Close Reading with Paired Texts

Secondary Engaging Lessons to

Improve Comprehension 1st Edition
Lori Oczkus
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/close-reading-with-paired-texts-secondary-engaging-l
essons-to-improve-comprehension-1st-edition-lori-oczkus/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Writers Read Better Narrative 50 Paired Lessons That

Turn Writing Craft Work Into Powerful Genre Reading 1st
Edition M Colleen Cruz

https://ebookmeta.com/product/writers-read-better-
narrative-50-paired-lessons-that-turn-writing-craft-work-into-
powerful-genre-reading-1st-edition-m-colleen-cruz/

GRE Reading Comprehension Detailed Solutions to 325

Questions 5th Edition Publishers

https://ebookmeta.com/product/gre-reading-comprehension-detailed-
solutions-to-325-questions-5th-edition-publishers/

A Broad Guide to Reading and Comprehension 1st Edition

Mahmoud Sultan Nafa

https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-broad-guide-to-reading-and-
comprehension-1st-edition-mahmoud-sultan-nafa/

Close Reading the Basics 1st Edition David Greenham

https://ebookmeta.com/product/close-reading-the-basics-1st-
edition-david-greenham/
Daily Reading Comprehension, Grade 3 Evan-Moor
Educational Publishers

https://ebookmeta.com/product/daily-reading-comprehension-
grade-3-evan-moor-educational-publishers/

Teaching Evidence Based Writing Nonfiction Texts and

Lessons for Spot On Writing About Reading Leslie A
Blauman

https://ebookmeta.com/product/teaching-evidence-based-writing-
nonfiction-texts-and-lessons-for-spot-on-writing-about-reading-
leslie-a-blauman/

Techniques of Close Reading Second Edition Barry

Brummett

https://ebookmeta.com/product/techniques-of-close-reading-second-
edition-barry-brummett/

Reading Comprehension in Educational Settings 1st

Edition José A. León

https://ebookmeta.com/product/reading-comprehension-in-
educational-settings-1st-edition-jose-a-leon/

Techniques of Close Reading 2nd Edition Brummett Barry

S

https://ebookmeta.com/product/techniques-of-close-reading-2nd-
edition-brummett-barry-s/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 No. XXXII.
NEW YEAR’S DAY.

The season of the Jewish year, which we are now approaching,

naturally leads us to the consideration of some subjects more
important than those which we have lately discussed, the oral law
teaches that the festival of the new year is nothing less than a day of
judgment, on which God pronounces sentence respecting the state
of every individual:
‫וכשם ששוקלין זכיות אדם ועוונותיו בשעת מיתתו כך בכל שנה ושנה שוקלין‬
‫ מי שנמצא‬, ‫עוונות כל אחד ואחד מבאי עולם עם זכיותיו ביום של ראש השנה‬
‫ והבינונים תולין אותו עד יום‬, ‫צדיק נחתם לחיים ומי שנמצא רשע נחתם למיתה‬
‫הכפורים אם עשה תשובה נחתם לחיים ואם לאו נחתם למיתה ׃‬
“As the merits and the sins of a man are weighed at the hour of his
death, so likewise every year, on the festival of New Year’s Day, the
sins of every one that cometh into the world are weighed against his
merits. Every one who is found righteous is sealed to life. Every one
who is found wicked is sealed to death. But the judgment of the
intermediate class is suspended until the Day of Atonement. If they
repent, they are sealed to life, but if not, they are sealed to death.”
(Hilchoth T’shuvah, c. iii. 3.) This naturally leads us to consider the
rabbinic doctrine of justification, and to inquire how far it agrees with
Moses and the prophets. And here our first business must be to state
the doctrine as it is found in the oral law.
This law teaches, first, that he whose merits are more than his sins is
accounted a righteous man:—
‫ מי שזכיותיו יתרות על עוונותיו צדיק‬, ‫כל אחד ואחד מבני אדם יש לו זכיות ועוונות‬
‫ מחצה למחצה בינוני ׃‬, ‫ ומי שעוונותיו יתרות על זכיותיו רשע‬,
“Every one of the children of many has merits and sins. If his merits
exceed his sins, he is righteous. If his sins exceed his merits, he is
wicked. If they be half and half, he is a middling or intermediate
person.” (Ibid. 1.)
It teaches, secondly, that in estimating the comparative state,
respect is had not only to the number but to the quality of the
actions:—
‫ יש זכות שהיא כנגד כמה‬, ‫ושקול זה אינו לפי מנין הזכיות והעוונות אלא לפי גדלם‬
‫ שנאמר‬, ‫ ויש עוון שהוא כנגד כמה זכיות‬, ‫עוונות שנאמר יען נמצא בו דבר טוב‬
‫וחוטא אחד יאבד טובה הרבה ׃‬
“And this weighing is made, not with respect to the number of the
merits and the sins, but according to their greatness. There is a merit
which may outweigh many sins, as it is said, ‘Because in him there is
found some good thing.’ (1 Kings xiv. 13.) And there are sins which
may outweigh many merits, for it is said, ‘One sinner destroyeth
much good.’” (Ecclesiast. ix. 18.)
It teaches, thirdly, that it is possible by transgression or obedience to
turn the scale:—
‫חטא חטא אחד הרי הכריע את עצמו ואת כל העולם כולו לכף חובה וגרם לו‬
‫ עשה מצוה אחת הרי הכריע את עצמו ואת כל העולם כולו לכף זכות‬, ‫השחתה‬
‫וגרם לו ולהם תשועה והצלה שנאמר וצדיק יסוד עולם זה שצדק הכריע את כל‬
‫ מפני ענין זה נהגו כל בית ישראל להרבות בצדקה ובמעשים‬, ‫העולם לזכות והצילו‬
‫טובים ולעסוק במצוות מראש השנה ועד יום הכפורים יתר מכל השנה ׃‬
“If a man sin one sin, he gives the preponderance for himself and for
all the world to the scale of guilt, and causes destruction. But if he
perform one commandment, he gives the preponderance both for
himself and all the world to the scale of merit, and causes salvation
and deliverance to himself and them, as it is said, ‘The righteous is
the foundation of the world’ (Prov. x. 25), which means that
righteousness gives the world a preponderance in the scale of merit
and delivers it. And on this account all the house of Israel are
accustomed to abound in almsgiving, and in good deeds, and to be
diligent in the commandments in the interval between New Years
Day and the Day of Atonement more than in all the year besides.”
(Ibid. 4.) This then is the doctrine which we have to consider.
The first great principle is that “Every one of the children of men has
merits and has sins.” That every man has sins we readily admit; but
that any man, or any angel, or any of God’s creatures, has any merit
in the sight of God we deny. First, because the idea of merit is utterly
inconsistent with the idea of the relation in which the creature stands
to the Creator. Every created being is bound by the very fact of his
creation to love God with all his heart and soul, and mind and
strength, and to do all his will. Whatsoever, therefore, he does, he
can never exceed the limit of his bounden duty, and can therefore
never lay any claim to merit. If created beings were free from all
obligation to love God or to do his will—if they were independent and
masters of themselves, then by loving God or doing his will they
might have merit, for they would be doing him a service which He
has no right to require. Just as a man that is free may hire himself to
do work for another man, which he is not bound to do, and thereby
earn wages. But not so the slave, who is his maker’s property. He
can only do his duty, and if he toil all the day and be diligent and
faithful in his master’s service, he still can lay no claim to wages or to
merit; he has only done what he is bound to do. To lay any claim to
merit, we must stand on equal terms, and confer what the other has
no right to expect. But this no created being can ever do. He is a
debtor overwhelmed with such an amount of debt, that all that he
has or can raise only goes in part payment, and who therefore will
never be able to confer anything which is not already due. And
therefore it is said, “Can a man be profitable unto God?” and again,
“Is it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?” (Job xxii. 2, 3.)
The unfallen angels themselves have no merit before God, and
much less fallen and rebellious man.
But, secondly, the assertion that man has merits is contradicted by
the plain testimonies of Scripture. If man have merits, however few,
then so far as those merits are concerned, his nature must be good
and holy, but God declares the contrary: “Behold, he putteth no trust
in his saints; yea the heavens are not clean in his sight: how much
more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like
water.” (Job xv. 15, 16.) Such language cannot be applied to any
creature capable of meriting anything in the sight of God. Again, if
man have merits, his merits must proceed from the good things
which he has done. He that does nothing good cannot be
meritorious, but yet God says, “There is none that doeth good, no,
not one. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy;
there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Ps. xiv. 1-3.) If this be
true, then no man has merits. If man have merits, they must proceed
from an inherent good principle in his nature, but God says even of
Israel that were is no such principle of good: on the contrary, he
declares that “the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From
the sole of the foot, even unto the head, there is no soundness in it:
but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores.” (Isaiah i. 5, 6.) Here
God describes Israel, and the description is generally true of
mankind, as totally corrupt. There is no soundness in it. The intellect
is corrupt, for “the whole head is sick.” The affections are corrupt, for
“the whole heart is faint.” How, then, can he that has a perverted
intellect and a corrupt heart have merits? Again, if man have merits,
his good deeds, whatever they be, must be such as to deserve the
approbation of God; but the confession of the prophet is—
‫ונהי כטמא כלנו וכבגד עדים כל צדקותינו ׃‬
“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness as
filthy rags.” (Isa. lxiv. 6.) Either, then, the oral law or the Bible says
what is false. The Bible says that the very best of man’s deeds, “all
his righteousnesses,” are no better in the sight of God than filthy
rags: if this be true, then man has no merit whatsoever.
But again, the assertion that every man has merits and sins, is
based upon a false principle. It takes for granted that God judges
men by their individual acts, and not by the state of their hearts; that
is, that he judges as we do. When we consider a man’s conduct, we
can only look at his acts, and to us some of them appear good and
others bad. In our sight, therefore, he may have some merits and
some demerits. But God looks at the heart, and sees whether a man
loves him or not, and by the whole habit of his mind and affections
judges the man’s state and all his actions. We short-sighted
creatures judge a man’s heart by his actions; but God judges his
actions by his heart, and where the heart is wrong, he is so far from
counting any actions as meritorious, that he looks upon the whole
conduct as one mass of abominable sin.
The next assertion of the oral law is, that “If a man’s merits exceed
his sins, he is righteous.” This pre-supposes, first, that a man’s
merits may exceed his sins; and asserts, secondly, that in this case
he is accounted righteous. But where is the man whose “merits
exceed his sins?” Where is the man who keeps any one of God’s
commandments perfectly? In all our best deeds and efforts there is
sin of admixture or of imperfection. Often, when by the help of God,
a good thought or an honest intention is conceived in the heart,
before it can be realized in action, some selfish and unworthy motive
associates itself with it, and spoils the whole. And in every case the
obedience is imperfect, so that all our best acts become occasions of
committing sins either of infirmity or imperfection, and thus our sins
are certainly as many as our good deeds, for each one of them has a
sin as its associate. But how many are our sins of thought, word, and
deed, which are mere sins without any admixture of good, and which
in themselves are “more than the hairs of our head?” And even if we
should admit that the final result depends not upon number, but upon
magnitude, then there is one sin that extends from the moment of
our birth to the latest hour of our existence, and that is, want of
perfect love to God. This he requires at every moment, but yet how
many hours of every day do we pursue our business or our
pleasures without a single remembrance of him? And how few, how
hasty, and how interrupted are our grateful recollections of the love
and mercy of God! Here then is a sin which in magnitude far
exceeds the aggregate of all our gratitude and all our services, and
which in itself would sink the scale of guilt down to the lowest hell.
But by the side of it there is another equally immense, and that is our
continued transgression of the commandment, “Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.” The very best of all God’s saints makes, at the
most, but a feeble struggle against the love of self. He admits the
extent of his duty to his neighbour, he knows it—he desires to fulfil it.
He watches against himself, and yet with all his care, self-love
creeps in again and again, and asserts the mastery over his
thoughts and actions. These two sins would outweigh a thousand
times all the six hundred and eleven remaining commandments of
which Israel boasts, even if they kept them all without a single
transgression or a shade of imperfection. With these two sins on our
consciences, it is perfectly absurd to talk of our merits exceeding our
sins. There is not, and never was in the world, a mere child of Adam,
whose sins did not for exceed his good deeds. If, therefore, it be
necessary, in order to be accounted just, that our merits should
exceed our sins, we must give up all hope of being justified before
God.
But let us suppose for a moment that such a thing were possible,
that there was a man whose merits exceeded his sins, would such
an one be accounted just before God? First let us ask Moses, let us
hear what he says. Does he promise that if your merits exceed your
sins, ye shall be considered just? and does he promise life, as the
oral law does, to imperfect obedience? Hear the words of Moses
himself:—
‫ בכל הדרך‬, ‫ושמרתם לעשות כאשר צוה ה׳ אלהיכם אתכם לא תסורו ימין ושמאל‬
‫אשר צוה ה׳ אלהיכם אתכם תלכו למען תחיון וטוב לכם והארכתם ימים בארץ‬
‫אשר תירשון ׃‬
“Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath
commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the
left. Ye shall walk in ALL the ways which the Lord your God hath
commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you,
and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall
possess.” (Deut. v. 32, 33.) Here Moses requires perfect obedience
as the condition of life, and does not allow a single deviation either to
the right hand or to the left. It is not a single declaration, nor a
sentiment wrested from its context. Moses repeats the same again
and again. In the very next verses to those just quoted, he says—
‫וזאת המצוה החקים והמשפטים אשר צוה ה׳׳ אלהיכם ללמד אתכם לעשות בארץ‬
‫ למען תירא את ה׳ אלהיך לשמור את כל‬, ‫אשר אתם עוברים שמה לרשתה‬
‫חקותיו ומצותיו אשר אנכי מצוך אתה ובנך ובן בנך כל ימי חייך ולמען יאריכון ימיך‬
‫׃‬
“Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the
judgments, which the Lord your God commanded to teach you, that
ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it; that thou
mightest fear the Lord they God, to keep ALL his statutes and his
commandments, which I command thee; thou and thy son, and thy
son’s son, all the days of thy life: and that thy days may be
prolonged.” (vi. 1, 2.) Here again Moses requires perfect obedience
to the whole law. He requires it of every individual of Israel. “Thou
and thy son, and thy son’s son;” and this universal obedience he
exacts not at some stated period of the year, but every day of a
man’s whole life. “All the days of thy life.” Moses leaves no room for
some merits and some sins. If a man does what Moses requires, he
can have no sins. If a man have any sins whatever, he does not fulfil
what Moses requires as the condition of life. We might quote several
other similar passages, but content ourselves with one, where
Moses expressly declares that universal obedience is necessary to
righteousness:—
‫ויצינו ה׳ לעשות את כל החקים האלה ליראה את ה׳ אלהינו לטוב לנו כל הימים‬
‫ וצדקה תהיה לנו כי נשמר לעשות את כל המצוה הזאת לפני‬, ‫לחיותנו כיום הזה‬
‫ה׳ אלהינו כאשר צונו ׃‬
“And the Lord commanded us to do ALL these statutes, to fear the
Lord our God always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this
day. And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do ALL these
commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded
us.” (Deut. vi. 24, 25.) This is Moses’ idea of righteousness, and if
Moses be right the oral law is wrong. It says, “If a man’s merits
exceed his sins, he is righteous.” Moses says, If a man keep all the
commandments all the days of his life he is righteous. The oral law
promises life to him who confessedly has sins. Moses requires
perfect and universal obedience as the condition of life. It becomes,
therefore, an important, an awfully important, consideration for every
Israelite, whether he will rest his soul’s salvation on the word of
Moses, or on that of the oral law. If he rests upon the oral law, than
he will be satisfied that a partial obedience is sufficient to secure
everlasting salvation, and in this hope he will die. But if he is to be
judged according to the law of Moses, he will, at the hour of God’s
judgment, find himself awfully mistaken. Moses knows of no
righteousness, but that of universal obedience every day of a man’s
life, and promises life to none but those who have this
righteousness. He that has it not, therefore, must be condemned.
And let every Israelite mark well that Moses has not left us to draw
this just conclusion from the premises which he has laid down, but
has himself stated, in the distinctest and plainest terms, That he who
does not yield this universal obedience is accursed. And that no man
may mistake his meaning, he sums up all that he has said upon this
subject, and repeats, that he who keeps ALL God’s commandments
shall be blessed, and that he who does not keep ALL God’s
commandments shall be accursed:—
‫ונינ אם שמוע תשמע בקול ה׳ אלהיך לשמור לעשות את כל מצותיו אשר אנכי‬
‫ ובאו עליך כל הברכות האלה‬, ‫מצוך היום ונתנך ה׳ אלהיך עליון על כל גויי הארץ‬
‫וגו׳ ׃‬
“And it shalt come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the
voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do ALL his
commandments which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy
God will set thee high above all nations of the earth; and all these
blessings shall come on thee,” &c. And then, after enumerating the
blessings, he adds—
‫והיה אם לא תשמע בקול ה׳ אלהיך לשמור לעשות את כל מצותיו וחקותיו אשר‬
‫ ארור אתה בעיר וארור‬, ‫אנכי מצוך היום ובאו עליך כל הקללות האלה והשיגוך‬
‫אתה בשדה וגו׳ ׃‬
“But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of
the Lord thy God, to observe to do ALL his commandments and his
statutes which I command thee this day, that all these curses shall
come upon thee, and overtake thee. Cursed shalt thou be in the city,
and cursed shalt thou be in the field,” &c. (Deut. xxviii. 1-15.) Here
Moses plainly says, that he who is perfectly obedient is blessed, and
that he who is not perfectly obedient is cursed. And it is to be noted
that Moses knows nothing of an intermediate state of man, the
‫ בינוניים‬who are neither righteous nor wicked. He divides all Israel
into two classes, the blessed and the cursed. He who keeps ALL
God’s commandments belongs to the former; he who does not keep
ALL God’s commandments to the latter. In this matter, than, the most
important that can employ the mind of man, the oral law contradicts
the plain words of Moses. One of the two is certainly in error. It is for
the Israelites to choose whether they will believe Moses, or that oral
law which contradicts his words. If they believe in Moses, then no
one is accounted just before God, but that man who has all the days
of his life kept all God’s commandments without one deviation. Every
other person is so far from being just, that he is accursed. If there
were a human being who had all his life kept all the commandments,
and only once been guilty of transgression, that one transgression
makes him unjust and accursed. But there is no such person. Every
man’s conscience tells him that his sins far exceed his obedience,
and therefore if Moses speak truth he is accursed. Oh, let no one
endanger his salvation by trusting to the oral law. Let him take up the
law of Moses, let him investigate the conditions which Moses lays
down. We ask not now, that the Israelites should read the New
Testament, or that they should listen to our arguments or any
reasoning of man. We simply point out to them the words of Moses,
and we show other passages of the oral law which teaches an
entirely different doctrine. We ask, then, whether the man who rebels
against the law of Moses can hope for salvation? Yet this is what
every one who follows the oral law is doing. If his temporal welfare
only were concerned, it would not be of such moment. But here his
eternal interests are at stake. If the oral law be mistaken, and
mistaken it is if Moses spoke truth, their eternal salvation is forfeited
by every one who follows it. We therefore entreat every reader of this
paper to take up the law of Moses, and to investigate this question:
—“What are the conditions of blessing and cursing, of life and death,
according to the declarations of Moses? Does he promise life to that
man whose merits exceed his sins, or does he require universal
obedience?” To Moses himself we appeal, and him we constitute the
arbiter of our differences.
 No. XXXIII.
NEW YEAR, CONTINUED.

We showed in our last number that the first axiom of the. oral law
respecting the mode of justification is false. Moses requires perfect
and universal obedience to all the commandments as the condition
of justification and life, whereas the oral law says it is sufficient if a
man’s merits exceed his sins. One of the two, then, has spoken
falsehood. It is for the Jews to consider which of them they will brand
with the character of liar. As for ourselves, we believe that Moses
spoke the truth, and by his standard of right and wrong we proceed
to examine the second and third principles of Rabbinic justification.
The oral law tells us, further, that when God weighs the merits and
the offences, “This weighing is made not with respect to the number
of the merits and the sins, but according to their greatness. There is
a merit which may outweigh many sins, as it is said, ‘Because in him
there is found some good thing.’ (1 Kings xiv. 13.) And there are sins
which may outweigh many merits, for it is said, ‘One sinner
destroyeth much good.’ (Ecclesiast. ix. 18.)” And for this reason we
are told that “In the ten days between the New Year and the Day of
Atonement, Israel abounds in almsgiving and good works more than
in all the year besides.” Such is the hope which the oral law holds
out to Israel. It first tells a man, that if his merits exceed his sins, he
is safe. Then feeling that none but a fool or madman can dream of
his merits exceeding his sins, it tries to quiet the conscience by
assuring the guilty, that the quality of the deeds is regarded more
than their number, and that there may be one meritorious act which
will outweigh many sins. It endeavours to prove this by a citation
from the Book of Kings. This is in itself suspicious. Why did it not
bring one or more plain passages from the Books of Moses? They
contain the law of God, and the great principles of God’s judgment.
In determining a case like this, an appeal to the letter of the law is
absolutely necessary. Let every Israelite, then, before he trusts his
salvation to the oral law, find out one passage in the law of Moses,
where Moses himself declares that “one merit may outweigh many
sins.” We know not of one similar declaration, and therefore hesitate
not to say, that whosoever rests his salvation on this hope, has
apostatized from the religion of Moses.
But the passage itself, which the oral law cites, proves nothing in
support of the above principle. The words were spoken of the son of
Jeroboam. “He only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because
in him there is found some good thing towards the Lord God of Israel
in the house of Jeroboam.” (1 Kings xiv. 13.) There is not one word
said here about his being justified by that one good thing, whatever it
was. It did not save the child from his sickness. It did not change the
sentence of death into life. All it did was to procure him a peaceable
burial. How, then, can any reasonable man argue, because the son
of Jeroboam had a peaceable burial, that therefore some meritorious
act will save him from the punishment due to his offences? To
warrant such a conclusion, he ought first to show that the son of
Jeroboam had been a grievous sinner like his father, which the Bible
does not say; and, secondly, that this one meritorious act had
obtained pardon of his sins, and restored him to life; and moreover it
ought to be expressly said, that God considered him as just. The
very circumstance that the rabbies were obliged to have recourse to
such a passage, and that they could find nothing better in the law or
the prophets, shows that they were hard pushed to find anything that
would even bear a faint resemblance to their doctrine.
The law of Moses gives no countenance to this doctrine, and can
give none, because it is directly subversive of all the principles of law
and justice. The stern principle of justice is, that every transgression
of the law should be followed by punishment without any reference
whatever to the good deeds or merits of the transgressor. Even
before an earthly tribunal, there is no deviation from this principle. If
a murderer or a robber be convicted, no degree of previous or
subsequent merit can be listened to as a plea against the just
sentence of the law. He may in all other respects be an
unexceptionable character, he may feed the poor and clothe the
naked, and give all his goods in alms, but none of these things can
change the sentence of guilty into not guilty, or cause him to be
considered as a just or innocent person. And shall we suppose that
God is less just than man? The law of Moses gives us no reason for
such a supposition. It says distinctly—
‫ולא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח אשר הוא רשע למות כי מות יומת ׃‬
“Moreover, ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer,
which is guilty of death; but he shall surely be put to death.” (Num.
xxxv. 31.) According to this declaration, the good deeds or merits of
a murderer are not to be regarded, and there is nothing which he can
do which can avert the sentence of the law. And shall we suppose
that God himself will do what he forbids men to do? If so, why did he
forbid it to be done? The plain reason of this prohibition is, because it
is contrary to the eternal principles of right and wrong, which God
himself cannot violate without detracting from his holiness. But it is
not with respect to murder only that God has laid down these stern
principles of justice. He says generally—
‫והנפש אשר תעשה ביד רמה מן האזרח ומן הגר את ה׳ הוא מגדף ונכרתה הנפש‬
‫ כי דבר ה׳ בזה ואת מצותו הפר הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא‬, ‫ההיא מקרב עמה‬
‫עונה בה ׃‬
“But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born
in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord, and that
soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath
despised the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul
shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.” (Numb. xv. 30,
31.) There is here no promise that his merits shall be weighed
against his offences. One presumptuous sin will outweigh all his
supposed merits, and for that one he shall die in his iniquity. The
doctrine of the prophets is just the same:—
‫הנפש החוטאת היא תמות ׃‬
“The soul that sinneth it shall die.”
‫ובשוב צדיק מצדקתו ועשה עול ככל התועבות אשר עשה הרשע יעשה וחי כל‬
‫צדקתיו אשר עשה לא תזכרנה במעלו אשר מעל ובחטאתו אשר חטא בם ימות ׃‬
“But when the righteous turneth away from this righteousness, and
committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that
the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he
hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath
trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.”
(Ezek. xviii. 20-25.) When one reads this passage, it appears as if
God had dictated it on purpose to contradict the doctrine of the oral
law. There is here no mention of weighing merits against sins, and
no promise that some few extraordinary merits may outweigh many
sins. On the contrary, it is distinctly stated, that when the righteous
man turneth away from his righteousness, “All his righteousness that
he hath done shall not be mentioned.” If this be true, the doctrine of
the oral law is necessarily and totally false. But some one may object
that there is a similar declaration made respecting the wicked:—
‫והרשע כי ישוב מכל חטאתיו אשר עשה ושמר את כל חקותי ועשה משפט וצדקה‬
‫ כל פשעיו אשר עשה לא יזכרו לו בצדקתו אשר עשה יחיה ׃‬, ‫חיה יחיה לא ימות‬
“But if the wicked man will turn from all his sins that he hath
committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and
right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All transgressions that he
hath committed, they shall not be mentioned to him, in his
righteousness that he hath done he shall live.” But this verse is as
strongly against the doctrine of the oral law as the others already
cited. In the first place, it does not say, that he whose sins exceed
his merits is wicked, but that he who commits sin is wicked. In the
second place, it does not say that, by causing his merits to exceed
his sins, he can become righteous, but by turning away, “from ALL his
sins that he hath committed,” and by keeping “ALL my statutes.” It
confirms the doctrine laid down already from the law of Moses, that
to be righteous in the sight of God, a man must commit no sin, and
keep all God’s commandments. It therefore directly contradicts the
oral law, and overturns the doctrine that some merits may outweigh
many sins.
If more proof be needful, we have it in the case of Moses himself.
Very few, if any, even of the most devoted friends of the oral law, can
imagine that he has so many merits as Moses his master; and yet
the merits of Moses did not outweigh one apparently trifling
transgression. Because of one sin, he was sentenced to die with the
disobedient generation in the wilderness, and not permitted to enter
into the land of Israel. If Moses’ merits, then, could do nothing for
him, how vain must be the hope of others, who think that, by
abounding in almsgiving and good works for ten days, they can turn
the scale of God’s righteous judgment? Neither the law nor the
prophets know of any intermediate class between the righteous and
the wicked. They specify only the two classes, the righteous and the
wicked. Those who fulfil all God’s commandments belong to the one,
and those who transgress any of God’s commandments belong to
the other. Let every man, then, examine his own heart and life, and it
will not require much time nor trouble to ascertain to which class he
belongs. A very little reflection will convince him that he has been,
and is, a transgressor of God’s commandments; that he has no
merits and no righteousness; and therefore belongs to that class of
whom Moses says, that they are accursed. Such a conclusion may
appear dreadful, and so it ought to be; but the grand question is, Is it
true? Let every man ask himself, “Have I kept, or do I keep, ALL
God’s commandments?” If he can say, Yes: then, according to the
law of Moses, he is righteous, and has the promise of life. But if he
must say, No: then he is unrighteous, and the curse of God is
hanging over him, ready to descend and destroy him:—
‫ארור אשר לא יקים את דברי התורה הזאת לעשות אותם ואמר כל העם אמן ׃‬
“Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do
them. And all the people shall say, Amen.” (Deut. xxvii. 26.) Moses
holds out no nope, except to those who yield a perfect and universal
obedience.
But some one will reply, if this be true, then no man can be
accounted righteous, on account of his deeds:—
‫כי אדם אין צדיק בארץ אשר יעשה טוב ולא יחטא ׃‬
“For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth
not.” (Eccles. vii. 20.) And this is the truth, no man can be justified
because of his good works. We must renounce all our pride, and
appear at the bar of God as miserable sinners, looking only for
mercy, and not for payment. We must come to the same conclusion
as Job did—
‫ אם יחפוץ לריב עמו לא יעננו אחת מני‬, ‫אמנם ידעת כי כן ומה יצדק אנוש עם אל‬
‫אלף ׃‬
“I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he
will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.”
(Job ix. 2, 3.) Job had no idea that his merits exceeded his sins, but
knew well that if God entered into judgment with him, he could not
answer respecting even the thousandth part of his transgressions.
David, the man after God’s own heart, had the same conviction, and
had therefore, no wish that his merits should be weighed with his
sins. His prayer was—
‫אל תבוא במשפט את עבדך כי לא יצדק לפניך כל חי ׃‬
“Enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no
man living be justified.” (Ps. cxliii. 2.) And when Daniel prayed, he
did not venture to prefer his petitions on the score of merits, or to
expect an answer as the reward of righteousness, but cast himself
simply on the mercy of God:
‫כי לא על צדקותינו אנחנו מפילים תחנונינו לפניך כי על רחמיך הרבים ׃‬
“For we do not present our supplications before thee for our
righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.” (Dan. ix. 18.) How, then,
can the modern Jews hope to stand at the tribunal of a heart-
searching God, and not only escape condemnation, but obtain a
reward because their merits exceed their sins? Are they more pure
than Job, more holy than David, more righteous than Daniel? or
were those three most holy men mistaken, or ignorant of the way of
salvation? Certain it is that there must be some mistake somewhere.
Either the rabbies were right, and then Job, David, and Daniel were
mistaken, or these three men were right, and then the rabbies are
fearfully and awfully mistaken. If the law requires perfect obedience,
and denounces a curse against all disobedience, then the former
were right in deprecating God’s judgment, and casting themselves
upon his mercy. But if the law requires only that a man’s merits
should exceed his sins, and says that all deficiencies can be made
up by almsgiving and good works in the ten days between the New
Year and the Day of Atonement, then they were wrong. Job was
utterly mistaken when he said, “How should man be just with God?”
for the rabbies say, Only be careful for the first ten days of the year,
and you will be just and sealed unto life. David was utterly mistaken
when he said, “In thy sight shall no man living be justified;” for the
rabbies say that a man’s merits may exceed his sins, and that such
an one is just before God. Daniel was mistaken in not offering his
prayers on the score of righteousness, but on the plea of mercy. But
still, notwithstanding the certainty with which the rabbies speak, we
would rather trust our own salvation to the word of Moses, of Ezekiel,
of Job, David, and Daniel, than to that of the rabbies. We would
rather kneel as supplicants, than claim the reward of our deeds with
the rabbies.
But we cannot pass this subject without observing here also how the
religion of the rabbies exhibits itself at every turn as a religion for the
rich and the learned, rather than for the poor and laborious class of
mankind. It teaches that almsgiving and good works, at a certain
season of the year, will turn the wicked into righteous men, and
transform the sinner into the saint. So the rich sinner puts his hand
into his pocket, and lavishes his gold to the poor and needy, and
buys what is wanting to make up his deficit of merit. The learned
man sets to work at his books; for the oral law says:—
‫ אלא תלמוד‬, ‫אין לך מצוה בכל המצוות כולן שהיא שקולה כנגד תלמוד תורה‬
‫תורה כנגד כל המצוות כולן שהתלמוד מביא לידי מעשה לפיכך התלמוד קודם‬
‫למעשה בכל מקום ׃‬
“Amongst all the commandments, there is not one that is equivalent
to the study of the law. Whereas the study of the law is equivalent to
all the commandments: for study leads to practice. Therefore, study
always goes before good deeds.” (Hilchoth Talmud Torah.) The one
with his money, therefore, and the other with his books, can effect a
balance in his favour; but what is to become of the poor labouring
classes, who have no money to buy righteousness, and no time for
study, which is equivalent to all the other commandments? For them
to turn the balance is impossible—they have not the means; and
therefore, according to the oral law, they stand but a poor chance
when the final account comes to be made up. This of itself would
prove that the doctrine of the oral law cannot be true. God is a
righteous judge, and he accepts no man’s money and no man’s
learning. He takes no bribes, and will not wrest the judgment of the
poor. The true mode, therefore, of appearing just before God, is
some other than that pointed out by the oral law, and one according
to which the poor sinner will stand on equal terms with his rich
brother.
There is, however, another point to which we wish to direct attention.
The oral law says, if a man’s merits exceed his sins, he is just and
sealed unto life; but if his sins exceed his merits, then he is sealed
unto death: what then are we to think of all who die in each
succeeding year? It is plain that they have not been sealed unto life,
for then they could not have died. Then they were sealed unto death;
then we must conclude that their sins exceed their merits; and as all
die, then we must conclude, further, that all die in their sins—that
their sins are more than their merits; and so, after all, this rabbinical
doctrine comes to nothing. It tells a man that by having his merits
greater than his sins, he is righteous, and will be sealed unto life;
and yet, after all his almsgiving and good works, he dies like other
men, and it turns out that he is not a just man, nor even one of the
intermediate class, but one of the wicked. How can any rational man
put his faith in such a system, which promises a great deal, but does
not keep its promise? Above all, how can he trust his soul’s
everlasting welfare upon a promise which each successive year
proves to be false? Many an one has passed into eternity already
before the New Year, and of all such the oral law says they have
died in their sins. Many more may pass into eternity between the
New Year and the Day of Atonement. If the oral law be true, all such
belong to the decidedly wicked who did not deserve the ten days’
grace. Their friends and relations must, therefore, stamp their
memory with the brand of the impenitently wicked, or if they entertain
a hope that such persons have not died in their sins, they must
declare of the oral law that it is false. If they would have a promise
that will not and cannot deceive, let them take up the law and the
prophets. The reader of this paper is still alive, but who can tell how
soon his turn must come, and come it will, and that soon in every
case. What consolation, then, will he have on his dying bed? Will he
begin to balance his account of merit and sin? Alas! there is no use
in that. If the oral law be true, it was balanced on the last Day of
Atonement, and the sins were found to outweigh the merits, as his
approaching death testifies. Where then will he flee for refuge or for
consolation? In the agony and feebleness of a death-bed hour there
is no time for doing good works, and poverty may cut off the rabbinic
hope of purchasing salvation. In the oral law there is no hope. Can
he find it, then, in the law of Moses? That law requires perfect and
universal obedience, and pronounces the sinner accursed. As an
accursed sinner, then, he must stand at the bar of God, unless there
be some other way and some other hope. When Jacob was on his
death-bed he had another hope. He could say—
‫לישועתך קויתי ה׳ ׃‬
“I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord.” (Gen. xlix. 18.) Oh! let the
reader seek this salvation in time, that when his last hour comes, he
may be as calm, as happy, and as full of hope as his pious
forefather. He died in a foreign land, but he died happy, trusting not
in his own righteousness, but in the salvation of God. He had learned
by experience that man cannot deliver himself from mere temporal
trouble, but that even there God is his only refuge and his hope, and
still more so in the hour of death and the day of judgment. But he
had learned also to believe in ‫ המלאך הגואל‬the Angel who had
redeemed him from all evil, and was persuaded that He would not
forsake him in the great transition from time to eternity. He had not
put off the consideration of salvation to the last. He could say, “I have
waited for thy salvation, O Lord,” and therefore when the awful
moment arrived, he could in perfect tranquillity gather his children
about him, and tell them of Shiloh who was to come, and of the
salvation which he had expected.
 No. XXXIV.
NEW YEAR, CONTINUED.

All who believe in Divine Revelation look forward to a great day,

when the secrets of all hearts shall be revealed, and a righteous
sentence pronounced upon all the sons of men. The most important
thing in the world, then, for us to know is, the way of acceptance with
God, at that solemn hour. And if men are bound as rational beings to
examine the grounds of their opinions and belief on other subjects,
they must be considered as altogether devoid of reason, who do not
thoroughly examine and weigh the doctrines which have been taught
them with regard to justification at the bar of God. A mistake on other
subjects may be endured, but a mistake here is fatal and irreparable.
What will be the horror of those who find that they have through their
own want of consideration been trusting in a delusive hope, and
have rejected, wilfully rejected, that way of acceptance which God
has appointed. If there be any one point of difference between Jews
and Christians, which requires profound and attentive consideration,
it is this. We Christians believe that, on this all-important point, the
oral law is utterly mistaken, and that all who trust their salvation to
the hope which it holds out, will find themselves awfully mistaken if
Moses and the prophets speak truth. We have endeavoured to show
that the hope of justification by merits is contrary to the Word of God.
But we shall now proceed to show that the oral law by this doctrine
contradicts itself, and that therefore it is most unsafe to rest our
salvation upon any of its assertions. In that law, which teaches that if
a man’s merits exceed his sins, he is justified, we also find the
following parable, intended to explain God’s dealings in the judgment
of the New Year:—
‫ כשנתקרב‬, ‫משל למדינה שחייבת מס למלך ולא נתנה לו בא אליה בחיל לגבותו‬
‫אליה בי׳ פרסאות יצאו גדולי המדינה לקראתו ואמרו לו אין לנו מה ליתן לך הניח‬
, ‫ כיון שנתקרב יותר יצאו בינוני העיר לקראתו הניח להם שליש השני‬, ‫להם שליש‬
, ‫ כך המלך זה הקב׳׳ה‬, ‫כשנתקרב יותר יצאו כל בני העיר לקראתו הניח לחם הכל‬
‫בני המדינה אלו ישראל שמסגלין עוונות כל השנה ערב ראש השנה הגדולים‬
‫ בי׳ ימים בינונים מתענין ומוותר להם שני‬, ‫מתענין ומוותר להם שליש עוונותיהם‬
‫ ביום הכפורים הכל מתענין ומוותר להם הכל ׃‬, ‫שלישים‬
“A parable. There was a certain city, which owed tribute to the king,
but did not pay it, whereupon he came upon it with an army to collect
it. When he came within ten leagues of it, the great men of the city
went forth to meet him, and said to him, We have nothing wherewith
to pay thee, so he forgave them one-third. When he approached
nearer still, the middle classes of the city went forth to meet him, and
he forgave them a second-third. When he approached still nearer, all
the population of the city went forth to meet him, and he forgave
them all. The King here is the Holy One, blessed be He. The
inhabitants of the city are Israel, who accumulate sins all the year.
On the eve of the New Year, the great men fast, and one-third of
their sins is remitted to them. In the ten days, the intermediate class
fast, and two-thirds are remitted. On the Day of Atonement all fast,
and all is remitted to them.” (Orach Chaiim, 581.) Now this
representation is quite at variance with the doctrine that those are
justified whose merits exceed their sins. This parable, in the first
place, represents all as in debt, and secondly, that they have nothing
to pay, and thirdly, that the King forgives them freely and for nothing.
Now this statement is directly contrary to the notion of merit. If a man
has more merits than sins, and is on that score accounted just, he
cannot be said to be in debt, and he needs no remission. But if it be
true of the great men as well as the middle class, that they are in
debt and have nothing wherewith to pay, then it is certain that they
have no merits, and cannot be considered as just, but as sinners.
Merit and forgiveness are as essentially opposed as payment and
debt. The man who has paid his creditor all his demands can have
no debt, and so the man who has kept God’s commands so as to
have merit, needs not forgiveness. But he who has nothing to pay,
that is, he who has no merits, must either be condemned, or he must
have a free forgiveness of all; and this the parable says is the case