|
|
 Helping San Diego, California and beyond since 1997.
|
|
Click here and add this page to your favorites!
|
|
Helping San Diego, California and beyond since 1997.
|
|
Click here and add this page to your favorites!
General Information
An angel (Greek: angelos, "messenger") is a celestial being believed to function as a messenger or agent of God in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism. In the Near Eastern antecedents to Judaism, angels were often understood to be gods or lesser divinities. Their existence was taken for granted by the biblical authors. The use of the word angel may have been a way of describing what was believed to be an appearance of God himself in human form.
Ancient and medieval peoples widely accepted the influence of good spirits, or angels, and evil spirits, or fallen angels (see Demon; Satan). During the Middle Ages, theologians developed a hierarchy of angels. They were classified in the following nine ranks (beginning with the lowest): angels, archangels, principalities, powers, virtues, dominations, thrones, cherubim, and seraphim. Angels are a popular subject in folklore, literature, and art.
Anthony J. Saldarini
Bibliography
Davidson, Gustav, A Dictionary of Angels (1967);
Field, M. J., Angels and Ministers of Grace (1972); Heidt,
W. G., Angelology of the Old Testament (1949); Regamey, Raymond,
What Is an Angel?, trans. by Mark Pontifex (1960).
Ge 18:19 32:1,2
Da 10:13 12:1 Lu 1:19 Eph 1:21 1Th 4:16 Jude 1:7 Re 12:7
De 33:2 Ps 68:17 Da 7:10 Mt 26:53
Lu 2:13 Heb 12:22 Re 5:11
Mt 18:10 1Pe 1:12 Re 5:11
Ge 28:12 Ps 34:7 91:11,12 Mt 18:10
Ac 5:19 12:7 27:23 Heb 1:13,14
Ge 3:24 Job 38:7 Re 12:9
Ps 103:20 Mt 13:41 24:36 25:31 1Co 13:1 2Th 1:7
Ac 7:53 Ga 3:19 Heb 2:2
2Ki 19:35 1Ch 21:16 Ac 12:23
Lu 2:10,11 Mr 1:13 Lu 22:43 Mt 28:2-4
Joh 20:12 Ac 1:10,11
Mt 13:49,50 24:31 25:31 1Th 4:16,17 2Th 1:7
Ps 103:20 Lu 9:26 1Ti 5:21
Mt 12:24-27 Eph 2:2 6:12 1Ti 4:1
Mt 4:1-11 Joh 8:44 2Co 11:3,14
Mt 12:24-28 Lu 10:18 Eph 2:2 6:12 Re 9:11 20:2
Mt 4:1-11 1Co 5:5 2Co 4:4 11:14 Eph 6:11,12 2Th 2:9,10 1Ti 3:7 Heb 2:14 Re 12:9
Adam and Eve
David
Christ
Judas
Ananias and Sapphira
Ge 3:24 Ex 25:22 1Sa 4:4 Eze 1:5-25 10:1-22 Re 4:6-9 5:6-14 6:1-7
Angel, a word signifying, both in the Hebrew and Greek, a "messenger," and hence employed to denote any agent God sends forth to execute his purposes. It is used of an ordinary messenger (Job 1:14: 1 Sam. 11:3; Luke 7:24; 9:52), of prophets (Isa. 42:19; Hag. 1:13), of priests (Mal. 2:7), and ministers of the New Testament (Rev. 1:20). It is also applied to such impersonal agents as the pestilence (2 Sam. 24: 16, 17; 2 Kings 19:35), the wind (Ps. 104:4). But its distinctive application is to certain heavenly intelligences whom God employs in carrying on his government of the world.
The name does not denote their nature but their office as messengers. The appearances to Abraham at Mamre (Gen. 18:2, 22. Comp. 19:1), to Jacob at Peniel (Gen. 32:24, 30), to Joshua at Gilgal (Josh. 5:13, 15), of the Angel of the Lord, were doubtless manifestations of the Divine presence, "foreshadowings of the incarnation," revelations before the "fulness of the time" of the Son of God.
As finite creatures they may fall under temptation; and
accordingly we read of "fallen angels." Of the cause and manner of
their "fall" we are wholly ignorant. We know only that "they left their
first estate" (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 12:7,9), and that they are "reserved
unto judgement" (2 Pet. 2:4). When the manna is called "angels' food,"
this is merely to denote its excellence (Ps. 78:25). Angels never die
(Luke 20:36). They are possessed of superhuman intelligence and power
(Mark 13:32; 2 Thess. 1:7; Ps. 103:20). They are called "holy" (Luke
9:26), "elect" (1 Tim. 5:21). The redeemed in glory are "like unto the
angels" (Luke 20:36). They are not to be worshipped (Col. 2:18; Rev.
19:10).
From that time onward there are frequent
references to their ministry on earth (Gen. 18; 19; 24:7, 40; 28:12;
32:1). They appear to rebuke idolatry (Judg. 2:1-4), to call Gideon
(Judg. 6:11, 12), and to consecrate Samson (13:3). In the days of the
prophets, from Samuel downward, the angels appear only in their behalf
(1 Kings 19: 5; 2 Kings 6:17; Zech. 1-6; Dan. 4:13, 23; 10:10, 13, 20,
21). The Incarnation introduces a new era in the ministrations of
angels. They come with their Lord to earth to do him service while
here. They predict his advent (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:26-38), minister to
him after his temptation and agony (Matt. 4:11; Luke 22:43), and
declare his resurrection and ascension (Matt. 28:2-8; John 20:12, 13;
Acts 1:10, 11). They are now ministering spirits to the people of God
(Heb. 1:14; Ps. 34:7; 91:11; Matt. 18:10; Acts 5:19; 8:26; 10:3; 12:7;
27:23). They rejoice over a penitent sinner (Luke 15:10). They bear the
souls of the redeemed to paradise (Luke 16:22); and they will be the
ministers of judgement hereafter on the great day (Matt. 13:39, 41, 49;
16:27; 24:31).
The passages (Ps. 34:7, Matt. 18:10) usually referred to in support of the idea that every individual has a particular guardian angel have no such meaning. They merely indicate that God employs the ministry of angels to deliver his people from affliction and danger, and that the angels do not think it below their dignity to minister even to children and to the least among Christ's disciples. The "angel of his presence" (Isa. 63:9. Comp. Ex. 23:20, 21; 32:34; 33:2; Nu,m. 20:16) is probably rightly interpreted of the Messiah as the guide of his people. Others have supposed the expression to refer to Gabriel (Luke 1:19).
(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)
Angelos, from which "angel" derives, is in itself a colorless word like its main Hebrew equivalent. It may denote either a human or a heavenly "messenger." Yet in the NT, except in Luke 7:24; 9:52; and perhaps Rev. 1:20, it is used only for heavenly beings. Rightly, therefore, the Vulgate introduced a distinction between angelus and nuntius which modern renderings and usage have maintained.
The term chosen by Scripture to denote angels gives us the clue to the function by which they are primarily to be known and understood. They are God's messengers or ambassadors. They belong to his heavenly court and serice. Their mission in heaven is to praise him (Rev. 4:5). They devote themselves to doing his will (Ps. 103:20) and in this activity they behold his face (Matt. 18:10). Since heaven comes down to earth, they also have a mission on earth. They accompany God in his work of creation (Job 38:7), though they themselves are also creatures (Ps. 148:2, 5). They also assist in God's providential ordering of affairs (Dan. 12:1). Above all they are active in the divine work of reconciliation (from Gen. 19:1-2 onward). In fulfillment of their mission they declare God's word (e.g., Luke 1:26-27) and do his work (e.g., Matt. 28:2). There seems to be some ordering in their ranks; some are referred to as archangels, as over against those who are referred to as simply angels (1 Thess. 4:16; Jude 9).
The function of angels may be seen clearly from their part in the saving mission of Jesus Christ. They are naturally present when this both begins with the nativity (Matt. 1; Luke 1-3) and ends with the resurrection (Matt. 28:2 and pars.) and ascension (Acts 1:10ff.). They also assist the church in its early ministry (e.g., Acts 5:19; 10:3). They will play an important part in the events of the end time (Rev. 7:1ff., etc.). Finally they will come with Christ when he returns in glory (Matt. 24:31) and separate the righteous and the wicked (Matt. 13:41, 49). They do not do the real work of reconciliation, which is Christ's prerogative. But they accompany and declare this work, praising the God of grace and glory and summoning men and women to participate in their worship (Luke 1:46). Interestingly, there seem to be only two angelic appearances between Christ's birth and resurrection: at the beginning of his way to the cross in the temptation (Mark 1:12) and then before the crucifixion itself in Gethsemane (Luke 22:43). This is perhaps because Jesus had to tread his way of atoning self-giving alone, and in his humiliation he is made a little lower than the angels (Heb. 2:9), though exalted far above them by nature (Heb. 1). Yet angels did not withdraw from the scene, for they rejoice at sinners repenting (Luke 15:10) and will hear the Son of man confess those who confess him (Luke 12:8-9).
The Bible offers only a few hints about the nature of angels. Belonging to the heavenly sphere, they cannot be properly conceived of in earthly terms. They are mostly described in relation to God, as his angels (e.g., Ps. 104:4). The two angelic names, Michael and Gabriel, emphasize this relationship with the el ending. It is as God's angels, perhaps, that they are called "elect" in 1 Tim. 5:21. Heb. 1:14 describes them as "ministering spirits" in a conflation of the two parts of Ps. 104:4. Elsewhere, in Job and Psalms, they figure as the "heavenly ones" (Ps. 29:1) or the "holy ones" (Job 5:1) who are set apart for God's service; both these terms occur in Ps. 89:6-7, though "sons of God" is here another rendering of "heavenly ones" in vs. 6 (cf. Ps. 29:1). The "gods" of Ps. 82:1, in whose midst God holds judgment, are often thought to be angels too. Since Christians can also be called God's children, we need not infer from this usage, as did some of the apologists, that the angels are lesser deities. Indeed, the Bible clearly warns us not to worship them (Col. 2:18; Rev. 19:10).
Among the heavenly beings mention is made of the seraphim (Isa. 6:2) and, more frequently, the cherubim. Cherubim guarded Eden after the expulsion of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:24). They form God's chariot at his descent (Ps. 18:10). Figures of cherubim adorned the ark (Exod. 25:17ff.) and Solomon's temple (I Kings 6:23ff.), so that Yahweh is said to be enthroned above the cherubim (I Sam. 4:4; Ps. 80:1). Ezekiel offers an elaborate visionary description (Ezek. 1:10; 9:3; 10:15-22) in which their form is human (1:5) but symbolical traits stress their glory and spiritual excellence. Common paradise traditions may underlie Assyro-Babylonian parallels.
Of the angels named, Michael is called "the great prince" (Dan. 12:1) and the other angels seem to be led by him (Rev. 12:7), though God himself, of course, is the Lord of hosts and Prince of the host (Dan. 8:11). The man who appeared to Joshua in Josh. 5:13ff., usually taken to be an angel, says that he has come as commander of the army of the Lord, Gabriel, the other angel named in canonical Scripture, is the angel of the annunciation (Luke 1:26). Distinctions seem to be indicated in Rev. 4-5 with the references to the beasts and the elders, but the exact significance of these terms is disputed. The apocryphal writings provide three more angelic names, Raphael, Uriel, and Jermiel. Tob. 12:15 calls Raphael one of the holy angels who present the prayers of the saints (cf. the seven who stand before God in Rev. 8:2 and the possible link between these seven and the "chief princes" of Dan. 10:13).
From the various statements about the nature of angels, and Paul's use of the terms "principalities," "powers," "thrones," "dominions," and "forces," early and medieval theology evolved a complex speculative account of the angelic world. Pseudo-Dionysius found separate entities in these, and he grouped them with the seraphim, cherubim, archangels, and angels in a threefold hierarchy of nine choirs. Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, adopted a similar scheme in his full and acute discussion but was more interested in the nature of angels as individual, spatial, spiritual substances engaged primarily in the work of enlightenment and capable of rational demonstration (Summa contra Gentiles 91; Summa Theologica 50-64).
As Calvin saw, the error in so much angelology was to deal with angels apart from the biblical witness. Even regarding their function there was a tendency to rationalize or to focus interest on the idea of the guardian angel (cf. Matt. 18:10 and perhaps Acts 12:15). An inevitable reaction came in the age of the Enlightenment and liberal Protestantism when angels were either dismissed as fantastic, submitted to reinterpretation, or explained away as the relics of an original polytheism.
Some legitimate deductions may certainly be made from the biblical data. Though they come in human form, the angels are essentially noncorporeal. Present at creation, they are still creatures (Ps. 148:2, 5). They form an ordered unity, yet their plurality entails the existence of individuals within the totality, with a possible gradation in function. As compared with humans they have the advantage of being in God's immediate presence and serving as his direct messengers. They also guard the proprieties, if that is the meaning of I Cor. 11:10, and seem to play some role in or over the nations (Dan. 10). But when men and women respond to God's saving work in Christ they are raised above them, enjoy their ministry (Heb. I:14), and will finally judge them (I Cor. 6:3), for even angels are not faultless in God's eyes (Job 4:18; 15:15).
Has there been a fall of angels? Jude 6 suggests this, and Irenaeus (Against Heresies iv. 37.1) and many fathers took this view. Certainly the Bible speaks of the dragon and his angels (Rev. 12:7) and also of powers of evil (Eph. 6:12), so that while we cannot be too dogmatic on the subject, we have to assume that there is a real kingdom of evil in grotesque caricature of the angelic kingdom. These angels and their leader were defeated at the cross (Col. 2:15) and will finally be condemned (Matt. 25:41).
A last question concerns the so-called angel of the Lord. In Judg. 13:2-3 this seems to be identical with God. Many have thought, then, that in the OT at least the reference is to the preincarnate Logos. Liberals have explained it as a softening of theophany to angelophany but without showing why this does not always apply. Another possible interpretation is that God speaks so fully through the angel that he himself is virtually speaking. Certainly the "angel of the Lord" of Luke 2:9 is not Christ, but this does not in itself rule out such an equation in the OT.
G W Bromiley
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
Bibliography
K. Barth, Church Dogmatics III/3, 51; H. Cremer et al.,
SHERK, I, 174-78; HDB, I, 93; W. Grundmann et al., TDNT, I, 74-87; J.
M. Wilson, ISBE (rev.), I, 124-27.
In the OT and NT the angel of the Lord (mal'ak yhwh) is represented as acting on behalf of the nation of Israel as well as of individuals. The lack of precise data in the OT with regard to the identification of this figure and his relationship to Yahweh has given rise to a number of conclusions. Eichrodt understands the presence of this figure in the literature of the OT as an attempt to express the concept of theophany in a less direct manner because of the early realization that it is impossible to see God. Von Rad suggests that the figure may have been inserted into some of the older traditions in place of an original Canaanite numen. However, this presupposes an already concrete idea of the concept and does not explain its origin or the nature of the concept in early Israelite religion.
Many understand the angel of the Lord as a true theophany. From the time of Justin on, the figure has been regarded as the preincarnate Logos. It is beyond question that the angel of the Lord must be identified in some way with God (Gen. 16:13; Judg. 6:14; 13:21-22), yet he is distinguished from God in that God refers to the angel (Exod. 23:23; 32:34), speaks to him (II Sam. 24:16; I Chr. 21:27), and the angel speaks to Yahweh (Zech. 1:12). The evidence for the view that the angel of the Lord is a preincarnate appearance of Christ is basically analogical and falls short of being conclusive. The NT does not clearly make that identification. It is best to see the angel as a self-manifestation of Yahweh in a form that would communicate his immanence and direct concern to those to whom he ministered.
T E McComiskey
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
Bibliography
H. Bietenhard et al., NIDNTT, I, 101-5; W. Eichrodt,
Theology of the OT; P. Heinisch, Theology of the OT; G. von Rad, OT
Theology.
Angel, "a messenger" (from angello, "to deliver a message"), sent whether by God or by man or by Satan, "is also used of a guardian or representative in Rev. 1:20, cf. Matt. 18:10; Acts 12:15 (where it is better understood as 'ghost'), superior to man, Heb. 2:7; Ps. 8:5, belonging to Heaven, Matt. 24:36; Mark 12:25, and to God, Luke 12:8, and engaged in His service, Ps. 103:20. "Angels" are spirits, Heb. 1:14, i.e., they have not material bodies as men have; they are either human in form, or can assume the human form when necessary, cf. Luke 24:4, with v. 23, Acts 10:3 with v. 30. "They are called 'holy' in Mark 8:38, and 'elect,' 1 Tim. 5:21, in contrast with some of their original number, Matt. 25:41, who 'sinned,' 2 Pet. 2:4, 'left their proper habitation,' Jude 6, oiketerion, a word which occurs again, in the NT, only in 2 Cor. 5:2. Angels are always spoken of in the masculine gender, the feminine form of the word does not occur."
From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 229.
Note: Isangelos, "equal to the angels," occurs in Luke 20:36.
(from Appendix XIII From Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
by Alfred Edersheim, 1886)
(See vol. i. Book III. ch. i. p. 306.)
WITHOUT here entering on a discussion of the doctrine of Angels of devils as present in Holy Scriptures, 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 later 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 form Babylon ' (Jer. Rosh. haSh. 56 d; 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 mush of the symbolism which it is evidently intended to convey is singularly beautiful.
More than this, a new Angel is created to execute to every behest of God, and then passeth away (Chag. u. s.). This continual new creation of Angels, which God, and then passeth allegory, partly savours of the doctrine of 'emanation,' is Biblical supported by an appeal to Lament. iii. 23. Thus it may be said that daily a Kath, or company of Angels is created for 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], (Chang. 14 a).
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 Mazzaloth (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 things with 365,000 stars, and all were created for the sake of Israel! (Ber. 32. b.)
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, [a In Jer. Ber 2 c it is 50 years.] a thickness of the firmament was 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 equaled all that had preceded, and so on (Chag. 13 a [b See also Pes. 94 b.]).
[1 Some add the Cherubim as another and separate class.] In connection with this we read in Chag. 12 b that there are seven heavens: the Vdon, in which there is the sun; Riqia, in which the sun shines, and the moon, stars, and planets are fixed; Shechaqim, in which are the millstones to make the manna for the pious; Aebhul, in which the Upper Jerusalem, and the Temple and the Altar, 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); Machon, in which are the treasuries of snow, hail, the chambers of noxious dews, and of the receptacles of water, the chamber of wind, and the cave of mist, and their doors are of fire; lastly, Araboth, wherein Justice, Judgment and Righteousness are, the treasures of Life, of Peace and of Blessing, the soul 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 Pirqe 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 &c.; similarly, every occurrence, such as life, death, nourishment, poverty, nay, as it is expressed: there is not stalk of grass upon earth but it has its Angels 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.
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. Jer.on Gen xi.7, 8; comp. Ber. R. 56; Shem. R. 21; Vayyi. R. 29; Ruth R. ed. Warsh. p. 36 b), 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 Gentiles Angel-Princes there were other chiefs, whose office will be explained in the sequel. Of these 5 are specially mentioned, of whom four surrounded the Throne of God: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, 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 councils outside this curtain (Chag. 16 a, Pirque d. R. El. iv.). It is a slight variation when the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. xxxiv. 6 enumerates the following as the 6 principal Angels: Michael, Gabriel, Metatron, Yopheil, Uriel, and Yophyophyah. The Book of Enoch (ch. xx.) speaks also of 6 principal Angels, while Pirque d. R. Eliez. iv. mentions seven.
In that very curious passage (Berakhoth 51 a) 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, form Istalganith (another company of Evik Angels. In Chag. 132 b 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, [1 On the controversy on the meaning of the name Metatron, whether it means under the throne, or behind the throne, or is the same as Meatator, divider, arranger, representative, we will not enter.] 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. 38 b) a Christian is introduced as clumsily starting a controversy on this point, that, according to the Jewish contention, Exod. xxiv. 1 should have read, 'Come up to Me.'
On this R. Idith explained that the expression referred to the Metatron (Exod. xxxiii. 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 (Chang. 15 a, b) that, when an apostate Rabbi had seen Metatron sitting in heaven, and would have interfered 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. v. 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 (Chang. 5 b), while the other Angels hear their commands outside the Veil (Chang. 16 a). He is represented as showing the unseen to Moses (Siphre. p. 141 a), and as instructing infants to the Midrash on Lamentation 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 Siphre on Deut. (ed. freidm. p. 141 a) Metatron is said to have shown Moses the whole of Palestine. He is alos 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 Exod. xxiv. 1, he is the Prince of Wisdom. According to the Targum on Ps. cxxxvii. 7, 8, the Prince of Jerusalem, the representative of Israel. According to Sebach. 62 a he offers upon the heavenly Altar; according to some, the soul 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. 13 a). In Yoma 77 a 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 instance 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 come to announce to Abraham the birth of Isaac, Gabriel being at his right, and Raphael 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. 4 b, where, by an ingenious combination with Dan. x. 13, it is shown that Is. vi. 6 applies to him (both having the word, one). It is added that Michael flies in one fight, 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 Skodom (Bab. Mex. 86 b, and other places). He restored to Tamar the pledges of Judah, which Sammael had taken away (Sot. 10 b). He struck the servants of the Egyptian princess, who would have kept their mistress from taking Moses out of the water (Sot. 12 b); 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 army of Sennacherib.
The passage in Ezek. x. 2, 7 was applied to Gabriel, who had received from the Chureb two coals, which, however, he retained for six years, in the hope that Israel might repent. [a Gabriel was also designated Itmon, because he stops up the sing of Israel (Sanh. 45 b).] He is supposed to be referred to in Ezek. ix. 4 as affixing the mark on the forehead which is a drawn, in the wicked, in blood (Shabb. 55 a). 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 meeting of a word. To his activity the brining 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. 56 b, Sanh. 21 b), 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 Raphael ('God heals') it need only be said, that the one stands at the left side of the Throne of glory, the other behind it. [1 The names of the four Angel-Princess, Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael, are explained in Bemid. R. 2.]
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 in Yalkut (vol. ii. 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 instance 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 Sinai 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 learn 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 word to another.
By the side of these debasing superstitions we come upon beautiful allegories, such sa that a good and an evil Angel always accompanied man, but especially 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 is realistically developed in Pirke d. R. El. 15, where the various modes and time which the god 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. 38 b,) [2 According to Jer. Ber. ix. 7 (p. 14 b), God only takes counsel with His Sanhedrin when He takes away, not when He giveth (Job i. 21), and it is argued that, wherever the expression 'and Jehovah' occurs, as in the last clause of 1 Kings xxii. 23m ut n eabs God His Sanhedrin.] it had been so when He resolved to create man. Afterward 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 Aron, who were sinless, since one fate must come to the just and the unjust. Similarly, they had intercede for Isaac, when Abraham was about to offer him and finally dropped there tears on the sacrificial knife, by which its edge became blunted. And so through the rest of Israel's history, where on all critical occasion Jewish legend introduces the Angels on the scene.
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 (Priqe d. R. El. 13). Jocob had wrestled with the Angel and prevailed over him when the Angel wept (Chull. 95 a). 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 (Vayyikia R. 31).
They are also liable to punishments (Chag. 16 a). 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. 33 a). The realistic application of their supposed ignorance on this score need not here be repeated (see Shabb. 12 b). 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 Ex. xviii. 4 with Ex. ii. 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 Cant. vii. 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 circumstances that all the attendants of the king were miraculously rendered either dumb, deaf, or blind, so that they could not execute the behest of their master.
Of this miraculous interposition Moses is supposed to have been reminded in Ex. iv. 11, for hid encouragement in undertaking his mission ot 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 xxviii. 21). And sixty myriads of Angels had crowned with two crowns every Israelite who at Mount Sinai had taken upon himself the Law (Shabb. 88 a). In view of all VOL. ii. 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 Ex. xx. 23; Mechilta on the passage, ed. Weiss, p. 80 a).
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 appeared by God. In Shabb. 88 b we have an account of how Mosses 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. ii. 1 referred (Yalk. vol. ii. p. 166 c 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 Angel names different from those which they had previously possessed, so that when called upon they were unable to do what was expected of them.
Three hosts of Angels then proceed on this errand, each quoting successively one clause of Is. lvii. 2. On the other hand, when the wicked leave the body, they are met by three hosts of destroying Angels, one of which repeats Is. xlviii. 22, another Is. 1. 11, and the third Ezek. xxxii. 19 (Keth. 104 a). 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. 118 a and b) [1 It is said that Gabriel had proposed in this manner of deliver Abraham when in similar danger at the hands of Nimrod.
And, although God had by His own Hand delivered the patriarch, yet Gabriel had obtained this as the reward of his proposal, that he was allowed to deliver the Three Children from the fiery furnace.] Ridya, or Rayda 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, Let you waters springs up. The representation of this Angel as a calf may be due to the connection between rain and ploughing, and in connection with this may it be notices that Rayda means both a plough and ploughing (TAan. 25 b).
Of other Angels we will only name the Ruach Pisqonith, or Spirit of decision, who is supposed to have made most daring objection to what God had said, Ezek. xvi. 3, in which he is defended by the Rabbis, since his activity had been on behalf of Israel (Sanh. 44 b); Naqid, the Angel of Food; Nabhel, the Angel of Poverty; the two Angels of Healing; the Angel of Dreams, Lailah; and even the Angel of Lust. [a See also the names of the five angels of destruction of whom Moses was afraid on his descent from the mount. Against three of them the thrice Patriarchs were to fight, God Himself being asked , or else proposing, to combat along with Moses against the other two (Sanh. R. 41; 44)
It is, of course, not asserted that all these grossly materialistic superstitious 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 possess, and hence, whencesoever introduce, 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.
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 taken from him not only his spoils, but his armour (St. Luke xi. 21, 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 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 emphasized, 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 Rabbinsim. '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. [1 An analogous remark would apply to Jewish teaching about the good angels, who are rather Jewish elves than the high spiritual beings of the Bible.] 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 Yester 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:
Could Jonathan Edwards have heard of the Rabbinic legends, or is this only a strange coincidence? The curious reader will find much quaint information, though, I fear, little help, in Prof. W. Scott's vol. 'The Existence of Evil Spirits,' London, 1843.] 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 addressed the ministering Angels: 'Why dispute any longer? Man is already created.' In the Pirqe 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 Taking 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 Pirqe 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. iii. 3) [1 The Rabbis point out, how Eve had added to the words of God.
He had only commanded them not to eat of the tree, while Eve added to it, that they were not to touch it. Thus adding to the words of God had led to the first sin with all the terrible consequences connected with it.], and yet he had not died! Upon this Eve followed hi 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 sin of disobedience. The story of the Fall is somewhat differently related in Ber. R. 18, 19. No mention is there earlier 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 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.
That this legend is very ancient, indeed pre-Christian (a circumstance of considerable importance to the student of this history) appears from its occurrence, though in more general form, in the Book of Jubilees, ch. xvii. In Ber.R. 55 and in Tacchuma (ed. Warsh p. 29 a and b), the legend is connected with a dispute between Isaac and Ishmeal as to their respective merits, when former declares himself ready to offer up 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 and pointed when the Angels made objection to his creation.
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. 89 b, 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, Lamenatable boastfulness and petty spite about Isaac, while the Sarah of the Jewish legend is rather a weak old Eastern woman that the mother in Israel, To hold perversions of the Old Testament by the side of the New Testament conception of the motives of 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 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. 107 a). 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. 4 b, 5 a).
According to Abod. Zar. 20 b, 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 entered 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 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 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 upon themselves at Mount Sinai, they became entirely free from hie 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. vii.) was to have Satan delivered to them. After a three day's 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 now 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 (Zech. v. 8), under which, by advice of the prophet Zechariah, they had confined him, although for precaution they first put out his eye (Yoam, 69 b). And yet, in view, or probably, rather, in ignorance, of such teaching, modern criticism would deprive the Satanology of the New Testament an 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. 17 a). 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. 77 b), 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 lodgement.
Again, their number can scarcely be limited, since they propagate themselves (Chag. 16 a), 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 16 a), 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. 72 a). 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. 111 b).
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. [2 The following Haggadah will illustrate both the power of the evil spirits at night and how amenable they are to reasoning. A Rabbi was distributing his gifts to the poor at night when he was confronted by the Prince of the Ruchin with the quotation Deut. xix. 34 ('Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark'), which seemed to give the 'spirit' a warrant for attacking him. But when the Rabbi replied by quoting Prov. xxi. 14 ('a gift in secret appeaseth wrath'), the 'spirit' fled in confusion (Jer. Peah viii. 9, p. 21 b).] Hence the danger of going alone into such places (Ber. 3 a, b; 62 a).
A company of two escaped the danger, while before three the Shed did not even appear (Ber. 43 b). For the same reason it was dangerous to sleep alone in a house (Shabb. 151 b), 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. 44 a). 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. 29 b). Specially dangerous times were the eyes 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, 105 b); 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. 6 a) The queen of the female spirits had no less a following than 180,000 (Pres. 112 b). 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.
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 abou him Ab. z. 12 a; Sot. 48 b; Gitt. 68 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 [2 The Tarnegol Bera, a mythical animal reaching from earth to heaven (Targ. on Ps. 1, 11), also called Naggar Tura (Gitt. 68 b) from his activity in cleaving mountains.]) 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 the signet. (Possibly the whole of this is only a parabolic form for the story of Solomon's spiritual declension, and final repentance.)
Sometimes she is represented as a very fair woman, but mostly with long, wild-flowing hair, and winged (Nidd. 24 b; Erub. 100 b). In Pes. 111 a we have a formula for exorcising Lillith. In Pes 112b towards the end) we are told how Agrath bath Machlath (probably the Zend word Agra, 'smiting, very wicked' bath Machlath 'the dancer') threatened Rabbi Chanina with serious mischief, had it not been that his greatness had been proclaimed in 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.
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. 6 a; Gitt. 68 b). It was by the shape of his feet that the Sanhedrin hoped to recognise, whether Ashmedia as really Solomon, or not, but it was found that he never appeared with his feet uncovered. The Talmud(Ber. 6 a) 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. [1 Dr. Kohut's comparison of Rabbinic Angelology and Demonology with Parseeism (Ueber d. jud. Angelol u. Damonol. in ihrer Abhang. vom Parsismus) is extremely interesting, although not complete and its conclusions sometimes strained. The negative arguments derived from Jewish Angelology and Satanology by the author of 'Supernatural Religion' are based on inaccurate and uncritical information, and do not require detailed discussion.
Other and kindred questions, such as those of amulets, &c., 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?
angel
|
Sponsored Advertisements