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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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).
- 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:
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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).
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Finally, the millenary kingdom can be added, [which is] a mere phantom of dreams, concerning which [there will be] a peculiar Disputation.
- One consequence can be gathered from Romans 11:15: That there will not be a ruin of the Jews and hardening of the Gentiles.
- Moreover, concerning the circumstances of places and of definite time, nothing certain can be determined.
- 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...
