Sep 29, 2025

Gisbertus Voetius: The Future Conversion of the Jews

 

The following is taken from volume 2 of Voetius' Select Disputations, pages 124-155.


ON THE GENERAL CONVERSION OF THE JEWS

Romans 11:25-27

Respondent: JOHANNES RONSENUS of Middelburg, Zeeland Date: November 26 & December 31, 1636

Among the prophecies of the New Testament, that concerning the general conversion or calling of the Jews is celebrated, which we shall now discuss. I. We shall present an analysis of the text. II. We shall resolve the principal controversy whether such a calling will be future. III. We shall outline the reason and manner of this calling.

The text which provides the foundation for this argument occurs in:

Romans 11:25-26-27: "For I do not want you to be ignorant..." etc.

The connection with the preceding passages is that when the Apostle, to blunt or rather to prevent the pride of the Gentiles, after other reasons adduced, had said that God is able to convert the Jews back to Himself, indeed also wills to do so (verses 23-24), he proved the latter point about God's will by revelation of this mystery now revealed, and previously indicated by the Prophets. Therefore, the summary or theme of this context is: The Future Conversion of the Jews Revealed by Paul.

The parts of this context are two: the former contains the preface (verse 25), the latter contains the actual prediction about the future conversion of the Jews (verses 25-26-27).

The preface has: 1. A description of this prediction from its characteristic, that it is a "mystery." 2. The instrumental and impulsive cause of this revelation, which was Paul's will (which must be believed to have been moved by the Holy Spirit, according to 2 Peter 1:22, 2 Timothy 3:16, with 1 Corinthians 7:40). 3. The purpose: proximate, that the Romans not be ignorant of it; remote, that they not be wise in their own estimation.

The prediction itself contains: 1. The antecedent of the conversion, namely the Hardening of the Jews, which he describes partly from the characteristic of quantity or extension "in part," partly from the circumstance of duration "until the fullness" etc. 2. The actual conversion, which he first describes from the subject "all Israel," and the end "shall be saved," then confirms with testimonies from the Old Testament (verses 26-27).

[Continuing with the doctrinal observations section...]

Setting aside the doctrines and uses that could be drawn from this text, we briefly add these textual observations in the manner of scholia:

I. πώρωσις (pōrōsis) - as in verse 7 "ἐπωρώθησαν" (they were hardened). And in 2 Corinthians 3:14, Mark 3:5, where "hardness of heart" appears. It is a metaphor taken from a callus in Greek πῶρος (pōros), which denotes hardness in the joints, also the tophus generated in arthritic and calculous patients - concerning which the sons of physicians should be consulted. The Vulgate improperly translates it in 2 Corinthians 3:14 as "blinded" (which is τύφλωσις, typhōsis); and in Romans 11:25, the same [translator] with Erasmus [renders it] "blindness," which is τύφλωσις and πώρωσις. Certainly in John 12:40, τύφλωσις and πώρωσις are manifestly distinguished. By some, Mark 3:5 is translated as "torpor": but this is also truly attributed metaphorically to the faithful from Luke 24:25, where they are called "slow," and Hebrews 5:11, where they are called "dull." For torpor properly [means] only difficulty and diminution of motion and sense in the limbs or in the whole body, stirred up by cold and compression of nervous bodies; sometimes it also denotes to physicians the weakness of the stomach in digesting food.

The Syriac correctly translates Mark 3:5 as קשיות (hardness) - just as the Greek glossary [gives] πώρωσις as "hardening" - which [term] it uses in this place and verse 7 and 2 Corinthians 3:14 as עורותא (blindness), and in John 12:40 אחשכו (they darkened).

Moreover, this πώρωσις is elsewhere called σκληρότης (Romans 2:5 with Hebrews 3:13, 15 and 4:7), σκληροκαρδία (hardness of heart), which is also attributed to believers (Mark 16:14), σκληροτράχηλοι (stiff-necked, Acts 7:51), and "the heart has become fat" (Acts 28:27), and "a heart of stone" (Ezekiel 36:26).

It is more fully described in Ephesians 4:18: "being darkened in understanding... because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart." And in Romans 11:8: "a spirit of stupor" (in Hebrew רוח תרדמה - Isaiah 29:10), of sleep, of stupor - concerning which Beza excellently [writes] in his notes.

Compare John 12:40, Acts 28:27. Briefly, this πώρωσις consists partly in blindness of mind (John 12:40) - which is indicated by the veil (2 Corinthians 3:14, Acts 5) - so that as to conscience it is "darkened" and "reprobate" (Romans 1:21, 28), and as to conscience strictly so-called, "cauterized" (1 Timothy 4:2); partly in hardness, aversion, and perversity of will, and hence perturbation and dizziness of all the affections. In which respect it is called "disobedience" (verse 30), which because it is total, hence as if from its characteristic [we call it] "insensibility," "being past feeling," "an impenitent heart" (Ephesians 4:18-19, Romans 2:5).

I wanted to note these things more fully, so that it may be clear that the state of the Jews is desperate, and no hope of salvation shines upon them, before they are converted to Christ. See and compare Romans 9:2-3, 30, 32 and 10:3, 21 and 11:7-10, 14-15, 20, and 2 Corinthians 3:14-15, Revelation 9:2, 1 John 2:23, John 3:36 and 8:21, 24, 36, 39, 42, 44, 1 Corinthians 16:22.

Problem: Does rejection and hardening posit, or necessarily bring with it, the sin against the Holy Spirit?

Response: By no means, as is clear from the fact that it is "impossible" (ἀδύνατον) for those sinning against the Holy Spirit to be renewed through repentance (Hebrews 6:4, 6). But for the Jews to be converted is "possible" (δυνατόν, Romans 11:23, 25). Moreover, for those [sinning against the Holy Spirit] one should not pray (1 John 5:16); but [one should pray] especially for the Jews (Romans 9:1-2 with 10:1). Finally, because those sinning against the Holy Spirit were illuminated and convicted of the truth (Hebrews 6). But the Jews, after universal rejection and hardening, were not inwardly illuminated; rather they are blinded, and a veil has been placed over their hearts (2 Corinthians 3).


II. ἀπὸ μέρους (apo merous) - "in part"

Calvin [says] "in some measure" or "to some extent" to temper the harshness of the word. The Ambrosian Commentator refers it to the duration of time, because this hardening will not last forever. Chrysostom and Theodoret [refer it] to the Jews, so that the sense is that it happened to some, not to all. More fully, Beza explains ἀπὸ μέρους as signifying two things: one, that not all were hardened, because there were remnants (verse 5, 7), and from that time up to this day some, however few, have been converted; the other, that this hardening of the greatest part of the Jews would not be perpetual, but only for a time, until etc., and then not only remnants of Israel, but all Israel would be saved.

III. πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται - "all Israel shall be saved"

The particle "all" should be taken here conveniently, as in Matthew 3:5, Colossians 1:9, Isaiah 40:5 and 69:23. For it is not absolutely and perfectly distributive. Therefore it denotes that the Jews will hasten to Christ in a mass, so that according to the greatest part, with denomination made, that nation or body of the nation is said to be converted - that is, their "fullness," which is opposed to the "diminishing" and "remnant" (verses 6, 12). Just as the fullness of the Gentiles has entered, although not every individual has entered.

Corollary: Therefore Thomas [Aquinas], Cajetan, and Dominic à Soto establish in vain from this that all and every individual Jew will be converted at the end of the world. Pererius and à Lapide note and reject this opinion in them. They also make Chrysostom the author of this opinion. But from his words such a thing cannot be certainly gathered.

IV. Concerning the entrance of the fullness of the Gentiles, and its determined time, we shall inquire elsewhere at length: in the Disputation on Gentilism.

V. καθὼς γέγραπται - "as it is written"

Two testimonies are joined together, cited from Isaiah 59:20-21 and Isaiah 27:9, according to the interpretation of the Septuagint, concerning the collation and exposition of which see Beza's notes and Junius Book 2 of Parallels, chapter 23, and Villet's commentary.


THE CONTROVERSY

A doubt is raised here about the text: whether some general and future conversion of the Jews is to be understood; or rather, whether the mystery which is unfolded here from the Prophets [concerns] only the conversion of the Israel of God, or spiritual [Israel] (Galatians 6:15) - that is, the fullness of the Gentiles and the remnants from the Jews, who were partly converted through the Apostles at that time, partly [will be converted] continuously up to the end of the world, although few.

The latter opinion is embraced by, among the Fathers: Theodoret, Augustine (Epistle 59), Jerome (on Isaiah chapter 11), Caesarius [as cited] by Gregory Nazianzen...

[Continuing through page 15...]

The Arguments from the Context:

First, because they are expressly said to be converted - "all Israel" - in opposition to the Gentiles: therefore necessarily the universality or community and body of the [Jewish] nation must be understood. Now truly, πᾶν (all) cannot be explained as referring to the particularity of the Jews - that is, to a few certain Jews - this is proven:

  1. Because πᾶς (all), or the syncategorematic term πᾶς (which also calls πλήρωμα - fullness), in the usage of Scripture and those speaking correctly, nowhere denotes particularity or fewness, specifically opposed to generality or multitude. Moreover, it would be harsh for something to be attributed to a race or nation absolutely, which nevertheless ought to be restricted to a very few, who compared with the whole race are of no name and number. I would not easily find someone to show me such accommodated enunciations and limited and improper predications in Scripture.
  2. Because πᾶν of this race is expressly opposed to remnants or only a few excepted and exempted from that race (verses 5-7, 8). Therefore the opposite cannot be predicated of the opposite here.
  3. Because πᾶν of the conversion is called πλήρωμα (fullness), πρόσληψις (receiving) (verse 22, 16). But the conversion of a few by metonymy of the adjunct or connected (examples of which trope occur in Romans 8:19, 2 Peter 3:12) is said in opposition to be ἥττημα (diminishing) (verse 12) - that is, in relation to πᾶν or the body of that race, which suffered diminution, when only a few were drawn away from the common mass, while all the rest were broken off (verses 15, 20).
  4. Because the same πᾶν should be understood here as in the rejection of the nation; but there the universality and body of the nation is understood (chapter 9:3, 11:7). Therefore also here. The reason for the consequence is that otherwise the comparison of unequals instituted by the Apostle would not stand, and from it the derived anticipation and repression of the boasting of the Gentiles, the consolation of the faithful, and the proclamation of the admirable vicissitude and revolution of divine mercy (verses 14-18, 22-23, 30-33).
  5. Because such πᾶν should be understood here as in the calling of the Gentiles; but there the fullness and body of the nations is understood, whence it is also called "the world" (verse 25 with 12). Therefore also here. The reason for the consequence is that otherwise the comparison of equals as to the calling of Jews and Gentiles would not stand, with the uses deduced from it; and [the conversion] would offer no other possibility than the absolute [possibility], not otherwise than in Matthew 3:9 and 26:53. The Jews and Gentiles were equal in that, just as before the advent of Christ the Gentiles walked in their own ways, with only a few excepted who from time to time gave their name to the Church of God, so also now with all Israel stumbling, a very few would approach Christ. But they were unequal in that the fullness of the Israelites would remain hardened: which inequality cannot be reduced to any equality, nor can the boasting of the Gentiles be repressed, unless there is recourse to so great and universal a grace (so to speak) toward the Jews, and thence a general conversion of them (verses 22-23, 30-33).

Second Argument: Because [the Apostle] speaks of a future conversion of the Jews, not yet begun at that time, much less for the most part completed. But that conversion of the Jews through the apostles, which our opponents want to be understood here, had been begun at that time, was in the process of happening, indeed was at its peak: for those few who were to be separated from the common mass of rejection were then flocking to Christ in great numbers (Acts 2:41, 5 and 13:43-44), so that that harvest ceased in the first years of apostolic ministry. For if any from the Jews were converted afterward, once universal hardening and rejection were established, they do not make up a number, nor are they to be compared even in the thousandth part with those converted through the apostles.

Moreover, I prove our antecedent:

  1. From the express words of the apostle (verses 23-24, 26, 31), where [he speaks] not of the act, or existence, or presence of conversion either in whole or in part, but of the potentiality or that which is in potentiality - in potentiality, I say, first Logical or non-repugnance (verses 23-24), then of the future or futurity (verses 25-26, 31).
  2. Because the conversion about which the apostle [speaks] here will succeed the rejection of the Jews (verses 23, 25, 31). But that harvest of conversion through Christ and the apostles preceded the rejection of the Jews in the order of nature and time (Matthew 10:5-6, Acts 13:46, Romans 11:2, 5, 7). For when the apostle was writing these things, rejection was already established by right, in fact, by promulgation.
  3. Because this conversion follows the calling of the Gentiles and the entrance of the fullness (verses 23, 14, 16-17, 25, 31). But the conversion of the Jews through the apostles did not follow but preceded the preaching of the Gospel among the Gentiles (Romans 1:16, Acts 1:8 and 10:34-35 and 13:46). For after that harvest in Judea was first completed, the apostles were dispersed throughout the whole world, to preach first to the Jews and to the diaspora, then to the Gentiles. We add [that] the completion of the entrance of the fullness of the Gentiles is not terminated in the apostolic age, but many have newly acceded afterward, and even today are acceding. Concerning which elsewhere, God willing, we shall discuss. See the disputation on Gentilism and the conversion of the Gentiles.
  4. Because it would follow that nothing new, nothing beyond what he had said in chapters 9, 10, and 11, nothing of a mystery about the conversion of the Jews (verse 25 and following) he would have inculcated, if indeed he understood only that conversion (and no other more illustrious one) about which [he spoke in] verse 2, 4, 7. Which is surely most absurd. For that [conversion] was known from the light of events, and fell into the senses of all, and had been sufficiently inculcated thus far by the Apostle. I would also like my reader to observe that the apostle is accustomed to employ the word "mystery" to signify a future thing still lying hidden in its causes, as in 1 Corinthians 15:50, Ephesians 3:4-5, Romans 11:25.

Third Argument: Because Israel not spiritual, as our opponents wish, but according to the flesh should be understood here. Which is proven from the fact that throughout this chapter, as also in chapters 9 and 10, he distinctly opposes spiritual Israel (that is, those called from Gentiles and Jews) to Israel according to the flesh, hardened and rejected. Concerning the former he rejoices and gives thanks to God; concerning the latter's fall, stumbling, and hardening (Romans 9:2 and 10:1-3 and 11:21-22) he grieves, and desires, awaits, promises and predicts their salvation.


Arguments from Collated Testimonies of Scripture and the Analogy of Faith

First: From the prophecies of the Old Testament cited by the apostle, to which we add Isaiah 43:20 and 41:17 and 45:23 and 54:1 and 66:1, Jeremiah 16:16 and 30:21, Ezekiel 16:52, Micah 7:11, Micah 1:10 and 3:5 and 6:1, Zechariah 12:2, 10 and 9:10, 14:6, Daniel 12:7, and Psalm 68:30.

All these and countless others, following the Apostle's lead, we think should be amplified, nor should their fulfillment be terminated in the narrow confines of the few converted through the apostles: for at that time, if you look at the body of the nation, it was rather the state and time of its rejection than of its acceptance or return, of diminishment rather than of the glorious exaltation so magnificently proclaimed by the Prophets. But if someone should object that that amplitude and splendor was fulfilled in the accession of the Gentiles to the Church, we will respond that the Jews are expressly distinguished from the Gentiles, and the calling of each is distinctly proposed. See the cited passages, Isaiah 54 with Joel 2:27-28, 32.

Second: From 2 Corinthians 3:15-16, where some conversion and removal of the veil is intimated as future after the rejection of the Jews, which can be no other than this conversion of ours. [Paul] speaks of the community of the nation, not of one and another to be converted from time to time.

Third: From Matthew 23:39-40, collated with Luke 21:24, where it is not obscurely intimated that after the desolation of the Jewish nation, there will be some salutary visitation of Christ and conversion. This argument, if it stood alone, would not convince the opponent: but it is by no means to be despised if it comes to the aid of the preceding ones. The English annotations to Luke 21 and Romans 11:2, 25 intimate this.

Fourth would be from Revelation 7:4-6, as indeed Chrysostom, Pareus, and Willetus argue from it. Brightman thinks otherwise in his commentary on the cited passage. We do not insist on this argument.

Fifth would be from Revelation 20, which Brightman urges, for he thinks that by the resurrection there [is meant] the conversion of the Jews. But we also leave this aside, lest we seem to prove the obscure through the much more obscure.

Finally, the prayer of Christ on the cross for the Jews is adduced by Weemse, and the wish of Paul (Romans 9:3), which he thinks would be frustrating without this conversion: but this is absurd, for the desire was excited by the Holy Spirit. But in these and similar matters we see little solidity for demonstrating the truth against denying adversaries.


Arguments Deduced from Reason

First Argument: Because the covenant initiated with that nation in the patriarchs (Leviticus 26:43, Jeremiah 34:18 with Romans 11:28-29), and the identity of these Jews with the patriarchs (as water succeeding water makes the same river), infer such a conversion. So that God has left certain vestiges of the ancient covenant around that nation - namely, so that there might be matter or a subject of gratuitous mercy to be exhibited at some time: not indeed [distinguished] by interior dispositions preparatory [that] have some infallible connection with the grace of regeneration or eternal salvation, from other men, but [distinguished] only by external and peculiar signs in that subject, or rather around that subject, presupposed according to the most wise will and free providence of God.

But this especially shines forth from the fact that, whereas all other nations have been mixed with foreigners, or have succeeded others in the same land, and have coalesced with the prior possessor or nation bursting in from elsewhere, or the confluence of various nations has grown together into one body (as is clear from the laborious volume of Wolfgang Lazius on the migrations of peoples, and from philological-topographical writers on peoples and languages, to be indicated elsewhere), God preserves this Jewish nation separated from all others and mixed with no other either by force, or by treachery, or by spontaneous choice through marriages, etc., in a wonderful way, and multiplies [it] immensely among so many persecutions and upheavals. For their number is stupendous in Asia and Africa, under the Turkish, Persian, and African kingdoms. The truth of the history should by no means be doubted, as experience and writers of every kind - Jews, Muslims, Christians - testify. See and compare, besides the authors cited in the disputation on Judaism, Lipsius in Political Admonitions and Examples, chapter 3. And Beza especially urges this argument, and after him Fayus and Willetus.

Second [Argument]: From certain other admirable things in this nation. That God has not taken away from them entirely, nor have they cast away, the tablets of the covenant - namely, Sacred Scripture - which nevertheless has happened to all other apostates, namely Gentiles, Muslims, indeed to heretics deceiving under the name of Christian - Manicheans, Enthusiasts, etc. That with the genealogies of families lost (for they are no longer necessary after the advent of the Messiah of the tribe), nevertheless the genealogy of the nation has remained intact, most known to all throughout the world; perhaps also from a peculiar form of countenance. Concerning their odor, by which à Lapide wants them to be distinguished (commentary on Hosea 8:1), we have discussed in the disputation on Judaism. That with such zeal (although not according to knowledge) their Doctors retain the reading of the divine law in synagogues; they most accurately guard its genuine rendition and integrity - concerning which [see] John Isaac, a converted Jew, against Lindanus, and our [authors] in the Disputation on Scripture against the Papists. That they are so alien from all idolatry and iconolatry, by which their fathers were accustomed to pollute themselves. Finally, that no misfortunes, no calamities, no vicissitudes of affairs have shaken from them the memory of the Messiah, but continuously they await his advent, always having on their lips that saying of Daniel: "Blessed is he who waits." See the pious and pathetic preface of Plessis to his book against the Jews, collating the preceding disputations indicating writers on Jewish matters.

Third: It could be added that either a universal conversion is to be expected, or none ever was, nor anything peculiarly [promised] to that people concerning it. For that conversion through the apostles and thenceforth, which is pretended, can scarcely be called a conversion, except with a diminishing term or sign - since [it is] rather a prelude to it, or a particle [of it]. Certainly, just as the whiteness of an Ethiopian cannot be exaggerated in many ways and at length, because it is only according to the teeth, so neither [can] the restoration of the Jews predicted by the prophets. But this would be absurd. Therefore [the conclusion follows].

These are our arguments. [Arguments] that are usually adduced for the contrary opinion from Romans 11:10, Hosea 1:6, 2 Thessalonians 2:16, Luke 18:7, Matthew 21:19, we shall refute in the disputation itself.


COROLLARIES

I. Therefore Christians [have a] closer and more peculiar reason [for] caring for the salvation of the Jews; and where they are [present], they are not to be driven out but tolerated and fostered among us, before all Gentiles, Muslims, Atheists, Libertines. Concerning the liberty to be conceded to them, and concerning the manner and means of procuring [their] salvation, we speak elsewhere. Compare the disputation on Judaism.

II. If anywhere, certainly in the calling of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews, the free grace of God, which he distributes freely and unequally, and the abyss of his judgments appear as in a mirror: so that hence even the blasphemous consequence of the Pelagians about God [as] the author of sin, a dissembler, a tyrant, etc., harmlessly and most usefully attached to the doctrine of predestination, can be blunted (Romans 11:31-34 with verses 23-26).

It now remains to consider the subject, object, causes, antecedents, concomitants, consequences, and circumstances of this conversion.

The Subject is the Jewish people. Concerning this people, its body must be considered, and its species or form as to both ecclesiastical and political status. With the latter cognition deferred to another occasion, we now define only the body of the people to be converted as being the posterity of the Jews, begotten from those who partly in Judea, partly in the Diaspora (concerning which [see] commentaries on John 7:35, Acts 2:5-6 and 6:1 and 26:7, James 1:1 and 1 Peter 1:1, and Philo Judaeus in his embassy to Gaius, and Josephus, Scaliger in notes on the New Testament) at the time of apostolic preaching and their rejection constituted the body of that people.

It should be noted, however, that already before then the Benjaminites had been incorporated into that people (1 Kings 11:29, 21:23), and again after the return from captivity (Ezra 1:5 and 4:1), finally after the advent of Christ - thus Paul from the tribe of Benjamin calls his kinsmen Jews (Philippians 3:5 with Romans 9:2). The same should be said about the greatest part of the Levites (2 Chronicles 11:13-14). Moreover, [about] a great part of the ten tribes (2 Chronicles 15:9 and 30:11), indeed also some part of proselytes from neighboring Gentiles, among whom Idumea is particularly to be mentioned, which, subjugated by John Hyrcanus after accepting the Jewish religion, was counted among the Jews, according to Josephus, Antiquities 13, chapter 17. Also [concerning] the Philistines, whose cities the Jews had occupied. See Cornelius à Lapide and other commentators on Obadiah verse 19.

Although however, for distinction, this people after the secession of Jeroboam was called Judaic - both because the Jews prevailed in number and were the predominant element, and because the kings up to the Babylonian captivity were from Judah, and because all others were incorporated into the kingdom and people of the Jews, not vice versa - nevertheless it never laid aside the name Israel, but was called promiscuously both Jews and Israelites even after the advent of Christ, as can be seen in Matthew 10:6, Luke 1:16, Romans 9, 10, and 11, Acts 2:11 and 4:25, where λαοί [is used] in the plural number, indeed also δωδεκάφυλον (Acts 26:27), δώδεκα φυλαί (James 1). Because whoever from the remaining tribes retained the name and profession of Israel, they were now grafted into the Jews and had coalesced with them.


PROBLEM I

Whether the ten tribes are to be converted in that general conversion of the Jews?

Response: No - concerning tribes under the species and form of that nation considered both ecclesiastically and politically. For the men of the tribes can be distributed into three classes:

  1. Those who, through wars from the time of Jeroboam up to the Assyrian captivity, sought other seats, partly among neighboring nations, partly in Judea: of whom those either joined themselves to Judaic synagogues in Gentile lands and thus were incorporated into the church and Jewish people; or they were mixed with Gentiles, coalesced with them, and degenerated into them. These in the land of the Jews coalesced with the body of the church and Jewish people, not only before the Babylonian captivity (1 Kings 11:20-23, 2 Chronicles 11:2, 13-14 and 15:1, 9 and 30:2, 11, Luke 2, Philippians 3:5 collated with Romans 9:2), but also after the return from captivity (Ezra 1:5 and 4:1).
  2. Those who through the Assyrian captivity and preceding invasions were transported into Gentile lands (2 Kings 17): all of whom must be said partly to have degenerated into Gentiles; partly to have joined themselves to Judaic synagogues and Diaspora there (James 1:2, 1 [Peter 1:1]) and to have coalesced with them; partly to have returned to the land of the Jews when the Jews returned from Babylon, and [with] neighboring Gentiles, Ammonites, Moabites, etc. (Ezra 1 and 4); partly to have returned to the land of the ten tribes and to have coalesced there with the Cuthaeans or Samaritans.
  3. Those who, at the time of the Assyrian deportation, were left in the land of the ten tribes and coalesced with or at least were mixed with the colonies of Gentiles led there (2 Kings 17).

From this distribution it is clear that the posterity of those Israelites, if any are converted or are to be converted, are not converted by a general conversion (such as is that of the Jews), nor as Jews or Israelites constituting a separate nation; but partly as these or those Gentiles with whom they coalesced or into whom they degenerated; partly as Jews; partly as Samaritans - concerning which see the following problem.

Some think their propagation to be the Chinese (Trigault in the expedition to China, Genebrard in chronology, year 3443) or the Tartars (Boterus, Relations 2; Plessis, On the Truth of the Christian Religion, chapter 26) - which opinion Fuller refutes at length (Miscellanies, Book 2, chapter 6). Who should be consulted. Others think Americans are part of the ten tribes (Andreas Thevet, Cosmography Book 23, chapter 7; John Bruno the Scottish Minorite in commentary on the Testament of the 12 Patriarchs, pages 78, 80; and Genebrard, cited location).

But [these are] conjectures. Concerning the passages Ezekiel 37:16, 19, Hosea 1:11, Jeremiah 3:12-13, Isaiah 11:21, 13, Obadiah verse 20, Zechariah 10:6, Romans 11:26, which are adduced in a certain writing under the name of Finch, an English nobleman, for the conversion of the ten tribes, we shall respond in the disputation itself. Meanwhile, Fuller at the cited location may be consulted. I think the occasion for this opinion was given by Jewish fables about the surviving people of the ten tribes beyond the Caspian gates (see Benjamin of Tudela, cited in the disputation on Judaism), which can be doubted by no one to oppose the knowledge of all topographers and travelers.


PROBLEM II

What about the posterity of the Samaritans?

Response: The posterity of that mixed people, formed partly from remnants of the ten tribes, partly from foreigners (2 Kings 17), were never before the advent or after the advent of Christ counted under the name of Israelites - indeed they are openly excluded by our Savior himself (Matthew 10:5-6, John 4:22, Luke 17:16, 18), where the Samaritan is called ἀλλογενής, [in] Syriac עמא נכריא הו, "who is from a foreign nation."

Now the Samaritans are either ancient, concerning whom [see] Epiphanius Against Heresies Book 1 and from him Danaeus in the prolegomena to Augustine on Heresies; or of later centuries, on whom penalties were established in Law penultimate, Code on Heretics, and Novellae 144, 109, 114, 115, 129 - on which see Cujacius; or modern, whom Scaliger reports still survive in the East in his Refutation of Three Heresies, chapter 2.

I think these are the same ones whom Albericus de Rosate in his Dictionary, and from him Alphonsus Vivaldus in glosses on the tract of Peter de la Cavalleria against Jews and Saracens (folio 131), counts among Muslims. "Certain Saracens," he says, "called Samaritans, receive the five books of Moses." We judge that concerning all of them [we should think] as about Pagans or Muslims nearly: unless it be more clearly established about their religion and faith, especially as to the authority of Scripture, the Messiah, ceremonial law, eternal life, resurrection, etc. See the appendix below.


PROBLEM III

What about the Karaim, whom the Jews denounce by the hateful name of heretics and Sadducees, and who are more hated by Christians among them than [are the Christians themselves]?

Response: Among the perfidious and worst Jews, they are less bad: because they acknowledge Scripture alone, rejecting Talmudic traditions. Therefore they should not be numbered outside the people to be converted. See concerning them Scaliger in the cited book and Scultetus, Evangelical Exercises, Book 1, chapters 20-22. And below in the appendix.


PROBLEM IV

What about the apostate Egyptian Jews, who adhered to the Heliopolitan temple, closed by the Emperor Vespasian a little after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, concerning whom [see] Josephus, Jewish War Book 7, chapter 30, Antiquities Book 3, chapter 6?

Response: Since that sect or separate nation nowhere appears today, their posterity either degenerated into Gentiles and Samaritans, or returned to the synagogues of the Jews, or were converted to Christianity. Whence it is easily clear what should be determined about their conversion.


PROBLEM V

Are the posterity of proselytes, who in this last senility of the world from time to time defect from Christianity to Judaism and are incorporated into the Jewish nation and coalesce with it through marriages and other ecclesiastical and political necessities, to be precisely excluded from that conversion?

Response: We do not think so.


PROBLEM VI

Do the Papists correctly exclude from this conversion the tribe of Dan (à Lapide on Romans 11 and Revelation 7), since it will adhere to its tribesman the Antichrist?

Response: That tribe does not exist in the nature of things. If any Danites are mixed with the Jews, they are comprehended under the name "all Israel" (Romans 11:26). The passages John 5:43 and 2 Thessalonians 2:12, by which they want it proven that the followers of Antichrist will be Jews, have nothing to do with the matter. The book On the Consummation of the Age, which they ascribe to St. Hippolytus, is spurious, as Coccius shows from our [authors] in the Censure of the Fathers, page 65.


PROBLEM VII

The object or terminus ad quem of this conversion is Christ the Savior and the Christian religion, and indeed the integral [religion], as can be gathered from Romans 11:28 and 10:16, 19, and 2 Corinthians 3:15. For the apostles preached this to them, and imposed on them the faith and practice of it, with no admixture of Judaism admitted (Galatians 2:4-5, 14 and 4:9 and 5:1-4, Colossians 2:12-17, etc.).

Corollary 1: Therefore the opinion of some who establish that the converted Jews will retain certain vestiges or insignia of Judaism, at least those precepts which they call Noachide (which see listed in Scindler's Lexicon under the word צוה), has no solidity. And that they are not to be led away from these through our preaching, lest we teach them apostasy - as indeed they try to apply Acts 21:21-24 with 15:20, 22 and 18:18, 22. We shall try to refute the reasons for their opinion. Meanwhile see commentaries on the cited passages. This opinion colludes with the ancient heresy of the Ebionites and Cerinthians, who mixed Judaism with Christianity.

Corollary 2: The scruple which some raise from Acts 15 about abstinence from things strangled and blood [to be observed] not only by converted Jews but also by all the faithful under the New Testament - see it shaken off by the Antagonists of Bellarmine in the controversy on Traditions, and after all by our Reverend colleague Dr. Johannes Hoornbeeck in a peculiar diatribe On the Use of Blood and Things Strangled.


THE EFFICIENT CAUSES

The efficient causes of this conversion: the first is God (Romans 11:23-24) in Christ the Redeemer and kinsman-redeemer of the Jews according to the flesh (Romans 9:5), to whom the name of redeemer or kinsman (Greek ῥυόμενος, Hebrew גואל) from Isaiah 59:21 the apostle attributes (Romans 11:26), and to whom alone the right of redemption belongs (Leviticus 25:48-49 with Ruth 4:4, 6).

The second, commonly, are Christians; specifically, however, both Princes and Magistrates, the nursing fathers of the Church, and the Doctors of Christians, who, following in the footsteps of the apostles from the duty of their calling, procure the salvation of all the erring, thus especially of the Jews, intent on every occasion, if perhaps at some time accepted by God they [might grant] repentance to them. But the instruments and means that are and are not to be applied, we indicate elsewhere: in the disputation on Judaism.

Problem: Whether they are to be converted through Enoch and Elijah?

Response: So indeed the Papal commentators wish on Hebrews 11, Revelation 11, etc., where [they speak] of the return of Enoch and Elijah to earth. But such conjectures cannot be supported by any texts of Scripture. See below in the last thesis.


ANTECEDENTS AND CONCOMITANTS

Remote antecedents are the dispersion of the Jews, thence captivity and exile.

Proximate [antecedents]: The calling of the Gentiles, which even to this day and to the nations of the new world, also the kingdoms of China, the Great Mogul, etc., we can extend.

Proximate [antecedents] are established [as] the Conversion or overthrow of the Saracens; also the extirpation of Antichrist. The most learned Brightman adds that there will be a double conversion - one immediately after Rome is destroyed (from Revelation 16), another after the Pope and Turk are destroyed (from Revelation 20). But these conjectures are weak.

This indeed is certain, that a reformation of Christianity will precede, so that the Jews may see that the idolatry of the Papacy (by which they are especially offended) is not the sole or genuine Christianity. But whether the propagation of the Reformation already accomplished, and with it the diminution of ignorance and scandals, will suffice for conviction, or whether a greater and new [reformation] is to be expected, is uncertain.


CONCOMITANTS AND CONSEQUENCES

Concomitants, partly connected, partly consequent, are established:

  1. The drying up of the Euphrates, so that a passage might lie open to the Oriental Israelites, which Finch (cited above) proves from 4 Ezra chapter 13 and Isaiah 11, final verse. The same fable is held by R. Sel. Jarchi in commentary on Isaiah 11.
  2. The victory of the Jews against the Turks from Micah 5:7, Isaiah 11:15, and against Antichrist (concerning which namely Zechariah 14:14) is equally uncertain. See concerning it Brightman on Revelation 20.
  3. Inhabitation of their own land, which Brightman (cited location) considers most certain from the Scriptures Isaiah 51:11 and 14:23, [but this] is certainly not persuasive.
  4. That the Jews will remain in that splendor up to the end of the world, and indeed [as] a separate and unmixed people, is not probable, at least uncertain.
  5. Finally, the millenary kingdom can be added, [which is] a mere phantom of dreams, concerning which [there will be] a peculiar Disputation.
  6. One consequence can be gathered from Romans 11:15: That there will not be a ruin of the Jews and hardening of the Gentiles.
  7. Moreover, concerning the circumstances of places and of definite time, nothing certain can be determined.
  8. Nor [can anything certain be determined] about the consequent consummation of the age: whether it will follow proximately, or nearly, or remotely after this conversion, [we must] piously remain ignorant along with the ignorant. See Mark 13:32, Acts 1:7. But concerning this elsewhere in the disputation on the signs.

APPENDIX

To the Disputations on Judaism and the Conversion of the Jews: Concerning Modern Sects, the Ten Tribes, and the Samaritans

PROBLEM I: Does the sect of the Sadducees still survive today?

Response: No - concerning what that sect was, learn from Epiphanius, Flavius Josephus, and among the more recent [writers] Scaliger and Serarius, Scultetus (Evangelical Exercises, Book 1), Petitus (Book 2 of Various Readings, chapter 7), Constantin l'Empereur in notes on Bertram's Jewish Republic, chapter 19, where he adds certain things as an appendix from the Rabbis.

That such a sect does not survive today among the Jews is clear from those things they commonly teach theologically about resurrection, angels, and the immortality of souls, about the age to come. Although there are no shortage of doubts and opposing inquiries about demons, the state of souls, the mode of resurrection, the quality of the future age.

Especially it should be noted that by Talmudic decision in Mishnah Sanhedrin chapter 11, §1, they are placed outside all number of the faithful and those to be saved: "And these Israelites, to whom there will be no part in the age to come (that is, in eternal life), [namely] he who says there is no resurrection of the dead," etc.

However, the Jews assert that outside their communion, some even now adhere to that sect, whom they call by another name Karaim or Kardos, or Samaritans and Cuthaeans. But partly through ignorance, partly through prejudiced hatred, the heresy of the Sadducees, or rather Epicureanism, is falsely attributed to the Karaites and Samaritans, as will soon be said.


PROBLEM II: Has that sect of Jews, which they call Karaim or Kardos, lapsed into Samaritanism or Sadduceeism, or at least is it related to them?**

Response: So indeed modern Jews wish (concerning which above), but calumniously. For they are better than all others, at least in this, that they reject Talmudic deuteroses and admit only the text of Scripture - whence they are called by the Jews Karaim, contemptuously, that is, "textuals" or "biblical ones"; just as today Protestants and the Reformed are mockingly called by Papists (among whom the Jesuit Johannes de Gouda of Utrecht, in Belgian pamphlets) "Bible-Brothers," that is, Biblical Brothers.

See concerning the Karaites Scaliger, who first lit the torch, so to speak, in Book 2 On the Emendation of Time, page 143, and in the Refutation of Three Heresies, chapter 2. Besides him, Serrarius noted some things about them in response to Scaliger's Refutation, Book 3, chapter 11; Cunaeus, Book 3 of the Hebrew Republic, chapter 8; Fuller, Book 2 of Miscellanies, chapter 6 - who should be consulted.

Others think the Chinese are their propagation (Trigault in the expedition to China, Genebrardus in chronology, year 3443) or the Tartars (Boterus, Relations 2; Plessis, On the Truth of the Christian Religion, chapter 26). But [these are] conjectures. Concerning the passages Ezekiel 37:16, 19, Hosea 1:11, Jeremiah 3:12-13, Isaiah 11:21, 13, Obadiah verse 20, Zechariah 10:6, Romans 11:26...


Sep 28, 2025

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ Vindicated

 

The genealogy of Christ which has been recorded by the blessed evangelists in the gospels of Matthew and Luke has proved a focus for Jews who wish to assault our faith in Christ. The stock from which the Messiah would be born is set forth under three determinations in the Old Testament: (1) He would be from the posterity of Abraham. “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” (Gen. 12:2-3); and later it is further added, “in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” (Gen. 21:12); (2) The next limitation is that the Christ would be from the tribe of Judah. “The scepter shall not depart from Judah…” (Gen. 49:10). Most of the prophets and teachers of Israel were from other tribes in the era of the Law. Moses sprung from Levi, Joshua and Samuel from Ephraim, Gideon from Manesseh, and Saul was from Benjamin. However, the rule and dominance of Judah came with the reign of King David (1 Chron. 28:4), as will be further declared in our exposition of Jacob’s prophecy in Genesis 49:10. And it is from this tribe that our Lord Jesus Christ came, according to His human nature. “For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah” (Heb. 7:14); “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Rom. 1:3); (3) The Messiah had to be descended from King David, as is fully promised to him in 2 Samuel 7, though some of what is said there applies more peculiarly to Solomon. “The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne” (Psalm 132:11) And it is for this reason that Matthew begins his gospel, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” (Matt. 1:1) And in this manner our Lord was designated by others during His life and ministry (Matt. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15; John 7:42), and afterwards by the apostles: “And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave their testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.” (Acts 13:22-23). It was also the confession of the Jews themselves, both new and amongst them who live among us today. “Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.” (Matt. 22:42)

Opponents of the faith, both Jews and others, have often used the genealogies contained in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 as an attempt to discredit Christ and the New Testament Scriptures. And they find on this basis to attempt to persuade the simple and unlearned that Christ was not truly descended from David, and therefore could not have been the Messiah. It is therefore fitting to say a few things concerning it. And as a preliminary observation, I find it quite interesting that the same things which the Jews use with this topic to attack Christ and the credibility of the the New Testament are quite similar in nature, method, and tone to what atheists will use against the entire Bible, which of course includes their childish “reasoning” against the Old Testament, supposing there to be contradictions within it. In this, they are like a man who sets his own house on fire so that the flame might reach his neighbor’s home and destroy it also. Such is the foolishness of these pernicious liars in their war against Christ, the son of David!

Given the many difficulties with which interpreters entangle themselves in the harmonization of Matthew 1 and Luke 3, the most fitting way to approach it is to address it in a one-to-one manner, so that we may not be overwhelmed. Antecedent to our answering of different doubts and questions, we may make a few general observations which will better serve for the better clearing of the truth. 1st, the genealogies of the Jews were reckoned in two ways: one is by way of natural generation, the other by way of law, where levirate marriages were included, in which a brother married the wife of his brother who died, and had children through her for the sake of the deceased brother (as the law is formally laid out in Deut. 25:5-10). Therefore, Julius Africanus says in his Epistle to Aristedes, “neither of the evangelists is in error, as the one reckons by nature and the other by law.” And the law of Israel was that the son of a levirate marriage was reckoned not with the biological father, but with the deceased man. “that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.” (Deut. 25:6) 2nd, one may be a son in two senses: natural (as Cain, Abel, and Seth were the sons of Adam) and legally, usually through some form of adoption. This latter will become important in our present discourse, and has many particular precedents in the biblical history: (1) Obed, who was the grandfather of David, had Boaz for his natural father, but is also considered to be the son of Mahlon (in the legal sense according to levirate marriage), Ruth’s first husband who died before her marriage to Boaz (Ruth 4:10). (2) Ephraim and Menasseh were begotten by Joseph in Egypt, but were adopted by his father Jacob (Genesis 48). (3), both of the evangelists’ genealogies have as their common goal the demonstration of Christ’s descent from David. Matthew traces it through Joseph to Solomon, while Luke traces the pedigree of Mary all the way back to Nathan, another son of David. As Julius Africanus says, “If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, Matthan is found to be the third from the end, who begot Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son was Heli the father of Joseph.” That Luke’s genealogy traces through Nathan is also clear from the repetition of the names Matthata (Luke 3:31), Matthat (verse 29), Mattathias (verses 25-26), and Matthat (verse 24)---all being modifications of נָתָן‎. This solution in my opinion is somewhat stretched, since Matthat and Matthan also have different fathers. We ought not multiply entities needlessly. 3rd, Matthew’s genealogy begins with Abraham, and descends to Christ, while Luke’s begins with Christ and goes backwards to Adam, the son of God. It is known to all the purpose of Matthew in writing for the sake of the Jews, in order to induce their acceptance of Christ as the true Son of David, and Luke perhaps traced His pedigree to Adam, in order that it might be known that the Messiah was a Savior to the whole world, both Jew and Gentile. So says Calvin in part 1 of his Harmony of the Evangelists. Concerning which genealogy was the legal one, and which was the natural pedigree, interpreters and commentators are divided on this, though both certainly agree that no true contradiction exists between the evangelists. It was the view of Julius Africanus that the list of Matthew was the natural ancestry of Christ, while Luke established his legal or royal chain to the throne of David.  Patrick Fairbairn (1805-1974), the celebrated theologian of Free Church of Scotland and renowned commentator on Scripture, says that both genealogies are tracing Joseph’s ancestry, but through both natural and legal lines (Hermeneutical Manual: Or, Introduction to the Exegetical Study of the Scriptures of the New Testament [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1858], pgs. 189-193). Following Hugo Grotius, Fairbairn says that Matthew’s is the legal succession. 3rd, it is common in the biblical genealogies for a generation(s) to be passed over and omitted. And we may behold this in a number of examples: Gen. 46:26 and Ex. 1:5 enumerate the number of Jacob’s children in Egypt, and the patriarch himself is included therein. A more clear example is Gen. 10:15-16, “And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth, And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite.” In this instance, whole nations and ethnic groups are said to be begotten by Canaan, when he was merely the first patriarchal progenitor, and not necessarily the direct father. Thus, “X begat Y” can simply mean that “X is the ancestor of Y”, or that the city is called the son of the progenitor: “These were the sons of Caleb the son of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah; Shobal the father of Kirjathjearim.” (1 Chron. 2:50) Moses’ pedigree is traced back to Levi in Ex. 6:16-20, while the same pedigree is given in 1 Chron. 6:1-3—but the families of Gershon and Merari are omitted in 1 Chronicles, but listed in the book of Exodus. In 1 Chronicles 2:21-23, Jair (son of Segub) is ranked with the house of Judah and the leader of many towns in Gilead, and yet Moses places him in the tribe of Manasseh (Numbers 32:41; Deut. 3:14-15). Is there then a contradiction? Not in the slightest, for it is said in the text from 1 Chron. 2 that Hezron in his old age married the daughter of Machir, who gave birth to Segub, and that Segub gave birth to Jair. By his real physical ancestry, Jair belonged to Judah, but had his inheritance in the tribe of Manasseh, since Makir (Jair’s great-grandfather) belonged to that tribe (Num. 32:40). Our final example is Caleb, who is called the son of Jephunneh (Num. 13:6; 14:6, etc.) and is reckoned with the tribe of Judah; however, he is physically descended from the Kenezites (Num. 31:12; Josh. 14:14), who were originally perhaps related to Esau and Canaan (Gen. 15:19), which is not a strange thing, since we read that many others of different nations left Egypt with Israel (Ex. 12:38; Num. 11:4).  Therefore, he was reckoned among the sons of Judah due to his inheritance in that tribe (Num. 34:19; Josh. 15:13); for if Caleb had by birth belonged to Judah, there would have been no need for a special commandment giving him inheritance in the land allotted to that tribe after the conquest of Canaan. As one final example, one may also compare Ezra 7:3 with 1 Chronicles 6:7, in which the latter text omits the generation between Amariah and Meraioth. 4th, although Mary is not directly mentioned in the genealogy of Luke, this seems to be more from the case that women were not reckoned by the Jews in tracing descent. 5th, it is very notable that the Pharisees and Jews in the days of Christ and the apostles did not challenge that our Lord belonged to the house of David. If He did not, they would have had ample means to prove it, since they kept close records of genealogies, especially to distinguish who truly belonged to the tribes of Judah and Levi; an instance of the latter is seen in Ezra 2:62-63 and Nehemiah 7:64-65. This is also mentioned by Josephus, who said “But what is of the greatest weight with us is the succession of our priests. For we have the names of our high priests from father to son set down in our records for the interval of two thousand years.” (Against Apion, 1.30-31); and also later by the Talmudists (Kiddushin 71a). 

Q: Why is the genealogy of Christ recorded down to Joseph, when our Lord in no way proceeded from Him through natural generation, but rather by His conception in the womb of Mary, done by the power and overshadowing of the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, Joseph is said to be of the house of David (Luke 1:27; 2:4), while Mary is from the tribe of Levi on account of her relation to Elizabeth (Luke 1:5). 

A: In book 2, chapter 1 of his Harmony of the Gospels, the blessed Augustine makes a few observations on this point: [1]. Chastity is hereby recommended, and it is shown that sexual intercourse need not be that which keeps married persons together in conjugal love and affection, since the holiest Child was born to Mary, and their son, though no intercourse ever took place. But this reason does not particularly touch the question we are now approaching. [2]. Joseph is indeed truly called the father of Christ in an adoptive sense. The beginning of Luke’s genealogy reads “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph” (Luke 3:23). And again, in the prior chapter “And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him…And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.” (Luke 2:33, 40). Hence Christ was the son of Joseph in a close adoptive sense, not merely in the way that one may adopt a child born to one who is not his wife, whereas Christ was born to her who was indeed the wife of Joseph. Therefore Augustine says “and thus also to have been in a much closer relation the father of Christ, in so far as He was born of his wife, than would have been the case had He been only adopted from some other party?” In such a manner Christ was reckoned as the son of Joseph (Matt. 13:55; John 6:42). Some of the Jews confess indeed that “it is the one who raises who is called father and not the one who begets.” (Shemot Rabbah, 46:5). [3]. It was not the Jewish custom to render the genealogies through women, as it is said in Num. 1:26, “that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.” Hence Luke’s genealogy, if it was traced through Mary, was to be so starting from the one most near to her in kinship, and this was her husband Joseph. [4]. The assertion that Mary was from the tribe of Levi, and not from Judah, is a lie from the Jews. That Elizabeth (who was amongst the daughters of Aaron) is called her cousin here in no way prejudices Mary’s Davidic lineage, since συγγενής has a very broad scope of meaning and can refer simply to a fellow Israelite. Secondly, the law under the Old Testament was that a man was not to take a wife from outside of his tribe in the case of persevering the familial inheritance (Num. 36:5-9). In the case of Mary and Joseph, we know that they were poor since they offered the pair of turtledoves or pigeons (Luke 2:22-24), and that was explicitly delegated by the law to those who did not have enough wealth to purchase a lamb to sacrifice (Lev. 12:8). Therefore, the laws in Numbers 36 and the inheritances may not necessarily have been applicable to Mary. And yet, she would at the very least be reckoned with the tribe of Judah by marriage. However, it is even more certain that Mary was of Judah by the genealogy traced through her in Luke. If Elizabeth is to be reckoned as the literal first cousin of Mary, then this would not prove Mary to be directly descended from Levi, especially since the priests could marry women from other tribes (Lev. 21:13-14; Ezek. 44:22). Therefore, one of her parents was from Judah, and the other from Levi. 

Q: Why does Matt. 1:8 say that Joram begot Uzziah when it is clear from 2 Kings 8:24 and 1 Chron. 3:11-12 that Joram begat Ahaziah, Joash, and Ahaziah? Three kings are omitted and a leap is made from Joram to Uzziah, who was the son of Amaziah (2 Chron. 26:1), not Joram.

A: As for the omission itself, it has already been with abundant clarity that it is a common practice in the biblical genealogies of both Testaments for some generations or names to be passed over and not inserted. As said in the preface to this topic, let the Jews take heed lest they burn themselves when trying to set fire to our faith. But to this particular case; [1]. For one, if these three kings were inserted this would not have been consistent with the limitation set out in Matt. 1:17 that the list compromises 3 sets of 14 generations. For if these were added, then we would be left with about 16-17 generations. However, this will certainly not answer the Jews and other men who assault the Gospels and their authenticity as divine revelation. It is the opinion of this author that the best explanation is that the omission of these three sons of Joram is the fulfillment of the curse pronounced upon Ahab in 1 Kings 21:21-22 and 2 Kings 9:8. This accords nicely with the Lord’s statement that His curse lasts to the 3rd and 4th generations (Ex. 20:5; 34:7; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9). [2]. As for Uzziah is called the son of Joram, the answer is obvious: in the language of the Scriptures, “son” may often designate the descendents rather than immediate generation. Hence Jews say “Abraham is our father” (John 8:33, 39) and Christ is called both the son of David and the son of Abraham. The woman that Christ healed is called a daughter of Abraham in Luke 13:16. A difficulty has been raised by the Jesuit scholar Juan Maldonatus (1533-1583) in his Commentary on the Holy Gospels, which is that Ahaziah would appear to be traced to Omri rather than Ahab, since Ahaziah’s mother is the usurper Athaliah, the daughter of Omri (2 Kings 9:26). However, Athaliah was truly descended from Ahab (1 Kings 16:28-30), and Ahaziah is called Ahab’s son-in-law (2 Kings 8:27), and it is for this reason that King Jehu pursued Ahaziah to kill him (2 Kings 9:27), since he was of Ahab’s posterity.

Q: Why is there a Cainan mentioned in the lineage between Arphaxad and Shelah (Luke 3:36), when no such person is recorded either in Gen. 11:12 nor 1 Chron. 1:18, 24?

A: There are some who would say that Καϊνὰμ was a later insertion in the text by a scribe, and not originally penned by Luke himself. However, the vast majority of the manuscripts include it, and therefore militate against such a solution. A few other considerations shall further aid in the solution of this difficulty, Lord willing. (1) This name is present in the Septuagint’s rendering of Gen. 10:24 and 11:12 (as it is represented in the earliest extant manuscript, Papyrus 911 from the Berlin collection). Therefore this difficulty is primarily concerning a difference between the LXX and the MT, and not any real conflict between Luke and Moses. (2) It is plainly false to think that Luke is the only source which mentions this figure named Cainan who lived during the postdiluvian period. In fact, the pseudepigraphal Book of Jubilees (dated by most to the 2nd century BC) mentions just such a man as the son of Arphaxad. “In the twenty-ninth jubilee, in the first week, in the beginning thereof Arpachshad took to himself a wife and her name was Rasu’eja, the daughter of Susan, the daughter of Elam, and she bare him a son in the third year in this week, and he called his name Kainam. And the son grew, and his father taught him writing, and he went to seek for himself a place where he might seize for himself a city. And he found a writing which former (generations) had carved on the rock, and he read what was thereon, and he transcribed it and sinned owing to it; for it contained the teaching of the Watchers in accordance with which they used to observe the omens of the sun and moon and stars in all the signs of heaven. And he wrote it down and said nothing regarding it; for he was afraid to speak to Noah about it lest he should be angry with him on account of it.” (Jubilees, 8:1-4). On this basis, a scribal occurred at some point during the transmission process of the biblical manuscripts. Furthermore, the earliest manuscripts which are alleged concerning the absence of Kainan from Luke (the papyri P75 and P4) may be reconstructed in a way in which Καϊνὰμ is indeed present in the text, but it faded away and was corrupted from these two manuscripts over time. The full evidence for this may be seen in the paper co-authored by Henry B. Smith Jr. and Kris Udd (“On the Authenticity of Kainan, Son of Arpachshad,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 24 (2019): 119–154). 


Q: Why does Luke call Joseph the son of Heli (Luke 3:23), but Matthew calls him the son of Jacob (Matt. 1:16)?

A: (1) Jacob was the natural father of Joseph, for it is said in Matt. 1:16 that he “begat” (ἐγέννησεν) Joseph. However, Luke does not say this of Heli—and this makes the solution quite easy, so that Heli was Joseph’s father-in-law. Julius Africanus says that Heli died without sons, and that Jacob married his wife (Deut. 25:5), and then gave birth to Joseph. Whether or not such a thing took place between Heli and Jacob is tangential to the point in question, namely that a man can be called the son of another in a civil rather than natural sense—as Naomi calls her daughters-in-law “her daughters” (Ruth 1:11-12). The patriarch Jacob is said to have been consoled by his daughters (plural) on hearing of Joseph’s death (Gen. 37:35), and yet we know that he only conceived Dinah. If therefore Heli was the father of Mary, he may be called the father of Joseph upon his marriage to his daughter. (2) It was the opinion of Julius Africanus that Jacob and Heli were uterine brothers with the same mother. When Matthan died, Melchi (descended from Nathan) begot Heli. Jacob is listed as the son of Matthan (Matt. 1:15), and Heli is called the son of Matthat (Luke 3:24). Patrick Fairbairn opines that Ματθάν and Μαθθὰτ are but two names for the same person; indeed, there is only the difference of a letter or two between them. And therefore, Jacob and Heli may have been brothers. This solution is rejected by the logic of the first, however. (3) Not a few learned interpreters render ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ as a parenthetical phrase in the verse, so that the sense is “Jesus (being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph), the son of Heli.” 

Q: Why is the genealogy of Luke traced through Nathan (Luke 3:31) when only Solomon was properly to be the establisher of the Davidic royalty, and none other than him (1 Chron. 22:9-10; Psalm 89:28-39)?

A: If we examine the promises given to King David under the Old Testament, it is abundantly clear that they were (1) of a conditional nature, assured upon Solomon’s obedience and faithfulness to the Lord, which we know did not place, sadly; (2) of a permanent nature, in that the promises were to have their ultimate fulfillment in the coming Messiah. What is important is that promises are first and foremost to David himself, that the throne of his kingdom would always endure according to the covenant of God, as may be seen in many passages—such as the following:---

“My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven. If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah. But thou hast cast off and abhorred, thou hast been wroth with thine anointed. Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown by casting it to the ground.” (Psalm 89:28-39); “Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.” (1 Kings 9:5); “Ought ye not to know that the LORD God of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David for ever, even to him and to his sons [וּלְבָנָיו] by a covenant of salt?” (2 Chron. 13:5); “And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.” (2 Sam. 7:12-16); “And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.” (Ezekiel 37:24-25); “Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.” (1 Chron. 22:9-10). 

What is important here is that it is the seed of David which is given the promise of everlasting endurance on the throne of David, and we see nothing here that restricts it to Solomon only. And this is the manner of its presentation by the psalmist: “Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.” (Psalm 89:35-36). In the text cited from 1 Chronicles 22, it is the throne of Solomon and royalty which shall be perpetual and fulfilled in the Messiah, and there is no reason why this cannot come through Nathan, a true and direct son of David. Furthermore, if the Jews wish to be consistent with their argument concerning the curse of Jechoniah (which is fully answered below), then they must also concede that Solomon’s physical line came to an end at some respect with respect to ruling over Judah, especially those rabbis like Tovia Singer who would appear to make this curse absolute in its nature and duration. 

Q: Why is Jechoniah reckoned in the genealogy of Christ (Matt. 1:11), as the father of Salathiel, when a curse is placed upon him such that none of his descendents would ever sit on the throne of David (including Zerubbabel, who was not a king, but a governor)? How then can Christ be the son of David, and therefore the true and promised Messiah? The words are: “Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.” (Jer. 22:30). 

A: We may first state that it is certain from 1 Chron. 3:17 that Jechoniah did indeed father Salathiel and Assir. Hence it is mentioned in Jer. 22:28 that he already had a number of children. This goes towards proving our second point that the curse was only temporary. [1]. Some have surmised that there were two separate people with the name Jechoniah mentioned in verses 11 and 12. This seems to be the opinion of Franciscus Gomarus in his Examen controversiarum de genealogia Christi (Groningae, 1631), much of which is already summarized and commented upon by Friedrich Spanheim in volume 1 of his Dubia Evangelica (Geneva, 1700), to whom we are greatly indebted. The one with the curse placed upon him was Jechoniah son of King Jehoiakim (1 Chron. 3:16; Jer. 22:24), who was also cursed in the same way (Jer. 36:30)--and yet did have a successor as the king of Judah, David’s house. However, in Matt. 1:11, he is listed simply as the son of Josiah, and would thus be identified either with Johanan (the firstborn of Josiah) or with Jehoiakim himself, whose son’s name was Jechoniah—the one spoken of in Jeremiah 22:30, as already stated. We may solve difficulties at once here, for some also object on the basis of there being only one person with the name Jechoniah, it would seem strange for Matthew to omit a few generations, and call him the son of Josiah rather than Jehoiakim. This is why we say there are two different people in verses 11 and 12 with the same name. And this was a common thing for the men of Israel to have two names, especially in royalty. For example, King Uzziah was also called by the name of Azariah (2 Kings 14:21). King Jehoiakim himself had Eliakim for his birth name before it was changed by Pharoah Neco (2 Chron. 36:4). Zedekiah’s name was originally Mattaniah (2 Kings 24:17), and so also for King Jehoahaz (Shallum). Similarly, Jechoniah was also called Jehoiachin. Spanheim also rightly observes that it is in this manner that Matthew’s genealogy remains consistent with the 3 groups of 14 generations; Jechoniah the father (Jehoiakim) is thus distinguished from his son of the same name (Jehoiachin). Finally, the Septuagint applies Ιωακιμ or  Ἰωακεὶμ both to Jehoiakim  (2 Kings 24:6, 8, 12, 15) as well as Jechoniah his son (2 Kings 25:27; Jer. 52:31). 

However, let us concede that there was only one in the line of Judah named Jechoniah, yet the next point will only make our case stronger—and that on the grounds of the Jews’ own authoritative writings and traditions. 

[2]. Concerning the curse of Jechoniah, Jeremiah 22:30 does not say that the curse would be upon him עד עוֹלָם “forever”, but בְּיָמָיו, “in his days.” And this is why none of his seven sons (1 Chron. 3:17-18) ever reigned in Judah. Similarly, the word עוֹד (“again, yet, still, any longer”) does not necessarily mean “forever” in the absolute sense. Therefore, we may conclude from hence that it is possible that the curse on Jechoniah was only of a temporary duration. And the Jews themselves confess this in their writings, that God revoked Jechoniah’s curse upon his repentance in Babylon. Maimonides says “And, again it is said of Jeconiah: "Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, (Jer. 22.30) though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon My right hand yet would I pluck thee thence" (Ibid. – 24); but when he repented, being in exile, it is said of his son Zerubbabel: "In that day, saith the lord of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, My servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the Lord, and will make thee as a signet" (Haggai, 2.23).” (Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Teshuva, 7:6). Again, from the Talmud: “R. Johanan said: Exile atones for everything, for it is written, Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah. Whereas after he [the king] was exiled, it is written, And the sons of Jechoniah, — the same is Assir — Shealtiel his son etc….Alternatively, ‘Shealtiel’ is interpreted as meaning that God requested dissolution of His oath, as it were, and allowed Jeconiah to father a child. In the continuation of that passage in Chronicles, where the verse refers to the grandson of Jeconiah, Zerubbabel, the Gemara interprets that his name teaches that he was sown, i.e., conceived, in Babylonia.” (Sanhedrin 37b-38a); “R. Joshua ben Levi, however, argued as follows: Repentance sets aside the entire decree, and prayer half the decree. You find that it was so with Jeconiah, king of Judah.” (Pesiqta Rabbati, ch. 47). See also Badmidbar Rabbah 20:20. Tovia Singer insists that Zerubbabel was not a king, but a governor—but it seems that he is odds with his own masters and scholars. Most interestingly, some of them even confess that the Messiah will bear descent from Jechoniah. Such are the words of the Malbim (1809-1879): חי אני נאום ה' באר שזה היה מפני שנגזר עליו גזר דין בשבועה כי אם יהיה כניהו (מפני שהוא בן יהויקים שלכן נגזרה עליו הגזרה ולכן הגלהו נבוכדנצר בעון אביו) חותם על יד ימיני, ר"ל כי בנבואת חגי (ב' כ"ג) אמר ביום ההוא אקחך זרובבל ושמתיך כחותם, שהמלך המשיח עתיד להיות כחותם על ימין ה', כמו שעל החותם יפתח שם האדון ויודיע מי הוא, כן ע"י מעשה המשיח יפתח שם ה' וידעו נפלאותיו בעולמו, עז"א הגם שלעתיד יהיה כניהו חותם על יד ימיני, כי מזרעו יצא המשיח, בכל זה עתה משם אתקנך אנתק החותם לעת עתה מן הימין, וגם רמז במלת אתקנך ענין תיקון, שהתיקון שיהיה כחותם יבא משם מגלות בבל, שם תצרף בכור הברזל והיסורים עד יתוקן שיצמח צמח מזרעו, להיות כחותם תכנית על ימין; “‘As I live,’ says the Lord, [this decree was] because a sentence of judgment had been decreed upon him with an oath: Though Coniah (for he was the son of Jehoiakim, and therefore this decree was decreed upon him, and Nebuchadnezzar exiled him on account of his father’s sin) were a signet upon My right hand… That is to say: in the prophecy of Haggai it is said, ‘On that day I will take you, Zerubbabel…and I will make you like a signet.’ [Hag. 2:23] The King Messiah is destined to be like a signet upon the right hand of the Lord—just as by means of a signet is the name of the master impressed and made known who he is, so through the work of the Messiah the name of the Lord will be opened and His wonders made known in His world. Therefore it says [here] that even though in the future Coniah will be as a signet upon My right hand, for from his seed the Messiah will come forth, nevertheless for now, from there I will tear you off—I will remove the signet for the present from the right hand.”

And again, Rashi says upon Jer. 22:24: “I will remove you. Cf. (supra 12:3) “Draw them out (התִקֵם) like sheep to the slaughter” (Jos. 8:6) “Until we have drawn (התִקֵינוּ) them.” And the ‘nun’ is superfluous. And, according to the Midrash Aggadah: In the place to which he was removed (נִתַּק), there he was rectified (נִתְקַן), for he repented in Babylon, and the Holy One, blessed be He, applied for absolution of the oath He had sworn, ‘Inscribe this man childless.’ and Zerubbabel was born to him in Babylon, and it was said to him through the prophet (Haggai 2:23), ‘On that day… I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you as a signet,’ directed toward what He said to his father, “Though… be a signet on My right arm,… I will remove him.’” That the curse was indeed removed from Jechoniah is seen clearly from the signet ring given to Zerubbabel (Hag. 2:23), one of the very things taken away from his grandfather (Jer. 22:24) in the curse.

[3]. As for when Matthew states that Jechoniah and his brothers were begotten around the time of the deportation to Babylon, what has been said above suffices to resolve this difficulty, which is that there are two with the same name—a common occurrence. This also answers as to why Jechoniah is said to be deported “with his brothers” to Babylon, since ἀδελφὸς can signify amongst the Jews merely one of close relation or kin, as Zedekiah is called the brother of Jechoniah (2 Chron. 36:10), though he really his uncle. Similarly, Abraham calls his nephew Lot his אָחִיו (Gen. 14:14). Furthermore, the phrase in question is ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος, rendered by the KJV as “about the time” rather than “at the time”, and this is not without good reason, since ἐπὶ in the Scripture often may encompass a larger space of time than critics will admit. So it is used in Luke 3:2; 4:27; Acts 11:28, so that it refers more broadly to the time of the decline of the Jewish nation and provocations which led to their exile. Gomarus also makes the erudite consideration that ἐπὶ may be rendered here as “toward” or “up to” as a Hebraism, so that the meaning is “Josiah begot his sons toward the exile.” A similar occurrence may be seen in the use of the Hebrew preposition בְּ; Gen. 2:2; Ex. 12:15. This creates a nice antithesis that Gomarus establishes between ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας in verse 11 and μετὰ τὴν μετοικεσίαν in verse 12, and so ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας corresponds to verse 17: ἕως τῆς μετοικεσίας, just as τὸ μετὰ τὴν μετοικεσίαν corresponds to ἀπὸ τῆς μετοικεσίας in verse 17.

Q: Was Shealtiel the son of Jechoniah (Matt. 1:12) or Neri (Luke 3:27)?

A: As will be made more clear in the next question concerning the father of Zerubbabel, there were two distinct men with the name Shealtiel. Neri was from the line of Nathan in Luke, while Shealtiel is from the line of Solomon in Matthew. That there is no coalescence between Matthew and Luke’s lines in the persons of Zerubbabel and Shealtiel is evident with the diversity of fathers preceding both in the text of the genealogies themselves. 

Q: Was Zerubbabel the son of Pedaiah (1 Chron. 3:19) or Shealtiel (Matt. 1:12; Luke 3:27)? According to 1 Chron. 3:19, the sons of Zerubbabel were Meshullam and Hananiah. But in Matt. 1:13 and Luke 3:27 we read of an “Abiud” and “Rhesa”.

A: That Zerubbabel was most truly and properly the son of Salathiel is seen from Haggai 2:2 and Ezra 3:2, where he is distinguished as such—which agrees with Matthew’s use of ἐγέννησε. It is also the case that we have a difference here between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. The LXX of 1 Chron. 3:19 agrees with the evangelists’ listing of Salathiel, yet the Masoretic Text places Pedaiah as the progenitor of Zerubbabel. However, it is important to note that Salathiel and Pedaiah were brothers (1 Chron. 3:17-18), thus making a levirate marriage very likely. This is made even more certain by the fact that no sons are listed for Salathiel in that genealogy. Thus, Zerubbabel is the natural son of Pedaiah (for there is no reason to suppose that he would be a son in a different sense than in those other men also mentioned amongst Pedaiah’s posterity) and the legal son of Salathiel. (2) There is also the opinion of some would make the Zerubbabel and Salathiel to be 2 different persons with the same name. And there are indeed some strong reasons for this opinion. First, it has occurred in the Bible for there to be two people within the same generation or lifetime bearing the same name, such as Joash, king of Judah and another Joash who was the king of Israel. And this would explain why different fathers are mentioned (Neri and Jechoniah), and also different sons (Abiud and Rhesa). Second, the Zerubbabel mentioned in Matthew seems to have been born some time before the Babylonian captivity, while the one named in Luke appears to have been born after. Third, if these were the same persons mentioned in both genealogies, it is very strange that there would be no names in common between them at all for many generations. Fourth, in Matthew there are 9 generations between Zerubbabel and Joseph, while there are 17 generations between “Zerubbabel” and Mary in Luke 3. If there was a convergence of the two pedigrees here, some reason must be offered as to why they departed from one another again. Fifth, The renowned 19th-century biblical commentators Franz Delitzsch and C.F. Keil offer the following explanation with respect to the father of Salathiel: “The discrepancy in regard to the enumeration of Shealtiel among the sons of Jeconiah, a descendant of Solomon, and the statement that he was descended from Neri, a descendant of Nathan, Solomon’s brother, is removed by the supposition that Jeconiah, besides the Zedekiah mentioned in v. 16, who died childless, had another son, viz., Assir, who left only a daughter, who then, according to the law as to heiresses (Num. 27:8; 36:8f.), married a man belonging to a family of her paternal tribe, viz., Neri, of the family of David, in the line of Nathan, and that from this marriage sprang Shealtiel.” (Keil & Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002], 3:423)


Sep 23, 2025

Cardinal Cajetan on the Eucharistic Words of Institution

 

"The words of the Lord have been understood by the Church properly, and therefore they must be verified properly. I say, moreover, by the Church: because it does not appear from the Gospel itself that there is any compulsion to understand these words properly. From the words the Lord adds, namely “which shall be given up for you … for the remission of sins”, it cannot be clearly concluded that the foregoing words are to be understood properly. For the word which (quod) does not refer to the conjunction of predicate with subject, but refers back to the predicate itself, namely my body. With the truth of that relation, the prior statement may still be true only in a metaphorical sense, as is clear from the example: “The rock was Christ.” For if the Apostle had added: “who was crucified, rose again, and ascended into heaven,” in saying “the rock was Christ who was crucified, rose again, and ascended into heaven”, nonetheless the prior proposition “the rock was Christ” would not for that reason have to be understood properly but only metaphorically. Likewise, therefore, in the case proposed: the Lord’s words “This is my body, which shall be given up for you”, from that addition “which shall be given up for you” the first proposition is not thereby constrained to the proper sense; rather, it would still be true even if uttered only in the metaphorical sense."

Thomas de Vio Cajetan, Commentaria in Summam Theologicum, Tertia Pars, Q. 75, art. 1; as found in the Leonine edition of Aquinas' works, vol. 12 [Rome, 1906], pg. 157.



Aug 25, 2025

Gisbertus Voetius: Disputation on the Advent of the Messiah (Genesis 49:10)

 

The following is taken from the Select Disputations, Vol. 2, pages 57-77.


Leaving aside other arguments, we now focus on Genesis 49:10, which all Christian scholars (as far as I know) cite as proof of the coming of the Messiah, using the following reasoning:

He who, according to God’s prediction, was to come before the scepter was taken away from Judah has already come.
But the Messiah was to come before that happened.
Therefore, the Messiah has already come.

The major premise is proven: because long ago the scepter and the ruler were taken away from Judah. For indeed, the Jews are no longer a people governed by their own laws, their own government, their own magistrates, or judges—nor in any corner of the world. Instead, they are subject to foreign rulers, whether Christian, Muslim, or pagan.

The minor premise is confirmed by the very words of the text, together with the interpretation of the Targums and the ancient Rabbis, which the Jews themselves cannot deny.

  1. The sacred text itself reads:

לא יסור שבט מיהודה ומחוקק מבין רגליו עד כי יבא שילה ולו יקהת עמים
“The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh (that is, the Messiah) comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.”

  1. The Targums read:

    • Onkelos: “The ruler shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor the scribe from his descendants forever, until the Messiah comes, whose is the kingdom, and the peoples shall obey him.”

    • Jerusalem Targum: “Kings and rulers shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor teachers of the Law from his children, until the time when King Messiah comes, to whom the kingdom belongs, and all kingdoms of the earth shall be subject to him.”

    • Jonathan ben Uzziel: “Kings and rulers shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor scribes teaching the Law from his seed, until the time when the Messiah, the King, comes, the little one from his sons, and because of him the peoples shall melt away.”

  2. The Talmud (Sanhedrin, ch. Helek) also interprets this of the Messiah.

  3. Likewise, Bereshit Rabbah (folio 110): “Shiloh—this is King Messiah.”

  4. Baal HaTurim gives a cabalistic interpretation: the word Shiloh numerically equals Messiah the King. (The letters of משיח equal 358, the same as שילה יבא).

  5. Rabbis such as R. Bechai and Rashi (Sel. Iarchi) interpret the verse about the Messiah. David Kimchi explains Shiloh as “his son,” meaning either David or the Messiah.

  6. Some later rabbis twisted the passage to refer instead to Saul, David, or Nebuchadnezzar.

  7. Even among the Muslims, Ahmad ibn Idris (as quoted by Hottinger in Thesaurus Philologicus, p.163) used this very verse to prove the coming of the Messiah. If even the Ishmaelites bear witness against the Jews, why should we not use their testimony?

To further strengthen this interpretation against the Jews, certain words of the text must be considered.

The key word is שבט (shevet). In Scripture, it has eight senses:

  1. Properly, a rod, staff, or stick.

  2. By metonymy, a spear or weapon.

  3. A reed (as in Judges 5:14).

  4. By extension, punishment, scourge, or blow.

  5. By metaphor, a tribe (as descended from one father, like a branch from one tree).

  6. A scepter, the sign of royal power.

  7. Power, rule, dominion, or jurisdiction.

  8. By abstraction for the concrete, a ruler, prince, or judge.

Here, the last three meanings best apply: shevet as scepter, authority, and ruler. Thus, the verse means that the rule and authority of Judah will not cease until the Messiah comes—a reading consistent with the Hebrew phrase, the context, the analogy of faith, and accepted even by Jews as authentic.

This explanation, taken from the Rabbis (R. Joel ben Sueb and R. Isaac), they wish to apply to this passage, although with some slight variation; and R. Menasseh ben Israel repeats both of these interpretations in his Conciliator. But below, in the thesis itself, we refute it.

The fifth [interpretation], by way of metaphor, denotes a tribe; because, just as a rod grows from one tree, so a tribe arises from one father. (Gen. 49; Num. 2, 26, 31). To this also belongs its synecdochical meaning, by which it denotes a family (Judg. 20:12). This meaning, observes the most celebrated theologian Peter Molinaeus (Lib. 4, Vates, cap. 7, 8), fits this passage very well and avoids many difficulties.

Yet I do not see that the sentence flows so smoothly in this way. For what is the meaning of the phrase, “a tribe shall not be taken away from Judah”—that is, from the tribe of Judah? As if you were to say: a people will not be taken from a people, a nation from a nation, a family from a family. It seems to me unusual and somewhat harsh. Therefore this Hebraic idiom ought first to be proved by examples from Scripture. For when Scripture intends to denote the extinction or abolition of a thing, or its total corruption as to its species and form—whether natural or artificial—it is accustomed to use such phrases (Hos. 1:9; Ps. 83:5; Job 7:8–10, 12, 14).

Therefore I would prefer here to “hold back” (ἐπέχεων), and to follow the well-worn, safe path, that is, the received and common Christian interpretation concerning the scepter. For this both agrees with the Hebrew phrase, and with the context (since the legislator, corresponding to the scepter, is joined with it by one verb, “shall be taken away”), and it accords with faith and the analogy of the Scriptures. Indeed, it ought to be accepted by the Jews themselves, and it is received as authentic, as was said in the preceding thesis. This alone—even if the other considerations were in balance—would move me to prefer this interpretation above the other.

The sixth meaning, by metonymy of the material, denotes the scepter, the symbol of the kingdom or principality (Ps. 45). The seventh, by metonymy of the sign, denotes power, kingdom, dominion, jurisdiction (Isa. 14; Zech. 10). The eighth, by metonymy of the abstract for the concrete, denotes a king, prince, or judge (2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron. 17). These three last interpretations have place here either conjunctly or interchangeably.

For just as shebet (שבט) by metonymy of the material denotes a scepter, that is, the outward symbol of power or rule, so by metonymy of the sign and the instrumental cause it denotes power, jurisdiction, kingdom, dominion, empire; and consequently, by metonymy of the abstract for the concrete, a prince or judge. And this interpretation I judge to be the genuine one.

It is divided into two: either strictly, so that it denotes only royal authority; or more broadly and generally, so that it denotes every form of political power or jurisdiction with sovereignty—whether in the form of government it was royal, ducal, dictatorial, monarchical (more or less limited), aristocratic, democratic, or mixed—and independent of all foreign authority, or more or less dependent.

The latter interpretation we embrace; so that here, just as in Ps. 45:6, scepter—the symbol, namely, of authority and rule—metonymically signifies power, principality, government. For thus also the Targums, and the Septuagint (archon), and Aquila (skēptron). So also R. Aben Ezra, R. Moses Gerundensis, R. Bahya, R. Hezekiah (author of Hizkuni), Isaac Abravanel, and the commentary Bereshit Rabba, with R. Menasseh himself admitting it.

Secondly, Judah in Scripture denotes: (1) the person, namely, the son of Jacob; and other individuals bearing the same name; (2) the tribe, or the descendants of Judah; (3) the people among whom, after the secession of the ten tribes and their deportation to Assyria (so that they were no longer a people, Hos. 1; 2 Kings 17), the appearance of a people and of government remained, until the destruction wrought by Titus, the son of Vespasian.

Thus it came about that little by little the scepter departed — first, indeed, the royal one; then the ducal; next, the judicial, in part and as far as its exercise was concerned; and finally, every scepter that had to do with right and title.

And those [people] were properly and distinctly, from the ten tribes, already in the writings of the Old and New Testament called “Jews” — Ezek. 4.14; 12.55; Neh. 4.2; and metonymically “Judah” in Hosea 4.15. This signification suits our text.

For we indeed admit that the same people, even after the division of the kingdom, is called by the common name “Israel” (a synecdoche of the whole for a part) — both because they were from Israel, and because the tribe of Benjamin, and many from the other tribes, were incorporated into them (on which matter see our disputation On Judaism). But this does not prejudice our interpretation. For here the Jewish people is expressly distinguished from the rest of the Israelites.

Moreover, it is not to be understood of the person of Judah the patriarch, but of the Jewish people, as is confirmed by the Targumim — Onkelos, Jerusalem, and Jonathan — and most Rabbinic interpreters.

III. Thirdly, it signifies “lawgiver,” a prince who establishes laws and prescribes statutes for the people (Deut. 33.21; Is. 33.22; Ps. 108.9). The Septuagint here renders it ἠγούμενον (“leader”).

If anyone should explain it here as “scribe,” with the Targumim, we do not object, since nothing thereby accrues to the Jews, nor is anything taken away from our argument. Thus also the Mauritanian Arabic version translates it ואלרסם (Varraṣim), that is, “lawgiver.” Among Christians, Munster renders it “scribe”; but in his notes explains it as “teacher, publisher of statutes, lawgiver” — which pleases more. Likewise the author of Nizzachon explains it through מושל, that is, “ruler, lord, leader of the land.” From this, however, later Jews diverge greatly, who interpret it as Talmid, that is, “disciple,” sitting at the feet of princes.

IV. Fourthly, ערכי, “until, while, as long as,” as in Gen. 26.13 and 41.49. So too the Targumim render it expressly: “until he comes,” “until the time when he comes.” The Septuagint: ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ (“until he shall come”). The meanings that R. Menasseh assigns to this particle, after others, you may see already discussed by Galatinus (De Arcanis Catholicæ Veritatis, Book IV), by Helvicus in Elenchus Judaicus, by Matthias Martinius in his notes on Gen. 49.10, and in the Etymologicum, and also by us below in the last thesis.

V. Fifthly, ינא, “may come.” R. Menasseh gives it two meanings: one general — “to go, to come,” etc.; the other more specific — “to kill, to perish.”

But that later interpretation does not at all suit this passage, as will be shown below.

VI. Sixth, Shiloh (שילה). This word is retained by Christian translations — the English, Danish, French, Italian (Deodati), the Zurich Bible of Leo Juda (sometimes also called Vatablus’s, since it was published with his notes), Munster’s, Pagninus’s, and Arias Montanus’s. Among Jewish sources, also the Mauritanian Arabic version (so I call it to distinguish it from the Arabic of R. Saadiah Gaon and from the Oriental Christian translations).

Four principal interpretations occur:

  1. “He to whom [it belongs],” or “whose it is” — as though it were written שלו.

  2. The city Shiloh.

  3. “Bring,” or “offer to him,” namely gifts.

  4. “Error.”

  5. “His offspring,” i.e. “his son,” by metonymy of container for the contained.

  6. “Salvation” or “Savior, Deliverer,” etc.

  7. “Sent one,” as if it were written שליח (shaliach) or שלוח (shaluach), which is the same as the Arabic الرسول (ar-rasūl) and Greek ὁ ἀπόστολος (“apostle”).

The first explanation is supported by the Septuagint: τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ (“the things laid up for him”). R. Menasseh also reports this interpretation, making it equivalent to לו אשר, “that which is his,” the ה being taken for a ו.

Response:

  1. But such a thing is not found in the text, nor in the Masorah of the Masoretes. How then could anyone prove the word to be a compound of ש and לו? Especially since the vowel under ש is not segol but hireq, long; nor is it dageshed. And if one wishes to invent another reading outside the sacred text, how will he maintain the full integrity of Scripture, according to the common faith of the Jews?

  2. And if you interpret it so, what intelligible and rational sense emerges? “Until he comes, which is his?”

  3. As to the Septuagint: Flaminius Nobilius, in his notes to the Paris Bible, gives another reading: ᾧ ἀπόκειται (“to whom it is laid up”). But whether one receives it or not, it departs from the Hebrew text, whose authority and integrity are defended by Whitaker, Chamier, and Rivet in his Isagoge, etc. They also prove corruption in the Greek text — and more recently Hottinger.

The second interpretation is held by R. Menasseh and some Rabbis he cites; but we shall refute it below as most absurd. The third is also reported by R. Menasseh. Response: it departs from the sacred text, for it does not contain the letter sin (שׂ) but shin (שׁ); and the difference between those letters is evident from Judges 12:6. Further, the second letter of the word is not aleph (as the imperative sa, “bring” or “offer,” from the root nasa, would require), but yod. Finally, it diverges from the authentic Jewish Targumim and Talmudic sources, which interpret it very differently, as we have noted above.

The fourth interpretation, so far as I know, is applied here by no one.

The fifth has supporters among Talmudists and Rabbis; their words can be seen cited by our lexicographers and in the writings of the adversaries of the Jews. Among these, readily at hand is Buxtorf’s Epitome Radicum under the entry שילה, and Hugo Grotius in Book 5 of On the Truth of the Christian Religion. He cites R. Selomo (Rashi), Ibn Ezra, and Onkelos. But here Grotius looked with borrowed eyes, or repeated this on another’s authority — perhaps because he did not himself understand the sources, or was too occupied to inspect them; or else, following his usual manner in theological writings, he indulged too much his zeal for citing authorities, shaping their words and deeds to his purpose. Christopher Cartwright, in his notes on Genesis 49:10, saw this and gently reproved him.

The sixth interpretation has supporters among both Jews and many Christians. According to us, there may be a double exposition: either that it denotes “his offspring,” i.e. by metonymy “his son,” as Bereshit Rabbah with many Rabbis (cited by Buxtorf and by R. Menasseh) interprets; and so too Philippus de Aquino, a converted Jew, in his Dictionary. Or else that it denotes “peace, prosperity, felicity,” as Vatablus explains it from the root שלה, “to be tranquil, quiet,” hence “the bringer of peace, deliverer, savior, author of felicity.” So Oleaster, Fagius, Forster, Melanchthon, Mercerus, Castellio, Drusius, Schindler, Amama. And this etymology I prefer. See on both these interpretations the lexicographers Pagninus, Buxtorf, Schindler, Matthias Martinius in his Etymologicum, and Sixtinus Amama in Antibarbarus, Book 2, p. 444.

The seventh interpretation is embraced by many Roman Catholics, so as to defend the Vulgate translation. But in so doing, while accusing the Jews of corrupting the text, they not a little promote their cause and weaken the Christian argument, as Galatinus himself admits (De Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis, Book 4, ch. 4). See Amama, Censura Vulgatae Versionis; Rivet, Exercitation 181 on Genesis; Martinius in his Etymologicum under “Shiloh”; Chamier, Panstratia; Glassius, Philologia Sacra.

Other interpretations, such as “Siloh,” I will not examine further. See Martinius in the Etymologicum.

For our present dispute with the Jews, those two interpretations suffice: the fifth and the sixth. Let the Jews choose whichever they prefer, though in our own judgment the latter is to be preferred.

VII. Seventh, “Obedience of the peoples” (עמים יקהת). So Targum Onkelos: עמי ישתמעון וליה, that is, “and the peoples shall obey him.” The Jerusalem Targum agrees. The Mauritanian Arabic paraphrase has ממ אלא יחתמעון ואליה, “and to him the peoples obey or are subjected.” Others render it “gathering.” But whichever you choose, it is all the same, and our argument proceeds.

And this, indeed, is our argument for the coming of the Messiah. The arguments of the Jews, by which formerly and still today they assail the coming of the Messiah, were long ago refuted—see Galatinus, Book 5; Plessæus, ch. 7; Helvicus, in the appendix to the Elenchus; Jacob Martini, Disputation 6. The specific objections against the passage Genesis 49:10, much of which R. Menasseh repeats in his Conciliator, Question 65, have been answered by those same authors. Add also Lyranus, in his Postilla on Genesis 49, Willet there, Rivetus in Exercise 181. For whatever interpretations of that passage heaped up from the Rabbis he sets forth, they do not promote his cause, but only blot the paper with worthless scribbling: first, because he does not fortify them against the replies of our writers; second, because all of them depart from the sense of the Targums, the Talmud, and the ancient Rabbis—so often pressed by us—whose authority, since it binds him, R. Menasseh with his followers passes over in shameful and disgraceful silence; third, because they are contrary not only to the analogy of Scripture and its context, as well as the sacred language itself, but also to other doctrines and assumptions of the Jews themselves; and finally, because he himself hesitates and wavers, not knowing where he may fix his step. For thus he says about his eleven interpretations: Be that as it may, whether you embrace this or that among the other expositions, the difficulty is removed, etc. ‘I know indeed that different interpretations have pleased different men: but these seem to me sufficient: more learned men may choose whichever they judge to be the truest.’

The main objection which is raised against our major conclusion—and to which even R. Menasseh seems especially to cling as to a sacred anchor—we dissolve in this way. R. Menasseh, with Isaac Abravanel, presupposes from a certain saying of the ancients, that the “scepter” here signifies dominion or jurisdiction, however small, and that this has not yet been taken away from the Jews. But why, I ask? Because, after the destruction of the Second Temple, two families of the line of David migrated into Spain and Gaul (according to the testimony of R. Isaac Guiat), from which line Abravanel always remained head of Israel. He adds from R. Isaac Arama (commentary on Genesis, fol. 92) that Benjamin of Tudela testifies that he himself had seen with his eyes at Baghdad Israelites escorting some Prince of David’s line riding in a chariot, shouting along the way, ‘Make way for the son of David!’ The words of Benjamin, to which R. Arama seems to allude, are found in his Itinerary, pp. 70, 72, in the edition of Constantinus l’Empereur. Moreover, R. Aben Ezra also testifies that in his own time there was at Baghdad (that is, in Babylonia) a family of David’s line, and that great honors were paid in Persia to princes from that stock. Aben Ezra, on Genesis 44, says that “princes of the captivity” there ruled over the people, etc.

Reply. As if someone were to recount Lucian’s True History, or Thomas More’s Utopia, or the unknown southern land! For, first, R. Arama with no good faith reports Benjamin’s story and adds fables to fables. For Benjamin (p. 70) says there were then at Baghdad ‘about a thousand Jews’ (יהודים אלף כמו), that is, almost a thousand. But the other (Arama) swells it up to ‘many thousands and dominion.’ Benjamin (p. 72) relates that on the day when the Jewish Prince goes to salute the Caliph, he is acclaimed. But the other changes the day of acclamation into the Caliph’s birthday. Benjamin (p. 74) says that on the day when a new “head of the exile” is created by the Caliph, the Prince of the Jews is carried in the Caliph’s secondary chariot to his house. But the other says that this is done at the celebration of the Caliph’s birthday. Benjamin mentions only a great company, pomp, and acclamation; the other adds this coloring of his own, זכר—that is, “R. Benjamin remembered”—and בעיניו שראה “that he saw with his own eyes.” As though Benjamin were to recount nothing except what he had himself seen! The contrary is attested by the preface attached to the Itinerary, and by David Gans in his Tzemach, that is, his chronicle, where he discusses Benjamin.

Secondly, Benjamin’s credibility is slippery throughout his whole history, especially when he blows the trumpet of Jewish glory; as anyone will see who glances through some of it, and as has been abundantly shown by his editor Constantinus l’Empereur in his notes, his dedicatory epistle, and his preface to the reader. See especially p. 98, where he speaks of four tribes beyond the River Gozan (to whom access is impossible) not subject to any power, but bound in league with the Turkish pagans, men without noses, etc.; p. 111, on the catching of eagles; p. 112, on Israelites in the Indian mainland called Baadam, subject to no foreign nation or ruler; pp. 70–75, on the dominion and splendor of the Jews of Baghdad; p. 101, on the empire of the Jews in the mountains of Nisbon; p. 115, on Ali son of Abitaleb, Sultan of the Saracens of Egypt, who at that time did not even exist; p. 44, on Lot’s wife; p. 45, where he tells a pleasant tale about the sepulcher of David.

In short, that liberty or authority of the Jews in their schools and synagogues—which concerns the election and ordination of doctors and ministers in sacred things, public order (ἐντάξια), and solemn rites, etc. (which even today among the Mohammedans, and perhaps among some Christians, may easily be purchased for money)—this he transforms into political dominion, or jurisdiction with empire; whereas it is nothing else but a merely scholastic and ecclesiastical authority or liberty, if we may so speak. And if it extends to marriages and other secular and political matters, it ought to be called nothing else but exemption, privilege, indulgence; which is separated by the whole heaven from the scepter, legislation, judgment, autocratoria. And this the prudent reader may gather, not obscurely, even from Benjamin himself, pp. 70–75, compared with p. 115—whatever purple exaggerations he may paint—for there he himself acknowledges a higher lord, namely the Saracen ruler.”

III. But what if once upon a time in Baghdad, or in Egypt, or elsewhere, for a brief moment such a thing had existed (which we by no means concede) — is the matter thereby satisfied? Tell me then, where now are those families, those princes, those honors, those acclamations? “It may be,” says R. Menasseh, “that the same thing is still preserved today in certain places unknown to us.” And a little later: “Indeed, even now in many places, descendants of the tribe of Judah still have a certain jurisdiction and remain as heads of the rest. This small dominion will endure until the time of the Messiah, when it will then be enlarged.”

This bold conjecture stands in direct contradiction to common experience and the clear light of all known facts. Produce your geographers, historians, Jewish travelers, Muslims, Christians, neutrals or freethinkers: for neither Persia, Babylonia, Morocco, Constantinople, Agra (the capital of Hindustan, or India in the empire of the Great Mogul), much less Rome, Venice, Prague, Frankfurt, Amsterdam (where Jews dwell) — none of these places are beyond the reach of years or the paths of the sun. Was it not shameful for a man to chatter thus in Amsterdam, where one can find so many who carefully investigate every region and corner of the inhabited world, whether known or unknown?

IV. This fiction also contradicts the sense and confession of the Rabbis, both ancient and recent, who call the state of the Jews after the destruction of the Second Temple exile, captivity, affliction, etc. Consult the Targum on Hosea 3:4. Add the words of R. David Kimchi on Hosea 3:4:

"And these are the days of exile in which we now are; we have no king, nor prince from Israel. For we are under the power of the nations, and under the power of their kings and princes."

So too Maimonides, in his commentary on the Mishnah (Berakhot, fol. 58a): From the time we were exiled from our land, we have had no power to establish laws. Yet far more bitterly does Don Isaac Abravanel complain — though at Isaiah 53:3 he twists it with his gloss — namely, that the Jews are despised by all other nations, and that among them there are no outstanding or eminent men. Indeed, in his earlier exposition on verse 8 (ed. Constantin l’Empereur) he states that the third kind of evil of the exile is:

“That there is no kingdom in Israel, nor dominion, nor judicial scepter.”

Where then is the scepter? Where the lawgiver? Likewise Maimonides, in the same commentary (Berakhot, fol. 58). Moreover, the Jews of today in their letters make use of the era of their captivity, as may be seen in the letters published by Buxtorf. Even Benjamin himself laments captivity and exile (galut) (pp. 128–129).

V. This fiction also contradicts the theology of the ancient Talmudists, who taught that the Sanhedrin sat in the court of Israel, and hence proved from Deuteronomy 17:8 and Genesis 49:10 that it was in Judah and not in Benjamin. From this we gather that, according to their own view, since that Senate (in whose hands was political authority, which some even take Genesis 49 to mean properly) was to remain in the Holy Land — indeed in Judah — until the coming of the Messiah, it cannot therefore be said or conjectured that any government, principality, or polity remained elsewhere after the destruction of the Temple. So rightly observes the learned l’Empereur in his commentary on Middot 3.1 (pp. 106–107).

VI. It is astonishing that R. Menasseh, who prefers to rely on more recent authors, never read the dissertation and notes of l’Empereur on Benjamin, nor his refutation of Abravanel and Alshech — where, on Isaiah 53:3 (p. 86), he so excellently exhibits those two eminent men, Benjamin of Tudela and Don Abravanel, set in direct opposition to one another. These ought to have been read and refuted, if he had any confidence in his own case, before burdening readers with those fables of Benjamin.

VII. I dare say that R. Menasseh ben Israel never even read Benjamin; or if he did read him, he nevertheless preferred to cite Benjamin through the authority of R. Isaac Arama, so that the tale might be presented to the reader with greater appearance of weight — for Benjamin himself is often confused, or at least speaks more faintly, than R. Arama reports him. And thus we have refuted this exception of R. Menasseh. Let us also briefly glance at other difficulties raised either among Jews or Christians.

Our writers have labored much over the historical controversy concerning what sort of continuity the Jewish scepter had after the return from the Babylonian captivity up until Christ. The difficulty lies in this: the Hasmoneans were of the tribe of Levi, and Herod was an allophyloi (foreigner). The opinion does not please us which says that the Hasmoneans were of the tribe of Judah through the maternal line. Nor does the opinion of Scaliger, Torniellus, and Casaubon satisfy, who contend that Herod was a Jew. More tolerable is the view which holds that the senators of the Sanhedrin, or at least their prince, were of the tribe of Judah — a view also held by R. Menasseh.

But the whole difficulty is removed if we say that the principate and judgment did not depart from the Jewish people, nor did the appearance and form of the Jewish polity perish, even though not all the princes or chiefs were of the tribe of Judah. For how, for example, do we still believe the Roman Empire, the German Empire, or the kingdom, government, and people of France, Spain, Poland, or Hungary to exist and rightly so called — although not all their emperors or kings have been of that people?

If anyone seeks further investigation of this controversy, let him consult Pererius, Cornelius à Lapide, Burgensis, Willet, Pareus, Rivetus on Genesis 49; Baronius (vol. 1) with the antagonists Casaubon, James Capel, Richard Montagu; Scaliger in De Emendatione Temporum; Cunæus De Republica Hebræorum, book 1, ch. 9–10; Scultetus Exercitationes Evangelicae book 1, ch. 2–4; Amama Antibarbarus book 2, p. 444; Helvicus Elenchus Judaicus; Jacob Martini disput. 2; Galatinus book 4, ch. 5–7; Spanheim Dubia Evangelica part 2.

As for us — so that we may provide some instruction in the midst of such varied methods of Christian argumentation from this passage against the Jews, and form some reconciliations of concepts — we will first supply the general sources of solutions, and then respond to certain special exceptions or doubts one by one.

Sources of solutions and reconciliations are these:

  1. The disagreements among Christians concerning the application of this prophecy — which Julian once objected (as reported by Cyril of Alexandria) — are either merely grammatical, or chronological concerning hypotheses of chronology. But this does not hinder agreement in the substance of the matter, or in the principal argument we have proposed above in thesis 3. The same must be answered to the objection concerning the argument from Daniel 9. For wherever you begin to count the seventy weeks of years (i.e. 490 years), they have long since elapsed.

  2. A people, formally considered — that is, a commonwealth, polity, or dominion — remains, even if the status and mode of government changes. See the political writers, especially Grotius (De Jure Belli et Pacis book 3, ch. 15). Thus, for example, the Israelite or Jewish polity remained, though the mode of government varied: royal, ducal, Sanhedrinic.

  3. When a people, kingdom, or republic is conquered by an outsider and becomes tributary, or is even reduced to a province, nevertheless the republic or polity does not thereby cease to exist. Thus among the Jews at the time of Christ’s coming, the scepter and government were not entirely taken away, for the authority of their own magistracy, though greatly diminished, still endured, and the priesthood continued.

  4. The scepter is not to be said as taken away from Judah, nor not taken away, except from the time it was first conferred upon them. But when it began to be conferred is not much to labor about. Whether it was in David, or in Rehoboam when the people and kingdom of the Jews were properly so called, in distinction from the people and kingdom of the ten tribes (from whom all scepter and kingdom were taken away in 2 Kings 17), our argument nevertheless stands.

Let us now briefly examine some of the special and principal objections and exceptions, glosses and conjectures of the Rabbis, and likewise the doubts and difficulties of some Christians.

1. Some say by Shiloh is meant David. So Aben Ezra in his commentary.
Response: First, this gloss contradicts the text. For how could the scepter be said not to depart from Judah, which before David had never been in the hand of the tribe or people of Judah in distinction from the other tribes? As is plain from 1 Kings 12:17–19 compared with Hosea 1:4–6 and 2 Kings 17:7. Secondly, it contradicts the exposition of the Targumists and Talmudists, who are authoritative for the Jews. Not to mention the other Rabbis already cited.

2. By Shiloh some understand Nebuchadnezzar, who was sent by God and took away the scepter from Judah. So some Rabbis, and with them Lyranus in his Postilla.
Response: (1) This gloss contradicts the reading of the text and grammar. For there is no שליח or שלוח from the root שלח, “to send,” but שילה, which is altogether different. Let beginners in the language consult the lexicons of Pagninus, Schindler, Buxtorf. (2) It contradicts the analogy of the context. For the taking away of the scepter and the Babylonian captivity was not a peculiar blessing by which Judah’s brethren would praise him (Gen. 49:8), but rather a peculiar curse. (3) It contradicts the Targumists, Talmudists, and Rabbis above cited, who by Shiloh understand the Messiah, not Nebuchadnezzar. (4) We answer ad hominem, that it contradicts the context: for in the Babylonian captivity the scepter was indeed taken away, but not the mechoqeq (legislator, i.e. scribes of the law), as the Chaldean paraphrasts explain. For their existence is attested in Targum Canticles 6:1.

3. By Shiloh some understand the city Shiloh, referring to Jeroboam, who was anointed there. So R. Joseph, R. Abraham, R. Beha.
Response: (1) This presupposes what is false against sacred history (1 Kings 12:25). For he was not anointed in Shiloh, but in Shechem. (2) It requires a great assumption not easily conceded, namely that in sacred phrase a place-name should be used for the person who lived or acted there. This must be proved. (3) Again, it contradicts the light of sacred history (2 Chron. 11:17; 12:2–13; 13:2–19). For by the defection of the ten tribes the scepter or authority of magistrates, judges, scribes was not taken away from Judah. (4) It contradicts the analogy of the context in Genesis 49:8. For the peculiar blessing and exaltation of Judah was not the secession of the ten tribes, but rather a plague.

IV. It is properly understood that the city of Shiloh is meant, in the sense that the scepter will not depart until Shiloh either perishes or is devastated; after whose devastation David, from the tribe of Judah, obtained the kingdom.

Response:

  1. This contradicts grammar in two ways:

    • First, because יָבֹא (yabo, “shall come”) is explained as meaning “perish, be devastated, be lost, cease to exist.” But can this be demonstrated from Judges 19: the sun set (בָּאֲשֶׁמֶשׁ)? That is, the setting of the sun in our hemisphere is its disappearance or abolition? I do not think so; lest the physicians seem as happy as the grammarians. Let them consult their Targumists and Rabbis (especially Psalms 19 and 104), who explain the movement of the sun and the terms of Scripture designating it.

    • Second, Shiloh is a city of the feminine gender; yet in Genesis 49:10, Shiloh is treated as masculine, and constructed with the masculine verb יָבֹא (jabo).

  2. It contradicts the light of sacred history, which shows that after the devastation of Shiloh (1 Sam. 5), the kingdom was not given to David of the tribe of Judah, but first to Samuel of the tribe of Levi as overseer, and then to Saul of the tribe of Benjamin.

  3. Above all, it contradicts the text of Genesis 49:10. There it is said, “The scepter shall not depart…” Yet these Rabbis not only absurdly but also improperly substitute — or are compelled to substitute — “the scepter shall not be conferred.” Such perverse distortions cannot be tolerated. How, indeed, would the syntax hold, through which the verbs of giving are constructed, with all other words of that sort, which signify that something is acquired by a person or thing?

  4. Finally, it contradicts their own authentic exposition in the Targum and Talmud, as we have said multiple times, where Shiloh designates the Messiah.

V. By shebet (rod), not to be taken away from Judah, it can also be understood as the rod of affliction and humiliation. Some Jews say this, as noted by R. Menasseh.

Response:

  1. This contradicts the analogy of the context in two ways:

    • First, because it does not cohere with yabo, the legislator, or magistrate. For what meaning would one make if one said, “The affliction shall not be taken away from Judah, nor the magistrate or scribe from under their feet”? Everything flows and coheres best if the scepter and magistracy are joined, and the same verb shall not depart applies to both.

    • Second, because the perpetual affliction of the Jews is not a peculiar blessing and exaltation over all the brothers, as Jacob intended in his patriarchal oracle.

  2. It contradicts sacred history, which testifies that under David, Solomon (1 Kings 4:25), Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, etc., the rod did not lie upon them.

  3. It contradicts the authentic Targumic exposition:

    • Onkelos: שולטן עביר (“one exercising dominion”)

    • Jerusalem Targum: יהורח מרבית מלכין, “kings from the house of Judah”

    • Jonathan: יהורה מרבית ושליטין מלכין, “kings and princes from the house of Judah”

    • Many other Rabbis explain this word similarly; also in the Arabic translation of the Pentateuch (Mauritanica): אלקריב alcadfi — the scepter.

VI. If shebet is to be understood metaphorically as support, the argument no longer holds. In this sense, it would mean: the rod, staff, or support of Judah, nor legislators or scribes who console or exhort them to endure adversity, shall never fail; the Jews in captivity will never be left without aid, even if oppressed by king or nation — some support will always reach them. R. Menasseh cites here the wisdom of the ancients from Bereishit Rabba 8–9.

Response:

  1. It presupposes, but does not prove, that the word shebet, by itself, without a substantive adjunct or vicarial pronoun denoting subject or object (as here), can metaphorically denote support. In his enumeration and demonstration of all meanings of this word (p. 88), he does not even mention this. Proof is awaited.

  2. It contradicts the Chaldean paraphrasts, whose exposition is authoritative, as shown above.

VII. Even if shebet is taken to mean the scepter, the argument does not proceed against the Jews: for the scepter is still among the Jews, if not in fact, at least by law; thus the scepter of Genesis 49 is to be understood as the scepter of legal authority, according to R. Moshe Gerundense and R. Bechai.

Response:

  1. It contradicts the text, which speaks of fact and exercise, and thus Onkelos expresses: שולטן עביר יערי לא, “he who exercises authority shall not fail.” Targum Jerusalem and Jonathan express similarly: אריתא מאלפי ספרין, “doctors (or scribes) teaching the law.”

  2. From this exposition, it seems to follow that the scepter, magistracy, legal experts, and all authority, which are attributed to Judah, would be taken away after the coming of the Messiah. This, however, contradicts the hope of the Jews concerning the fullness and glory of the earthly kingdom of their Messiah, both as to actual power and as to fact. See the description by Münster in the prolegomena to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and by Buxtorf in Synagoga Judaica.

VIII. Once more, the taking away of the scepter is understood here; yet from this the Jews are not dispossessed, for the scepter remains with the Israelites of the ten tribes, still in Scythia (beyond the Caspian Sea), whence the Messiah is to come. 

  1. The story about Israelites beyond the Caspian Sea is a fable, to be rejected by all geographers and travelers. Already some centuries ago the same or a similar thing was spread (see Benjamin of Tudela, cited above), but it was never proven.

  2. Furthermore, the Israelites of the ten tribes, after the last deportation into Assyria (2 Kings 17 compared with Hosea 1:6), ceased to exist as a people — that is, as to the form and appearance of a nation. The Jewish commentators themselves on Hosea 1:6 acknowledge this. For they coalesced with and were mixed either among the Gentiles, or with the Jews, or were transformed into Samaritans, whom they are accustomed to call Cuthaeans or Cuthites.

    • Those who mingled with the Jews can no more be said to “still reign” than the Jews themselves.

    • Those who degenerated into Gentiles are no longer Israelites, since the whole form and nature of their polity, both ecclesiastical and civil, was lost.

    • As for the Samaritans, what they are and what the Jews think of them we shall show below in the disputation De Iudaismo.

  3. It contradicts Micah 5:1, where the Messiah is said to come forth from Bethlehem and from Judah, not from Scythia, nor from the Caspian Gates, nor from the remnants of the ten tribes — whom the Talmudists in Sanhedrin ch. 11 say are condemned and have no part in the world to come.

  4. Even if we grant that some sort of dominion still remained among the ten tribes in Scythia, nevertheless it cannot be inferred from this that the Jews of today, whether Western or Eastern, possess the same, nor that their captivity and servitude ought therefore to be called a “kingdom.” For the text of Genesis 49 does not speak of the ten tribes, but of the tribe of Judah specifically, as distinct from the others, which is said to rejoice in peculiar prerogative and excellence.

IX. But if among the Jews of Europe there is no dominion, yet in Babylon it is said still to continue. Something like this Aben Ezra seems to intimate on that passage, and Isaac Arama with Benjamin (cited above).

Response: See above how this fiction has already been refuted, etc. For from Jacob down to David no one of the tribe of Judah held the scepter. Therefore the passage in Genesis 49 cannot be expounded of a continuous or perpetual dominion until the coming of the Messiah.

Response: This is entirely conceded (see the previous thesis, source 4). For the text does not say that from the time the oracle was given by Jacob the scepter should belong to the princes of that tribe, or to the tribe itself in a royal way, or in any other form of dominion. Not at all. And if some Christians, and even some Jews with Aben Ezra, suppose that prophecy to have been fulfilled in the dignity of the tribe of Judah as standard-bearers (Numbers 2:3 and Judges 1:2) or in the prefecture of Othniel (Judges 3), in our judgment they are far from the mark.

X. From Zedekiah to Christ, no one of the tribe of Judah held the key of the kingdom, except Zerubbabel. Afterwards there were either no leaders of the Jews, or else the Hasmoneans from the tribe of Levi; these were succeeded by the Roman governors, and by Herod, an Idumean.

Response: All this is conceded. But from this it does not follow that the scepter and judgment were taken away from Judah, since we place the succession of Judah not in princes descended from Judah, but in the kingdom, or polity, or commonwealth of the Jews as such. Still, it is questioned what must be said about the time of the Babylonian captivity: where then was the scepter and the lawgiver or magistracy? I do not see that it is necessary to flee to Jewish histories or the apocryphal narratives of the pseudo-Daniel about Jewish ethnarchs and judges. It is easier to say that the seventy-year captivity or exile, which afflicted many Jews, did not yet take away altogether every form and appearance of a people, since not a few were left in Judea, and many were dispersed among neighboring nations. (See Rainolds, Lectures on the Apocryphal Books, vol. 2.)

XI. The text teaches what will happen after the coming of the Messiah, not before him. The reason is that here eternity is signified; and by the accent Jetib it is joined to the preceding words, and separated from the following particle כי (ki). So the sense is: “The scepter shall not depart, etc., forever (or eternally), after (or when) Shiloh comes, i.e. the Messiah.” Thus Bechai and other recent writers, and Bereshit Rabbah as cited by R. Menasseh.

  1. This exposition is in more than one way contrary to grammar.

    • First, because the particle עד (ʿad) in construction before another particle does not mean “eternity,” but “until,” as in Genesis 26:13 and 41:49.

    • Second, because the accent Athnach under the preceding word (רגליו, “his feet”) indicates a pause, and shows that what follows pertains to the next clause and must be joined with כי (ki). This grammatical argument is strong enough ad hominem, that is, against the Jews themselves, who often argue from the function of accents in the division of sentences.

    • Third, because the accent Jetib is one of the minor disjunctives, and is very rarely employed to divide sentences; at least it cannot connect a word with what precedes when the preceding word is already marked with a major pause. Especially since elsewhere the same accent, and even the very word עד (ʿad), is plainly distinguished from the preceding and joined with the following, as in Exod. 23:30; Ruth 1:13; Judges 4: last verse; 1 Sam. 22:3; Exod. 32:33. This argument, drawn from the axioms of the Rabbis’ own grammar, ought to carry weight against them. If novices in this matter wish to see the solution with their own eyes, let them consult Buxdorf’s Thesaurus Grammaticus, at the end, where he deals with the distinction of sentences.

    • Fourth, because it contradicts the authentic exposition of their own Targums. For thus Onkelos renders: עד דייתי gnad de-yete, that is, “until he comes.” The Jerusalem Targum: עד דייתי זמן gnad zman de-yete, i.e. “until the time when he comes.” Jonathan: עד דייתי זמן gnad zman de-yete. To these agrees the Mauritanian Arabic translation: إلى أن يجي ila an yaji, “until he comes.” Not to mention Bereshit Rabbah and Ketanna, Moses Hadarsan, Aben Ezra, Shlomo Yarchi (Rashi), David Kimchi.

XII. It is objected: The text of Genesis 49:10 is corrupt, and the word “Shiloh” is a mere barbarism; and the old Latin Vulgate translator seems to have recognized an ancient reading “שילח” (Shilach), as Fagius confesses in his notes on the Targum. Some Jews derive “Shiloh” from the root שלח (to send); therefore no solid argument can be formed from this word for the coming of the Messiah.

Response. Thus indeed some Roman Catholic writers argue, in order to defend the authenticity of the Vulgate; among whom Morinus is conspicuous in his Exercitations on the Samaritan Pentateuch and its defense. But how solidly he argues, and how little such sophistry advances the cause of Christians against the Jews, Hottinger has shown at length in his Antexercitationes, and more recently Christopher Cartwright in his annotations on Genesis. Against other Romanists the same case has been argued by Glassius in Philologia Sacra I.i.1, by Rivetus, Chamier, and others cited above. I therefore will not fight the same battle again, lest I be too prolix. I only add this point: Morinus gravely contradicts himself, when he calls the word “Shiloh” unknown and inexplicable, accusing it of barbarism and solecism, and contends that no valid argument can be drawn from it against the Jews. Did he not remember that among the converted Jews was Philip of Aquino, professor of Hebrew at Paris, who read the word as it stands in the original text, and interpreted it far otherwise than the Vulgate Latin, in his most complete Hebrew dictionary (as he called it), written in Hebrew, published in Paris in 1629, with the splendid commendations and approvals of the Bishop of Soissons, of the Paris Sorbonne, of Harlay, Petavius, Gaulmin, Morainvillier, De Muis, Gabriel Sionita, and of Morinus himself? — whose very words are these:

“I have read this Hebrew-Talmudic Dictionary, a specimen of this kind of work composed by that most learned man, a Jew converted to Christ, Philip of Aquino, professor of Hebrew at Paris. I judge that it will be most useful to ecclesiastical doctors and interpreters of Holy Scripture. And if, as it has happily and diligently been begun to be published, it shall at last be brought to completion, Europe has seen nothing to compare with it in this kind of study.”

Therefore, was Philip of Aquino — such a great master of Hebrew — a barbarian, when he expounded the word Shiloh as בנו (bno) “his son”?

And these, indeed, are the objections raised against our argument from Genesis 49:10.
Now let us consider, first, the general objections by which they seek to prove in general that the Messiah has not yet come; and then the special objections by which they think they can prove that Jesus of Nazareth is not the Messiah.

The objections of the first kind can mostly be reduced to one chief argument, which today they especially employ. It is this:

Where the times predicted by God have not yet been fulfilled, that cannot be the time of the coming of the Messiah. But at the time we designate (namely, about 1650 years ago) these things were not fulfilled, nor indeed even now do we see them fulfilled. Therefore, the Messiah has not come.

They seek to prove the minor premise by enumerating various passages in Scripture, such as:

  • Isaiah 2: of the mountain of the Lord being exalted above the other mountains;

  • Isaiah 11: of the wolf dwelling with the lamb, etc.;

  • Ezekiel 47: of the waters flowing from the sanctuary, and of the trees whose leaves do not wither;

  • Isaiah 2: of swords being beaten into plowshares;
    — and similar things, around forty in number, as I was informed by one who had held frequent formal disputations with the Jews of today.

Response.
One solution fits all these: they are not to be understood properly but metaphorically; not bodily but spiritually; and thus they have already been partly fulfilled, and are still being fulfilled daily.

In working out this general reply we shall proceed in two steps.

  1. First, we will lay down certain postulates, or rather commonly accepted hypotheses, as the groundwork of our proof.

  2. Then we will present the proof itself.

Hypothesis 1. The words of Scripture are sometimes to be taken properly, literally, simply, and—where the subject matter requires it—externally or bodily; but sometimes improperly, metaphorically, allegorically, spiritually, or mystically. This diverse mode of understanding sacred text is recognized by the Talmudists and Rabbis, who use the terms: משמע, פשט, כמשמעו, הפשט לפי for the simple and literal sense, and דרש, דרוש, משלי, משל דרוש על for the allegorical and mystical sense. No one who has even glanced at Talmudic and Rabbinic commentaries can be ignorant of this. Therefore I will not prove it further. See the Talmudic formulas about mystical sense in Halichot Olam p. 115, and the very learned dissertation of Constantine l’Empereur prefixed to that book.

Hypothesis 2. Improper, metaphorical, spiritual, or mystical senses are found in historical texts (1 Kings 22; Job 1), in legal reproaches, threats, and exhortations (Hosea 1), in prophecies and promises (Isaiah 11, 19).

Hypothesis 3. The proper, simple, literal sense is to be abandoned, and the improper, spiritual sense embraced, whenever the circumstances of the text will not admit the literal sense, or when—if neither sense is expressly determined—the analogy of Scripture and of faith forbids the former and compels the latter. This can happen in two ways:

  • either when the literal sense contains absurdities, contradictions, things repugnant to divine truth, law, nature, or majesty;

  • or when it contains things absurd to sense, experience, or the light of right reason.

Thus the Talmudists and Rabbis themselves often, for this reason, abandon the simple and literal sense and adopt the improper, parabolic, allegorical, spiritual, or hyperbolic. See their commentators on Hosea 1; Job 1; 1 Kings 22; Isaiah 11, 13, 19; Ezekiel 47.

Hypothesis 4. Many of the phrases in which the prophecies and promises of the days of the Messiah are expressed must certainly be understood improperly, metaphorically, and spiritually, as is evident from those passages where the same phrases occur in contexts of sacrifice, priesthood, altar, water, etc. (Psalm 50:14; 51:19; Isaiah 12:3 compared with 44:3, 19; 66:20–21; Hosea 14:3).

II. Having laid down these premises, let us now apply them to the controversial texts which the Jews object to us.
Repeating our distinction, and proving both its parts from Scripture, we answer by denying that all those prophecies are to be taken properly and bodily.

  1. Because the Jews up to now have not proved—indeed they do not even attempt to prove—from the analogy of the context or of faith that such a sense is required. Yet the burden of proof lies on those who argue.

  2. Because they cannot be taken literally. For if all the things predicted concerning the days of the Messiah, his benefits, and the state of the faithful people in the New Testament, must be understood properly and bodily, then all of them must be so understood, nor can any reason for difference be given.
    For example:

  • of Levites and priests not only from the tribe of Levi or the family of Aaron, but also from any nation (Isaiah 61:6; 66:20–21);

  • of the temple, with a form far different from that which God prescribed (Ezekiel 40–41 vs. 1 Chronicles 28:19);

  • of an altar in Egypt (Isaiah 19), although God had chosen only one place (Deuteronomy 12:14);

  • of incense and offerings throughout the whole world (Malachi 1:11), not only in the chosen place.

But all these are absurdities and contradictions. In order that such may not be admitted, we must keep the Talmudists’ own rule of interpreting Scripture, which corresponds to one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles of R. Ishmael, collected from the Talmud and published in Latin by the convert Philippus de Aquino in Paris, 1629. Namely: כתובים שני (“two passages of Scripture appear to contradict each other, until a third verse comes and resolves the apparent dispute”). R. Ishmael adds: “The Rabbis hand down that it is impious to suppose that anything in the holy writings is contradictory to itself.”

Therefore, unless we wish to make God and His Word contradictory, we must say: the command of God concerning outward and ceremonial worship was meant to be abolished; but the promises and prophecies concern metaphorical and spiritual worship, which was to be substituted in its place, and which is expressed in the typical or ceremonial language of Old Testament theology and religion. In the writings of the New Testament similar phrases are thus to be expounded (Romans 15; Revelation 1:5–6; Hebrews 13), clearly indicated by distinctive words such as “of God,” “spirit,” “spiritual,” “rational” (John 4:24; 1 Peter 2:4; Romans 12:1; Galatians 6:8; Romans 2:29), or by proper synonyms (Revelation 8:3).

  1. Because the Jews themselves, without constraint, recur to the improper and spiritual sense in this very matter. Thus R. Alshech on Haggai 2 says that the temple “to come” (עתיר) will be רוחני (rouchani = spiritual), and its walls “spiritual walls,” meaning that pious men themselves are the chief temple, as he himself says there. Apply this distinction to the temple described by Ezekiel, and you will reconcile the Scriptures. Of this spiritual temple, in which under the New Testament worship is to be given, see John 4:23–24; Ephesians 2:21–22.

Likewise they interpret Isaiah 11:6–7. Maimonides, in Yad Chazakah at the end, says that in the days of the Messiah nothing will be changed in the governance of the world, nor will anything be innovated in the works of creation, and that those sayings of Isaiah 11 are משל וחידות (“allegory and riddle”). And R. David Kimchi, on Isaiah 11, admits that some explain the whole passage as mashal (parable or allegory). Shortly afterwards he himself approves this opinion and adds the reason: “Because the nature of things will not be changed in the days of the Messiah; the lion and bear will seize and eat flesh as they do now.” And this agrees with the Talmud, tract. Shabbat 63a, where R. Samuel is introduced saying: “There is no difference between this age and the days of the Messiah, except that the kingdoms shall be subdued.”

And Malachi 1:11, where incense and the meal-offering are said to be offered everywhere, is interpreted metaphorically of prayers. Thus the Targum: וצלותכון “and your prayers shall be as a pure offering before Me.” Likewise Rashi and Ibn Ezra with their Rabbis interpret it of prayers offered everywhere, which would be accepted by God as incense and the meal-offering. Although they do not apply this place to the days of the Messiah, but elsewhere, still it is enough for us that so many similar examples can be returned upon them, to show that in the disputed places they object to us against the coming of the Messiah, we may do the same as they themselves think lawful in other places. The same reasoning applies to similar cases.

If in one prediction (Isaiah 11:6–7) a spiritual and allegorical sense is admitted, why not also in the later part of the same chapter (vv. 15–16), and in Isaiah 2:2 and 19:18–19, and in Ezekiel 47:12?

By such a distinction we blunt this chief objection of the Jews of today. And we have pursued it at greater length, because it not only refutes the cause of the Jews, but also that of the chiliasts and similar sects, as well as of the Papists, who from Malachi 1 and Hosea 14 argue for an external and literal sacrifice—an argument this distinction utterly overthrows.

As for the special objections by which they try to prove that Jesus of Nazareth is not the Messiah, it is hardly worth the effort to refute them one by one in detail. It will be enough, in general, to point out the method of dealing with such objections.

These objections are of two kinds. The first are those that indirectly attack Jesus by applying to others what properly belongs to Him alone. The second are those that directly and explicitly aim at Him by name.

Regarding the first kind, we must require that they demonstrate that the prophecies in the Old Testament about the Messiah can truly be applied to some specific person. Here all the false Messiahs—if any such ever appeared or were so regarded—must be listed. Those before the destruction of the Temple: Judas the Galilean, Theudas, the magicians and bandits, the Egyptian, and that other who led people into the wilderness (see Josephus, Antiquities Book 20, ch. 11; Wars Book 2, ch. 14). And those after the destruction: Bar Kochba, Moses of Crete (of whom both Jewish and Christian annals, chronicles, and universal histories speak), and Simeon mentioned by Benjamin of Tudela in his Itinerary, p. 93. Let them choose whichever of these they like. But, I suppose, they will not choose any—for they themselves have already exposed them all as impostors.

Nor, I think, will they wish to apply the Messianic prophecies to anyone outside Judaism—for example, to Mani, Muhammad, David George, or other enthusiasts and fanatics of that kind—who, if not all, at least some, ascribed to themselves prophetic functions belonging to the Messiah. Still less would they apply them to the Roman Pontiff (that notable pseudo-Messiah in interpretation), any more than to their own “Armillus” (as they call him).

Nothing, therefore, remains for them but to apply the prophecies to their supposed “Messiah son of Joseph,” who they claim already exists in the world, but is hidden among the lepers of Rome. This fable of a “twofold Messiah” may be seen in Galatinus (De Arcanis, Book 3, ch. 2), in Buxtorf’s Synagoga Judaica, ch. 36, and in Constantinus l’Empereur’s preface to Halichot Olam. But how ill this putrid invention of a double Messiah—one of them ulcerated and leprous, the son of Joseph—agrees with Scripture has been shown by Helvicus, Jacob Martini, and others.

Indeed, the Jews themselves give up this fiction, when they twist Isaiah 53—where this “dual Messiah” is supposed to be found—away to mean Abraham, or Hezekiah, or the people of Israel, as can be seen in Abarbanel’s commentaries (published and refuted by Constantinus l’Empereur).

As for the second class of objections—those directly against the doctrine, life, and gospel history of Jesus Christ—they have been already refuted by Munster, in his notes on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, against the virulent author of the Nizzachon. And it will be easy to scatter these objections, once the true interpretation, defense, and harmony of the New Testament passages with the Old Testament are set forth.

Here students will find useful the textual notes already indicated elsewhere. If anyone desires more, let him consult the reconcilers (συναλιφανῶν) and interpreters of “difficult” or “apparently inconsistent” passages, among whom Spanheim in his Dubia Evangelica deserves recommendation.

In the explanation and defense of the argument from Genesis 49:10, one may also consult, among the more recent writers, Tarnovius (Biblical Exercises Book 2, p. 545), Amama (Antibarbarus Biblicus, p. 444), Rivetus (Exercises on Genesis, pp. 177–179, especially), and Cartwright, in his selections of Targumic-Rabbinical comments on Genesis 49:10 and in his additions, where this subject is expressly treated.

Besides the authors on Jewish controversies already cited—namely, Munster (in his prolegomena and notes to the Hebrew Matthew), Plessaeus, Broughton, Helvicus, and Jacob Martini—the Hebrew student will profit from reading Munster, Broughton’s Hebrew epistle to Rabbi Abraham Ruben, his tract on the Trinity, and his Hebrew disputation against Rashi and David Kimchi (proposed April 12, 1545, by August Varenius, Professor of Hebrew at Rostock).

To these may be added, for those with leisure, the anonymous amicam disputationem adversus Judaeos (a friendly disputation against the Jews), published in Latin at Amsterdam (as I conjecture) in 1644. Although that author defended nothing against the Jews except what he saw the Socinians and Remonstrants walking hand in hand with them in, so that he omitted the first four questions (which had been proposed by the Jewish disputants)—namely, about the Trinity, about the necessity of faith in the Messiah for remission of sins, about the unity of the Messiah’s person, and about His two natures—still, it may usefully be compared for knowing the arguments of more recent Jews, and the replies made to each question.

Gisbertus Voetius: The Future Conversion of the Jews

  The following is taken from volume 2 of Voetius' Select Disputations , pages 124-155. ON THE GENERAL CONVERSION OF THE JEWS Romans 11...