In like manner have the authenticity and the integrity of other Biblical books been rejected; the method and the arguments are the same; they are based on a misunderstanding of the true essence of prophecy and inspiration, and originate in a want of belief in the Omniscience and Omnipotence of the Divine Being.
On the Ninth Principle, p. 139.
In the Pentateuch there is not the slightest indication that the laws revealed on Sinai might be superseded by a future Revelation. On the contrary, we meet repeatedly with the phrases, חקת עולם, “an everlasting statute,” לדרות עולם, “for everlasting generations,” and similar expressions, which clearly show the intention of Him who gave the laws that these should last for ever. The Israelites were told that [[216]]Prophets would be sent to them, and that they must listen to the Prophets and obey them, but at the same time they were commanded to put to death a prophet who would attempt “to turn them aside from the way which the Lord commanded them to walk therein” (Deut. xiii. 6). Besides, the Prophets never speak of a new Revelation, which would supersede the Torah. When Jeremiah prophesies about a new covenant, the context teaches the reader what is meant by the “new covenant.” He speaks of the future and final restoration of Israel as follows: “Behold, days will come, saith the Lord, when I shall make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, and I rejected them, saith the Lord. But this is the covenant which I shall make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, when I set my Law among them and write it upon their heart: both I shall be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people” (Jer. xxxi. 31–33). The Law is not to be altered, but it will dwell more firmly in the heart of Israel; the deliverance from Egypt was soon forgotten, but the future deliverance will plant the fear and love of God—here called the Law of God—in the hearts of the people in such a manner that it will take a deep root and will not be plucked out of it again. There occur, however, in Talmud and Midrash sayings which seem to imply a future alteration of the Law; e.g., “In future all prayers will cease except that of thanksgiving: in future all sacrifices will cease except that of thanks-offering” (Midrash on Ps. c.). In these sayings their authors simply intended to emphasise the duty of thanksgiving; even in the state of physical and moral perfection, when there will be a perfect absence of trouble and fear and a perfect immunity of sin, so that there will be nothing to be prayed [[217]]for, nothing to be atoned for through sacrifice, the duty of offering prayers and sacrifices of thanksgiving will still remain in full force. Another saying of this kind is: “If all festivals were to cease, Purim will never be forgotten” (Piyyut for Sabbath Zachor); that is, even if other festivals should be neglected, Purim is so much liked that it will never be forgotten by the Jews. In Talmud Jerus. Megillah (i. 7) we read: “The reading from the Prophets and the Hagiographa may at some future time be discontinued, but the reading of the Pentateuch will never be abolished.” The idea expressed by this dictum is, that the warnings or consolations or prayers may become superfluous by the changed condition of the future, but the laws and statutes of the Pentateuch will always remain in force.
In sayings of this kind the time to which they are meant to apply is not defined. “The future” (לעתיד לבא) may mean the time of Messiah, or else the time of the Resurrection, or what we are used to call “the future life.” As in the above quotation, the authors aimed at inculcating some moral lesson for the present state of things, and not at describing the results of philosophical speculation with regard to remote times. A new revelation, or the abrogation of the Law or part of it, is nowhere mentioned.
On the contrary, it is emphasised in the Talmud that the Torah has been given to Israel in its entirety, and nothing has been reserved for a second revelation. “The Law is not any longer in heaven,” it is entirely in the hands of man. The only authority recognised in the interpretation of the Law was that based on knowledge, tradition, and common sense. Authority claimed for this purpose on the ground of supernatural privilege, prophecy, bath-kol or miracle, was not recognised (Babyl. Talm. Baba Metsia, 59b).
Maimonides (Mishneh torah, Hilchoth Yesode ha-torah ix.) says on this principle as follows:—“It has been distinctly stated in the Torah that its precepts remain in [[218]]force for ever without change, diminution, or addition. Comp. ‘The word which I command you that you must keep to do, thou shalt not add ought unto it nor take ought away from it’ (Deut. xiii. i); ‘That which has been revealed for us and for our children for ever is to do all the words of this Law’ (Ibid. xxix. 28). Hence it follows that we are bound for ever to do according to the words of the Torah. It is further said, ‘An everlasting statute for all your generations’ (Exod. xii. 14, 17, et passim); ‘It is not in heaven’[24] (Deut. xxx. 12). Hence we see that a prophet cannot reveal any new law. If, therefore, any man, whether an Israelite or a non-Israelite, should rise, perform signs and miracles, and say that the Lord sent him to add one precept or to abolish one of the Divine precepts, or to interpret a precept in a way different from what has been handed down to us from Moses, or assert that the precepts which were given to the Israelites had only temporary force and were not permanent laws: such a man is a false prophet, because he contradicts the prophecy of Moses. The mission of the Prophets after Moses is to exhort the people to obey the Law of Moses, and not to make a new religion.”—Comp. “The Guide,” II. xxxix.; and Saadiah, Emunoth ve-deoth, III. chap. vii. to x.
Rabbi Jehudah ha-Levi, in the book Cuzari, seems to have a different view. He likewise believes in the permanent character of the Torah, but he modifies his view in accordance with his interpretation of the words, “And thou shalt do according to the word which they—viz., the priests and the judge that shall be in those days—will tell thee from that place which the Lord shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they will teach thee” (Deut. xvii. 9, 10). According to his view, these words [[219]]imply that from time to time prophets or inspired men, or the highest authority of the nation, whilst the Shechinah was still filling the Temple, issued laws and orders, which had legal force, and all were bound to obey them. But since the destruction of the Temple there has not been any man or any court that had the authority to make new permanent laws. According to Maimonides, however, there were no additions made to the Torah; the Rabbinical laws are either temporary regulations or served as a means of ensuring the strict observance of the Torah.
Albo, in criticising the principles of faith as laid down by Maimonides, objects also to the Ninth Principle, and contends that it is not fundamental, since the belief in the Divine origin of the Law does not necessarily imply the belief in its eternity. But although the possibility of a second revelation superseding the first is admitted in principle or theory, it does not follow that such revelation has in reality been made. If any person asserts that he is sent by God to repeal the old laws or to alter them, he must prove his Divine mission before he can be believed. We are fully convinced of the Divine mission of Moses, and our conviction of the Divine mission of the new prophet must at least be equally strong. The Divine character of the mission of Moses was revealed to the Israelites by God Himself; and only such direct revelation could satisfy us as to the trustworthiness of the new prophet (Ikkarim III. xix.).
R. Abraham ben David, in his book Emunah-ramah, finds in various passages of the Bible indications that the Torah was to remain in force permanently. Thus Isaiah and Zechariah, speaking of the remote future, refer respectively to the celebration of Sabbath and New-moon, and to the celebration of Sukkoth. Again, in refuting the claims of Christians on behalf of Jesus, and of Mohammedans on behalf of Mohammed, to a Divine mission to substitute a new covenant [[220]]for the old one, Rabbi Abraham argues thus: “The divinity of the old covenant, or the Torah, has been admitted by both Jesus and Mohammed; we need not prove it. But the Divine authority asserted by them for its abrogation or change is not admitted by us; it must be proved; and since no proof has been given, it must be rejected” (Fifth Principle, chap. ii.).
On the Tenth Principle, p. 148.