De Moor II:38: The Sense of Scripture, Simple or Composite (Part 3)

[If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

4.  Against the Jews, and against those that do not decline to undertake the patronage of Jewish trifles of this sort, our AUTHOR observes that the Sense is not to be elicited in any way from the Letters in the Kabbalistic manner; just as the Jews, the relating of whose trifles is the refuting of the same, boast that the Kabbalah, that is, receiving,[1] together with the other part of the Oral Law preserved in the Mishnah, was delivered by God to Moses on mount Sinai; and that the Theoretical Kabbalah does indeed contain hidden knowledge, which applies itself to searching out the deepest mysteries of the written Law, and elicits Senses especially sublime and arcane, hidden in the Scripture, from Letters transposed, or resolved into numbers, or changed in other ways.  Menasseh[2] in The Conciliator, the last question in Exodus, enumerates thirteen appearances of this Theoretical Kabbalah, all which the Most Illustrious LEUSDEN explains in his Philologo Hebræo, Dissertation XXVI.  Its threefold method, more famous than the rest, our AUTHOR specifies as Gematria, Temurah, and Notarikon.

גֵּימַטְרִיאָ/Gematria is a word corrupted from the Greek γεωμετρία/geometry; but it is taken in the Kabbalah in a broader sense, and principally denotes here Arithmetic,[3] but secondarily also Geometry, that is, the dimensions of the sacred structures, like the Ark, Tabernacle, Temple, etc.  It is the former method of Gematria when they observe that diverse words by their letters express the same number, and they explain one of those by another:  for example, two, three, and four make nine, and five and four likewise make nine; of these words, which thus agree, they put the one in the place of the other.  Thus, when God promises in Zechariah 3:8, כִּֽי־הִנְנִ֥י מֵבִ֛יא אֶת־עַבְדִּ֖י צֶֽמַח׃, for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the Tzemach/Branch, they ask, What or Who is the Tzemach/Branch?  The response is through Gematria:  צֶמַח/Tzemach has a value of one hundred and thirty-eight,[4] as does מְנַחֵם/Comforter:[5]  now, this name מְנַחֵם/Menachem, is numbered by the Kabbalists and Talmudists among the names of Messiah; whence Kabbalistically by צֶמַח/Tzemach Messiah is understood there:  see our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes Miscellaneas, Disputation VI, which is on Zechariah 6:9-15, § 15.  In this way they prove that the world was created in the beginning of year, formerly begun in September, because in the words, בראש השנה נברא, in the beginning of the year it was created, the same number is observed as in בראשית ברא, in the beginning He created,[6] that is, one thousand, one hundred and sixteen.  The latter method of Gematria inquires into the reasons why the dimensions of the Sacred structures, the Ark, Tabernacle, Temple, etc., are so carefully narrated to us in Sacred Scripture, and from the same it carves out mysteries.

תְּמוּרָה/Temurah/exchange, from מוּר/הֵמִיר, to change, has a place when by the exchange or transposition of letters one word comes up in the place of another.  The first method is called אתבש/Athbasch, that is, when ת signifies א, ש signifies ב, ר signifies ג, etc.:[7]  Menasseh proves this sort from Jeremiah 25:26, in which the Prophet, so that he might not irritate the King of Babylon, calls him the King of שֵׁשַׁךְ/Sheshach, instead of בָּבֶל/Babel, by taking ש in the place of ב, and ך in the place of ל.  JEROME supports this opinion of the Jews in explaining the name of the King of שֵׁשַׁךְ/Sheshach, and commends the same in his Commentario ad locum.  But it is better, either, 1.  to derive this name from a deity of the Babylonians called שַׁךְ/Shach, with the first letter שׁ thus repeated, upon which matter GROTIUS has on this passage, “The Chaldean teaches us that the Babylonian King is signified here also.  No other King through circumlocutions was to be named beside him, under whose government Jeremiah was for some time living.  But the Prophet himself, when he was living in Egypt, explains this name in Jeremiah 51:41.  The Jews, and Jerome with them, think that שֵׁשַׁךְ/Sheshach is בָּבֶל/Babel through an exchange of letters that they call אתבש/Athbasch, that is, in which the last letter of the Alphabet is put in the place of the first, the penultimate in the place of the second, and vice versa, and so on.  But others are rather inclined to think that this name, with the first letter repeated, derives from שַׁךְ/Shach, which is the name of one of the Goddesses of Babylon, on account of which he that was called מִישָׁאֵל/Mishael[8] is called by the Babylonians מֵישַׁךְ/Meshach, Daniel 1:7.  From the same source Σακχαῖα/Sakchaia is the name of feast days among the same Babylonians, as Athenæus, in Banquet of the Learned,[9] book XIV, section 10, relates out of Berosus[10] and Ctesias.[11]  Dio Chrysostom[12] also mentions it, “de Regno” IV, calling it the Σακκῶν ἑορτὴν, Sacian feast.”  This latter opinion, which also satisfied SCALIGER, book VI de Emendatione Temporum, page 276, was then pleasing to more, among whom was GLASSIUS, Grammatica Sacra, book IV, tractate III, observation XIII, pages 830, 831, and Rhetorica Sacra, tractate I, chapter XXII, page 512; as well as BUDDEUS, Historia ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, period II, section V, § 14, tome 2, pages 705b, 706a; and LE CLERC upon the passage; all of whom see.  Or, 2.  to give place to the conjecture of MICHAELIS, in his notes on the passage, who, when he had advised, Whence Babel might have this name, the opinion of Interpreters are various, but all uncertain; and, when he had then briefly reviewed the twofold opinion just now mentioned by us, subjoins, “What if it is formed from the Arabic שוך, he shows fortitude and resolve, and fierce strength in war; he is clothed in Full Armor; in such a way that with the root double according to the form גַּלְגַּל,[13] טוֹטַף,[14] Babel might be called a warrior, as if about to fight with incredible strength all the aforementioned nations?”  The other method, which BUXTORF especially relates to Temurah, but which otherwise is called צִירוּף/ Tsiruph, that is, combination, arises from a diverse combination of letters through metathesis:[15]  thus, for example, in Psalm 21:1, it is said,יְֽהוָ֗ה בְּעָזְּךָ֥ יִשְׂמַח־מֶ֑לֶךְ, O Lord, in thy strength the king shall joy; here יִשְׂמַח, he shall joy, by metathesis is מָשִׁיחַ/Messiah, as if the Prophet meant to say, O Jehovah, in thy strength King Messiah shall joy.  Thus מַלְאָכִי, my angel, with the letters transposed is declared to be מִיכָאֵל/Michael, Exodus 23:23.  חֶרֶם/anathema, devoted to destruction, by metathesis is רַחֵם/mercy, and otherwise רמ֞ח, a symbolic, numeric word meaning two hundred and forty-eight, the very number of members in the human body.  Hence they thus play:  if he upon whom an anathema is pronounced should repent, then in the place of חֶרֶם/anathema רַחֵם/mercy follows:  if he repents not, then the חֶרֶם/anathema intensifies, and enters into his רמ֞ח, two hundred and forty-eight, members, and the whole man perishes.  In the same manner, in all Languages Anagrams[16] are established.

Finally, by נוֹטָרִיקוֹן/Notarikon, with the word taken from the Latin tongue and corrupted, is designated that part of the Kabbalah by which from the individual letters of any significative just so many other sayings are formed:  for example, the individual letters of מַכְבָּי/ Maccabæus denote just so many entire words, which occur in Exodus 15:11, מִֽי־כָמֹ֤כָה בָּֽאֵלִם֙ יְהוָ֔ה, who is like unto thee among the gods, O Lord; that from the initial letters inscribed on the banner of Judas, son of Mattathias, General of the Jews, the name of the Maccabees was formed and took its rise, several with GROTIUS maintain, which also appears the most likely of all to SPANHEIM, Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, epoch IX, chapter III, § 3, column 451, while BUDDEUS presents himself as doubtful in this matter, Historia ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, tome II, period II, section VII, § 1, page 916, column 2.  Similarly in אָדָם/Adam they find אֵפֶר/dust, דָּם/blood, מָרָה/gall; and so here and there in other words also.

It can happen that these games might agree with the matter; but this happens by accident, neither is a solid foundation provided in Kabbalah of this sort upon which you might conclude that a matter ought thus to be:  as the matter is among Anagrammatists, so Alstedius by anagram is called Sedulius, which nevertheless was not properly intended by his name; neither was he Sedulous because he was named Alstedius.

Concerning the three species of Kabbalah just now explained, and the authority of interpretations of this sort, consult GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram, book II, part I, section III, article VII, pages 193-200; BUXTORF’S de Abbreviaturis Hebraicis, page m. 62-65; SCHULTENS’ Excursus III, adversus Honertum, § VII-IX, pages 175-178:  and in general concerning the Kabbalah of the Jews and the Kabbalists read those treating more fully, HOTTINGER in his Thesauro Philologico, book I, chapter III, section V, pages 437-456, and WOLF in his Bibliotheca Hebraica, part II, book VII, pages 1191-1247, and whom he cites as additional authors.

These Kabbalistic games are wrongly defended, as if they have a foundation in Sacred Scripture, for example, from the changed names of Abram and Sarai, who instead of אַבְרָם/Abram and שָׂרַי/Sarai were then called אַבְרָהָם/Abraham and שָׂרָה/Sarah, Genesis 17:5, 15, where learned Men speak of the י, the initial letter of the name יהוה/Jehovah, and the symbol for the number ten, removed from the name of Sarai, and replaced with a ה, symbol for the number five, in the name of Abraham and of Sarah:  so that it might be signified that Messiah, who was going to be true יהוה/Jehovah, promised first under the name of the Seed of the Woman,[17] of which promise Sarai was the sole heiress, hence called the Princess[18] of Jehovah; was going to be born of the seed of Abraham and Sarah.  And that thus, for the greater consolation of the Church, a Man also, namely, Abraham, was received into a sort of custody of this deposit concerning the Messiah to be born.  And that thereafter Messiah was commonly anticipated as the Seed of the Man, when the entire line of heirs of the promise were fashioned in their names by the letter י/yod, יִצְחָק/Isaac, יַעֲקֹב/Jacob, יְהוּדָה/Judah, and especially David, whose name, previously written דָּוִד without the י, after the promise was made, began to be written as דָּוִיד with the י.  But that then, lest the promise concerning the Seed of the Woman be obliterated, the promise concerning the Virgin giving birth was added, whose proper name then, מרים/Miriam/Mary, instead of the twofold ה had again the י, even positioned in the same place and between the same letters, where it is ה in the name of אַבְרָהָם/Abraham; so that it might be signified that, from this woman alone, without her knowing a man, indeed according to the innermost bowels of the mercy of God, Messiah was going to be born, with respect to the רחם/womb in the midst of the letters ר and ם.  As these and similar things out of JACOB ALTING’S Dissertatione de Kabbala Scripturaria, Heptad V, Dissertation I, § 1-66, opera, tome 5, pages 118-123, and out of others, MARCKIUS relates, Exercitationibus textualibus VII, Part III.  It is far simpler to learn the reason of the change of name from אַבְרָם/Abram to אַבְרָהָם/Abraham from God Himself, who in the case of the inserted ה leads us to the word הָמוֹן/multitude, saying, thy name shall be Abraham, כִּ֛י אַב־הֲמ֥וֹן גּוֹיִ֖ם נְתַתִּֽיךָ׃, for a father of many nations have I made thee.  But שָׂרַי/Sarai, while previously she was called my Princess,[19] as Abraham also was able to call her with respect to himself, now may be called absolutely and antonomastically Princess, from whom not only peoples, but also Kings of people, would be born, according to Genesis 17:16.  Now, it was far more glorious to be called Princess absolutely, than my Princess.  And this does indeed appear to be able to be pled so much more simply as the reason for the changed name of Sarah.  It does not at all appear that the י in the names יִצְחָק/Isaac, יַעֲקֹב/Jacob, etc., is sought from the name יהוה/Jehovah; contrariwise, that י is simply the characteristic letter of the third person, masculine, singular, of the future/imperfect tense of the verb, whence these names were formed.[20]  The name מרים/Miriam/Mary does not occur in the Prophetic Word of the mother of Messiah, although if we wish to make sport, in הָעַלְמָה, the virgin,[21] a double ה is also able to be observed, etc.  See what things more MARCKIUS, Exercitationibus textualibus VII, Part III, brings into the light against these Kabbalistic reasonings, so that he might show that the same are destitute of any foundation, especially in § VIII, XI.

Neither is it to be said that patronage is found for Kabbalah in Revelation 13:18, in which John signifies that the name of the Beast is reckoned from numbers.  1.  For in this passage the explanation of the name with the help of Arithmetic depends upon divine authority, of which we are elsewhere destitute.  2.  It is one thing to indicate simply the number of a name, when the name itself is left unsaid, which hence comes to be searched out according to that number; it is a far different thing sedulously to seek among all the words expressly delivered, without any indication given by the Holy Spirit, mysteries of this sort by Mathematical analysis, etc.

And so, just as mysteries, gratuitously elicited by Theoretical Kabbalah from the words of Sacred Scripture, are obtruded in the place of the Sense of Scripture; so hardly any other use for this Kabbalistic Art is given, except when one wishes to argue ad hominem with a Kabbalistic Jew, and to show by a turning back of the method that also the mysteries of the Christian faith are able to be demonstrated from the Old Testament by this method of proceeding, legitimate according to the rule of the Kabbalistic art.  For example, when a Jew denies that by שִׁילֹה/Shiloh, Genesis 49:10, Messiah is understood, he is able to be refuted by Kabbalah; for יבא שילה, Shiloh comes, by Gematria indicates משיח/Messiah; that is, the numerical value of each is three hundred and fifty-eight.  Thus, that the Creator of the world is the Triune God, by the Kabbalistic sport according to Notarikon is elicited from the trilateral word בָּרָא, which also has the initial letters of the words, אב/Father, בן/Son, and רוח הקדש, Holy Spirit; by which very letters the first word of the Bible also begins.[22]  Just how ridiculous argumentation of this sort is, is evident, inasmuch as the Socinians Enjedinus[23] does not dread to substitute three other words, בליעל ראש אתה, thou art the head or prince of the wicked, in Explicatione Locorum Veteris et Novi Testamenti, pages 2, 3.  Ibn Ezra himself, in his Commentary on Genesis 14:14 and Daniel 11:31, acknowledges the vanity of this Kabbalistic Art, of interpreting Scripture by Gematria; and asserts that the Scripture does not speak by Gematria, because in this manner every word could be turned at pleasure to a good or evil sense:  his words are cited by WOLF in his Bibliotheca Hebraica, part II, book VII, chapter II, § I, pages 1211, 1212.

Moreover, what things our AUTHOR mentions concerning the Mysteries that they seek in the Letters Majuscule, Minuscule, Suspended, etc., pertain to an eighth species of Kabbalah, which is calledסְתוּמוֹת וּפְתוּחוֹת, closed and opened; and a tenth, which containsאוֹתִיוֹת קְטַנֺּת וּגְדוֹלוֹת, letters small and great, concerning which the Most Illustrious LEUSDEN, Philologo Hebræo, Dissertation XXVI, pages 276-278, is able to be consulted, and his student PETRUS DINANT, de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter V, § 102, 106, pages 937-939, 945, 946:  and concerning which there is so little reason to invest labor, as long as it is not solidly evinced that that sort of irregular form of a letter is from God, and not from human copyists.  The Conjecture of a certain Anonymous author concerning the suspended Letters in the Sacred Codex see in Symbolis Litterariis Bremensibus, tome I, part II, chapter I, page 1 and following, who holds this figure of this sort of suspended letter as a mark of a letter previously omitted in the text, whether rightly, or at least according to the opinion of the copyists, who thereafter copied the Codex.  HARENBERG in Bibliotheca Bremensi nova, classis II, fascicule II, chapter I, § 15, pages 241, 242, asserts that the Jews, with the second Temple overthrown, inserted the figures of Letters suspended, closed, marginalized, majuscule, and minuscule in their Bibles, so that they might implant in their countrymen a hatred for Jesus and for Christians, and at the same time false explications of more than one pericope, as he then labors to prove from the very examples of the things.  The Mysteries that some Kabbalistically extort from the Final Closed letter ם,[24] found in the midst of the word לְםַרְבֵּה, of the increase, Isaiah 9:7, our AUTHOR relates in his Exercitationibus textualibus XVI, Part VI, § 8, pages 530, 531.

5.  The fifth Thesis of our AUTHOR has regard to the Citation of Passages from the Old Testament made in the New; whether κατὰ τὸ ῥητὸν, according to the letter, or κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν, according to the sense/ thought, of which latter method of citation I have exhibited an illustrious specimen in Dissertatione mea on Ephesians 5:14.[25]  Both indeed are most frequently made according to the Literal Sense, as when in Matthew 1:22, 23 is shown the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14; and in John 19:24 it is taught that what was predicted in Psalm 22:18 has been fulfilled.  That which is everywhere done to prove the truth of the Christian Religion by argument from the Prophecies of the Old Testament cited in the New Testament, by many is admirably demonstrated against Collins, who dared to contend that the Citation of the ancient Prophecies in the New Testament was done only by Accommodation or Allegory deviating from the Literal Sense:  see LELAND’S Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, tome 1, chapter 6, pages 143-163.  Sometimes the Citation is made according to the Mystical Sense, for example, when in Matthew 2:15 the text of Hosea 11:1 is cited; consult § 37 above:  and when in John 19:36 an appeal is made to Exodus 12:46; see again § 37 above.  And sometimes a Citation of Passages of the Old Testament is made as a Usurpation of expressions in the Old Testament occurring through naked Accommodation.  We acknowledge with our AUTHOR that recourse is not to be made to this without great necessity; consult WALCH’S Miscellanea Sacra, book I, Exercitation VI, § 22, pages 169, 170:  nevertheless, at the same time we hold with our AUTHOR that Accommodations of this sort, through which the words of the Old Testament are accommodated and applied by the Writers of the New Testament to subjects other than those of which the same were made use in the Old Testament, are not able to be denied altogether:

              α.  On account of the altogether clear Examples that evince the same.  For example, when upon the occasion of the Infanticide at Bethlehem, Matthew 2:17, 18, the prophecy of Jeremiah is cited, Jeremiah 31:15, that the prophecy is able to be applied to the Infanticide at Bethlehem only by Accommodation, our AUTHOR proves in a remarkable Dissertation, which is XX of Part I, Exercitationibus textualibus:  1.  From the place of this weeping in Jeremiah, which is Ramah, such as was situated in Benjamin, Ephraim, Naphtali, and Gad, all altogether distinct from Bethlehem of Judah.  2.  From the principal and impulsive cause of the voice heard.  The weeping is attributed to Rachel, of whom Joseph and Benjamin were born; not to Leah, who begat Judah.  The former is said to weep עַל־בָּנֶיהָ, over her children/sons, with the phrase repeated, not just little children; not those of another, but her own.  Which very sons were not present, that is, all were carried away from the sight of their mother, אֵינֶנּוּ, they were not, that is,אֵין אִישׁ , there were none; while in Bethlehem and its neighborhood were killed only the children ἀπὸ διετοῦς καὶ κατωτέρω, from two years old and below.  3.  From the solace that God sets in opposition to this bitter weeping of Rachel, Jeremiah 31:16, 17, speaking of the return of the children of Rachel from captivity, while from death the Bethlehemite infants were not able to return.

They Object:  Matthew writes τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Ἰερεμίου, then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah.  I respond:  This phrase is to be distinguished from the other, whereby something is said to be done, ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, as it is in verse 15 and elsewhere, which appears to express the scope/end/goal of God speaking in the Prophets.  But to be fulfilled in a general sense is nothing other than for something said to be done, to be fulfilled in event, or for it to follow its truth with action; in which manner the same are quite frequently done, just as there is nothing new under the sun.  Therefore, in Matthew, citing the words of Jeremiah, is to be understood a similar fulfillment in a similar event, not the first, but another; not with respect to the subject but the predicate, since the same predicates are able to agree with many subjects; not the individual, but specific or generic:  since the weeping in Bethlehem undoubtedly was, 1.  most grievous, 2.  upon the occasion of children snatched away, 3.  not far from the city of Jerusalem; in which heads this weeping agrees with the other in Jeremiah.  The Most Illustrious VRIEMOET, Thesibus scripturarum, DCCXXXI, supplies an explanation, according to which it would not be necessary to admit here a Citation through the Mode of Accommodation; but whether it proceeds rightly, let others judge.  So it stands:  “The passage of Jeremiah 31:15 treats generally of the bitter cries of the people of Israel, from the earliest ages, through a great many calamities, and unto those increased with the number of citizens nearly wiped out, of which evils, since the slaughter of the infants of Bethlehem makes up a certain part, hence this prophecy is applied to the same in Matthew 2.”  VRIEMOET illustrates this thesis at somewhat greater length in Observationum miscellanearum, chapter XIV, § 2, pages 323, 324.  Various other explanations of the prophecy of Jeremiah, that it might be reconciled with the citation of Matthew, but everywhere sought out with great industry, you may read in WILLEM ALBERT BACHIENE’S Geographiam Sacram, part II, tome I, chapter III, pages 352-357, 492-495.  Of the sense of the words in Jeremiah 31:15-17, and their context, compared with Matthew 2:16-18, GERHARD TEN CATE discusses prolixly, Epistola de Rebus Jesu Christi ex Prophetis ad Leonardum Offerhaus, after Offerhaus’ Spicilegiorum historico-chronologicorum, pages 664-697, whose argument, whether it be more satisfactory, let the learned reader weigh.

Our AUTHOR thinks that the matter holds in a similar manner, if you compare Deuteronomy 30:11-14 with Romans 10:6-8.  Learned men greatly weary themselves to show in the former place that Moses speaks of the same subject, namely, the sum of the Gospel, as Paul, and that the Apostle did indeed cite these words in the literal sense.  But, if we reflect rightly upon this matter, no such opposition in Moses appears between Leviticus 18:5, If ye shall keep my statutes and my judgments, the man that does them shall live in them:  I am Jehovah, which saying the Apostles cites as a formula for Legal Righteousness; and between those things that are found in Deuteronomy 30.  If indeed Moses also speaks here of his Precept at that time given to Israel, that is, of the keeping and doing of the divine Law by Israel, with an entire embrace, just as this was contained in the Pentateuch and in this book of Deuteronomy:  he does not prophesy that this precept is not going to be far off in the future, but he asserts that it is not now far off; so that no prophecy is to be sought here concerning matters to come under the New Testament:  and Moses intends no other thing by those phrases, that it is not what is said, who shall go up for us into the heavens, who shall go over the sea for us? than that his precept is no further hidden or far off from Israel, that anyone for the sake of the revealing of that might be obliged to ascend into the heavens or to pass over the sea; but that the same is near in the mouth and in the heart, so that they might speak of it and have it as a thing known, or at least might be able easily to become acquainted with it.  While Paul treats of the Righteousness of Faith, set over against the Righteousness of the Law; and so in the prior interrogation, who shall ascend into heaven? he has regard to one that might open heaven to them and show the entrance to that; whence it is subjoined that by that interrogation Christ is brought down from heaven, or His Ascension is most wickedly denied:  in the latter interrogation, who shall descend into the abyss? he had regard to one that might undergo death and infernal sorrows thus to liberate us from them; whence it follows that by that interrogation Christ is brought up again from the dead, or His death for us is most wickedly taken away:  and finally the word that is near in the mouth and in the heart, Paul openly interprets concerning the Gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ, verses 9 and 10, insofar as that was expressed by the confession of the mouth, and at the same time was believed by the faith of the heart.  In which place Paul, among other things, from the expression of Moses, who shall go over the sea for us? not only according to the Hebrew text, but also according to the Septuagint, far recedes by his own, τίς καταβήσεται εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον, who shall descend into the abyss? especially if you have regard to the annexed declaration:  whence, although here also various methods of reconciliation have been devised, perhaps it will be best to acknowledge that Paul in the place of Moses’ expression has substituted another better agreeing with his own purpose.  Therefore, in this place there shall be a total Accommodation of the Mosaic words, or a Translation unto another subject and equally also unto a somewhat different sense:  so that Paul means this, that indeed the Law leaves, nay, makes, man uncertain and anxious by that formula of Righteousness understood according to the letter, the man which doeth those things shall live by them:  but that the Gospel, through the faith and confession of it, bears away that uncertainty and anxiety, the Gospel, I say, proclaimed concerning Him, who for us has merited heavenly life, and through death has freed us from death; in that it relates that Christ in this manner died and revived for our Justification, so that hence the prophetic formula of the Righteousness of faith out of Isaiah 28:16 (which the Apostles cites in verse 11), ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται, whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed, might also be plainly set over against that Mosaic formula.  Whence also Paul did not say that Moses thus describes the Righteousness by faith, just as he had spoken concerning the Righteousness by the Law, verse 5, neither does he place the formula of the Righteousness of faith in the words of Moses, adduced in only the smallest part and mixed with his own words, and certainly not as expounding that Righteousness of faith; but in the summary of the Gospel subjoined, in support of which he cites Isaiah.  Although the Mosaic Precept, even with respect to that word in Leviticus 18:5, is to be acknowledged as tacitly Evangelical, insofar as the elect learn from the external appearance of the Law their impotence, and penetrate into the inner marrow of the Israelite Covenant.  Thus our Most Illustrious AUTHOR in his Commentario ad Novissima Mosis learnedly discusses this Mosaic passage, comparing it with the Pauline; see his Commentarium in præcipuas quasdem partes Pentatuechi, pages 691-706.

If the words of Paul in Romans 10:18[26] be compared with Psalm 19:4, especially in the Septuagint Version,[27] it is hardly able to be doubted that they have regard to that passage:  hence from ancient times among the Fathers there arose those that Interpreters of great reputation in more recent times have followed, who interpreted the former part of Psalm 19 mystically, as if it might contain a prophecy concerning the Apostolic preaching of the Gospel.  Others think that Paul by these wants to prove that God had already of old granted to the Gentiles a knowledge of Himself in some measure by the light of nature, while He was revealing the preaching of the Gospel to the Jews alone, with the words of the Psalm cited to such an extent in the proper sense.  Others, hardly finding a suitable way to reconcile Paul with David, deny altogether that Paul borrowed the words from David.

This, considering either text without prejudice, appears to be able to be evident, that Paul speaks of the preaching of the Gospel now extended to all Nations:  and David in Psalm 19 commends previously the doctrine concerning God that Nature furnishes, then the doctrine of the Law, or the doctrine revealed in the written Word, in such a way that he raises the written Word far above Nature; but that the argument in verse 4 still pertains to the instruction of Nature.  That, moreover, both passages of David and of Paul so agree in expression that it is hardly, and not even hardly, able to be doubted that the Apostle borrowed the phrase from David.  Therefore, so that we might reconcile both divine Writers, and not say that Paul drew the words of David unto an alien sense; it appears that nothing is able to be said more aptly than that Paul by no means proves from the words of David the future, Universal Preaching of the Gospel:  but the Universal Preaching of the Gospel, being thus already sufficiently evident as begun from the event, Paul would set forth to be done in words suited to this matter, which David had formerly used concerning the preaching of Nature, by a certain sort of Accommodation or Translation; as if he should say, Certainly it is now able to be said truly of the preaching of the Gospel, what David sang concerning the heavens and expanse, namely, that their sound and words have reached all the way to the ends of the earth and are able to be heard by all.  In the text there is certainly no formulaic expression indicating proof, but a simple setting forth of a thing known publicly.  For it ought not to be objected that so universal a calling of the Gentiles had not yet been made, when Paul wrote these things:  for this is against the entire Apostolic intention as expressed, neither is it able to be admitted, with the truly stupendous beginning of this great matter observed, and with a comparison made with the first ages; consult Colossians 1:6, 23; and see our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes textuales XX, § 8, 9, pages 673-681.  On these twin passages closely illustrated the marginal Notes of the DUTCH are also worthy to be consulted on Romans 10:6-8, 18.

              β.  Besides the manifest Examples of this sort for the Citation and Use of the Scripture of the Old in the New Testament by mere Accommodation, our AUTHOR commends Accommodation’s, 1.  Universal Use.  For Translation of this sort is common among all, not only out of Sacred authors, but also out of the profane; just as, for example, we, being about to describe the calamitous overthrow of some splendid city now laid waste, employ elegantly those words of Virgil out of Æneid, book II, verse 361:

Who could relate the calamity of that night, who by speaking the dead? etc.

2.  Its Appropriate Use in applying the words of Scripture, as we compare spiritual things with spiritual, 1 Corinthians 2:13, which we do daily in our prayers, hymns, and sermons with profit; hence by no means inappropriate to the Sacred Writers.  What? shall we say that this is inappropriate for the Apostles?  When in such a translation are recalled into the memory of the faithful both other sayings of Scripture and other events in the Church:  Is not rather an Accommodation of this sort appropriate with respect to these uses?  Neither is this to be disputed simply, what is appropriate or inappropriate for the Sprit, since we recognize that thus He quite frequently spoke; and in many citations the heavenly wisdom both of the Prophets and of the Apostles is not otherwise able to be defended, but either the former or the latter are exposed to the ridicule of impious men.  Concerning Grotius’ method of interpreting Prophecies, and in what sense he supposes the same to be often cited in the New Testament, see VITRINGA’S Præfationem Commentarii in Jesaiam, pages 9-15; CARPZOV’S Introductionem ad Libros Propheticos Veteris Testamenti, chapter I, § 13, page 35, § 22, pages 60-62.  But these things shall be spoken of the Sense of Scripture and its Understanding.

[1] קַבָּלָה/Kabbalah is related to the verb קָבַל, to accept or receive.

[2] Menasseh Ben Israel (1604-1657) was a Portuguese Rabbi, Kabbalist, and printer.  In 1610, his family settled in Amsterdam.  With the publication of his El Conciliador, an attempt to resolve apparent contradictions in the Hebrew Bible, his rising reputation gave opportunity to enter into relationship with many of the great Dutch theologians of the age.  He established the first Jewish printing press in Holland.

[3] The numerical value of the Hebrew characters:  א=1, ב=2, ג=3, ד=4, ה=5, ו=6, ז=7, ח=8, ט=9, י=10, כ=20, ל=30, מ=40, נ=50, ס=60, ע=70, פ=80, צ=90, ק=100, ר=200, ש=300, ת=400.

[4] The numerical value of the letters:  צ, ninety; מ, forty; ח, eight.

[5] The numerical value:  מ, forty (twice); נ, fifty; ח, eight.

[6] The first two words in Genesis 1:1.

[7] That is, the last letter of the alphabet, ת, signifies the first letter, א; the next to last letter, ש, signifies the second letter, ב; and so on.

[8] That is, who is what El/God is?

[9] Athenæus of Naucratis (late first, early second century AD) wrote Deipnosophistæ (or Banquet of the Learned), a dialogue in which the characters discuss a wide range of topics.

[10] Berosus (early third century BC) was a priest of Belus in Babylon, who wrote a history of the Chaldeans, which survives only in the fragmentary citations of other authors.

[11] Ctesias of Cnidus (fourth century BC) was a Greek physician and historian.  He wrote a twenty-three volume history of Assyria, Babylon, and Persia, but it survives only in an abridgment by Photius and in the quotations of other authors.

[12] Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-c. 115) was a Greek orator, philosopher, and historian of the Roman Empire.  Although much of his work is lost, eighty of his orations survive, as well as other fragments.

[13] גַּל signifies a heap or wave; גַּלְגַּל, a wheel.

[14] טוּף signifies to shine; טוֹטַף, an ornament.

[15] That is, transposition.

[16] That is, a word or phrase constructed by rearranging the letters of another word or phrase.

[17] Genesis 3:15.

[18] שָׂרָה/Sarah signifies princess.

[19] Note the first-person, singular possessive ending (ַי).

[20] יִצְחָק/Isaac is formed from צָחַק, to laugh; יַעֲקֹב/Jacob from עָקַב, to follow at the heel; יְהוּדָה/Judah from יָדָה, to praise.

[21] Isaiah 7:14.

[22] Genesis 1:1:  “In the beginning God created (בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים) the heaven and the earth.”

[23] Georgius Enjedinus (died 1597) was an overseer of the Socinians churches of Transylvania.

[24] When the latter מ appears at the end of a word, it is written as ם.

[25] See Appendix 2.

[26] Romans 10:18b:  “…their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world (εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἐξῆλθεν ὁ φθόγγος αὐτῶν, καὶ εἰς τὰ πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης τὰ ῥήματα αὐτῶν).”

[27] Psalm 19:4:  “Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world (בְּכָל־הָאָ֙רֶץ׀ יָ֘צָ֤א קַוָּ֗ם וּבִקְצֵ֣ה תֵ֭בֵל מִלֵּיהֶ֑ם; εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἐξῆλθεν ὁ φθόγγος αὐτῶν καὶ εἰς τὰ πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης τὰ ῥήματα αὐτῶν, in the Septuagint).  In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun…”