Israelite Israel
Israelite Israel [1]
Israel, Israelite. — 1 . The former name occurs 30 times in the Gospels, and the latter once ( John 1:47). The following expressions are found: ‘Israel,’ with or without the article ( Matthew 8:10; Matthew 9:33, Luke 1:54; Luke 1:80; Luke 2:25; Luke 2:34; Luke 4:25; Luke 4:27; Luke 7:9; Luke 24:21, John 1:31; John 3:10; also Mark 12:29 vocative); ‘people (λαός) Israel’ ( Matthew 2:6, Luke 2:32); ‘house of Israel’ ( Matthew 10:6; Matthew 15:24); ‘sons of Israel’ ( Matthew 27:9, Luke 1:16); ‘tribes of Israel’ ( Matthew 19:28, Luke 22:30); ‘land of Israel’ ( Matthew 2:20 f.); ‘God of Israel’ ( Matthew 15:31, Luke 1:68); ‘King of Israel’ ( Matthew 27:42, Mark 15:32, John 1:49; John 12:13). The force of the name is best understood by comparing it with two others used in the Nt. ‘Hebrew’ (Ἑβραῖος) is one who speaks the Hebrew language— i.e. the vernacular Aramaic dialect ( Acts 6:1; cf. Luke 23:38, John 19:13; John 19:17; John 19:20). ‘Jew’ (Ἰουδαῖος) implies national descent; originally used for those who were members of the tribe of Judah, and lived in the country of Judah, it became a wider term, after the return from Babylon, for all who were members of the Hebrew race. ‘Israel’ differed from both of these as being the name of privilege given by God to Jacob, the ancestor of the race ( Genesis 32:28; Genesis 35:10), and the thought of the theocratic privileges of the chosen people and of God’s covenant with them always underlies the term. See esp. Matthew 2:6, Luke 1:54; Luke 1:68; Luke 2:25; Luke 2:32; Luke 24:21, Acts 1:6, all of which reveal the national conviction that the Messiah would come for the benefit of Israel, and that to Israel were God’s attention and love especially given. But in marked contrast to such passages are those which imply that the theocratic nation has failed to fulfil the Divine purposes for it:—a Roman centurion exhibits greater faith than was to be found in the holy nation ( Matthew 8:10 || Luke 7:9); the house of Israel are as a whole ‘lost sheep’ ( Matthew 10:6; Matthew 15:24); they need someone to turn them to the Lord their God ( Luke 1:16); an honoured and official teacher of Israel is shown to be ignorant of the fundamental principles of the spiritual life ( John 3:10); incidents in the Ot prove that some Gentiles received God’s care and blessing, and were preferred to Israelites ( Luke 4:25-27); and a mysterious intimation is given of the supremacy of the Church of Christ hereafter ( Matthew 19:28 || Luke 22:30); it is character, and not theocratic privileges, that makes a man ‘truly an Israelite’ ( John 1:47). See Nathanael. Thus the Gospels teach incidentally what St. Paul lays down categorically: ( a ) that Israel does not comprise all who are of Israel ( Romans 9:6); ( b ) that the privileged position of Israel is to be taken by Christians, for the latter are ‘the Israel of God’ ( Galatians 6:16, cf. Ephesians 2:11-19); ( c ) that this is for the purpose of ultimately restoring Israel to spiritual communion and salvation (Romans 9-11).
2 . The status of the chosen people before God is to be taken by Christians. But that does not mean that Christianity is merely to be substituted for Judaism. Christianity is not a completely new creation fallen from heaven, but rather a growth from the religion of Israel—a growth far surpassing the germ from which it sprang, as an oak surpasses an acorn, but yet composed of elements which are discernible in the earlier dispensation in a rudimentary form. In order, therefore, to estimate the relation in which the Gospels, and particularly our Lord’s teaching, stood towards Israel, it is necessary to estimate broadly how much the New was indebted to the Old, and how much it discarded in rising out of it with its Divine and potent growth.
( a ) Monotheism was the chiefest glory of Judaism. Part of the inspiration of the people of Israel is seen in its ‘genius for religion,’ the capacity for realizing the supreme and only existence of God. A step towards this had been monolatry, the national adhesion to one Deity only, which was compatible with the recognition that other nations and lands were under the protection of other deities ( Judges 11:24, 1 Samuel 26:19). But it was not long before the Hebrew prophets taught that Jehovah was the God of all the nations of the earth, a spiritual Being whose service was incumbent upon all mankind, that service consisting not primarily in ritual but in morality. And this truth is the very fibre of Christianity; a Christian is in the truest sense a Unitarian. ‘Jesus answered, “The chief [commandment] is—Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God” ’ ( Mark 12:29). But even in the Ot there are not wanting intimations that the God-head is not a ‘monotonous unity,’ but that there are distinctions within It; e.g. ‘the Angel of Jahweh or of God,’ i.e. His presence manifesting itself in outward act ( Exodus 3:2; Exodus 14:19; Exodus 22:23); ‘the Captain of Jahweh’s host,’ who is also called Jahweh ( Joshua 5:14 f., Joshua 6:2); ‘His Holy Spirit’ ( Isaiah 63:10 f.); see also the thrice repeated name ( Numbers 6:24-26), and the Tersanctus ( Isaiah 6:3).* [Note: On the use of the indefinite plural ‘they’, see Taylor on Pirke Aboth, ii. 2.] According to the reports of His teaching as contained in the Gospel records, our Lord expressly formulated the truth of the unity of God, but never that of the Holy Trinity; and yet the latter pervades the whole record. ‘In the gradual process of intercourse with Him, His disciples came to recognize Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as included in their deepening and enlarging thought of God.’ But the truth is definitely implied in the discourses in the Upper Room (John 14-17), and in the baptismal formula ( Matthew 28:19). See Gore’s Bampton Lectures , pp. 134 ff.; Illingworth’s do . pp. 67 ff.; Gibson, The Thirty-nine Articles , vol. i. pp. 93–101.
( b ) Covenant .—The monolatry which preceded monotheism was calculated to give birth to the idea that between Jahweh and His people there was a close and mutual agreement. If He was exclusively their God and Protector, they were bound to do Him service. It is not easy to say at what period the conception arose. But the earlier prophets, though they do not expressly mention a covenant—except Hosea ( Hosea 6:7 doubtful, Hosea 8:1)—all teach the truth that Jahweh requires moral, ethical service from His people. And in the Je compilations of the national traditions the covenant relationship with God is firmly established in the religious thought of Israel. The covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15) is the starting-point. The covenant at Sinai ( Exodus 24:1-11; Exodus 34:10-28) opens the second stage of the history. D [Note: Deuteronomist.] has yet another covenant, based on the contents of the Deut. law, and made on the borders of Moab ( Deuteronomy 29:1; Deuteronomy 29:9; Deuteronomy 29:12; Deuteronomy 29:14; Deuteronomy 29:21; cf. Deuteronomy 26:16-19, 2 Kings 23:2; 2 Kings 23:21). But when Israel was carried into Babylon, the Old Covenant was in reality at an end; they had broken it by their sins. Jeremiah, therefore, speaks of a New Covenant ( Jeremiah 31:31 ff.), forgiveness of sins, righteousness, peace and joy. It had been foreshadowed in the life story of Hosea, and was to be the fulfilment of the dreams and longings of all the prophets. ‘In the visions of the new covenant the Ot becomes Christian.’ And the thought is the inspiration of Ezekiel and of Deutero-Isaiah. But there were two other crises in Israel’s history where the idea of a covenant is prominent. God gave a covenant, i.e. a promise, to Levi of a perpetual priesthood in the tribe ( Deuteronomy 33:8, Jeremiah 33:18; Jeremiah 33:21 f., Malachi 2:4-8), and to David of a perpetual lineage on the throne (2 Samuel 7; 2 Samuel 23:5, Psalms 89:3; Psalms 89:34 f., Jeremiah 33:17; Jeremiah 33:21 f.). Thus there were several factors which went to make up the fulness of the Christian covenant. In the Gospels, with the exception of Luke 1:72, where the Abrahamic covenant is referred to, the only occurrence of the word is at the Last Supper ( Matthew 26:28 || Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20); our Lord uses Jeremiah’s term, ‘the new covenant,’ but at the same time the words ‘This is my blood’ refer to the covenant at Sinai ( Exodus 24:4-8). This application of the word to the results of His own Person and work served as a starting-point for the fuller working out of the thought by the Apostolic writers. The analogy of the Abrahamic covenant is drawn out chiefly by St. Paul (Romans 4, Galatians 3), while the Ep. to the Hebrews deals with the kingship (ch. 1; cf. Matthew 22:44), the priesthood (7–10), and, closely connected with the latter, the spiritual covenant of the forgiveness of sins ( Hebrews 10:15-18).
( c ) Law .—A study of the passages in the Gospels which speak of the Mosaic Law shows in a striking manner the relation of Christ’s teaching to the religion of Israel. On the one hand, He recognized the Divine authority of the Law, in its true meaning and spirit , and not as interpreted and embodied in the ‘deformed righteousness’ of the scribes and Pharisees ( Matthew 5:17-20; Matthew 12:5; Matthew 19:17; Matthew 23:3, Luke 16:17). But, on the other hand, in order to ‘fulfil’ (πληρῶσαι) the Law He was obliged to take a negative or critical attitude. ‘The Law and the Prophets,’ as a dispensation, have had their day, and have given place to ‘the kingdom of heaven’ ( Matthew 11:12 f., || Luke 16:16), and to ‘grace and truth’ ( John 1:17; and see Matthew 9:17 || Mark 2:21 f., Luke 5:37). Even the Law and the Prophets meant something deeper than they had hitherto been understood to mean ( Matthew 7:12; Matthew 22:34-40); and this deeper meaning is contained in a ‘new commandment’ which Jesus gives to the disciples ( John 13:34). The Law had generally been considered as a compendium of positive commands bearing on the details of life; but the only parts of it that mattered were ‘the weightier things,’ judgment, mercy and faith ( Matthew 23:23 || Luke 11:42). Other criticisms of the Law are found in Matthew 5:21-48; Matthew 19:8 (divorce) Matthew 12:1-12, Luke 13:10-17; Luke 14:1-6, John 5:9-17; John 5:9 (Sabbath). Our Lord took care to avoid causing offence ( Matthew 18:6 f.), though showing at the same time that He was raised above bondage to purely ritual and non-ethical enactments: e.g. in the payment of the Temple tax ( Matthew 17:24-27); in touching the leper, but at the same time telling him to offer the requisite sacrifices ( Matthew 8:1-4). The one decisive breach that He made with Jewish legalism was in dealing with the distinction between clean and unclean foods, and with ceremonial washings ( Matthew 15:1-20, Mark 7:1-23 [note Revised Version Nt 1881, Ot 1885 of Mark 7:19], Luke 10:7; Luke 11:38-41).
( d ) Sacrifice .—The Jewish ordinances of sacrifice formed part of the ‘Law,’ and were also in intimate connexion with the covenant idea; this section, therefore, must to some extent overlap the two preceding. Our Lord accorded to sacrifices the same recognition that He accorded to the Law as a whole; He accepted them as of Divine authority, and binding upon the Jews. He told the recovered leper to offer the prescribed gift ( Matthew 8:4); He assumed that His hearers offered them as an ordinary practice ( Matthew 5:23 f.). But the latter passage also shows that He relegated them to a subordinate place as compared with the higher moral duties. He twice quoted the saying of Hosea that God desires ‘mercy and not sacrifice’ ( Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:7). And by the inauguration of the New Covenant in His own blood, the whole Jewish system was by implication abrogated by being transcended. The thought of sacrifice seems also to underlie the words in Matthew 20:28 || Mark 10:45. Christ gave His life as a ‘ransom’ (λύτρον)—a means of redemption or release. The word is used in the Lxx Septuagint as a rendering of בֹּפֶד a ‘covering’ or ‘atonement.’ But such a passage as Numbers 35:31 shows that it does not necessarily imply the death of an animal; and it is precarious to press our Lord’s words to support any theory of the Atonement, as has been done with disastrous results by widely differing schools of thought. Further, John 19:36 refers to the Passover lamb; and possibly also John 1:29; John 1:36, but it is safer to regard the Baptist’s words as an allusion to Isaiah 53:6-7, where the sufferings and death of the Servant of Jahweh are described as being in some sense vicarious, and availing to ‘take away the sin of the world’; this truth was depicted symbolically by the ‘scapegoat’ on the Day of Atonement. The words of our Lord at the institution of the Eucharist were, as has been said above, the starting-point for the fuller teaching of the Apostolic writers. Of the debts which Christianity owes to Israel, none is more fundamental than the conception of sacrifice. The references to the subject in St. Paul’s writings, though not numerous, are quite enough to show that he had a deep and firm belief in the sacrificial and propitiatory character of Christ’s death (Sanday-Headlam, Romans , pp. 91 f.). See also 1 Peter 1:2 (an allusion to the covenant sacrifice at Horeb), 1 Peter 1:19 (the Passover lamb), 1 Peter 2:24 (a general description of an atoning sacrifice). And it is the paramount thought in Hebrews, which shows how Christ’s sacrifice and priesthood were analogous to, but infinitely surpassed, the Jewish sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood (see art. Day of Atonement).
( e ) Messianie expectations .—(i.) The universal expectation in Israel in our Lord’s time that One was to come who should be a national deliverer, had its roots as far back as the Divine promises to Abraham; but the focussing of all hopes on a King was due to the promise made to David that his line should have perpetual possession of the throne. The hopes of national peace and glory under a king reach a climax in Isaiah and Micah. But they received a terrible reverse at the Captivity, and in subsequent Ot writings the idea largely disappeared. It was revived, however, to a certain extent in apocryphal and especially in apocalyptic literature. In two of the earlier portions of the Sibylline Oracles, in parts of the Ethiopic Enoch and in the Psalms of Solomon, there are indications of the hope, though the title ‘Messiah’ is not used. The Christian belief that Jesus was the Messiah (though the truth was guessed by the first disciples, John 1:41; John 1:49) was due to His own claims, which were not, however, put forward even to the Twelve till near the close of His ministry. He pronounced Simon Peter blessed because the truth had been Divinely revealed to him ( Matthew 16:16 f.); and He acknowledged to Pilate that He was a king ( Matthew 27:11 || Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3, John 18:36 f.). But while He declared the fact, He raised it into a new sphere of thought—‘My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight … but now is my kingdom not from hence.’ And in conversing with the Twelve He linked with it the clear announcement of His approaching sufferings ( Mark 8:27-31 and parallels; cf. Matthew 20:20-28).
(ii.) The kingship of the Messiah was the only conception which had been entertained by the Jews themselves. But ‘in the minds of the first members of the Christian Church the experiences of the Cross, the Resurrection and Pentecost, together with the impression which the character and work, the life and teaching of Jesus had made upon them, led to a rapid transformation, pregnant with important consequences, of the idea of the Messiah which they held as Jews’ (Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible iii. 356a). As they studied the Ot Scriptures in the light of these experiences, ‘they found scattered there the elements of a relatively complete ideal, which had been perfectly fulfilled in Jesus’ ( ib . 356b). The very mode of life and teaching which He had adopted drew their attention to the promise of a ‘true prophet ’ ( Deuteronomy 18:15, Acts 3:22 f., 7:37). And in the miracles which He performed He appeared to be a counterpart of Ot prophets. This working of miracles formed part of the current Messianic conception, as is implied by John the Baptist ( Matthew 11:2 f.), and in the questionings of the Jews ( John 7:31). Another trait in the prophetic office of the Messiah—that of the revealer of unknown truths—is implied by the Samaritan woman ( John 4:25). This had formed no definite part of the earlier Messianic expectations, though the nation had looked forward to a true prophet ( 1 Maccabees 14:41). In our Lord’s time men hoped for the return of one of the old prophets ( Mark 6:15; Mark 8:27 f.), or the coming of one who was called ‘the prophet’ ( John 1:21; John 1:25; John 6:14); but there is no indication that ‘the prophet’ was identified with the Messiah.
(iii.) The more clearly the atoning value of Christ’s death was realized, the more completely was He seen to be the ideal Priest foreshadowed by the Levitical priesthood. His own words would form the starting-point for this conception; He ‘laid down’ His life, He ‘gave’ His life as a ransom (see above). The double thought of Christ as Victim and Priest is fully worked out in Hebrews on the basis of Psalms 110:4.
(iv.) The Ot contains many passages which teach that Divine purposes are accomplished through the sufferings of the righteous; and in the later chapters of the Book of Isaiah the righteous portion of the nation merges into the vision of one representative Servant of Jahweh, whose preaching was to bring the whole nation, and even Gentiles, to the light, and whose sufferings were to have a vicarious value. This representation does not appear to have exercised any influence on the later Jewish expectations of the Messiah. The inspired utterance of John the Baptist ( John 1:29; John 1:36) pointed towards the truth, though his hearers do not seem to have understood his words. The Twelve could not realize the necessity for Christ’s sufferings until He had suffered, when the great truth dawned upon them ( Matthew 12:18-21, Acts 3:13; Acts 3:26; Acts 4:27; Acts 4:30). It has been suggested that the servant (δοῦλος) of Luke 14:16 f. may be an allusion to the same figure of prophecy.
( f ) Eschatology .—The Jewish and Christian Messianic beliefs were closely bound up with eschatological teaching as a whole. In the Ot the expectations with regard to a hereafter consisted mainly of the aspirations of saints who felt certain that righteousness is eternal, and that God’s power and dominion are infinite. This intuitive assurance that the present life with its inequalities and anomalies cannot be the whole of life, maintained itself in some minds side by side with the popular notions held by the Hebrews in common with the Babylonian and other Semitic peoples, that Sheol was a state in which man would continue to exist, but only in a shadowy, nerveless, purposeless reproduction of his present personality. In apocalyptic literature an advance was made to some extent. The ‘last things’ began to be detailed in a great variety of forms—some of them, indeed, sensuous, and marred by narrow Jewish exclusiveness, but others more spiritual and universal; in some the Messianic kingdom is to be on this earth, in others in a transformed heaven and earth; in some the enemies of Israel are punished at death in Sheol or Hades, which thus becomes equivalent to Hell, while the righteous ( i.e. Israel) attain to a resurrection; in others the resurrection is universal, and a prelude to a final spiritual judgment. And Christian teaching borrowed much, hoth from the Ot and from later Jewish writings; but it rose to a spiritual height and certainty far beyond the former, while at the same time it discarded the gross, exaggerated, and unspiritual elements which marred the latter. Christ’s own eschatological teaching centres round the Kingdom of God . He, like the Ot writers, does not discuss theoretical or speculative questions, but deals with broad moral issues. His teaching ‘unfolds the course of the Divine kingdom which had been the object of Ot faith and the centre of Ot hope. It presents that kingdom as a thing of the actual present, brought to men in and by the Teacher Himself, but also as a thing of the future which looks through all historical fulfilments to a completer realization—a thing, too, of gradual, unobtrusive growth, yet destined to be finally established by a great conclusive event’ (Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible i. 750b). Our Lord, as reported by the Synoptists, gave a large place to the promise of His own Return , an objective event, the time of which was not yet revealed even to the Son. In some passages this is closely connected with a quite distinct occurrence—the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24, Mark 13; cf. Matthew 10:23; Matthew 16:27 f., Mark 8:38; Mark 9:1, Luke 9:26 f., Luke 21:32). Connected with the Parousia, and the cause of it, is the Final Judgment , which will occur at the end of the world, a judgment of individuals, and of universal scope, in which Christ the Son of Man will be Himself the Judge. The Fourth Gospel, while not without indications (cf. John 12:48) of this final judgment, lays stress rather on a present judgment, ‘fulfilling itself in a probation of character and a self-verdict which proceed now’ ( John 3:17 f., John 12:47 f.). With the teaching of Jesus on the Parousia and Judgment is connected the doctrine of a Resurrection . In the Ot this was not a doctrine, but a vague longing of a few great minds for a deliverance from Sheol, a life superior to death. It was only gradually and at a late date that the conception became more distinct. At first it was a re-animation of Israel as a whole, but Isaiah 26:19 seems to breathe the more individual hope; and the clearest statement is reached in Daniel 12:2 f., the latest Ot utterance on the subject. Nowhere in the Ot is a resurrection thought of as extending beyond the case of Israel; but the doctrine of a resurrection of all men was gradually evolved, and had been accepted before the Christian era by the Pharisees and the mass of the people, though rejected by the Sadducees, in accordance with their principle of rejecting all traditions and accretions later than the Ot. Our Lord’s teaching holds a course between the two; it is based on the great principles of the Ot, but is coloured, as to some details, by the eschatology of later writings, being at the same time free from the crudeness and extravagances of the popular beliefs. See Matthew 22:23-33 || Mark 12:18-27, Luke 20:27-40; Matthew 8:11, Luke 13:28 f.; Matthew 10:28, Luke 14:14, John 5:25 f., John 5:28 f., John 11:21-26.
( g ) Angelology .—The Nt belief with regard to angels is taken over almost entire from the later phases of Judaism. Angels are innumerable ( Matthew 26:53, Luke 2:13), and glorious in appearance ( Matthew 28:3, Luke 2:9; cf. δόξαι 2 Peter 2:10); they minister to God’s people ( Matthew 2:13; Matthew 4:11, Luke 22:43), and carry the saints to Paradise ( Luke 16:22). As Jahweh, in the Ot, was surrounded by them, so the Son of Man will be accompanied by them at His Parousia ( Matthew 16:27; Matthew 25:31); and they are charged with duties connected with the Last Day ( Matthew 13:41; Matthew 13:40; Matthew 24:31). In Ot and Nt alike only two angelic names are recorded, Michael and Gabriel ( Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:21; Daniel 8:16; Daniel 9:21, Judges 1:9, Revelation 12:7, Luke 1:19; Luke 1:26). Satan is an individual being ( Mark 1:13, Luke 10:18). In a few points Christian conceptions show an advance upon the Jewish. In the Book of Daniel angels are guardians or patrons of particular countries ( Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:20-21; Daniel 12:1); in Matthew 18:10 they appear to be guardians of individual human beings, especially of children. Satan is attended by a company of angels ( Matthew 25:41, Revelation 12:7), an idea not found in earlier writings. Angels are spirits ( Hebrews 1:14). Christ, and men in union with Him, are better than angels ( Hebrews 2:5, 1 Corinthians 6:3).
( h ) Scripture .—This has been placed at the end, and not at the beginning, of the series, because the growth of Christianity out of the religion of Israel would remain a fact even if all the Jewish records had been destroyed. But it is true that the possession of, and devotion to, the Ot Scriptures had an enormous effect on the formation of Christian thought and teaching and phraseology. The direct quotations from the Ot in the Nt are very many; and there are, besides, a mass of more or less distinct allusions and reminiscences which must be studied in their Ot context if their meaning in the Nt is to be understood. See artt. Old Testament, and Quotations.
Literature.—In addition to the works on Ot Theology and on the Life of Christ, the following are among the more useful English works which are easily obtainable. They are arranged according to the sections in the article—
1 . Sanday-Headlam, Romans , on chs. 9–11.
2 . ( a ) Gore, Bampton Lectures ; Illingworth, do .; Gibson, The Thirty-nine Articles , vol. i. 91–118; E. Caird, The Evolution of Religion . The doctrine of God from the Jewish side is treated in Montefiore’s Hibbert Lectures .
( b ) Westcott, Hebrews , 298–302; Candlish, Expos. Times , 1892 (Oct.–Nov.).
( c ) Hort, Judaistic Christianity ; M‘Giffert, History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age ; Bruce, The Kingdom of God , and St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity ; Sand.-Headl., Romans , 187 ff.
( d ) Cave, The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice ; Maurice, The Doctrine of Sacrifice ; Milligan, The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord ; Westcott, Hebrews ; Sand.-Headl., Romans , 91 f.; Driver, Deuteronomy , note on כִּכִּר, 425 f.
( e ) ( f ) Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah ; Drummond, The Jewish Messiah ; Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah ; Dalman, The Words of Jesus (English translation); Driver-Neubauer, The Jewish Interpreters of Is. liii .; Charles, Eschatology Hebrew Jewish and Christian ; Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality ; Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought ; Enoch (ed. Charles); Psalms of Solomon (ed. Ryle-James).
( g ) Fuller, Excursus on ‘Angelology and Demonology,’ in Speaker’s Apocrypha , vol. i.; Comm. on Dan., Zech., and Revelation.
( h ) See art. Septuagint with the literature there.
Besides the above, a mass of useful information is contained in the following articles in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible:—‘Israel,’ ‘God,’ ‘Jesus Christ,’ ‘Covenant,’ ‘Law (in N.T.),’ ‘Sacrifice,’ ‘Atonement,’ ‘Messiah,’ ‘Eschatology,’ ‘Resurrection,’ ‘Angel,’ ‘Satan,’ ‘Development of Doctrine’ (Extra Vol.)
