sa_22:28. He also added: If thou seest a generation upon which many sorrows come like a stream, expect Him, according to Isa_59:19, Isa_59:20. He also added: The Son of David does not come except in a generation where all are either righteous, or all guilty – the former idea being based on Isa_60:21, the latter on Isa_59:16 and Isa_48:11. Rabbi Alexander said, that Rabbi Joshua the son of Levi referred to the contradiction in Isa_60:22 between the words ‘in his time’ and again ‘I will hasten it,’ and explained it thus: If they are worthy, I will hasten it, and it not, in His time. Another similar contradiction between Dan_7:13 and Zec_9:9 is thus reconciled: If Israel deserve it, He will come in the clouds of heaven; if they are not deserving, He will come poor, and riding upon an ass. Upon this it is remarked that Sabor the King sneered at Samuel, saying: You say that the Messiah is to come upon an ass: I will send Him my splendid horse. To which the Rabbi replied: Is it of a hundred colours, like His ass? Rabbi Joshua, the son of Levi, saw Elijah, who stood at the door of Paradise. He said to him: When shall the Messiah come? He replied: when that Lord shall come (meaning God). Rabbi Joshua, the son of Levi, said: I saw two [himself and Elijah], and I heard the voice of three [besides the former two the Voice of God]. Again he met Elijah standing at the door of the cave of Rabbi Simon the son of Jochai, and said to him: Shall I attain the world to come? Elijah replied: If it pleaseth to this Lord. Upon which follows the same remark: I have seen two, and I have heard the voice of three. Then the Rabbi asks Elijah: When shall the Messiah come? To which the answer is: Go and ask Him thyself. And where does He abide? At the gate of the city (Rome). And what is His sign? He abides among the poor, the sick, the stricken. And all unbind, and bind up again the wounds at the same time, but He undoes (viz. the bandage) and rebinds each separately, so that if they call for Him they may not find Him engaged. He went to meet Him and said: Peace be to Thee, my Rabbi and my Lord. He replied to him: Peace be to thee, thou son of Levi. He said to Him: When wilt Thou come, my Lord? He replied to him: To-day. Then he turned to Elijah, who said to him: What has He said to thee? He said to me: Son of Levi, peace be to thee. Elijah said to him: He has assured thee and thy father of the world to come. He said to him: But He has deceived me in that He said: I come to-day, and He has not come. He said to him that by the words ‘to-day’ He meant: To-day if ye will hear My voice (Psa_95:7). Rabbi José was asked by his disciples: When will the Son of David come? To this he replied I am afraid you will ask we also for a sign. Upon which they assured him they would not. On this he replied: When this gate (viz. of Rome) shall fall, and be built, and again fall, and they shall not have time to rebuild it till the Son of David comes. They said to him: Rabbi, give us a sign. He said to them: Have ye not promised me that ye would not seek a sign? They said to him: Notwithstanding do it. He said to them: If so, the waters from the cave of Pamias (one of the sources of the Jordan) shall be changed into blood. In that moment they were changed into blood. Then the Rabbi goes on to predict that the land would be overrun by enemies, every stable being filled with their horses. Rabh said that the Son of David would not come till the kingdom (i.e. foreign domination) should extend over Israel for nine months, according to Mic_5:3. Ula said: Let Him come, but may I not see Him, and so said Raba. Rabbi Joseph said: Let Him come, and may I be found worthy to stand in the shadow of the dung of His ass (according to some: the tail of his ass). Abayi said to Raba: Why has this been the bearing of your words? If on account of the sorrows of the Messiah, we have the tradition that Rabbi Eliezer was asked by his disciples, what a man should do to be freed from the sorrows if the Messiah; on which they were told: By busying yourselves with the Torah, and with good works. And you are a master of the Torah, and you have good works he answered: Perhaps sin might lead to occasion of danger. To this comforting replies are given from Scripture, such as Gen_28:16, and other passages, some of them being subjected to detailed commentation.

Rabbi Jochanan expressed a similar dislike of seeing the days of the Messiah, on which Resh Lakish suggested that it might be on the ground of Amo_5:19, or rather on that of Jer_30:6. Upon this, such fear before God is accounted for by the consideration that what is called service above is not like what is called service below (the family above is not like the family below), so that one kind may outweigh the other. Rabbi Giddel said, that Rabh said, that Israel would rejoice in the years of the Messiah. Rabbi Joseph said: Surely, who else would rejoice in them? Chillak and Billak? (two imaginary names, meaning no one). This, to exclude the words of Rabbi Hillel, who said: There is no more Messiah for Israel, seeing they have had Him in the time of Hezekiah. Rabh said: The world was only created for David; Samuel, for Moses; and Rabbi Jochanan, for the Messiah. What is His Name? The school of Rabbi Shila said: Shiloh is His Name, according to Gen_49:10. The school of Rabbi Jannai said: Jinnon, according to Psa_72:17. The school of Rabbi Chanina said: Chaninah, according to Jer_16:13. And some say: Menachem, the son of Hezekiah, according to Lam_1:16. And our Rabbis say: The Leprous One of the house of Rabbi is His Name, as it is written Isa_53:4. Rabbi Nachman said: If He is among the living, He is like me, according to Jer_30:2. Rabh said: If He is among the living, He is like Rabbi Jehudah the Holy, and if among the dead He is like Daniel, the man greatly beloved. Rabbi Jehudah said, Rabh said: God will raise up to them another David, according to Jer_30:9, a passage which evidently points to the future. Rabbi Papa said to Abaji: But so have this other Scripture Eze_37:25, and the two terms (Messiah and David) stand related like Augustus and Caesar. Rabbi Samlai illustrated Amo_5:18, by a parable of the cock and the bat which were looking for the light. The cock said to the bat: I look for the light, but of what use is the light to thee? So it happened to a Sadducee who said to Rabbi Abahu: When will the Messiah come? He answered him: When darkness covers this people. He said to him: Dost thou intend to curse me? He replied: It is said in Scripture Isa_60:2. Rabbi Eliezer taught: The days of the Messiah are forty years, according to Psa_95:10. Rabbi Eleazar, the son of Asariah, said: Seventy years, according to Isa_23:15, ‘according to the days of a King,’ the King there spoken of being the unique king, the Messiah. Rabbi said: Three generations, according to Psa_72:5. Rabbi Hillel said: Israel shall have no more Messiah, for they have had Him in the days of Hezekiah. Rabbi Joseph said: May God forgive Rabbi Hillel: when did Hezekiah live? During the first Temple. And Zechariah prophesied during the second Temple, and said Zec_9:9. We have the tradition that Rabbi Eliezer said: The days of the Messiah are forty years. It is written Deu_8:3, Deu_8:4, and again in Psa_90:15 (showing that the days of rejoicing must be like those of affliction in the wilderness). Rabbi Dosa said: Four hundred years, quoting Gen_15:13 in connection with the same Psalm. Rabbi thought it was 365 years, according to the solar year, quoting Isa_63:4. He asked the meaning of the words: ‘The day of vengeance is in My heart,’ Rabbi Jochanan explained them: I have manifested it to My heart, but not to My members, and Rabbi Simon ben Lakish: To My heart, and not to the ministering angels. Abimi taught that the days of the Messiah were to last for Israel 7,000 years (a Divine marriage-week), according to Isa_62:5. Rabbi Jehudah said, that Rabbi Samuel said, that the days of the Messiah were to be as from the day that the world was created until now, according to Deu_11:21. Rabbi Nachman said: As from the days of Noah till now, according to Isa_54:9. Rabbi Chija said, that Rabbi Jochanan said: All the prophets have only prophesied in regard to the days of the Messiah; but in regard to the world to come, eye has not seen, O God, beside Thee, what He hath prepared for him that waiteth for Him (Isa_64:4). And this is opposed to what Rabbi Samuel said, that there was no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah, except that foreign domination would cease. Upon which the Talmud goes off to discourse upon repentance, and its relation to perfect righteousness.

Lengthy as this extract may be, it will at least show the infinite difference between the Rabbinic expectation of the Messiah, and the picture of Him presented in the New Testament. Surely the Messianic idea, as realised in Christ could not have been derived from the views current in those times!

(See Book II. ch. x.)

Laying aside, as quite untenable, the idea of a regular beṯ hamidrash in the Temple (though advocated even by Wuensche), we have here to inquire whether any historical evidence can be adduced for the existence of a Synagogue within the bounds of the Temple-buildings. The notice (Sot. vii. 8) that on every Sabbatic year lection of certain portions was made to the people in the ‘Court,’ and that a service was conducted there during public fasts on account of dry weather (Taan. ii. 5), can, of course, not be adduced as proving the existence of a regular Temple-Synagogue. On the other hand, it is expressly said in Sanh. 88b, lines 19, 20 from top, that on the Sabbaths and feast-days the members of the Sanhedrin went out upon the ḥel or Terrace of the Temple, when questions were asked of them and answered. It is quite true that in Tos. Sanh. 7 (p. 158, col. d) we have an inaccurate statement about the second of the Temple-Sanhedrin as sitting on the ḥel (instead of at the entrance to the Priests’ Court, as in Sanh. 88b), and that there the Sabbath and festive discourses are loosely designated as a ‘Beth ha-Midrash ‘which was on ‘the Temple-Mount.’ But since exactly the same description – indeed, in the same words – of what took place is given in the Tosephta as in the Talmud itself, the former must be corrected by the latter, or rather the term ‘Beth ha-Midrash’ must be taken in the wider and more general sense as the ‘place of Rabbinic exposition,’ and not as indicating any permanent Academy. But even if the words in the Tosephta were to be taken in preference to those in the Talmud itself, they contain no mention of any Temple-Synagogue.

Equally inappropriate are the other arguments in favour of this supposed Temple-Synagogue. The first of them is derived from a notice in Tos. Sukkah. iv. 4, in which R. Joshua explains how, during the first night of the Feast of Tabernacles, the pious never ‘saw sleep,’ since they went, first ‘to the Morning Sacrifice, thence to the Synagogue, thence to the Beth ha-Midrash, thence to the festive sacrifices, thence to eat and to drink, thence again to the Beth ha-Midrash, thence to the Evening Sacrifice, and thence to the “joy of the house of waterdrawing”’ (the night-feast and services in the Temple-Courts). The only other argument is that from Yoma vii. 1, 2, where we read that while the bullock and the goat were burned the High-Priest read to the people certain portions of the Law, the roll of which was handed by the ḥazzan of the Synagogue (it is not said which Synagogue) to the head of the Synagogue, by him to the Sagan, and by the Sagan to the High-Priest. How utterly inconclusive inferences from these notices are, need not be pointed out. More than this – the existence of a Temple-Synagogue seems entirely incompatible with the remark in Yoma vii. 2, that it was impossible for anyone present at the reading of the High-Priest to witness the burning of the bullock and goat – and that, not because the former took place in a regular Temple-Synagogue, but ‘because the way was far and the two services were exactly at the same time.’ Such, so far as I know, are all the Talmudical passages from which the existence of a regular Temple-Synagogue has been inferred, and with what reason, the reader may judge for himself.

It is indeed easy to understand that Rabbinism and later Judaism should have wished to locate a Synagogue and a Beth ha-Midrash within the sacred precincts of the Temple itself. But it is difficult to account for the circumstance that such Christian scholars as Reland, Carpzov, and Lightfoot should have been content to repeat the statement without subjecting its grounds to personal examination. Vitringa (Synag. p. 30) almost grows indignant at the possibility of any doubt – and that, although he himself quotes passages from Maimonides to the effect that the reading of the Law by the High-Priest on the Day of Atonement took place in the Court of the Women, and hence not in any supposed Synagogue. Yet commentators generally, and writers on the Life of Christ have located the sitting of our Lord among the Doctors in the Temple in this supposed Temple-Synagogue!

(See Book II. ch. xi, Note .)

According to the Synoptic Gospels, the public appearance and preaching of John was the fulfilment of the prediction with which the second part of the prophecies of Isaiah opens, called by the Rabbis, ‘the book of consolations.’ After a brief general preface (Isa_40:1, Isa_40:2), the words occur which are quoted by Matthew and Mark (Isa_40:3), and more fully by Luke (Isa_40:3-5). A more, appropriate beginning of ‘the book of consolations’ could scarcely be conceived.

The quotation of Isa_40:3 is made according to the LXX., the only difference being the change of ‘the paths of our God’ into ‘His paths.’ The divergences between the LXX. and our Hebrew text of Isa_40:4, Isa_40:5 are somewhat more numerous, but equally unimportant – the main difference from the Hebrew original lying in this, that, instead of rendering ‘all flesh shall see it together,’ we have in the LXX. and the New Testament, ‘all flesh shall see the salvation of God.’ As it can scarcely be supposed that the LXX. ישעוּ for יחדו, we must regard their rendering as Targumic. Lastly, although according to the accents in the Hebrew Bible we should read, ‘The Voice of one crying: In the wilderness prepare,’ etc., yet, as alike the LXX., the Targum, and the Synoptists render, ‘The Voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare,’ their testimony must be regarded as outweighing the authority of the accents, which are of so much later date.

But the main question is, whether Isa_40:3, etc., refers to Messianic times or not. Most modern interpreters regard it as applying to the return of the exiles from Babylon. This is not the place to enter on a critical discussion of the passage; but it may be remarked that the insertion of the word ‘salvation’ in Isa_40:5 by the LXX. seems to imply that they had viewed it as Messianic. It is, at any rate, certain that the Synoptists so understood the rendering of the LXX. But this is not all. The quotation from Isa 40 was regarded by the Evangelists as fulfilled, when John the Baptist announced the coming Kingdom of God. We have proof positive that, on the supposition of the correctness of the announcement made by John, they only took the view of their contemporaries in applying Isa_60:3, etc., to the preaching of the Baptist. The evidence here seems to be indisputable, for the Targum renders the close of Isa_40:9 (‘say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!’) by the words: ‘Say to the cities of the House of Judah, the Kingdom of your God shall be manifested.’

In fact, according to the Targum, ‘the good tidings’ are not brought by Zion nor by Jerusalem, but to Zion and to Jerusalem.

(Book II. ch. xi.)

Only those who have made study of it can have any idea how large, and sometimes bewildering, is the literature on the subject of Jewish Proselytes and their Baptism. Our present remarks will be confined to the Baptism of Proselytes.

1. Generally, as regards proselytes (gerim) we have to distinguish between the ger hashaar (proselyte of the gate) and ger toshaḇ (‘sojourner,’ settled among Israel), and again the ger haṣṣedeq (proselyte of righteousness) and ger haberiṯ (proselyte of the covenant). The former are referred to by Josephus (Ant. xiv. 7. 2), and frequently in the New Testament, in the Authorised Version under the designation of those who ‘fear God,’ Act_13:16; Act_13:26; are ‘religious,’ Act_13:43; ‘devout,’ Act_13:50; Act_17:4; Act_13:17; ‘worship God,’ Act_16:14; Act_18:7. Whether the expression ‘devout’ and ‘feared God’ in Act_10:2; Act_10:7 refers to proselytes of the gate is doubtful. As the ‘proselytes of the gate’ only professed their faith in the God of Israel, and merely bound themselves to the observance of the so-called seven Noachic commandments (on which in another place), the question of ‘baptism’ need not be discussed in connection with them, since they did not even undergo circumcision.

2. It was otherwise with ‘the proselytes of righteousness,’ who became ‘children of the covenant,’ ‘perfect Israelites,’ Israelites in every respect, both as regarded duties and privileges. All writers are agreed that three things were required for the admission of such proselytes: Circumcision (milah), Baptism (teḇilah), and a Sacrifice (qorban, in the case of women: baptism and sacrifice) – the latter consisting of a burnt-offering of a heifer, or of a pair of turtle doves or of young doves (Maimonides, Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiii. 5). After the destruction of the Temple promise had to be made of such a sacrifice when the services of the Sanctuary were restored. On this and the ordinances about circumcision it is not necessary to enter further. That baptism was absolutely necessary to make it a proselyte is so frequently stated as not to be disputed (See Maimonides, u.s.; the tractate Massekheth Gerim in Kirchheim’s Septem Libri Talm. Parvi,  pp. 38-44 [which, however, adds little to our knowledge]; Targum on Exo_12:44; Ber. 47b; Kerith. 9a; Jer. Yebam. p. 8d; Yebam. 45b, 46a and b, 48b, 76a; Ab. Sar. 57a, 59a, and other passages). There was, indeed, a difference between Rabbis Joshua and Eliezer, the former maintaining that baptism alone without circumcision, the latter that circumcision alone without baptism, sufficed to make a proselyte, but the sages decided in favour of the necessity of both rites (Yebam. 46a and b). The baptism was to be performed in the presence of three witnesses, ordinarily Sanhedrists (Yebam. 47b), but in case of necessity others might act. The person to be baptized, having cut his hair and nails, undressed completely, made fresh profession of his faith before what were designated ‘the fathers of the baptism’ (our Godfathers, Kethub. 11a; Erub. 15a), and then immersed completely, so that every part of the body was touched by the water. The rite would, of course, be accompanied by exhortations and benedictions (Maimonides, Hilkh. Milah iii. 4; Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiv. 6). Baptism was not to be administered at night, nor on a Sabbath or feast-day (Yebam. 46b). Women were attended by those of their own sex, the Rabbis standing at the door outside. Yet unborn children of proselytes did not require to be baptized, because they were born ‘in holiness’ (Yebam. 78a). In regard to the little children of proselytes opinions differed. A person under age was indeed received, but not regarded as properly an Israelite till he had attained majority. Secret baptism, or where only the mother brought a child, was not acknowledged. In general, the statements of a proselyte about his baptism required attestation by witnesses. But the children of a Jewess or of a proselyte were regarded as Jews, even if the baptism of the father was doubtful.

It was indeed a great thing when, in the words of Maimonides, a stranger sought shelter under the wings of the shekhinah, and the change of condition which he underwent was regarded as complete. The waters of baptism were to him in very truth, though in a far different from the Christian sense, the ‘bath of regeneration’ (Tit_3:5). As he stepped out of these waters he was considered as ‘born anew’ – in the language of the Rabbis, as if he were ‘a little child just born’ (Yeb. 22a; 48b; 97b), as ‘a child of one day’ (Mass. Ger. c. ii.). But this new birth was not ‘a birth from above’ in the sense of moral or spiritual renovation, but only as implying a new relationship to God, to Israel, and to his own past, present, and future. It was expressly enjoined that all the difficulties of his new citizenship should first be set before him, and if, after that, he took upon himself the yoke of the law, he should be told how all those sorrows and persecutions were intended to convey a greater blessing, and all those commandments to redound to greater merit. More especially was he to regard himself as a new man in reference to his past. Country, home, habits, friends, and relations were all changed. The past, with all that had belonged to it, was past, and he was a new man – the old, with its defilements, was buried in the waters of baptism. This was carried out with such pitiless logic as not only to determine such questions as those of inheritance, but that it was declared that, except for the sake of not bringing proselytism into contempt, a proselyte might have wedded his own mother or sister (comp. Yeb. 22a; Sanh. 58b). It is a curious circumstance that marriage with a female proselyte was apparently very popular (Horay. 13a, line 5 from bottom; see also Shem. R. 27), and the Talmud names at least three celebrated doctors who were the offspring of such unions (comp. Derenbourg, Hist. de la Palest., p. 223, note 2). The praises of proselytes and proselytism are also sung in Vayy. R. 1.

If anything could have further enhanced the value of such proselytism, it would nave been its supposed antiquity. Tradition traced it up to Abraham and Sarah, and the expression (Gen_12:5) ‘the souls that they had gotten’ was explained as referring to their proselytes, since ‘every one that makes a proselyte is as if he made (created) him’ (Ber. R. 39, comp. also the Targums Pseudo-Jon. and Jerus. and Midr. on Cant. i. 3). The Talmud, differing in this from the Targumim, finds in Exo_2:5 a reference to the baptism of Pharaoh’s daughter (Sotah 12b, line 3; Megill. 13a, line 11). In Shem. R. 27 Jethro is proved to have been a convert, from the circumstance that his original name had been Jether (Ex iv. 18), an additional letter (Jethro), as in the case of Abraham, having been added to his name when be became a proselyte (comp. also Zebhach. 116a and Targum Ps.-Jon. on Exo_18:6; Exo_18:27, Num_24:21. To pass over other instances, we are pointed to Ruth (Targum on Rth_1:10; Rth_1:15), and to Nebuzaradan – who is also described as a proselyte (Sanh. 96b, line 19 from the bottom). But it is said that in the days of David and Solomon proselytes were not admitted by the Sanhedrin because their motives were suspected (Yeb. 76a), or that at least they were closely watched.

But although the baptism of proselytes seems thus far beyond doubt, Christian theologians have discussed the question, whether the rite was practised at the time of Christ, or only introduced after the destruction of the Temple and its Services, to take the place of the Sacrifice previously offered. The controversy, which owed its origin chiefly to dogmatic prejudices on the part of Lutherans, Calvinists, and Baptists has since been continued on historical or quasi-historical grounds. The silence of Josephus and Philo can scarcely be quoted in favour of the later origin of the rite. On the other hand, it may be urged that, as Baptism did not take the place of sacrifices in any other instance, it would be difficult to account for the origin of such a rite in connection with the admission of proselytes.

Again, if a Jew who had become Levitically defiled, required immersion, it is difficult to suppose that a heathen would have been admitted to all the services of the Sanctuary without a similar purification. But we have also positive testimony (which the objections of Winer, Keil, and Leyrer, in my opinion do not invalidate), that the baptism of proselytes existed in the time of Hillel and Shammai. For, whereas the school of Shammai is said to have allowed a proselyte who was circumcised on the eve of the Passover, to partake after baptism of the Passover, the school of Hillel forbade it. This controversy must be regarded as proving that at that time (previous to Christ) the baptism of proselytes was customary (Pes. viii. 8, Eduy. v. 2).

(Book III. ch. 1.)

Without here entering on a discussion of the doctrine of Angels and devils as presented in Holy Scripture, the Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha, it will be admitted that considerable progression may be marked as we advance from even the latest Canonical to Apocryphal, and again from these to the Pseudepigraphic Writings. The same remark applies even more strongly to a comparison of the latter with Rabbinic literature. There we have comparatively little of the Biblical in its purity. But, added to it, we now find much that is the outcome of Eastern or of prurient imagination, of national conceit, of ignorant superstition, and of foreign, especially Persian, elements. In this latter respect it is true – not, indeed, as regards the doctrine of good and evil Angels, but much of its Rabbinic elaboration – that ‘the names of the Angels (and of the months) were brought from Babylon’ (Jer. Rosh. haSh. 56d; Ber. R. 48), and with the ‘names,’ not a few of the notions regarding them. At the same time, it would be unjust to deny that much of the symbolism which it is evidently intended to convey is singularly beautiful.

I. Angelology.

1. Creation, Number, Duration, and Location of the Angels. We are now considering not the Angel-Princes but that vast unnumbered ‘Host’ generally designated as ‘the ministering Angels’ (מלאכי השרת). Opinions differ (Ber. R. 3) whether they were created on the second day as being ‘spirits,’ ‘winds’(Psa_104:4), or on the fifth day (Isa_6:2) in accordance with the works of Creation on those days. Viewed in reference to God’s Service and Praise, they are ‘a flaming fire:’ in regard to their office, winged messengers (Pirqé de R. El. 4). But not only so: every day ministering Angels are created, whose apparent destiny is only to raise the praises of God, after which they pass away into the fiery stream (nahar denur) whence they originally issued (Chag. 14a; Ber. R. 78). More than this – a new Angel is created to execute every behest of God, and then passeth away (Chag. u.s.). This continual new creation of Angels, which is partly a beautiful allegory, partly savours of the doctrine of ‘emanation,’ is Biblically supported ‘by an appeal to Lam_3:23. Thus it may be said that daily a kaṯ, or company, of Angels is created for the daily service of God, and that every word which proceedeth from His mouth becomes an ‘Angel’ [Messenger – mark here the ideal unity of Word and Deed], (Chag. 14a).

The vast number of that Angelic Host, and the consequent safety of Israel as against its enemies, was described in the most hyperbolic language. There were 12 mazzaloṯ (signs of the Zodiac), each having 30 chiefs of armies, each chief with 30 legions, each legion with 30 leaders, each leader with 30 captains, each captain with 30 under him, and each of these with 365,000 stars – and all were created for the sake of Israel! (Ber. 32b). Similarly, when Nebuchadnezzar proposed to ascend into heaven, and to exalt his throne above the stars, and be like the Most High, the Bath Qol replied to this grandson of Nimrod that man’s age was 70, or at most 80 years, while the way from earth to the firmament occupied 500 years, the thickness of the firmament was 500 years, from one firmament to the other occupied other 500 years, the feet of the living creatures were equal to all that had preceded, and the joints of their feet to as many as had preceded them, and so on increasingly through all their members up to their horns, after which came the Throne of Glory, the feet of which again equalled all that had preceded and soon (Chag. 13a). In connection with this were read in Chag. 12b that there are seven heavens: the Vilon, in which there is the sun; reqia, in which the sun shines, and the moon, stars, and planets are fixed; sheḥaqim, in which are the millstones to make the manna for the pious; zeḇul, in which the Upper Jerusalem, and the Temple and the Altar are, and in which Michael, the chief Angel-Prince, offers sacrifices; maon, in which the Angels of the Ministry are, who sing by night and are silent by day for the sake of the honour of Israel (who now have their services); maḥon, in which are the treasuries of snow, hail, the chambers of noxious dews, and of the receptacles of water, the chamber of the wind, and the cave of mist and their doors are of fire; lastly, Araboṯ, wherein Justice, Judgment, and Righteousness are, the treasures of Life, of Peace, and of Blessing, the souls of the righteous, and the spirits and souls of those who are to be born in the future, and the dew by which the dead are to be raised. There also are the Ophanim, and the Seraphim, and the living creatures, and the ministering Angels, and the Throne of Glory, and over them is enthroned the Great King. [For a description of this Throne and of the Appearance of its King, see Pirqé de R. Eliez. 4.] On the, other hand, sometimes every power and phenomenon in Nature is hypostatised into an Angel – such as hail, rain, wind, sea, etc.; similarly, every occurrence, such as life, death, nourishment, poverty, nay, as it is expressed: ‘there is not a stalk of grass upon earth but it has its Angel in heaven’ (Ber. R. 10). This seems to approximate the views of Alexandrian Mysticism. So also, perhaps, the idea that certain Biblical heroes became after death Angels. But as this may be regarded as implying their service as messengers of God, we leave it for the present.

2. The Angel-Princes, their location, names, and offices. Any limitation, as to duration or otherwise, of the Ministering Angels does not apply either to the Op̱anim (or wheel-angels), the serap̱im, the ḥayoṯ (or living creatures), nor to the Angel-Princes (Ber. R. 78). In Chag. 13a, b the name ḥashmal is given to the ‘living creatures.’ The word is explained as composed of two others which silence and speech – it being beautifully explained, that they keep silence when the Word proceeds out of the mouth of God, and speak when He has ceased. It would be difficult exactly to state the number of the Angel-Princes. The 70 nations, of which the world is composed, had each their Angel-Prince (Targ. Je on Gen_11:7, Gen_11:8; comp. Ber. R. 56; Shem. R. 21; Vayyi. R. 29; Ruth R. ed. Warsh. p. 36b), who plead their cause with God. Hence these Angels are really hostile to Israel, and may be regarded as not quite good Angels, and are cast down when the nationality which they represent is destroyed. It may have been as a reflection on Christian teaching that Israel was described as not requiring any representative with God, like the Gentiles. For, as will soon appear, this was not the general view entertained. Besides these Gentile Angel-Princes there were other chiefs, whose office will be explained in the sequel. Of these 5 are specially mentioned, of whom four surround the Throne of God: Michael, Gabriel, Rephael, and Uriel. But the greatest of all is Metatron, who is under the Throne, and before it. These Angels are privileged to be within the pargod, or cloudy veil, while the others only hear the Divine commands or counsels outside this curtain (Chag. 16a, Pirqé d. R. El. iv.). It is a slight variation when the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deu_34:6 enumerates the following as the 6 principal Angels: Michael, Gabriel, Metatron, Yophiel, Uriel, and Yophyophyah. The Book of Enoch (ch. xx.) speaks also of 6 principal Angels, while Pirqé d. R. Eliez. iv. mentions seven. In that very curious passage (Berakhoth 51a) we read of three directions given by Suriel, Prince of the Face, to preserve the Rabbis from the Techaspith (company of Evil Angels), or, according to others, from Istalganith (another company of Evil Angels). In Chag. 13b we read of an Angel called Sandalpon, who stands upon the earth, while his head reaches 500 years’ way beyond the living creatures. He is supposed to stand behind the Merkabah (the throne-chariot), and make crowns for the Creator, which rise of their own accord. We also read of Sagsagel, who taught Moses the sacred Name of God, and was present at his death. But, confining ourselves to the five principal Angel-chiefs, we have,

a. Metatron, who appears most closely to correspond to the Angel of the Face, or the Logos. He is the representative of God. In the Talmud (Sanh. 38b) a Christian is introduced as clumsily starting a controversy on this point, that, according to the Jewish contention, Exo_24:1 should have read, ‘Come up to Me.’ On this R. Idith explained that the expression referred to the Metatron (Exo_33:21), but denied the inference that Metatron was either to be adored, or had power to forgive sins, or that he was to be regarded as a Mediator. In continuation of this controversy we are told (Chag. 15 a, b) that, when an apostate Rabbi had seen Metatron sitting in heaven, and would have inferred from it that there were two supreme powers, Metatron received from another Angel 60 fiery stripes so as to prove his inferiority! In Targ. Ps.-Jon. on Gen_5:24 he is called the Great Scribe, and also the Prince of this world. He is also designated as ‘the Youth,’ and in the Kabbalah as ‘the Little God,’ who had 7 names like the Almighty, and shared His Majesty. He is also called the ‘Prince of the Face,’ and described as the Angel who sits in the innermost chamber (Chag. 5b), while the other Angels hear their commands outside the Veil (Chag. 16a). He is represented as showing the unseen to Moses (Siphré, p. 141a), and as instructing infants who have died without receiving knowledge (Abhod. Zar. 3b). In the introduction to the Midrash on Lamentations there is a revolting story in which Metatron is represented as proposing to shed tears in order that God might not have to weep over the destruction of Jerusalem, to which, however, the Almighty is made to refuse His assent. We hesitate to quote further from the passage. In Siphré on Dt (ed. Friedm. p. 141a) Metatron is said to have shown Moses the whole of Palestine. He is also said to have gone before Israel in the wilderness.

b. Michael (‘who is like God?’), or the Great Prince (Chag. 12b). He stands at the right hand of the throne of God. According to Targ. Ps.-Jon. on Exo_24:1, he is the Prince of Wisdom. According to the Targum on Psa_137:7, Psa_137:8, the Prince of Jerusalem, the representative of Israel. According to Sebach. 62a he offers upon the heavenly Altar; according to some, the souls of the pious; according to others, lambs of fire. But, although Michael is the Prince of Israel, he is not to be invoked by them (Jer. Ber. ix. 13a). In Yoma 77a we have an instance of his ineffectual advocacy for Israel before the destruction of Jerusalem. The origin of his name as connected with the Song of Moses at the Red Sea is explained in Bemidb. R. 2. Many instances of his activity are related. Thus, he delivered Abraham from the fiery oven of Nimrod, and afterwards, also, the Three Children out of the fiery furnace. He was the principal or middle Angel of the three who came to announce to Abraham the birth of Isaac, Gabriel being at his right, and Rephael at his left. Michael also saved Lot. Michael and Gabriel wrote down that the primogeniture belonged to Jacob, and God confirmed it. Michael and Gabriel acted as ‘friends of the bridegroom’ in the nuptials of Adam. Yet they could not bear to look upon the glory of Moses. Michael is also supposed to have been the Angel in the bush (according to others, Gabriel). At the death of Moses, Michael prepared his bier, Gabriel spread a cloth over the head of Moses, and Sagsagel over his feet. In the world to come Michael would pronounce the blessing over the fruits of Eden, then hand them to Gabriel, who would give them to the patriarchs, and so on to David. The superiority of Michael over Gabriel is asserted in Ber. 4b, where, by an ingenious combination with Dan_10:13, it is shown that Isa_6:6 applies to him (both having the word אחד, one). It is added that Michael flies in one flight, Gabriel in two, Elijah in four, and the Angel of Death in eight flights (no doubt to give time for repentance).

c. Gabriel (‘the Hero of God’) represents rather judgment, while Michael represents mercy. Thus he destroyed Sodom (Bab. Mez. 86b, and other places). He restored to Tamar the pledges of Judah, which Sammael had taken away (Sot. 10b). He struck the servants of the Egyptian princess, who would have kept their mistress from taking Moses out of the water (Sot. 12b); also Moses, that he might cry and so awaken pity. According to some, it was he who delivered the Three Children; but all are agreed that he killed the men that were standing outside the furnace. He also smote the array of Sennacherib. The passage in Eze_10:2, Eze_10:7 was applied to Gabriel, who had received from the Cherub two coals, which, however, he retained for six years, in the hope that Israel might repent. He is supposed to be referred to in Eze_9:4 as affixing the mark on the forehead which is a ת, drawn, in the case of the wicked, in blood (Shabb. 55a). We are also told that he had instructed Moses about making the Candlestick, on which occasion he had put on an apron, like a goldsmith; and that he had disputed with Michael about the meaning of a word. To his activity the bringing of fruits to maturity is ascribed – perhaps because he was regarded as made of fire, while Michael was made of snow (Deb. R. 5). These Angels are supposed to stand beside each other, without the fire of the one injuring the snow of the other. The curious legend is connected with him (Shabb. 56b, Sanh. 21b), that, when Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh, Gabriel descended into the sea, and fixed a reed in it, around which a mudbank gathered, on which a forest sprang up. On this site imperial Rome was built. The meaning of the legend – or perhaps rather allegory – seems (as explained in other parts of this book) that, when Israel began to decline from God, the punishment through its enemies was prepared, which culminated in the dominion of Rome. In the future age Gabriel would hunt and slay Leviathan. This also may be a parabolic representation of the destruction of Israel’s enemies.

d. Of Uriel (‘God is my light’) and Rephael (‘God heals’) it need only be said, that the one stands at the left side of the Throne of glory, the other behind it.

3. The Ministering Angels and their Ministry. The ministry of the Angels may be divided into two parts, that of praising God, and that of executing His behests. In regard to the former, there are 694,000 myriads who daily praise the Name of God. From sunrise to sundown they say: Holy, holy, holy, and from sundown to sunrise: Blessed be the Glory of God from its place. In connection with this we may mention the beautiful allegory (Shem. R. 21) that the Angel of prayer weaves crowns for God out of the prayers of Israel. As to the execution of the Divine commands by the Angels, it is suggested (Aboth d. R. Nathan 8) that their general designation as ministering Angels might have led to jealousy among them. Accordingly, their names were always a composition of that of God with the special commission entrusted to them (Shem. R 29), so that the name of each Angel depended on his message, and might vary with it (Ber. R. 78). This is beautifully explained in Yalkut (vol. 2 Par. 797), where we are told that each Angel has a tablet on his heart, in which the Name of God and that of the Angel is combined. This change of names explained the answer of the Angel to Manoah (Bemidb. R. 10). It is impossible to enumerate all the instances of Angelic activity recorded in Talmudic writings. Angels had performed the music at the first sacrifice of Adam; they had announced the consequences of his punishment; they had cut off the hands and feet of the serpent; they had appeared to Abraham in the form of a baker, a sailor, and an Arab. 120,000 of them had danced before Jacob when he left Laban; 4,000 myriads of them were ready to fight for him against Esau; 22,000 of them descended on and stood beside Israel when, in their terror at the Voice of God, they fled for twelve miles. Angels were directed to close the gates of heaven when the prayer of Moses with the All-powerful, Ineffable Name in it, which he had learnt from Sagsagel, would have prevented his death. Finally, as they were pledged to help Israel, so would they also punish every apostate Israelite. Especially would they execute that most terrible punishment of throwing souls to each other from one world to another. By the side of these debasing superstitions we come upon beautiful allegories, such as that a good and an evil Angel always accompanied man, but specially on the eve of the Sabbath when he returned from the Synagogue, and that for every precept he observed God sent him a protecting Angel. This idea is realistically developed in Pirké d. R. El. 15, where the various modes and times in which the good Angels keep man from destruction are set forth.

It is quite in accordance with what we know of the system of Rabbinism, that the heavenly host should be represented as forming a sort of consultative Sanhedrin. Since God never did anything without first taking counsel with the family above (Sanh. 38b), it had been so when He resolved to create man. Afterwards the Angels had interceded for Adam, and, when God pointed to his disobedience, they had urged that thus death would also come upon Moses and Aaron, who were sinless, since one fate must come to the just and the unjust. Similarly, they had interceded for Isaac, when Abraham was about to offer him, and finally dropped three tears on the sacrificial knife by which its edge became blunted. And so through the rest of Israel’s history, where on all critical occasions Jewish legend introduces the Angels on the scene.

4. Limitations of the power of the Angels. According to Jewish ideas, the faculties, the powers, and even the knowledge of Angels were limited. They are, indeed, pure spiritual beings (Vayyikra R. 24), without sensuous requirements (Yoma 75b), without hatred, envy, or jealousy (Chag. 14), and without sin (Pirqé d. R. El. 46). They know much, notably the future (Ab. d. R. Nath. 37), and have part in the Divine Light. They live on the beams of the Divine Glory (Bem. R. 21), are not subject to our limitations as to movement, see but are not seen (Ab. d. R. Nath. u.s.), can turn their face to any side (Ab. d. R. Nath. 37), and only appear to share in our ways, such as in eating (Ber. R. 48). Still, in many respects they are inferior to Israel, and had been employed in ministry (Ber. R. 75). They were unable to give names to the animals, which Adam did (Pirqé d. R. El. 13). Jacob had wrestled with the Angel and prevailed over him when the Angel wept (Chull. 92a). Thus it was rather their nature than their powers or dignity which distinguished them from man. No Angel could do two messages at the same time (Ber. R. 50). In general they are merely instruments blindly to do a certain work, not even beholding the Throne of Glory (Bemidb. R. 14), but needed mutual assistance (Vayyikra R. 31). They are also liable to punishments (Chag. 16a). Thus, they were banished from their station for 138 years, because they had told Lot that God would destroy Sodom, while the Angel-Princes of the Gentiles were kept in chains till the days of Jeremiah. As regards their limited knowledge, with the exception of Gabriel, they do not understand Chaldee or Syriac (Sot. 33a). The realistic application of their supposed ignorance on this score need not here be repeated (see Shabb. 12b). As the Angels are inferior to the righteous, it follows that they are so to Israel. God had informed the Angels that the creation of man was superior to theirs, and it had excited their envy. Adam attained a place much nearer to God than they, and God loved Israel more than the Angels. And God had left all the ministering Angels in order to come to Moses, and when He communicated with him it was directly, and the Angels standing between them did not hear what passed. In connection with this ministry of the Angels on behalf of Biblical heroes a curious legend may here find its place. From a combination of Exo_18:4 with Exo_2:15 the strange inference was made that Moses had actually been seized by Pharaoh. Two different accounts of how he escaped from his power are given. According to the one, the sword with which he was to be executed rebounded from the neck of Moses, and was broken, to which Son_7:5 was supposed to refer, it being added that the rebound killed the would-be executioner. According to another account, an Angel took the place of Moses, and thus enabled him to fly, his flight being facilitated by the circumstance that all the attendants of the king were miraculously rendered either dumb, deaf, or blind, so that they could not execute the behests of their master. Of this miraculous interposition Moses is supposed to have been reminded in Exo_4:11, for his encouragement in undertaking his mission to Pharaoh. In the exaggeration of Jewish boastfulness in the Law, it was said that the Angels had wished to receive the Law, but that they had not been granted this privilege (Job_28:21). And sixty myriads of Angels had crowned with two crowns every Israelite who at Mount Sinai had taken upon himself the Law (Shabb. 88a). In view of all this we need scarcely mention the Rabbinic prohibition to address to the Angels prayers, even although they bore them to heaven (Jer. Ber. ix. 1), or to make pictorial representations of them (Targ. Ps.-Jon. on Exo_20:23; Mechilta on the passage, ed Weiss, p. 80a).

5. The Angels are not absolutely good. Strange as it may seem, this is really the view expressed by the Rabbis. Thus it is said that, when God consulted the Angels, they opposed the creation of man, and that, for this reason, God had concealed from them that man would sin. But more than this – the Angels had actually conspired for the fall of man (the whole of this is also related In Pirqé d. R. El. 13). Nor had their jealousy and envy been confined to that occasion. They had accused Abraham, that, when he gave a great feast at the weaning of Isaac, he did not even offer to God a bullock or a goat. Similarly, they had laid charges against Ishmael, in the hope that he might be left to perish of thirst. They had expostulated with Jacob, because he went to sleep at Bethel. But especially had they, from envy, opposed Moses’ ascension into heaven; they had objected to his being allowed to write down the Law, falsely urging that Moses would claim the glory of it for himself, and they are represented, in a strangely blasphemous manner, as having been with difficulty appeased by God. In Shabb. 88b we have an account of how Moses pacified the Angels, by showing that the Law was not suitable for them, since they were not subject to sinful desires, upon which they became the friends of Moses, and each taught him some secret, among others the Angel of death how to arrest the pestilence. Again, it is said, that the Angels were wont to bring charges against Israel, and that, when Manasseh wished to repent, the Angels shut the entrance to heaven, so that his prayer might not penetrate into the presence of God.

Equally profane, though in another direction, is the notion that Angels might be employed for magical purposes. This had happened at the siege of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar, when, after the death of that mighty hero Abika, the son of Gaphteri, Chananeel, the uncle of Jeremiah, had conjured up ministering Angels who affrighted the Chaldees into flight. On this God had changed their names, when Chananeel, unable any longer to command their services, had summoned up the Prince of the World by using the Ineffable Name, and lifted Jerusalem into the air, but God had trodden it down again, to all which Lam_2:1 referred (Yalk. vol. 2 p. 166c and d, Par. 1001). The same story is repeated in another place (p. 167, last line of col. c, and col. d), with the addition that the leading inhabitants of Jerusalem had proposed to defend the city by conjuring up the Angels of Water and Fire, and surrounding their city with walls of water, of fire, or of iron; but their hopes were disappointed when God assigned to the Angels names different from those which they had previously so that when called upon they were unable to do what was expected of them.

6. The Names of the Angels. Besides those already enumerated, we may here mention, the sar haOlam, or ‘Prince of the World’ (Yeb. 16b); the Prince of the Sea, whose name is supposed to have been rahab, and whom God destroyed because he had refused to receive the waters which had covered the world, and the smell of whose dead body would kill every one if it were not covered by water. dumah is the Angel of the realm of the dead (Ber. 18b). When the soul of the righteous leaves the body, the ministering Angels announce it before God, Who deputes them to meet it. Three hosts of Angels then proceed on this errand, each quoting successively one clause of Isa_57:2. On the other hand, when the wicked leave the body, they are met by three hosts of destroying Angels, one of which repeats Isa_48:22, another Isa_50:11, and the third Eze_32:19 (Keth. 104a). Then the souls of all the dead, good or bad, are handed over to Dumah. yorqemi is the Prince of hail. He had proposed to cool the fiery furnace into which the Three Children were cast, but Gabriel had objected that this might seem a deliverance by natural means, and being himself the Prince of the fire, had proposed, instead of this, to make the furnace cold within and hot without, in order both to deliver the Three Children and to destroy those who watched outside (Pes. 118a and b). ridya, or radya is the Angel of rain. One of the Rabbis professed to describe him from actual vision as like a calf whose lips were open, standing between the Upper and the Lower Deep, and saying to the Upper Deep, Let your waters run down, and to the Lower, Let your waters spring up. The representation of this Angel as a calf may be due to the connection between rain and ploughing, and in connection with this it may be noticed that Ridya means both a plough and ploughing (Taan. 25b). Of other Angels we will only name the ruaḥ pisqoniṯ, or Spirit of decision, who is supposed to have made most daring objection to what God had said, Eze_16:3, in which he is defended by the Rabbis since his activity had been on behalf of Israel (Sanh. 44b); naqid, the Angel of Food; naḇel, the Angel of Poverty; the two Angels of Healing; the Angel of Dreams, lailah: and even the Angels of Lust.

It is, of course, not asserted that all these grossly materialistic superstitions and profane views were entertained in Palestine, or at the time of our Lord, still less that they are shared by educated Jews in the West. But they certainly date from Talmudic times; they embody the only teaching of Rabbinic writings about the Angels which we possess, and hence, whencesoever introduced, or however developed, their roots must be traced back to far earlier times than those when they were propounded in Rabbinic Academies. All the more that modern Judaism would indignantly repudiate them, do they bear testimony against Rabbinic teaching. And one thing at least must be evident, for the sake of which we have undertaken the task of recording at such length views and statements repugnant to all reverent feeling. The contention of certain modern writers that the teaching about Angels in the New Testament is derived from, and represents Jewish notions, must be perceived to be absolutely groundless and contrary to fact. In truth the teaching of the New Testament on the subject of Angels represents, as compared with that of the Rabbis, not only a return to the purity of Old Testament teaching, but, we might almost say, a new revelation.

II. Satanology and Fall of the Angels.

The difference between the Satanology of the Rabbis and of the New Testament is, if possible, even more marked than that in their Angelology. In general we note that, with the exception of the word Satan, none of the names given to the great enemy in the New Testament occurs in Rabbinic writings. More important still, the latter contain no mention of a Kingdom of Satan. In other words, the power of evil is not contained with that of good, nor Satan with God. The devil is presented rather as the enemy of man, than of God and of good. This marks a fundamental difference. The New Testament sets before us two opposing kingdoms, or principles, which exercise absolute sway over man. Christ is ‘the Stronger one’ who overcometh ‘the strong man armed,’ and taketh from him not only his spoils, but his armour (Luk_11:21, Luk_11:22). It is a moral contest in which Satan is vanquished, and the liberation of his subjects is the consequence of his own subdual. This implies the deliverance of man from the power of the enemy, not only externally but internally, and the substitution of a new principle of spiritual life for the old one. It introduces a moral element, both as the ground and as the result of the contest. From this point of view the difference between the New Testament and Rabbinism cannot be too much emphasised, and it is no exaggeration to say that this alone – the question here being one of principle not of details – would mark the doctrine of Christ as fundamentally divergent from, and incomparably superior to that of Rabbinism. ‘Whence hath this Man this wisdom?’ Assuredly, it may be answered, not from His contemporaries.

Since Rabbinism viewed the ‘great enemy’ only as the envious and malicious opponent of man, the spiritual element was entirely eliminated. Instead of the personified principle of Evil, to which there is response in us, and of which all have some experience, we have only a clumsy and – to speak plainly – often a stupid hater. This holds equally true in regard to the threefold aspect under which Rabbinism presents the devil: as Satan (also called Sammael); as the yeṣer hara, or evil impulse personified; and as the Angel of Death – in other words, as the Accuser, Tempter and Punisher. Before explaining the Rabbinic views on each of these points, it is necessary to indicate them in regard to – 

1. The Fall of Satan and of his Angels. This took place, not antecedently, but subsequently to the creation of man. As related in Pirqé de R. Eliezer, ch. 13, the primary cause of it was jealousy and envy on the part of the Angels. Their opposition to man’s creation is also described in Ber. R. 8 Although there the fall of man is not traced to Satanic agency. But we have (as before stated) a somewhat blasphemous account of the discussions in the heavenly Sanhedrin, whether or not man should be created. While the dispute was still proceeding God actually created Man, and then addressed the ministering Angels: ‘Why dispute any longer? Man is already created.’ In the Pirqé de R. Eliezer, we are only told that the Angels had in vain attempted to oppose the creation of man. The circumstance that his superiority was evidenced by his ability to give names to all creatures, induced them to ‘lay a plot against Adam,’ so that by his fall they might obtain supremacy. Now of all Angel-Princes in heaven Sammael was the first – distinguished above the company of Angels subject to him, he came down upon earth, and selected as the only fit instrument for his designs the serpent, which at that time had not only speech, but hands and feet, and was in stature and appearance like the camel. In the language of the Pirqé de R. Eliezer, Sammael took complete possession of the serpent, even as demoniacs act under the absolute control of evil spirits. Then Sammael, in the serpent, first deceived the woman, and next imposed on her by touching the tree of life (although the tree cried out), saying, that he had actually ‘touched’ the tree, of which he pretended the touch had been forbidden on pain of death (Gen_3:3) – yet he had not died! Upon this Eve followed his example, and touched the tree when she immediately saw the Angel of Death coming against her. Afraid that she would die and God give another wife to Adam, she led her husband into the sin of disobedience. The story of the Fall is somewhat differently related in Ber. R. 18, 19. No mention is there made either of Sammael or of his agency, and the serpent is represented as beguiling Eve from a wish to marry her, and for that purpose to compass the death of Adam.

Critical ingenuity may attempt to find a symbolic meaning in many of the details of the Jewish legend of the Fall, although, to use moderate language, they seem equally profane and repulsive. But this will surely be admitted by all, that the Rabbinic account of the fall of the Angels, as connected with the fall of man, equally contrasts with the reverent reticence of the Old Testament narrative and the sublime teaching of the New Testament about sin and evil.

2. Satan, or Sammael, as the accuser of man. And clumsy, indeed, are his accusations. Thus the statement (Gen_22:1) that ‘God tempted Abraham’ is, in Jewish legend, transformed (Sanh. 89b) into a scene, where, in the great upper Sanhedrin (Ber. R. 56), Satan brings accusation against the Patriarch. All his previous piety had been merely interested; and now when, at the age of one hundred, God had given him a son, he had made a great feast and not offered aught to the Almighty. On this God is represented as answering, that Abraham was ready to sacrifice not only an animal but his own son; and this had been the occasion of the temptation of Abraham. That this legend is very ancient, indeed, preChristian (a circumstance of considerable importance to the student of this history) from its occurrence, though in more general form, in the Book of Jubilees, ch. xvii. In Ber. R. 55 and in Tanchuma (ed. Warsh. p. 29a and b), the legend is connected with a dispute between Isaac and Ishmael as to their respective merits, when the former declares himself ready to offer up even his life unto God. In Tanchuma (u.s.) we are told that this was one of the great merits of man, to which the Almighty had pointed when the Angels made objection to his creation.

3. Satan, or Sammael, as the seducer of man. The statement in Baba B. 16a which identifies Satan with the yeṣer hara, or evil impulse in man, must be regarded as a rationalistic attempt to gloss over the older teaching about Sammael, by representing him as a personification of the evil inclination within us. For, the Talmud not only distinguishes between a personal Satan without, and evil inclination within man, but expressly ascribes to God the creation of the yeṣer hara in man as he was before the Fall, the occurrence of two  י י in the word וייצר (‘and He formed,’ Gen_2:7) being supposed to indicate the existence of two impulses in us – the yeṣer toḇ and the yeṣer hara (Ber. 61a). And it is stated that this existence of evil in man’s original nature was of infinite comfort in the fear which would otherwise beset us in trouble (Ber. R. 14). More than this (as will presently be shown), the existence of this evil principle within us was declared to be absolutely necessary for the continuance of the world (Yoma 69b, Sanh. 64a).

Satan, or Sammael, is introduced as the seducer of man in all the great events of Israel’s history. With varying legendary additions the story of Satan’s attempts to prevent the obedience of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac is told in Sanh. 89b, Ber. R. 56, and Tanchuma, p. 30 a and b. Yet there is nothing even astute, only a coarse realism, about the description of the clumsy attempts of Satan to turn Abraham from, or to hinder him in, his purpose; to influence Isaac; or to frighten Sarah. Nor are the other personages in the legend more successfully sketched. There is a want of all higher conception in the references to the Almighty, a painful amount of downright untruthfulness about Abraham, lamentable boastfulness and petty spite about Isaac, while the Sarah of the Jewish legend is rather a weak old, Eastern woman than the mother in Israel. To hold such perversions of the Old Testament by the side of the New Testament conception of the motives and lives of the heroes of old, or the doctrinal inferences and teaching of the Rabbis by those of Christ and His Apostles, were to compare darkness with light.

The same remarks apply to the other legends in which Satan is introduced as seducer. Anything more childish could scarcely be invented than this, that, when Sammael could not otherwise persuade Israel that Moses would not return from Mount Sinai, he at last made his bier appear before them in the clouds (Shab. 89a), unless it be this story, that when Satan would seduce David he assumed the form of a bird, and that, when David shot at it, Bath-Sheba suddenly looked up, thus gaining the king by her beauty (Sanh. 107a). In both these instances the obvious purpose is to palliate the guilt whether of Israel or of David, which, indeed, is in other places entirely explained away as not due to disobedience or to lust (comp. Ab. Zar. 4b, 5a).

4. As the Enemy of man, Satan seeks to hurt and destroy him; and he is the Angel of Death. Thus, when Satan had failed in shaking the constancy of Abraham and Isaac, he attacked Sarah (Yalkut. i. Par. 98, last lines p. 28b). To his suggestions, or rather false reports, her death had been due, either from fright at being told that Isaac had been offered (Pirqé de R. El. 32, and Targum Ps.-Jon.), or else from the shock, when after all she learned that Isaac was not dead (Ber. R. 58). Similarly, Satan had sought to take from Tamar the pledges which Judah had given her. He appeared as an old man to show Nimrod how to have Abraham cast into the fiery oven, at the same time persuading Abraham not to resist it, etc. Equally puerile are the representations of Satan as the Angel of Death. According to Abod. Zar. 20b, the dying sees his enemy with a drawn sword, on the point of which a drop of gall trembles. In his fright he opens his mouth and swallows this drop, which accounts for the pallor of the face and the corruption that follows. According to another Rabbi, the Angel of Death really uses his sword, although, on account of the dignity of humanity, the wound which he inflicts is not allowed to be visible. It is difficult to imagine a narrative more repulsive than that of the death of Moses according to Deb. R. 11. Beginning with the triumph of Sammael over Michael at the expected event, it tells how Moses had entreated rather to be changed into a beast or a bird than to die; how Gabriel and Michael had successively refused to bring the soul of Moses; how Moses, knowing that Sammael was coming for the purpose, had armed himself with the Ineffable Name; how Moses had in boastfulness recounted to Sammael all his achievements, real and legendary; and how at last Moses had pursued the Enemy with the Ineffable Name, and in his anger taken off one of his horns of glory and blinded Satan in one eye. We must be excused from further following this story through its revolting details.

But, whether as the Angel of Death or as the seducer of man, Sammael has not absolute power. When Israel took the Law upon themselves at Mount Sinai, they became entirely free from his sway, and would have remained so, but for the sin of the Golden Calf. Similarly, in the time of Ezra, the object of Israel’s prayer (Neh_8:6) was to have Satan delivered to them. After a three days’ fast it was granted, and the Yetser haRa of idolatry, in the shape of a young lion, was delivered up to them. It would serve no good purpose to repeat the story of what was done with the bound enemy, or how his cries were rendered inaudible in heaven. Suffice it that, in view of the requirements of the present world, Israel liberated him from the ephah covered with lead (Zec_5:8), under which, by advice of the prophet Zechariah, they had confined him, although for precaution they first put out his eyes (Yoma, 69b). And yet, in view, or probably, rather, in ignorance, of such teaching, modern criticism would derive the Satanology of the New Testament and the history of the Temptation from Jewish sources!

Over these six persons – Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, with whom some apparently rank Benjamin – the Angel of Death had no power (Baba B. 17a). Benjamin, Amram, Jesse, and Chileb (the son of David) are said to have died (only) through ‘the sin of the serpent.’ In other cases, also, Sammael may not be able to exercise his sway till, for example, he has by some ruse diverted a theologian from his sacred study. Thus he interrupted the pious meditations of David by going up into a tree and shaking it, when, as David went to examine it, a rung of the ladder, on which he stood, broke, and so interrupted David’s holy thoughts. Similarly, Rabbi Chasda, by occupation with sacred study, warded off the Angel of Death till the crackling of a beam diverted his attention. Instances, of the awkwardness of the Enemy are related (Kethub. 77b), and one Rabbi – Joshua – actually took away his sword, only returning it by direct command of God. Where such views of Satan could even find temporary expression, superstitious fears may have been excited; but the thought of moral evil and of a moral combat with it could never have found lodgment.

III. Evil Spirits

(shedim, ruc̣in, ruc̣oṯ, lilin).

Here also, as throughout, we mark the presence of Parsee elements of superstition. In general, these spirits resemble the gnomes, hobgoblins, elves, and sprites of our fairy tales. They are cunning and malicious, and contact with them is dangerous; but they can scarcely be described as absolutely evil. Indeed, they often prove kind and useful; and may at all times be rendered innocuous, and even made serviceable.

1. Their origin, nature, and numbers. Opinions differ as to their origin, in fact, they variously originated. According to Ab. 12b, Ber. R. 7, they were created on the eve of the first Sabbath. But since that time their numbers have greatly increased. For, according to Erub. 18b. Ber. R. 20 (ed. Warsh. p. 40b), multitudes of them were the offspring of Eve and of male spirits, and of Adam with female spirits,.or with Lilith (the queen of the female spirits), during the 130 years that Adam had been under the ban, and before Seth was born (Gen_5:3): comp. Erub. 18b. Again, their number can scarcely be limited, since they propagate themselves (Chag. 16a), resembling men in this as well as in their taking of nourishment and dying. On the other hand, like the Angels they have wings, pass unhindered through space, and know the future. Still further, they are produced by a process of transformation from vipers, which, in the course of four times seven years, successively pass through the forms of vampires, thistles and thorns, into shedim (Bab. K. 16a) – perhaps a parabolic form of indicating the origination of shedim through the fall of man. Another parabolic idea may be implied in the saying that shedim spring from the backbone of those who have not bent in worship (u.s.).

Although shedim bear, when they appear, the form of human beings, they may assume any other form. Those of their number who are identified with dirty places are represented as themselves black (Kidd. 72a). But the reflection of their likeness is not the same as that of man. When conjured up, their position (whether with the head or the feet uppermost) depends on the mode of conjuring. Some of the shedim have defects. Thus, those of them who lodge in the caper bushes are blind, and an instance is related when one of their number, in pursuit of a Rabbi, fell over the root of a tree and perished (Pes. 111b). Trees, gardens, vineyards, and also ruined and desolate houses, but especially dirty places, were their favourite habitation, and the night-time, or before cock-crowing, their special time of appearance. Hence the, danger of going alone into such places (Ber. 3a, b; 62a). A company of two escaped the danger, while before three the Shed did not even appear (Ber. 43b). For the same reason it was dangerous to sleep alone in a house (Shabb. 151b), while the man who went out before cock-crow, without at least carrying for protection a burning torch (though moonlight was far safer) had his blood on his own head. If you greeted anyone in the dark you might unawares bid Godspeed to a Shed (Sanh. 44a). Nor was the danger of this inconsiderable, since one of the worst of these shedim, especially hurtful to Rabbis, was like a dragon with seven heads, each of which dropped off with every successive lowly bending during Rabbi Acha’s devotions (Kidd. 29b). Specially dangerous times were the eves of Wednesday and of the Sabbath. But it was a comfort to know that the shedim could not create or produce anything; nor had they power over that which had been counted, measured, tied up and sealed (Chull. 105b); they could be conquered by the ‘Ineffable Name;’ and they might be banished by the use of certain formulas, which, when written and worn, served as amulets.

The number of these spirits was like the earth that is thrown up around a bed that is sown. Indeed, no one would survive it, if he saw their number. A thousand at your right hand and ten thousand at your left, such crowding in the Academy or by the side of a bride; such weariness and faintness through their malignant touch, which rent the very dress of the wearers! (Ber. 6a.) The queen of the female spirits had no less a following than 180,000 (Pes. 112b). Little as we imagine it, these spirits lurk everywhere around us: in the crumbs on the floor, in the oil in the vessels, in the water which we would drink, in the diseases which attack us, in the even-numbered cups of our drinking, in the air, in the room, by day and by night.

2. Their arrangement. Generally, they may be arranged into male and female spirits, the former under their king Ashmedai, the latter under their queen liliṯ, probably the same as Agraṯ baṯ maḥlaṯ – only that the latter may more fully present the hurtful aspect of the demoness. The hurtful spirits are specially designated as ruc̣in, mazziqin (harmers), malakhey ḥabalah (angels of damage), etc. From another aspect they are arranged into four classes (Targ. Pseudo-Jon. Num_6:24): the ṣap̱rirey, or morning spirits (Targ. on Psa_121:6; Targ. Cant. iv. 6); the tiharey, or midday spirits (Targ. Pseudo-Jon. Deu_32:24; Targ. Cant. iv. 6); the telaney, or evening spirits (Targ. Cant. iii. 8; iv. 6; Targ. Eccles. ii. 5); and the lilin, or night spirits (Targ. Pseudo-Jon. on Deu_32:34; Targ. Isa_34:14). [According to 2 Targ. Es ii. 1, 3, Solomon had such power over them, that at his bidding they executed dances before him.]

a. Ashmedai (perhaps a Parsee name), Ashmodi, Ashmedon, or shamdon, the king of the demons (Gitt. 68a, b; Pes. 110a). It deserves notice, that this name does not occur in the Jerusalem Talmud nor in older Palestinian sources. He is represented as of immense size and strength, as cunning, malignant, and dissolute. At times, however, he is known also to do works of kindness – such as to lead the blind, or to show the road to a drunken man. Of course, he foreknows the future, can do magic, but may be rendered serviceable by the use of the ‘Ineffable Name,’ and especially by the signet of King Solomon, on which it was graven. The story of Solomon’s power over him is well known, and can here only be referred to in briefest outline. It is said, that as no iron was to be used in the construction of the Temple, Solomon was anxious to secure the services of the worm shamir, which possessed the power of cutting stones (see about him Ab. Z. 12a; Sot. 48b; Gitt. a, b). By advice of the Sanhedrin, Solomon conjured up for this purpose a male and a female shed, who directed him to Ashmedai. The latter lived at the bottom of a deep cistern on a high mountain. Every morning on leaving it to go into heaven and hear the decrees of the Upper Sanhedrin, he covered the cistern with a stone, and sealed it. On this Benayah, armed with a chain, and Solomon’s signet with the Ineffable Name, went and filled the cistern with wine, which Ashmedai, as all other spirits, hated. But as he could not otherwise quench his thirst, Ashmedai became drunk, when it was easy, by means of the magical signet, to secure the chain around him. Without entering on the story of his exploits, or how he indicated the custody of shamir, and how ultimately the worm (which was in the custody of the moor-cock) was secured, it appears that, by his cunning, Ashmedai finally got released, when he immediately hurled Solomon to a great distance, assumed his form, and reigned in his stead; till at last, after a series of adventures, Solomon recovered his signet, which Ashmedai had flung away, and a fish swallowed. Solomon was recognised by the Sanhedrin and Ashmedai fled at sight of his signet. [Possibly the whole of this is only a parabolic form for the story of Solomon’s spiritual declension, and final repentance.]

b. liliṯ, the queen of female spirits – to be distinguished from the lilin or night-spirits, and from lela or lailah, an Angel who accompanied Abraham on his expedition against Chedorlaomer (Sanh. 96a). Here we recognise still more distinctly the Parsee elements. liliṯ is ‘the queen of Zemargad’ (Targ. on Job_1:15) – ‘Zemargad’ representing all green crystals, malachite, and emerald – and the land of Zemargad being ‘Sheba.’ liliṯ is described as the mother of Hormiz or Hormuz (Baba B. 73a). Sometimes she is represented as a very fair woman, but mostly with long, wild-flowing hair, and winged (Nidd. 24b; Erub. 100b). In Pes. 111a we have a formula for exorcising liliṯ. In Pes. 112b (towards the end) we are told how Agraṯ baṯ maḥlaṯ (probably the Zend word Agra – ‘smiting, very wicked’ – baṯ maḥlaṯ ‘the dancer’) threatened Rabbi Chanina with serious mischief, had it not been that his greatness had been proclaimed in heaven, on which the Rabbi would have shown his power by banning her from all inhabited places, but finally gave her liberty on the eve of the fourth day and of the Sabbath, which nights accordingly are the most dangerous seasons.

3. Character and habits of the shedim. As many of the Angels, so many of the shedim, are only personifications. Thus, as diseases were often ascribed to their agency, there were shedim of certain diseases, as of asthma, croup, canine rabies, madness, stomachic diseases, etc. Again, there were local shedim, as of Samaria, Tiberias, etc. On the other hand, shedim might be employed in the magic cure of diseases (Shabb. 67a). In fact, to conjure up and make use of demons was considered lawful, although dangerous (Sanh. 101a), while a little knowledge of the subject would enable a person to avoid any danger from them. Thus, although ḥamaṯ, the demon of oil, brings eruptions on the face, yet the danger is avoided if the oil is used out of the hollow of the hand, and not out of a vessel. Similarly, there are formulas by which the power of the demons can be counteracted. In these formulas, where they are not Biblical verses, the names of the demons are inserted. This subject will be further treated in another Appendix.

In general, we may expect to find demons on water, oil, or anything else that has stood uncovered all night; on the hands before they have been washed for religious purposes, and on the water in which they have been washed; and on the breadcrumbs on the floor. Demons may imitate or perform all that the prophets or great men of old had wrought. The magicians of Egypt had imitated the miracles of Moses by demoniacal power (Shem. R. 9). So general at the time of our Lord was the belief in demons and in the power of employing them, that even Josephus (Ant. viii. 2, 5) contended that the power of conjuring up, and driving out demons, and of magical cures had been derived from King Hezekiah, to whom God had given it. Josephus declares himself to have been an eye-witness of such a wonderful cure by the repetition of a magical formula. This illustrates the contention of the Scribes that the miraculous cures of our Lord were due to demoniac agency.

Legions of demons lay in waiting for any error or failing on the part of man. Their power extended over all even numbers. Hence, care must be had not to drink an even number of cups (Ber. 51b), except on the Passover night, when the demons have no power over Israel (Pes. 109b). On the other hand, there are demons who might almost be designated as familiar spirits, who taught the Rabbis, shed Joseph (Pes. 110a) and the shed Jonathan (Yeb. 122a). Rabbi Papa had a young shed to wait upon him (Chull. 105b). There can, however, be no difficulty in making sure of their real existence. As shedim have cock’s feet, nothing more is required than to strew ashes by the side of one’s bed, when in the morning their marks will be perceived (Ber. 6a; Gitt. 68b). It was by the shape of his feet that the Sanhedrin hoped to recognise, whether Ashmedai was really Solomon, or not, but it was found that he never appeared with his feet uncovered. The Talmud (Ber. 6a) describes the following as an infallible means for actually seeing these spirits: Take the afterbirth of a black cat which is the daughter of a black cat – both mother and daughter being firstborn – burn it in the fire, and put some of the ashes in your eyes. Before using them, the ashes must be put into an iron tube, and sealed with an iron signet. It is added, that Rabbi Bibi successfully tried this experiment, but was hurt by the demons, on which he was restored to health by the prayers of the Rabbis.

Other and kindred questions, such as those of amulets, etc., will be treated under demoniac possessions. But may we not here once more and confidently appeal to impartial students whether, in view of this sketch of Jewish Angelology and Satanology, the contention can be sustained that the teaching of Christ on this subject has been derived from Jewish sources?