Category: Uncategorized

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA VERSUS CALVINISTS

In this segment I will show how this renowned Bishop of Alexandria affirmed doctrines which directly contradict the beliefs of Calvinists, since Cyril taught the perpetual virginity of the blessed Mother, water baptismal regeneration, and that the eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. All emphasis will be mine.

MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

4. CHRIST IS NOT A MERE MAN AS THE SAINTS. The same is true of those things, which are proper to humanity, when the divine Scripture attributes these things to God. For, although the sufferings of the Savior are never understood to apply to the nature of the divinity and were completely the sufferings of the body, yet because the divinity is joined to the body by an inseparable union, the Apostle says, “if they had known they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8). Do you see how, on account of the union, the word of the apostolic teaching makes a common confession of Christ? For Jesus was not a mere man prior to the communion and union of God with him, but the same Logos, having come into the blessed Virgin herself, TOOK TO HIMSELF HIS OWN TEMPLE FROM THE ESSENCE OF THE VIRGIN. He went forth from her as a man and was seen to be a man externally, although internally, he existed truly as God. Therefore, after his birth, HE PRESERVED THE VIRGINITY OF HIS MOTHER, although this is not true of any of the saints. The saints were by nature human beings and so they all underwent an equally human birth. But, because He was God by nature, when in this last time he also took the human condition, he revealed the birth from the Virgin as different from all other births. Therefore, it is right and just that the blessed one should be called Theotokos and Virgin Mother. For Jesus, who was born of her, was not a mere man. (Against Those Who Are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin Is Theotokos [Orthodox Research Institute, September 14, 2004], pp. 9, 11)

2:7. And she brought forth her firstborn Son.

In what sense then her firstborn? By firstborn she here means, not the first among several brethren, but one who was both HER FIRST AND ONLY SON: for some such sense as (his exists among the significations of “firstborn.” For sometimes also the Scripture calls that the first which is the only one; as “I am God, the First, and with Me there is no other.” To shew then that the Virgin did not bring forth a mere man, there is added the word firstborn; for as she continued to be a virgin, she had no other son but Him Who is of the Father: concerning Whom God the Father also proclaims by the voice of David, “And I will set Him Firstborn high among the kings of the earth.” Of Him also the all-wise Paul makes mention, saying, “But when He brought the First-begotten into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him.” How then did He enter into the world? For He is separate from it, not so much in respect of place as of nature; for it is in nature that He differs from the inhabitants of the world: but He entered into it by being made man, and becoming a portion of it by the incarnation. For though He is the Only-begotten as regards His divinity, yet as having become our brother, He has also the name of Firstborn; that, being made the first-fruits as it were of the adoption of men, He might make us also the sons of God.

Consider therefore that He is called the Firstborn in respect of the economy: for with respect to His divinity He is the |10 Only-begotten. Again, He is the Only-begotten in respect of His being the Word of the Father, having no brethren by nature, nor being co-ordinate with any other being: for the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, is One and Alone: but He becomes the Firstborn by descending to the level of created things. When therefore He is called the Only-begotten, He is so with no cause assigned by reason of which He is the Only-begotten, being “the Only-begotten God ⁵ into the bosom of the Father:” but when the divine Scriptures call Him Firstborn, they immediately also add of whom He is the firstborn, and assign the cause of His bearing this title: for they say, “Firstborn among many brethren:” and “Firstborn from the dead:” the one, because He was made like unto us in all things except sin; and the other, because He first raised up His own flesh unto incorruption. Moreover, He has ever been the Only-begotten by nature, as being the Sole begotten of the Father, God of God, and Sole of Sole, having shone forth God of God, and Light of Light: but He is the Firstborn for our sakes, that by His being called the Firstborn of things created, whatever resembles Him may be saved through Him: for if He must of necessity be the Firstborn, assuredly those must also continue to exist of whom He is the Firstborn. But if, as Eunomius ⁶ argues, He is called God’s Firstborn, as born the first of many; and He is also the Virgin’s Firstborn; then as regards her also, He must be the first as preceding another child: but if He is called Mary’s Firstborn, AS HER ONLY CHILD, and not as preceding others, then is He also God’s Firstborn, not as the first of many, but as the Only One born.

Moreover if the first are confessedly the cause of the second, but God and the Son of God are first, then is the Son the cause of those who have the name of sons, inasmuch as it is through Him that they have obtained the appellation. He therefore who is the cause of the second sons may justly be called the |11 Firstborn, not as being the first of them, but as the first cause of their receiving the title of sonship. And just as the Father being called the first—-“for I, He saith, am the first, and I am after these things”—-assuredly will not compel us to regard Him as similar in nature to those that are after Him; so also though the Son be called the first of creation, or the Firstborn before all creation, it by no means follows that He is one of the things made: but just as the Father said “I am the first,” to shew that He is the origin of all things, in the same sense the Son also is called the first of creation. “For all things were made by Him,” and He is the beginning of all created things, as being the Creator and Maker of the world ⁷. (Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, Sermons 1-11 (Luke 1:1-3:3:23), Sermon 1: Luke 2:1-7)

BAPTISM

3:21-23 ⁴⁶. And it came to pass, that when all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized: and as He was praying, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove. And there was a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son; in Thee I am well pleased. And Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years old.

AGAIN come, that fixing our mind intently upon the Evangelic Scriptures, we may behold the beauty of the truth. Come let us direct the penetrating and accurate eyes of the mind unto the mystery of Christ; let us view with wonder the admirable skill of the divine economy: for so shall we see His glory. And thus to act is for our life: as He Himself assures us, when speaking unto God the Father in heaven, “Those things are life eternal: to know Thee Who alone art true; and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou hast sent.” How therefore was He sent? and what was the manner of His coming unto us? For being by nature God That filleth all, how, as the blessed John the Evangelist said, “was He in the world,” Himself being Lord? And how was He sent by the Father, when as God He is the Creator and Sustainer of all things? for all things were established by Him.

The wise John the Evangelist then teaches us, saying, “And the Word was made flesh.” But perchance some one will say, ‘What then? Having ceased to be the Word, did |44 He change into being flesh? Did He fall from His Majesty, having undergone a transformation unto something which previously He was not?’ Not so, we say. Far from it. For by nature He is unchangeable and immutable. In saying, therefore, that the Word became flesh, the Evangelist means a man like unto us. For we also are often called flesh ourselves. For it is written, “And all flesh shall see the salvation of God,” meaning thereby that every man shall see it. While therefore He immutably retains that “which He was, yet as having under this condition assumed our likeness, He is said to have been made flesh.

Behold Him, therefore, as a man, enduring with us the things that belong to man’s estate, and fulfilling all righteousness, for the plan of salvation’s sake. And this thou learnest from what the Evangelist says: “And it came to pass that when all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized, and prayed.” Was He too then in need of holy baptism? But what benefit could accrue to Him from it? The Only-begotten Word of God is Holy of the Holy: so the Seraphim name Him in their praises: so every where the law names Him: and the company of the holy prophets accords with the writings of Moses. WHAT IS IT THAT WE GAIN BY HOLY BAPTISM? PLAINLY THE REMISSION OF OUR SINS. But in Jesus there was nought of this; “for He did no sin: neither was guile found “in His mouth,” as the Scripture saith. “He was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sins, and made higher than the heavens,” according to the words of the divine Paul.

But yes! perchance some one will say, who has been ill instructed in the faith, ‘Was it then God the Word that was baptized? Was He in need of being made partaker of the Holy Ghost? Not at all. Therefore it is that we affirm, that the man who was of the seed of David, and united unto Him by conjunction ⁴⁷, was baptized and received the Spirit.’ The |45 Indivisible therefore is divided by you into two sons: and because He was baptized when, thirty years old, He was made holy, as you say, by being baptized. Was He therefore not holy until He arrived at His thirtieth year? Who will assent to you, when thus you corrupt the right and blameless faith? For “there is one Lord Jesus Christ,” as it is written. But this we affirm: that He was not separate ⁴⁸ from Him, and by Himself when baptized and made partaker of the Holy Ghost: for we know, both that He is God, and without stain, and Holy of the Holy: for we confess that “of His fulness have all we received.” For the Holy Spirit indeed proceedeth from God the Father, but belongeth also to the Son. It is even often called the Spirit of Christ, though proceeding from God the Father. And to this Paul will testify, saying, at one time, “They that are in the flesh cannot please God: but ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any one have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.” And again, “But because ye are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Father, our Father.” The Holy Spirit therefore proceedeth indeed as I said from God the Father, but His Only-begotten Word, as being both by nature and verily Son, and resplendent with the Father’s dignities, ministereth It to the creation, and bestoweth It on those that are worthy. Yea verily He said, “All things that the Father hath are mine.”

But let us retort upon those who pervert the right belief this question; ‘How can He Who received the Spirit, if He be, according to your phrase, a man, and the Son separately and by Himself, baptize with the Holy Ghost, and Himself give the Holy Spirit to them who are baptized?’ For to be able to impart the Spirit to men suiteth not any one whatsoever of things created, but, together with God’s other attributes, is the distinct property of Almighty God alone. But He Who gave It was man: for the wise John said, “After me cometh a Man, Who was before me . . . He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” As therefore it is unbefitting God the Word, |46 regarded as God the Word, to draw near unto holy baptism, and be made partaker of the Spirit, so in like manner it is altogether incredible, or rather impossible to believe that the ability to baptize men with the Holy Ghost, is the act of a mere man with nothing in Him superior to ourselves.

How then will the mystery be true? In that for our aid He assumed a kind of adaptation ⁴⁹. The divine Word became man, even “He Who was in the form of God the Father, and thought it not robbery to be equal unto God,” as most wise Paul says, “but took the form of a slave, being made in the likeness of men, and humbling Himself to poverty.” Enquire therefore Who He was that was first in the likeness of God the Father, and could be regarded as on an equality with Him, but took the form of a slave, and became then a man, and besides this made Himself poor. Was it He of the seed of David, as they argue, Whom they specially regard separately and by Himself as the other Son, distinct from the Word of God the Father? If so, let them shew that He ever was on an equality with the Father. Let them shew how He assumed the form of a slave. Or what shall we say was that form of a slave? And how did He empty Himself? For what is poorer than human nature? He therefore Who is the exact image of God the Father, the likeness, and visible expression of His person, Who shines resplendent in equality unto Him, Who by right of nature is free, and the yoke of Whoso kingdom is put upon all creation,—-He it is Who took the form of a slave, that is, became a man, and made Himself poor by consenting to endure these human things, sin only excepted.

But how then, they object, was He baptized, and received also the Spirit? To which we reply, that He had no need of holy baptism, being wholly pure and spotless, and holy of the holy. Nor had He need of the Holy Ghost: for the Spirit That proceedeth from God the Father is of Him, and equal to Him in substance. We must now therefore at length hear what is the explanation of the economy. God in his love to man provided for us a way of salvation and of life. For believing in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and making this confession before many witnesses, we wash away all the filth |47 of sin, and are enriched by the communication of the Holy Spirit, and made partakers of the divine nature, and gain the grace of adoption. It was necessary therefore that the Word of the Father, when He humbled Himself unto emptiness, and deigned to assume our likeness, should become for our sakes the pattern and way of every good work. For it follows, that He Who in every thing is first, must in this also set the example. In order therefore that we may learn both the power itself of holy baptism, and how much we gain by approaching so great a grace, He commences the work Himself; and, having been baptized, prays that you, my beloved, may learn that never-ceasing prayer is a thing most fitting for those who have once been counted worthy of holy baptism.

And the Evangelist says that the heavens were opened, as having long been closed. For Christ said, “Forthwith shall ye see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” For both the flock above and that below being now made one, and one chief Shepherd appointed for all, the heavens were opened, and man upon earth brought near to the holy angels. And the Spirit also again came down as at a second commencement of our race: and upon Christ first, Who received it not so much for His own sake as for ours: for by Him and in Him are we enriched with all things. Most suitably therefore to the economy of grace does He endure with us the things of man’s estate: for where otherwise shall we see Him emptied, Whose in His divine nature is the fulness? How became He poor as we are, if He were not conformed to our poverty? How did He empty Himself, if He refused to endure the measure of human littleness?

Having taken therefore Christ as our pattern, let us draw near to the grace of holy baptism, that so we may gain boldness to pray constantly, and lift up holy hands to God the Father, that He may open the heavens also unto us, and send down upon us too the Holy Ghost, to receive us as sons. For He spake unto Christ at the time of holy baptism, as though having by Him and in Him accepted man upon earth to the sonship, “This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased.” For He Who is the Son by nature and in truth, and the Only-begotten, when He became like unto us, is specially |48 declared to be the Son of God, not as receiving this for Himself:—-for He was and is, as I said, very Son:—-but that He might ratify the glory unto us. For He has been made our firstfruits, and firstborn, and second Adam: for which reason it is said, that “in Him all things have become new:” for having put oil the oldness that was in Adam, we have gained the newness that is in Christ: by Whom and with Whom, to God the Father, be glory and dominion with the Holy Ghost, for ever and ever, Amen. ⁵⁰ (Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, Sermon 11: Luke 3:21-23.)

HOLY EUCHARIST

And the Bread which I will give is My Flesh for the life of the world.

I die (He says) for all, that I may quicken all by Myself, and I made My Flesh a Ransom for the flesh of all. For death shall die in My Death, and with Me shall rise again (He says) the fallen nature of man. For for this became I like to you, Man (that is) and of the seed of Abraham, that I might be made like in all things unto My brethren. The blessed Paul himself also, well understanding what Christ just now said to us says, Forasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same, that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. For no otherwise was it possible that he that hath the power of death should be destroyed, and death itself also, had not Christ given Himself for us, a Ransom, One for all, for He was in behalf of all. Wherefore He says in the Psalms too, offering Himself as a spotless Sacrifice to God the Father, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a Body preparedst Thou Me. In whole burnt-offerings and offerings for sin Thou tookedst no pleasure: then said I, Lo I come (in |410 the chapter of the book it is written of Me) to do Thy will, O God, was My choice. For since the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer sufficed not unto the purging away of sin, nor yet would the slaughter of brute beasts ever have destroyed the power of death, Christ Himself came in in some way to undergo punishment for all. For with His stripes WE were healed, as saith the Prophet, and His Own Self bare our sins in His Own Body on the tree; and He was crucified for all and on account of all, that if One died for all, all we might live in Him. For it was not possible that He should be holden by death, neither could corruption over-master that Which is by Nature Life. But that Christ gave His Own Flesh for the Life of the world, we shall know by His words also, for He saith, Holy Father keep them; and again, For their sakes I sanctify Myself. He here says that He sanctifies Himself, not aiding Himself unto sanctification for the purification of the soul or spirit (as it is understood of us), nor yet for the participation of the Holy Ghost, for the Spirit was in Him by Nature, and He was and is Holy always, and will be so ever. He here says, I sanctify Myself, for, I offer Myself and present Myself as a spotless Sacrifice for an odour of a sweet smell. For that which is brought to the Divine Altar was sanctified, or called holy according to the law.

Christ therefore gave His Own Body for the life of all, and again through It He maketh Life to dwell in us; and how, I will say as I am able. For since the life-giving Word of God indwelt in the Flesh, He transformed it into His Own proper good, that is life, and by the unspeakable character of this union, coming wholly together with It, rendered It life-giving, as Himself is by Nature. Wherefore the Body of Christ giveth life to ALL WHO PARTAKE OF IT. For it expels death, when It cometh to be in dying men, and removeth corruption, full in Itself perfectly of the Word which abolisheth corruption…

53 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have not life in you.

Long-suffering truly and of great mercy is Christ, as one may see from the words now before us. For in no wise reproaching the littleness of soul of the unbelievers, He again richly gives them the life-giving knowledge of the Mystery, and having overcome, as God, the arrogance of them that grieve Him, He tells them those things whereby they shall (He says) mount up to endless life. And how He will give them His Flesh to eat, He tells them not as yet, for He knew that they were in darkness, and could never avail to understand the ineffable: but how great good will result from the eating He shews to their profit, that haply inciting them to a desire of living in greater preparation for unfading pleasures, He may teach them faith. For to them that have now believed there follows suitably the power too of learning. For so saith the prophet Isaiah, If ye will not believe neither yet shall ye understand. It was therefore right, that faith having been first rooted in them, there should next be brought in understanding of those things whereof they are ignorant, and that the investigation should not precede faith.

For this cause (I suppose) did the Lord with reason refrain from telling them how He would give them His Flesh to eat, and calls them to the duty of believing before seeking. For to them that had at length believed He brake bread, and gave to them, saying, Take, eat, This is My Body. Likewise handing round the Cup to them all, He saith, |418 Drink of it all of you, for this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is being shed for many for the remission of sins. Seest thou how to those who were yet senseless and thrust from them faith without investigation. He explaineth not the mode of the Mystery, but to those who had now believed, He is found to declare it most clearly? Let them then, who of their folly have not yet admitted the faith in Christ, hear, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you. For wholly destitute of all share and taste of that life which is in sanctification and bliss, do they abide who do not through the mystical Blessing receive Jesus. For He is Life by Nature, inasmuch as He was begotten of a Living Father: no less quickening is His Holy Body also, being in a manner gathered and ineffably united with the all-quickening Word. Wherefore It is accounted His, and is conceived of as One with Him. For, since the Incarnation, it is inseparable; except as regards the knowledge that the Word Which came from God the Father, AND THE TEMPLE FROM THE VIRGIN, are not indeed the same in nature (for the Body is not consubstantial with the Word from God), yet are they One by that coming-together and ineffable concurrence. And since the Flesh of the Saviour hath become life-giving (as being united to That which is by Nature Life, the Word from God), WHEN WE TASTE IT, then have we life in ourselves, we too united to It, as It to the indwelling Word. For this cause also, when He raised the dead, the Saviour is found to have operated, not by word only, or God-befitting commands, but He laid a stress on employing His Holy Flesh as a sort of co-operator unto this, that He might shew that It had the power to give life, and was already made one with Him. For it was in truth His Own Body, and not another’s. And verily when He was raising the little daughter of the chief of the Synagogue saying, Maid, arise, He laid hold of her hand, as it is written, giving life, as God, by His All-Powerful command, and again, giving life through the touch of His Holy Flesh, He shews that there was one kindred operation |419 through both. Yea and when He went into the city called Nain, and one was being carried out dead, the only son of his mother, again He touched the bier, saying, Young man, to thee I say, Arise. And not only to His Word gives He power to give life to the dead, but that He might shew that His Own Body was life-giving (as I have said already), He touches the dead, thereby also infusing life into those already decayed. And if by the touch alone of His Holy Flesh, He giveth life to that which is decayed, how shall we not profit yet more richly by the life-giving Blessing when we also TASTES IT? For It will surely transform into Its own good, i. e., immortality, those who partake of It.

And wonder not hereat, nor ask thyself in Jewish manner, How? but rather consider that water is cold by nature, but when it is poured into a kettle and brought to the fire, then it all but forgets its own nature, and goes away unto the operation of that which has mastered it. We too then in the same way, even though we be corruptible through the nature of our flesh, yet forsaking our own infirmity by the immingling of life, are trans-elemented to Its property, that is, life. For it needed, it needed that not only should the soul be re-created through the Holy Ghost into newness of life, but also that this gross and earthly body should by the grosser and kindred participation be sanctified and called to incorruption. But let not the Jew sluggish of understanding ever suppose that a mode of some new mysteries has been discovered by us. For he will see it in the older books, I mean those of Moses, already fore-shadowed out and bearing the force of the truth, for that it was accomplished in outward forms too. For what (tell me) shamed the destroyer? what provided that their forefathers also should not perish along with the Egyptians, when death, the conqueror of all, was arming himself against the firstborn? is it not manifest to all, that when they, in obedience to the Divine Law sacrificed the lamb, and having tasted of its flesh anointed the doorposts with the blood, death was compelled to pass them by, |420 as sanctified? For the destroyer, that is, the death of the body, was arrayed against the whole nature of man, by reason of the transgression of the first-formed man. For then first did we hear, Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. But since Christ was about to overthrow the so dire tyrant, by existing in us as Life through His Holy Flesh, the Mystery was fore-typified to them of old, and they tasted of the flesh of the lamb, and were sanctified and preserved by its blood, he that was appointed to destroy passing by, by the appointment of God, those who were partakers of the lamb. Why then art thou angry, O Jew, at being now called from the types to the truth, when Christ says, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have not life in you? albeit thou oughtest to come with more confidence to the comprehending of the Mystery, pre-instructed by the books of Moses, and by most ancient figures led most undoubtingly to the duty of faith. (Commentary on John, Book 4)

And since the deluded heretic chooses to propound his false views in his folly, and says that no argument will induce those who as it were distort the aim of the words which are before us from their right meaning, and attribute to them a reference to the Incarnation of Christ, for we were not united to Him in the body, nor yet did the Apostles as branches abide in the body of Christ, nor were they after this fashion connected with Him, but in temper of mind and faith unfeigned; let us briefly reply to this, and show him that he is altogether astray, and does not follow aright the holy writings. For that we are spiritually united with Christ in a disposition made conformable to perfect love, in true and uncorrupted faith, in virtue and purity of mind, the statement of our doctrine will no way deny. For we confess that he is |370 quite right in saying this; but in venturing to say that no reference is intended to our union with Him after the flesh, we will point out that he is wholly out of harmony with the inspired writings. For how could it be disputed, or what right-minded man could deny, that Christ is the Vine in this relation? And we, as being branches after a figure, receive into ourselves life out of and proceeding from Him, as Paul says: For we are all one body in Christ, seeing that we who are many are one bread: for we all partake of the one bread. And let any one account for this and give us an interpretation of it without reference to the power of the blessed mystery. Why do we receive it within us? Is it not that it may make Christ to dwell in us corporeally also by participation and communion of His Holy Flesh? Rightly would he answer, I deem. For Paul writes, that the Gentiles have become fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers, and fellow-heirs of Christ. How are they shown to be “embodied”? Because, being admitted to share THE HOLY EUCHARIST, they become one body with Him, just as each one of the holy Apostles. For why did he (S. Paul) call his own, yea, the members of all as well as his own, the members of Christ? For he writes thus: Know ye not that your members are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ, and make them members of a harlot? God forbid. And the Saviour Himself says: He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, abideth in Me, and I in him. For here it is especially to be observed that Christ saith that He shall be in us, not by a certain relation only, as entertained through the affections, but also by a natural participation. For as, if one entwineth wax with other wax and melteth them by the fire there resulteth of both one, so through the participation of the Body of Christ and of His precious Blood, He in us, and we again in Him, are co-united. For in no other way could that which is by nature corruptible be made alive, unless it were bodily entwined with the Body of That Which is by nature |371 Life, the Only-begotten. And if any be not persuaded by my words, give credence to Christ Himself, crying aloud: Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up in the last day. Thou nearest now Himself plainly declaring that, unless we “eat His Flesh, and drink His Blood,” we “have not in ourselves,” that is, in our flesh, “Eternal Life.” But Eternal Life may be conceived to be, and most justly, the Flesh of that which is Life, that is, the Only-begotten. And how or in what manner this raises us up on the last day hear now; and I will not scruple to tell you. For since the Life, that is the Word which shone forth from God the Father, took unto Himself flesh, the flesh became transformed into a living principle, and it is inconceivable that the life should be vanquished by death. Therefore, since the life is in us, it will not endure the bondage of death, but will wholly vanquish corruption, since it cannot endure its results. For corruption does not inherit incorruption, as Paul says. For if Christ uses the emphatic expression, I will raise him up, He not only invested His own Flesh with the power of raising those who are asleep, but the Divine and Incarnate Word, being one with His own Flesh, says, I will raise him up, and with good reason. For Christ is not severed into a duality of Sons, nor can any one think that His Body is alien from the Only-begotten, as no doubt no one could maintain that the body in which the soul dwells is alien from it.

When then by these disquisitions Christ has been shown to us to be the Vine in this sense, and we the branches, inasmuch as we partake in a fellowship with Him that is not merely spiritual BUT ALSO CORPOREAL, why does he talk so vainly, asserting that, since our dependence on our fellowship with Him is not corporeal, but consisting rather in faith and disposition to love according to the law, He did not call His own Flesh, he says, the vine, |372 but rather His Godhead?And yet, why, some one may say, does he reject the interpretation that is more fitting and appropriate to the passage, and hasten to adopt one widely divergent? For shall we not grant that Christ is the Vine in a more appropriate way also according to the fellowship of the flesh, and that we are branches through the similarity of our nature? For that which proceeds from the vine is of like nature with it. And this we say, not as attempting to deny the possibility of union with Christ by right faith and sincere love, but rather from a wish to point out that Christ is the Vine and we are the branches, both in a spiritual and corporeal sense.

Further, the statement of the truth is simple and obvious; but our adversary, in his wickedness, disdains the admission that Christ was the Vine in a corporeal sense also, as conferring His own Life on the branches, that is to say on us, just as the visible and earthly vine confers life on the branches that cling to it. He distorts and does violence to the meaning of the thought, making it have reference only to His Godhead. For he thought that he might thus bring a calumny against it, raising this ignorant contention: “If the Son is the Vine,” he says, “and the Father the Husbandman, and the Son differs in nature from Him, as in the figure of the vine, the Son will not be of the same Substance with the Father.” (Ibid., Book 10)

FURTHER READING

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM VERSUS CALVINISTS

EARLY CHURCH ON PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD

It may come as a surprise for Protestants to learn that prayers and offerings for dead Christians were an early and widespread practice observed by the universal Church. What makes this rather intriguing is that the Christians did not invent this custom, but rather inherited it from the Jews that came before them. It was the rather unfortunate and pernicious influence of John Calvin that led to the Protestant rejection of this universal observance of the early Church.

These preceding facts are even admitted by Protestant authorities:

PRAYER FOR THE DEAD: A custom which, springing from natural and laudable affection, is found among very diverse peoples. It has a connection, in thought at least and often in fact, with that variety of sacrifice called vicarious, in which intercession is believed to be potential for the release of another from the consequences of that other’s misdeeds. Its existence among the Jews in the second century before Christ is proved by II Mace. xii. 43-45, in which passage it is stated that not only prayer but sacrifice for the dead was offered by Judas, and the manner of statement shows that the deed was not unusual and was reckoned praiseworthy. But no Old-Testament passage can be quoted in favor of the custom.

There can be little question that from Judaism the practise passed over to the Christian Church. Attempts have been made to justify the custom by reference to the teaching of Jesus in such passages as Matt. xii. 32, but such inferences are regarded as strained. A more secure scriptural basis is afforded by the famous passage I Pet. iii. 19-20, cf. iv. 6, which is, however, sometimes brought into a forced connection with Zach. ix. 11. Combined with the vogue given by Jewish custom and the affection and hope which reached beyond the grave, this passage gave sanction to the practise in the early Christian Church. Tertullian is the earliest Christian writer who makes reference to prayers for the dead as customary (De exhortatione castitatis, xi.; De anima, Iviii.; De monogamia, x.; De corona, iii.; Eng. transls. in ANF, vols. iii. iv.). Similar testimony is given by Amobius (Adv. gentes, iv. 36), Cyprian (Ep. i. of Oxford ed., 1xv. in ANF, v. 367), Cyril of Jerusalem (Mystagogikai catecheseis, v. � 7), Augustine (“City of God,” xxi. 13; De cura pro mortuis, i. and iv.), Chrysostom (Commentary on Phil., hom. 3), Dionysius the Areopagite (Hierarchia ecclesiastics, last chap.), and Apostolic Constitutions, VIII., ii. 12, iv. 41 (where the liturgical form is given). By some of these Fathers the custom was regarded as OF APOSTOLIC INSTITUTION. That the practise was strengthened by the idea of the solidarity of the Church as including the living and the dead is not unlikely, and a lingering influence of the classical Hades (q.v.) as a sort of middle state may have had its influence. The general practise of the early Church is further evinced by mortuary inscriptions. In view of all this it is not surprising that the prayer for the dead entered the liturgies, appearing in those of St. Mark, St. James, the Nestorian, Ambrosian, and Gregorian, and the Gallican. The development of the doctrine of Purgatory (q.v.), which in order of time followed the custom, fixed more firmly, if possible, the custom, and there developed in the West the Office (or Mass) for the Dead and the Missa de sanctis, the former at least as early as the sixth century. The offering of these prayers was FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES particularly connected with the Eucharist. At the Reformation the practise fell into disrepute among Protestants, largely on the initiative of Calvin, and practically the entire Protestant Church rejects the custom. The Book of Common Prayer retains traces of the practise, which has not been expressly prohibited in the Anglican Church, and is indeed followed in certain parts.

GEO. W. GILMORE.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hierurgia Anglicana, pp. 320-324, London, 1848 (gives examples of mortuary inscriptions containing prayers for the dead); J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, pp. 585-586, ib. 1870; F. G. Lee, The Christian Doctrine of Prayer for the Departed, ib. 1875; H. M. Luckock, After Death, ib. 1881; E. H. Plumptre, Spirits in Prison, New York, 1885; A. J. Anderson, Is it Right to Pray for the Dead? London, 1889; H. T. D., The Faithful Dead. Shall we pray for them? ib. 1896; E. T. d’E. Jesse, Prayers for the Departed, ib. 1900; C. H. H. Wright, The Intermediate State and Prayers for the Dead, ib. 1900; H. Falloon, The Blessed Dead: do they need our Prayers? ib. 1905; D. Stone, The Invocation o Saints, new ed., ib. 1910 (favors the practise); DCA, f. 267-274, ii. 1202-03, 1437-38. (Philip Schaff, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IX: Petri – Reuchlin https://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/iv.iv.xiii.htm; emphasis mine)

In support of the above I directly quote from Tertullian regarding the observance of praying and offering the Eucharist for the dead in Christ. All bold emphasis is mine:

Chapter 3

And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. (De Corona (The Chaplet))

Elsewhere, Tertullian refers to the custom of widows/widowers who pray and offer sacrifices for their deceased spouses:

“… Indeed, she prays for his soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship (with him) in the first resurrection; and she offers (her sacrifice) on the anniversaries of his falling asleep. For, unless she does these deeds, she has in the true sense divorced him, so far as in her lies; and indeed the more iniquitously — inasmuch as (she did it) as far as was in her power — because she had no power (to do it); and with the more indignity, inasmuch as it is with more indignity if (her reason for doing it is) because he did not deserve it…” (On Monogamy, Chapter 10. St. Paul’s Teaching on the Subject)

Chapter 11. The More the Wives, the Greater the Distraction of the Spirit

For (in that case) the shame is double; inasmuch as, in second marriage, two wives beset the same husband — one in spirit, one in flesh. For the first wife you cannot hate, for whom you retain an even more religious affection, as being already received into the Lord’s presence; for whose spirit you make request; for whom you render annual oblations. Will you stand, then, before the Lord with as many wives as you commemorate in prayer; and will you offer for two; and will you commend those two (to God) by the ministry of a priest ordained (to his sacred office) on the score of monogamy, or else consecrated (thereto) on the score even of virginity, surrounded by widows married but to one husband? And will your sacrifice ascend with unabashed front, and — among all the other (graces) of a good mind — will you request for yourself and for your wife chastity? (On Exhortation to Chastity)

Cyril of Jerusalem was another early witness to this custom of praying and offering the eucharist for the dead in Christ. All capital emphasis is mine:

7. Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; THAT HE MAY MAKE THE BREAD THE BODY OF CHRIST, AND THE WINE THE BLOOD OF CHRIST; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.

8. Then, after the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless service, is completed, over that sacrifice of propitiation we entreat God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world; for kings; for soldiers and allies; for the sick; for the afflicted; and, in a word, for all who stand in need of succour we all pray AND OFFER THIS SACRIFICE.

9. Then we commemorate also THOSE WHO HAVE FALLEN ASLEEP BEFORE US, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that AT THEIR PRAYERS AND INTERCESSIONS God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops WHO HAVE FALLEN ASLEEP BEFORE US, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be A VERY GREAT BENEFIT TO THE SOULS, FOR WHOM THE SUPPLICATION IS PUT UP, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth…

20. After this ye hear the chanter inviting you with a sacred melody to the communion of the Holy Mysteries, and saying, O taste and see that the Lord is good. Trust not the judgment to your bodily palate no, but to faith unfaltering; for they who taste are bidden to taste, NOT BREAD AND WINE, BUT THE ANTI-TYPICAL BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST. 21. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, RECEIVE THE BODY OF CHRIST, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch OF THE HOLY BODY, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, THAT NOT A CRUMB FALL FROM YOU of what is more precious than gold and precious stones? (Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 23)

FURTHER READING

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM VERSUS CALVINISTS

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM VERSUS CALVINISTS

I am beginning a new series where I will be quoting the very church fathers, writers, theologians and/or apologists that Calvinists will often reference in order to mislead folks into thinking that these early Christians held to beliefs similar to their own. I will prove that these Calvinists are being inconsistent and/or dishonest in doing so since these very early authorities taught doctrines, which explicitly contradict Calvinistic beliefs.

I begin with the testimony of Cyril of Jerusalem, whom specific Calvinist apologists love to quote-mine. All emphasis will be mine.

COMMUNION AND PRAYERS OF/FOR THE DEAD IN CHRIST

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

4. For since man is of twofold nature, soul and body, the purification also is twofold, the one incorporeal for the incorporeal part, and the other bodily for the body: the water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul; that we may draw near unto God, having our heart sprinkled by the Spirit, and our body washed with pure water. Hebrews 10:22 When going down, therefore, INTO THE WATER, think not of the bare element, but look for salvation by the power of the Holy Ghost: for without both you can not possibly be made perfect. It is not I that say this, BUT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, who has the power in this matter: FOR HE SAYS, UNLESS A MAN BE BORN ANEW (and He adds the words) OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:3 Neither does he that is baptized with water, but not found worthy of the Spirit, receive the grace in perfection; nor if a man be virtuous in his deeds, BUT RECEIVE NOT THE SEAL BY WATER, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine, FOR IT IS JESUS WHO HAS DECLARED IT: and here is the proof of the statement from Holy Scripture. Cornelius was a just man, who was honoured with a vision of Angels, and had set up his prayers and almsdeeds as a good memorial before God in heaven. Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them that believed, and they spoke with other tongues, and prophesied: and after the grace of the Spirit the Scripture says that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 10:48; in order that, the soul having been born again by faith , THE BODY ALSO MIGHT BY THE WATER PARTAKE OF THE GRACE…

10. If any man receive NOT BAPTISM, HE HAS NOT SALVATION; except only Martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom. For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. For martyrdom also the Saviour is wont to call a baptism, saying, Can you drink the cup which I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with Mark 10:38? And the Martyrs confess, by being made a spectacle unto the world, and to Angels, and to men 1 Corinthians 4:9; and you will soon confess:— but it is not yet the time for you to hear of this…

12. For you go down into the water, bearing your sins, but the invocation of grace , having sealed your soul, suffers you not afterwards to be swallowed up by the terrible dragon. Having gone down dead in sins, YOU COME UP QUICKENED IN RIGHTEOUSNESS. For if you have been united with the likeness of the Saviour’s death Romans 6:5, you shall also be deemed worthy of His Resurrection. For as Jesus took upon Him the sins of the world, and died, that by putting sin to death He might rise again in righteousness; so thou by going down into the water, and being in a manner buried in the waters, as He was in the rock, ART RAISED AGAIN WALKING IN NEWNESS OF LIFE. (Ibid., Lecture 3)

6. Let no one then suppose that Baptism is merely the grace of remission of sins, or further, that of adoption; as John’s was a baptism conferring only remission of sins: whereas WE KNOW FULL WELL, THAT AS IT PURGES OUR SINS, AND MINISTERS TO US THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST, so also it is the counterpart of the sufferings of Christ. For this cause PAUL just now cried aloud AND SAID, Or are you ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus, were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into His death. These words he spoke to some who were disposed to think that Baptism ministers to us the remission of sins, and adoption, but has not further the fellowship also, by representation, of Christ’s true sufferings. (Ibid., Lecture 20)

MARY: THE VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD

19. Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: THE VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD bears witness: the blessed place of the manger bears witness. Egypt bears witness, which received the Lord while yet young in the body: Symeon bears witness, who received Him in his arms, and said, Now, Lord, let Your servant depart in peace, according to Your word; for my eyes have seen Your salvation, which You have prepared before the face of all people. Luke 2:29-30 Anna also, the prophetess, a most devout widow, of austere life, bears witness of Him. John the Baptist bears witness, the greatest among the Prophets, and leader of the New Covenant, who in a manner united both Covenants in Himself, the Old and the New. Jordan is His witness among rivers; the sea of Tiberias among seas: blind and lame bear witness, and dead men raised to life, and devils saying, What have we to do with You, Jesus? We know You, who You are, the Holy One of God. Mark 1:24 Winds bear witness, silenced at His bidding: five loaves multiplied into five thousand bear Him witness. The holy wood of the Cross bears witness, seen among us to this day, and from this place now almost filling the whole world, by means of those who in faith take portions from it. The palm-tree on the ravine bears witness, having supplied the palm-branches to the children who then hailed Him. Gethsemane bears witness, still to the thoughtful almost showing Judas. Golgotha , the holy hill standing above us here, bears witness to our sight: the Holy Sepulchre bears witness, and the stone which lies there to this day. The sun now shining is His witness, which then at the time of His saving Passion was eclipsed : the darkness is His witness, which was then from the sixth hour to the ninth: the light bears witness, which shone forth from the ninth hour until evening. The Mount of Olives bears witness, that holy mount from which He ascended to the Father: the rain-bearing clouds are His witnesses, having received their Lord: yea, and the gates of heaven bear witness [having received their Lord ], concerning which the Psalmist said, Lift up your doors, O you Princes, and be lifted up you everlasting doors; and the King of Glory shall come in. His former enemies bear witness, of whom the blessed Paul is one, having been a little while His enemy, but for a long time His servant: the Twelve Apostles are His witnesses, having preached the truth not only in words, but also by their own torments and deaths: the shadow of Peter Acts 5:15 bears witness, having healed the sick in the name of Christ. The handkerchiefs and aprons bear witness, as in like manner by Christ’s power they wrought cures of old through Paul. Persians and Goths , and all the Gentile converts bear witness, by dying for His sake, whom they never saw with eyes of flesh: the devils, who to this day are driven out by the faithful, bear witness to Him. (Ibid., Lecture 10)

FURTHER READING

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA VERSUS CALVINISTS

EARLY CHURCH ON PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD

Prayers of Jews to Angels and Other Intermediaries

During the First Centuries of the Common Era

MEIR BAR-ILAN

I. Introduction

It has been claimed that angels with divine power have no place in Judaism, a monotheistic religion, as the strength of such a religion lies in the exclusivity of the divinity.¹ Angels can thus be no more than messengers, fulfilling God’s commandments. Indeed, in traditional Jewish prayer there appears to be no mention of the status of angels in general, nor of their role as intermediaries in prayer in particular. On the surface, the Siddur, or prayer book, would seem to indicate that Jews do not pray to angels or other divine agents, but solely to the Lord.²

This, however, is not the case. Extensive analysis of the various sources of Talmudic literature reveals that there is some substance to the polemical claims of early Christians that Jews at that time did pray to angels.³ The current paper seeks to bring together all the evidence of Jewish prayers to angels and other intermediaries that can be found in sources from the first centuries C.E.

Although no actual prayers have come down to us from this time, a strong indication that they did exist is the fact that a not inconsiderable number are known from a later period, the Middle Ages. We therefore begin with texts from the Middle Ages which are still being recited, and which clearly reveal a relationship to this type of prayers to Angels. In an area as conservative and traditional as prayer, it is more than reasonable to assume that these represent the continuation of a pre-existing convention.

Several examples of post-Talmudic prayers to angels can be found in the Jewish service even today. One such invocation, one of the most famous and most familiar to those who participate in daily prayer, is a piyyut generally included in the prayers for forgiveness (Selihot) recited before and after Rosh Hashana. The precise date of origin of this piyyut is difficult to establish. It is entitled ‘Usherers of Mercy’, and begins with the words:

In the Thirteen Principles of Faith, according to Maimonides, it is stated: “I believe with complete faith that the Creator, Blessed is His Name – to him alone is it proper to pray and it is not proper to pray to any other”; Siddur Kol Yaacov – Ashkenaz, New York: Art Scroll, 1990, p. 179.

The existence of the prohibition goes back to Scripture, see: A. Rofe, Faith in Angels in Scripture, Jerusalem: Makor 1979, p. 101 ff. (Hebrew). For the conventional approach in research to ‘intermediaries,’ see: M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980, II, pp. 234, 265, 295.

S. Carroll, ‘A Preliminary Analysis of the Epistle to Rehoboam’, Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha, 4 (1989), pp. 91-103.

Usherers of mercy, usher in our [plea for] mercy, before the Master of mercy, You who cause prayer to be heard, may you cause our prayer to be heard before the Hearer of prayer, You who cause our outcry to be heard, may you cause our outcry to be heard, before the Hearer of outcry, You who usher in tears, may you usher in our tears, before the King Who finds favor through tears. Exert yourselves and multiply supplication and petition before the King, God, exalted and most high, etc.⁴

In other words, the petitioner turns to the angels, asking them to pray on his behalf and to intervene for him so that his prayers and outcries come before God, as if the angels were the ‘gatekeepers’ or guards of God’s palace, determining what God should and should not hear. A similar plea is voiced in the song recited in the Ne‘illah service, (the concluding service of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement): ‘Angels of mercy, servants of the Supreme, accost God with the best thoughts, perhaps he will show pity to the poor begging people [perhaps he will show pity]’.⁵

Another piyyut, included in the Selihot until the present time, was composed by Amittai, a paytan who lived in Italy (Oria) at the end of the ninth century. It opens with the attributes of the Lord: ‘The Lord, slow to anger and abounding in kindness,’ and continues with the supplication: ‘Attribute of mercy, turn on our behalf and enter your pleas before your Creator, and ask for mercy on behalf of your people,⁶ for every heart is ailing and every head is sick’.⁷ From a later period comes a prayer, familiar as well from the prayer book, recited just before the blowing of the shofar (while ‘seated’):⁸

And so may it be Thy will Lord our God and God of our fathers that all the angels appointed to oversee the shofar and its various sounds will ascend before Your Seat of Glory and recommend favorably for us to atone for our sins.⁹

D. Goldschmidt, The Order of Selihot (Penitential Prayers) According to the Polish Rite, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1965, introduction pp. 11-12 (Hebrew). For the controversy over ‘Angels of Mercy’, see: M. Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980, pp. 192 ff. J. Yahalom, Poetry and Society in Jewish Galilee of Late Antiquity, Tel-Aviv: Hakibutz Hameuchad, 1999, p. 54 (Hebrew).

D. Goldschmidt, Mahzor for the Days of Awe, 2, Yom Kippur, Jerusalem: Qoren, 1970, p. 764 (Hebrew). The use of the Hebrew word higayon hints at the post-Talmudic period as the period in which the hymn was composed.

Goldschmidt notes that the precedent for this notion can be found in Hekhalot Rabbati 13,2 (S. A. Wertheimer, Batei Midrashot, Jerusalem: Reuven Mass, l980, I, p. 88; P. Schäfer, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1981, p. 76, paragraph 172).

Goldschmidt, The Order of Selihot, p. 208. The hymn is also recited in the Ne’illah prayer on Yom Kippur. See: Goldschmidt, Mahzor for the Days of Awe, 2, Yom Kippur, pp. 663-664 (Hebrew). A similar hymn is Shlomo ben Menachem’s ‘Thirteen Attributes’ also recited in the Selihot service (Goldschmidt, The Order of Selihot, p. 95).

It is worth citing here the end of the “personal” prayer recited by the Cantor before the Mussaf service entitled ‘I am but poor of deed’ (Goldschmidt, Mahzor for the Days of Awe, 1, Rosh Hashana, p. 147): ‘That all the angels who are masters of prayer bring my prayer before the Seat of Your Glory,’ etc.

It seems then that prayers to angels are preserved to this day in the Orthodox Jewish prayer service,¹⁰ and for one reason or another, most of them seem to be recited in proximity to the period of the Days of Awe.¹¹ Not surprisingly, such invocations aroused the rage of halachic authorities, who sought to expunge them from the prayer-book or, at the very least, to disguise their meaning.¹²

As stated above, these prayers, composed over hundreds of years during the Middle Ages, are still being recited while no Talmudic prayers of this kind have survived. However, it is assumed that these late prayers were continuing a tradition from the Mishnah and Talmud periods or the first centuries C.E. (if not earlier). Now we can begin to work backwards, and after having referred to the relatively well-known prayers to angels from “recent” times, we can confront those ancient prayers that have escaped notice since they were somehow “rejected” during the centuries. In spite of the general belief that there were no prayers to angels from these early times, we shall attempt to show, upon closer examination of the sources, various indications of their existence.¹³

PT Ber 9:1, 13a, cites the following (presumably in the name of the Lord):

If a person faces trouble, he should not cry out to the angels Michael or Gabriel. But he should cry out to me, and I will immediately answer him. In this regard [it says], ‘All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be delivered’ [Joel 2:32].¹⁴

This is presumed to be the only source in Rabbinic literature from which we learn that Jews had been accustomed to praying to angels,¹⁵ and that the sages prohibited the practice.¹⁶ However, in spite of this prohibition, prayers to angels can still be found in Talmudic texts. In reference to the Midrash of Canticles, for example, Tanya Rabbati, laws of Rosh Hashana, paragraph 72, there is this quotation:

Goldschmidt, Mahzor for the Days of Awe, 1, Rosh Hashana, p.145; M. Bar-Ilan, ‘The Fate of Joshua Prince of Presence in Scientific(?) Research,’ Sinai, 101 (1988), pp.174-181 (Hebrew).
Additional examples: ‘Angels of the tears of the wretched endure for hours like the scent of a consuming fire’ (by Moshe bar Shabtai. See: D. Goldschmidt, Mahzor for the Days of Awe, 1, Rosh Hashana, Jerusalem: Qoren, 1970, p. 125)
The proximity of prayers to angels to Rosh Hashana may derive from the mystic character of Rosh Hashana (and Yom Kippur) as evident in the many times angels mentioned in the liturgy of these days, as opposed to the other days in the year.
Avraham ben Eliezer Halevi, ‘Instruction on the Question of the Angels,’ Kerem Hemed, 9 (1856), pp. 141-148 (Hebrew).
See: Nils Johansson, Parakletoi, Lund 1940.
Translation from: Tzvee Zahavy, The Talmud of the Land of Israel, vol. 1, Berakhot, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1989, p. 314.
Not only Rabbinic Jews were praying to Angels), as is stated in I Enoch 104,1: ‘I swear unto you that in heaven the angels will remember you for good before the glory of the great One.’
According to J. Heinemann [Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns (translated by Richard S. Sarason), Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1977, p. 249]: ‘It

In the Midrash of Canticles on the verse ‘I adjure you’, the community of Israel says to the angels monitoring the gates of prayer and the gates of tears: convey my prayer and tears to the Holy One blessed be He and be you advocates before Him to forgive me the wicked deeds and the unintentional sins.¹⁷

Although this passage does not appear in the various versions of the midrash available today, it is claimed to be authentic, and if this is the case, the text was probably deleted by internal censorship because of its ‘problematic’ content which did not seem to suit religious teachings.¹⁸ As we shall now see, despite these attempts, Talmudic literature reveals examples of appeals to intermediaries.

Prayers To Angels and To Celestial and Earthly Bodies A. Aggadic Literature is a well-known fact that there are no prayers from the Talmudic period which are addressed to intermediaries of any sort – neither to angels, nor to saints or patriarchs’.

Eleazar ben Dardoya¹⁹

One of the best-known stories in the Babylonian Talmud describes a prayer to celestial bodies as intermediaries between man and God. It relates the story of repentance of Eleazar ben Dardoya, and appears in BT AZ 17a:

It was said of R. Eleazar b. Dordia that he did not leave out any harlot in the world without coming to her. Once, on hearing that there was a certain harlot in one of the towns by the sea who accepted a purse of denarii for her hire, he took a purse of denarii and crossed seven rivers for her sake. As he was with her, she blew forth breath and said: As this blown breath will not return to its place, so will Eleazar b. Dardoya never be received in repentance. He thereupon went, sat between two hills and mountains and exclaimed: O, ye hills and mountains, plead for mercy for me! They replied: How shall we pray for thee? We stand in need of it ourselves… So he exclaimed: Heaven and earth, plead ye for mercy for me… Sun and moon, plead ye for mercy for me!… Ye stars and constellations… Said he: The matter then depends upon me alone! Having placed his head between his knees, he wept aloud until his soul departed. Then a bath-kol was heard proclaiming: ‘Rabbi Eleazar b. Dordia is destined for the life of the world to come’.²⁰

R. Yehiel son of R. Zedekiah (?), Tanya Rabbati, Warsaw 1879 (photocopy, Jerusalem 1963), 77d (p.154).
See: M. Bar-Ilan, ‘The Occurrences and the Significance of the Yoser Ha’adam Benediction,’ HUCA , 56 (1985), Hebrew section, pp. 9-27. On this type of internal censoring see below.
In the printed edition and in manuscripts the name of Elazar’s father appears slightly different.

Here is a man, not necessarily from rabbinic circles, who, on feeling the need to offer up a prayer of supplication, a heartfelt plea for mercy (just before his death), turns to heaven and earth,²¹ and to the sun and the moon, perceiving the celestial bodies as if they were angels mediating between him and the Lord.²² Moreover, the narrator does not seem to express any objection to this prayer, since it is clear that after praying to the intermediaries, Eleazar b. Dardoya was invited into the world to come, and even granted the title ‘Rabbi’. As we shall see below, however, not only common people prayed to celestial bodies; the elite of Israel did so as well, at least according to the Aggadah.

Moses

R. Yehuda Hadassi, a famous Karaite scholar of the twelfth century and author of Eshkol Hakofer, cites an aggadic midrash which is not found in Talmudic literature. As part of his criticism of the Oral Law, he claims that when God sought to end the life of Moses, he tried to prevent this from happening:

When Moses saw the situation, he pleaded to the Lord to be a bird in His land… and was refused by the Lord. He went and beseeched the Land of Israel: plead for mercy for me from your Creator… he went and pleaded to Heaven… he went before the stars… he went before the sun and the moon… he went to Mt. Sinai and all the mountains… he went to the sea, the rivers and the lakes…

he went to the deserts… he went in the footsteps of Joshua… he went and fell at the feet of Eleazar the Priest… and likewise [he did] to Caleb ben Jepphunne, and likewise to the princes of Thy people Israel…²³

Although the story of Moses entreating intermediaries to plead for him before God does not appear in any ancient rabbinic source known today, it is likely that the Karaite scholar did not invent the story, but derived it from some type of rabbinic source. This supposition is supported by a seemingly parallel homily preserved only in an obscure Yemenite midrash.²⁴ According to this source:

Translation from: I. Epstein, The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nezikin, IV, London: The Soncino Press, 1935, p. 87 (hereafter the citations are from this edition). See also: M. Baer, ‘On the Atonement of Penitents in the Literature of the Sages’, Zion, 46 (1981), pp. 159-181 (Hebrew), especially 163; M. Bar-Ilan, Some Jewish Women in Antiquity, AtlantA, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1998, pp. 138-139.

Quite a similar prayer to the sun and the moon see in the Book of Adam and Eve 36, 2.

For the personification of celestial bodies, or more precisely, their perception as angels, see: M. Beit-Arié, Perek SHIRA: Introductions and Critical Edition, Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1967 (Hebrew, unpublished), 1, p. 47.

R. Yehuda Hadassi, Eshkol Hakofer, Goslaw 1836 (reprint: Israel 1969), 140b.

S. Lieberman, Yemenite Midrashim, 2^ND edition, Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1970, p. 33 (Hebrew). The Yemenite community preserved several midrashim in full, without subjecting them to internal censorship.

Moses raised his voice with cries and pleas, and pleaded to the earth: plead for mercy on my behalf before the Holy One Blessed Be He… Moses approached Heaven and said: I implore you, plead for mercy on my behalf before the Holy One Blessed Be He… He went to the sun and moon and pleaded before them to plead for mercy on him… Moses went to Mt. Sinai and pleaded that it plead for mercy on him… He went to the rivers and pleaded that they plead for mercy on him…²⁵

Thus the text in Eshkol Hakofer is an adaptation of an ‘original’ homily preserved in Yemen without the benefit of editing or ‘improvement’ by internal Jewish censors.²⁶ It would appear, therefore, that according to this tradition, even Moses prayed to intermediaries, including the heavens, the sun and the moon, Mt. Sinai(!),²⁷ rivers, some other “cosmic beings” and even to humans, such as Joshua, Eleazar and other leaders of Israel. Clearly, then, a Talmudic source (which was probably censored in a later period) reflects the belief that Moses prayed to various intermediaries, both celestial and human, to intervene on his behalf and ask the Lord to have pity on him.

B. Halachik Texts

The issue of appealing to intermediaries is addressed in M Hul 2:8:

If a man slaughtered [an animal] as a sacrifice to mountains, hills, seas, rivers, or deserts, the slaughtering is invalid.²⁸

This mishnah is cited in BT Hul 40a, where it is discussed in respect to a baraita found more concisely in T Hul 2:18:

He who slaughters for the sake of the sun, for the sake of the moon, for the sake of the stars, for the sake of the planets, for the sake of Michael, prince of the great host, and for the sake of the small earthworm²⁹ – lo, this is deemed to be flesh deriving from the sacrifices of corpses.³⁰

From a collection of homilies about Moses and his death: A. M. Haberman, Helkat Mehokek (The Portion of the Lawgiver), Jerusalem: Shoken, 1947, pp. 62 ff. (Hebrew); J. D. Eisenstein, Ozar Midrashim, (reprint), Israel 1969, II, pp. 368-369 (Hebrew).

R. Yehuda Hadassi’s addition of Moses turning to the ‘land of Israel’ and to the ‘deserts’ is not a substantive change. It seems to me that this Aggadic midrash can be associated with an excerpt from another Aggadah cited in additions to S. Z. Schechter, Avoth dR. Nathan, New York: Feldheim, 1967, pp. 156-157 (additions to version A, XII, p. 50). See also: E. Glickler Chazon, ‘Moses’ Struggle for His Soul: A Prototype for the Testament of Abraham, the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, and the Apocalypse of Sedrach’, The Second Century, 5 (1985-6), pp. 151-164.

Compare this tradition to that of the places where miracles occurred to the People of Israel in the Exodus from Egypt. See: M. Bar-Ilan, ‘Wonder Sites in the Land of Israel in Ancient Times,’ Judea and Samaria Studies, 5 (1995), pp. 229-239 (Hebrew).
I. Epstein, The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Kodashim, II, pp. 214-215.

The Babylonian Talmud sought to comprehend the difference in the terminology of the Mishnah and Tosefta, i.e., the “unfit slaughter” of the Mishnah and the “sacrifices of corpses” (=for the dead) of the Tosefta. Abbaye explains: ‘One refers to the mountain, the other to the divinity of the mountain’. More plausibly, however, the disparity seems to reflect different textual versions without any real difference in substance. Thus, uttering the name of one of those ‘intermediaries’ in connection with a ritual slaughter makes it void.³¹ It was, therefore, the intent of both the baraita and the Mishnah to ban sacrificial slaughter in which the slaughterer invokes an intermediary, either by name or by uttering the name of the angel appointed over it.

Clearly then, although the sages had established that the blessing recited at the time of the slaughter should be addressed to God,³² some Jews continued to invoke the names of angels, such as Michael, or those of specific mountains, lakes, and the like. Similarly, in M Hul 2:9 the sages state: ‘One may not slaughter [in such manner that the blood runs] into the sea, or into rivers…’ and the Talmud explains: ‘Why is it that a person may not slaughter into the sea?… because it might be said that he is slaughtering to the deity of the sea?.^’33

We might relate this answer back to the story of Moses appealing, for example, to Mt. Sinai. The appeal is not made to the inanimate object itself, but to the angel appointed over it, not to the earth of the Land of Israel but to its appointed angel. For instance, when offering a sacrifice to the sea, a person would say: ‘god of the seas (Poseidon, servant of the Lord) save me from this storm’.

In the same context, we might consider another law associated with this issue. BT AZ 27a cites a baraita³⁴ dealing with the laws of circumcision, and states:

Surely it has been taught: An Israelite may perform a circumcision on a Cuthean but a Cuthean should not [be allowed to] circumcise an Israelite, because he performs the circumcision in the name of Mount Gerizim, this is the opinion of R. Judah. Said R. Jose to him: Where is it at all to be found in the Torah that circumcision must be performed specifically for its purpose? But he may go on performing it even though he expires in the act.³⁵

Michael appears together with a lowly earthworm by way of contrast. In other words, the reference is to anyone who prays to intermediaries of any sort, from the greatest angel to the least of the divine powers.

J. Neusner, The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew, Fifth Division, Qodoshim, Atlanta, Georgia, Scholars Press, 1997, p. 73. Neusner left the Hebrew word shilshul untranslated while here the word was translated into ‘earthworm’.

See: J. Faur Halevi, Studies in the Rambam’s Mishne Torah, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1978, pp. 224 ff. (Hebrew).
T Ber 6:11, Lieberman edition, p. 36.

Translation from Epstein (supra, note 28), p. 220. See: R. Patai, Hamayim (The Water), Tel Aviv: Devir, 1936, pp. 136-137 (Hebrew).
T AZ 3:13, Zuckermandel edition, p. 464.

Thus, R. Jose differs with R. Judah by saying that the lack of intent does not nullify the circumcision (as it does in the case of sacrifice, for example). Indeed, we learn from this that in the second century, at least, it was the Samaritan custom to invoke the name of Mt. Gerizim when circumcising, similar to Moses appealing to Mt. Sinai in the Aggadah, or to the likelihood that some Jews regularly called on Mt. Moriah in their prayers. It is assumed that the Samaritans appealed to the angel appointed over the mountain not only at circumcisions, but also in the course of ritual slaughter, as Jews were accustomed to do, a practice condemned by the sages. This may very well explain why the sages taught in Mishnah Ber 9:2 that anyone seeing a mountain, ocean, or something similar is required to recite a blessing such as ‘Blessed be He Who created the Great Sea’. In other words, one should not invoke or be awed by the angelic officer appointed over these natural phenomena, but offer thanks only to God.

In general, then, we can say that the halachic midrashim cited here appear to reflect not only theoretical laws, but a reality in which the rituals of certain Jews included reference to a variety of servants and attendants of God, such as angels, seraphim, and the like. While the sages of the Mishnah considered this custom disgraceful and banned it, for other Jews it was apparently common practice. Such a case is seen with the author of Sefer Harazim who writes of purity on the one hand, but on the other hand refers to prayers to Helios (the sun) or to consulting with a ghost, practices already prohibited in the Pentateuch.³⁶ In other words, the doctrine of the sages alludes to Jews whose religious views were considered objectionable, as they were (in the opinion of the sages) syncretistic, that is, they implied serving God in partnership.

It is interesting to note that certain examples of the Judeo-Christian polemic from the fourth century onward reveal that the Jews condemned the Christians for worshiping objects, trees, and stones, and that certain Christians of that era construed these items to be sacred and viewed them more or less on the order of angels.³⁷ However, it would appear that these later views rebuked Christians for the very type of practices that had existed among the Jews themselves centuries before.

Just how commonplace the appeal to angels was is demonstrated by a baraita in BT Ber 60b (Dereh Eretz 11; Kalla Rabbati 9:13):

Translated from: I. Epstein (supra n. 20), p. 133. This version is the printed one, but it is likely that an error has crept in and it should read: ‘continues to circumcise <or continues to slaughter> until his/its soul expires’.
See: Sefer Harazim (Book of Secrets), M. Margaliot edition, Jerusalem: Yediot

Achronot, 1967, pp. 12-16. See also: Rachel Elior, ‘Mysticism, Magic, and

Angelology: The Perception of Angels in Hekhalot Literature’, Jewish Studies Quarterly, 1 (1993/94), pp. 3-53 (esp. 41-43); H. Mack, ‘The Unique Character of the Zippori Synagogue Mosaic and Eretz Israel Midrashim’, Cathedra, 88 (1998), pp. 39-56 (Hebrew).

See: N. H. Baynes, ‘The Icons before Iconoclasm’, HTR, XLIV (1951), pp. 93-106.

On entering a privy one should say: ‘Be honoured, ye honoured and holy ones the minister to the Most High. Give honour to the God of Israel. Wait for me till I enter and do my needs, and I return to you’.³⁸

Presumably, then, several times in the course of an ordinary day, a Jew would turn to angels and ask them not to accompany him to the privy. This custom, too, was later abolished because of objections to praying to angels.³⁹

III. Prayers to Saintly Individuals in Tannaitic Texts and Later

The custom of appealing to a revered holy person, whether a sage or prophet, is well known from Scripture. The luminary would serve as an intermediary between those in need of divine help and God by soliciting divine intervention and praying on their behalf.⁴⁰ Thus, for example, the people turned to the prophet and pleaded (Jer. 42:2): ‘Pray for us to the Lord your God.’ From the context it is clear that the Lord was their God as well, but they were apparently too timid to appeal to him directly. Similarly, the people begged Samuel (1 Sam. 12:19): ‘Intercede for your servants with the Lord your God that we may not die’, behavior that is explained by the verse immediately preceding this: ‘And the people stood in awe of the Lord and Samuel.’ Every charismatic is typically assumed to have been granted the power to mediate between his disciples and the divinity, and it seems obvious that a prayer could only be effective if the individual to whom the supplicant turned for help was someone the Lord was likely to listen to.

A key religious (and charismatic) figure whose concern for the people was expressed not only in his dealings with them, but also in his appeals to the Lord was Hanina ben Dosa.⁴¹ M Ber 5:5 states:

Translation from: I. Epstein, The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Zera‘im, London: The Soncino Press, 1948, p. 377.

Rabbi Joseph Karo, in Shulhan Arukh, Orah Haim, 3, 1, writes: ‘When one enters

the water closet, one says: be honored, you honored ones etc., but now it is not said’.

M. Greenberg, ‘Prayer’, Encyclopedia Miqrait, 8 (1982), pp. 896-922 (Hebrew); M. Greenberg, Lectures on Prayer in Scripture, Jerusalem: Akademon Press, 1981, pp. 17 ff. (Hebrew); Y. Muffs, ‘Between Law and Mercy: The Prayer of Prophets’, A. Shapira, ed., Torah Nidreshet, Tel-Aviv: Am Obed 1984, pp. 39-87 (especially 74 ff. Hebrew); Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to The Lord, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, pp. 262-280.

See: G.B.A. Zarfati, ‘Sages and Men of Deeds’, Tarbiz, 26 (1957) pp. 126-153 (Hebrew); S. Safrai, The Land of Israel and Its Sages in the Period of the Mishna and the Talmud, United Kibbutz Publishers 1984, pp. 144 ff. (Hebrew); Y. Frankel, Studies in the Spiritual World of the Legendary Tale, United Kibbutz Publishers, 1981, pp. 23 ff. (Hebrew); G. Vermes, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies, Leiden: Brill, 1975, pp. 178-214; S. Freyne, ‘The Charismatic’, G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. J. Collins (eds.), Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism – Profiles and Paradigms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 1980, pp. 223-258.

It was related of [R.] Hanina ben Dosa that he used to pray for the sick and say, this one will live. They said to him: how do you know? He replied: If my prayer comes out fluently, I know that he (= the patient) is accepted, but if not, then I know that he is rejected.⁴²

An expanded version appears in a baraita cited in BT Ber 34b:

Our Rabbis taught: Once the son of R. Gamaliel fell ill. He sent two scholars to R. Hanina ben Dosa to ask him to pray for him. When he saw them he went up to the upper chamber and prayed for him. When he came down he said to them: Go, the fever has left him; [by the sun]. They said to him: Are you a prophet? He replied: I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I learnt this from experience. If my prayer is fluent in my mouth, I know that he is accepted: but if not, I know that he is rejected.⁴³

The baraita goes on to refer to another incident of interest:

On another occasion it happened that R. Hanina ben Dosa went to study Torah with Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai. The son of R. Johanan ben Zakkai fell ill. He said to him: Hanina my son, pray for him that he may live. He put his head between his knees and prayed for him and he lived.⁴⁴

The extraordinary figure of R. Hanina ben Dosa has already been discussed by many scholars who study the world of the sages, and there is no need to expand. What is relevant, however, is the fact that some (although not all) of the Tannaim, viewed as authorities passing down the traditions of the Torah, sought a distinguished or saintly individual to intervene with God in some way on behalf of the ill. Even the greatest of the Tannaim, such as Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai, appealed to such people. This was accepted practice not only among the Tannaim, but among the Amoraim in Palestine as well. This might be understood from the following: ‘R. Phinehas b. Hama gave the following exposition: Whoever has a sick person in his house should go to a sage who will invoke [heavenly] mercy for him; as it is said (Prov. 16:14): “The wrath of a king is as messenger of death; but a wise man will pacify it”.’⁴⁵

A similar statement is found in BT AZ 8a: ‘[So also] said R. Hiyya b. Ashi in the name of Rab: Even though it has been said that one should pray for his needs only at “Who hearest prayer”, still if [for example] one has a sick person at home, he may offer [an extempore] prayer at the Benediction for the sick’.⁴⁶ In other words, a person is permitted to pray for a sick member of his household (his wife or children), and indeed to this day Jews are accustomed to doing so.⁴⁷ If this was accepted by thesages and their disciples, who were familiar with the theological problems of such a prayer, then it must certainly have been the norm among the simple folk.⁴⁸

Translation: I. Epstein (supra n. 38), p. 214.

Translation: I.Epstein (supra n. 38), pp. 215-216. Florence manuscript II I 7 9 contains minor discrepancies that are insubstantial.
Translation: I. Epstein (supra n. 36), p. 216.

BT BB 116a; translation: I. Epstein (supra n. 19), vol II, p. 478.

Translation: I. Epstein (supra n. 19), p. 35.

This is grounded in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 119; see also Yoreh Deah 335. Compare BT Ber 34a: ‘R. Jacob said in the name of R. Hisda: If one prays onbehalf of his fellow, he need not mention his name, since it says: “Heal her now, O God, I beseech Thee”’ [Translation: Epstein, p. 212].

This notion of appealing to a distinguished individual to intervene with the Lord is also reflected in the people’s plea to Honi the Circle Maker (Hame‘agel), another charismatic figure (M Taan 3:8), ‘to pray for rainfall’. We learn in BT Taan 23a that the sages also asked Abba Hilkiah, the son of the daughter of Honi, to pray (on their behalf) for rainfall, as it happened with Hanan the Hidden (BT Taan 23b), and the Gemara cites a number of similar examples in the same place.

Clearly, then, sources in Talmudic literature provide a wide range of instances of human intermediaries in prayer, from the legend of Moses appealing to Joshua bin Nun, Eleazar the Priest, and the nobles of Israel, and to the petitions to Honi Hameagel and to other ‘distinguished figures’. These sources clearly demonstrate what we are seeking to prove here, a fact which is not generally recognized: Jews in the period of the Mishnah and Talmud (like those who came before them) prayed not only to the Lord, but also to intermediaries.⁴⁹

IV. Prayers to the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in Legend

Since contact with the dead was considered to contaminate the living, in Biblical times, as in the tannaitic period, there were some people who took care not to be rendered impure in this way.⁵⁰ However, the gradual disappearance of the laws of purity and impurity enabled the people to begin to visit graves and solicit the help of the deceased. This practice is first related by Rava in Babylon, according to whom the spies went up to Hebron to prostrate themselves on the graves of the patriarchs (BT Sot 34b).⁵¹ Similarly, one of the Palestinian Amoraim of the third century believed in visiting cemeteries on fast days, ‘so that the dead shall plead for mercy on us’ (BT Ta‘an 16a)..⁵² Once the practice became widely established in popular circles, community leaders seem to have followed in their wake, also visiting graves and pleading with the dead to bring their prayers before the Lord.⁵³ The custom is described in greater detail in Lamentations Rabba (Buber) Petihta 24:

For example: 2 Enoch (Slavic) 4:6: ‘And they said to me: Man of God, pray for us to the Lord’; ibid, 13. 105: ‘And now my son do not say our father is with the Lord, and he will protect us and pray to offset our sins – none can help any one who has sinned’; II Thessalonians 3.1: ‘Finally, brethren, pray for us’. The Christian sources in this regard have been studied at length, see: A. R. C. Leaney, ‘The Johannine Paraclete and the Qumran Scrolls,’ J. H. Charlesworth, (ed.), John and the Dead Sea Scrolls, New York: Crossroad, 1990, pp. 38-61.

In The Words of Gad the Seer, verses 108-109, Tamar, the daughter of David, turns to her father (who is not present), appealing to him to mediate between her and God. See: M. Bar-Ilan, ‘The Date of The Words of Gad the Seer’, JBL, 109/3 (1990), pp. 477-493; M. Bar-Ilan, Some Jewish Women in Antiquity, pp. 93-94.

T. J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.
See further BT Hag 22b: ‘R. Joshua immediately went and prostrated himself on the graves of Beth Shammai, saying: I have sinned against you, bones of Beth Shammai, and if this is so with your hidden issues – then a fortiori with your open issues’. Here, however, forgiveness is asked of the dead, whereas in the case of the spies a request is made to the dead to intervene with God.

The Holy One Blessed Be He said to Jeremiah: Today I resemble a man who had an only son for whom he prepared the bridal canopy and the son died under the bridal canopy. And you feel no pain for Me or for my son. Go summon Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses for they know how to weep.⁵⁴

In other words, the prophet Jeremiah is sent by God to summon the Patriarchs, that is, to visit their graves and ask them to weep before Him. The preacher in Lamentations Rabba depicts a rather dramatic scene in which the Patriarchs ‘tore their clothes, placed their hands on their heads and shouted and wept up to the doors of the Holy Temple’. In contrast, the preacher in Genesis Rabba, apparently earlier than Lamentations Rabba, speaks not of the Patriarchs, but of the Matriarch Rachel:

‘So Rachel died and she was buried on the way to Ephrath…’ Why did Jacob bury Rachel on the way to Ephrath? Jacob foresaw that the exiles would pass by there [en route to Babylon]. Therefore he buried her there, so that she should seek mercy for them: “A voice is heard in Ramah… Rachel weeping for her children… Thus says the Lord, ‘Keep your voice from weeping… and there is hope for your future’… (Jer. 31:15-16).⁵⁵

Another reference to Rachel’s burial place appears in Pesikta Rabbati 3, and focuses on why she was not buried together with the Patriarchs:

God commanded Rachel to be buried there because it was known to Him and foreseen that a time was to come when the Temple would be destroyed and Jacob’s children would depart into exile. Whereupon they would go to the Patriarchs whom they would beseech to pray for them, but the Patriarchs would not avail the children of Israel. Then, before the setting forth on their way, they would go and embrace the tomb of Rachel, who would arise and beg mercy of the Holy One, blessed be He, saying to Him: Master of the Universe, hearken to the voice of my weeping and have mercy upon my children, or else pay the due bill which I present.⁵⁶ Forthwith the Holy One, blessed be He, would listen to the voice of her prayer.⁵⁷

BT Ta‘an 16a: ‘Why do people visit a cemetery? R. Levi bar Hama and R. Hanina differ; one says: we are considered as dead before You, and one says: so that the dead should plead for mercy on our behalf’…

This subject has been dealt with recently in: Z. Safrai, ‘Graves of the Righteous and Holy Places in Jewish Tradition’, E. Schiller (ed.), Zev Vilnay’s Jubilee Volume, II, Jerusalem: Ariel, 1987, pp. 303-313 (Hebrew); Y. Lichtenstein, From the Impurity of the Dead to His Sanctification, doctoral dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 1997, pp. 168-181 (Hebrew, unpublished).

Lam. Rabba, Pesikta, 24, S. Buber edition, pp. 24-25; Eicha Zuta, p. 64.

Genesis Rabbah (translated by J. Neusner), Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1985, III, p. 173.

This midrash relates explicitly to what is not spelled out in the earlier one. In Genesis Rabba, Rachel pleas for mercy from the Lord without being asked to, whereas in Pesikta Rabbati, she does so only after her sons come and beg her to intercede for them. In addition, the preacher was undoubtedly aware that Jews went to the Cave of Machpela in Hebron to ask the Patriarchs for mercy, as he must have seen this for himself. We can therefore deduce from Talmudic sources that the practice of appealing to the dead Patriarchs began in the Amoraic period, most probably emerging around their burial places in Hebron and Rachel’s tomb.

If we look outside of Talmudic literature we first encounter prayer at patriarchal tombs in the elegy of R. Elazar Haqalir. This is recited to this day on the Ninth of Av: ‘Then when Jeremiah went to the burial places of the Patriarchs and declared: Lovable bones, why lie you still? Your children are exiled and their houses are destroyed. What is become of the merit of the ancestors in the land of drought’…⁵⁸ Apparently, then, in the sixth or seventh centuries, the Jews in Palestine prayed at the tombs of the patriarchs in Hebron. The poet was a leader in prayer (and probably more) and although the custom is mentioned in rabbinical sources, the prayer itself is unknown, so the poet apparently ‘reconstructed’ the words said by the prophet. As it was composed only for the purposes of the elegy, however, it cannot be considered as authentic.

Not long after the time of Haqalir, a prayer to be recited at the grave of the prophet

Samuel was, in fact, composed, and reads in part:

Fortunate are you the faithful and friendly, fortunate the modest and the pious… because of your merit God will receive [the prayer of His people Israel], because of your merit God will bring to end [of our exile]… our master Samuel the prophet… [be dear] my soul in your eyes and the souls of your servants believing in your prophecy, who come to prostrate themselves on your grave, to implore the great and awesome Lord your God on behalf of the surviving remnant…⁵⁹

Thus, Talmudic literature retains a number of references to the custom of visiting graves. What is more, by the ninth century at the latest, special prayers were being written for the graves of the prophets of Israel, and it is more than reasonable to assume that prayers meant to be recited at the graves of the patriarchs in Hebron already existed at that time. Hence, praying at gravesites, a custom prohibited inScripture and condemned in later periods, appears to have been a norm more than a thousand years ago, even if the halachic authorities refused to admit it.

The translator added here in a footnote: ‘I.e., transfer my bones to Machpelah in Hebron’.

Pesikta Rabbati (translated by William G. Braude), New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1968, I. pp. 75-76 (piska 3).

D. Goldschmidt, ed., Order of Elegies for the Ninth of Ab: Polish Rite, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1968, p. 98 (Hebrew). The editor states that the hymn-writer relied on Lam Rabbati, Petihta 24, a text dealt with by Z. Safrai (supra note 55).

S. Assaf, ‘Ancient Prayers on the Grave of the Prophet Samuel’, Jerusalem, 1 (1948), pp. 71-73 (Hebrew).

V. Conclusion

The sources presented above clearly indicate that the Jews in Palestine in the Talmud period did not pray exclusively to God, but also to various intermediaries, including celestial bodies and natural phenomena, leaders, and the saintly, both living and dead. All of these were asked to pray to the Lord on behalf of the supplicant. This cannot be considered only as ‘popular religion’, since even the greatest of the Tannaim appealed to intermediaries to intercede with the Lord. At the same time, there are indications that the sages sought to ‘popularize’ prayer by teaching that God welcomes the prayers of all people, not only of the sages, the pious or the priest. Exodus Rabba 21:4 states:

‘Who hears prayer’—R. Judah bar Shalom reported in the name of R. Eleazar: A human being, if a poor man comes to say something to him—he does not listen to him; if a rich man comes to say something—he immediately listens and receives him. But the Holy One blessed Be He is not so, but all are equal before him—women and slaves and the poor and the rich… this is prayer and this is prayer: all are equal before God in prayer.

Notwithstanding this teaching, which reflects an attitude of equality among all believers in respect to prayer (precluding the need for intermediaries), it is clear that the appeal to angels and other intermediaries in the Judaism of the Talmudic period was not limited to a small circle. On the contrary, it was accepted by all levels of society, from the sages representing the religious norm to the broad ranks of the populace. Only later did theologians and religious philosophers seek to limit this practice, or at the very least, to disguise it.