Book 2: Discerning and Discovering The Meaning of Holy Scripture
Part 2
Discovering the Meaning of Scripture
Everything that has been presented so far is especially directed to the goal of forging a consensus on the topic of rightly examining the meaning of Holy Scripture. As I sometimes explained these matters at quite some length, I am sure the kind reader will need to be forgiving of me. Now, therefore, we need to move on to the second part of the subject at hand, namely, discovering the meaning of Holy Scripture. For because (1) some passages of Holy Scripture seem at first look to be obscure; (2) such passages set forth the message and living words of the almighty God, which in every way demand a man’s most diligent reflection and meditation; (3) by our hard work, we are bringing out something pertaining to our salvation, which we can and must follow, according to what has been written in the Holy word of God; (4) when it comes to understanding divine oracles like this, the human race is profoundly sleepy, sluggish, and slow; and finally because (5) Satan’s malice and depravity are amazing, as he twists and falsely interprets the utterances of the Holy Spirit through wicked men and the throng of heretics – the mystery of iniquity at work; therefore we wretched men must apply all our effort to this, so that we may come to an agreement concerning the correct, sensible, fundamental meaning and understanding of all of Holy Scripture.
So that this can take place, we need a definite guide or North Star, as it were, for those who are engaged in the work of interpreting Holy Scripture. When I am speaking about discovering the meaning of Scripture, however, I am referring especially to the literal meaning, since whatever things seem to pertain to understanding the mystical meaning have been set and explained above in their own proper places. As for what remains, no one should expect me here to provide a full and comprehensive examination of the method and manner of interpreting Scripture. Other churchmen of renowned merit have written learned books on this subject, and from among these, it will suffice to mention the treatise on the interpretation of Scripture by Master Gerhard, the most preeminent theologian of our academy, which we find today in volume one of his Loci Theologici. In addition, there is the theological treatment of the same subject by Master Wolffgang Frantz, a deservedly very well known theologian of the Wittenberg Academy, whose book is hated and considered worthless only by people who do not understand it. For my part, I openly declare that I never spent time more happily and fruitfully (as this present work testifies) than what I spent in the fear of the Lord, in diligent reading and re-reading of this entire book. May God bless such a great man, for such a salutary work, both here and in the hereafter! But let us return to the subject at hand. The phrase, ‘interpretation of Scripture’ includes or denotes two things: first an investigation of the true and genuine meaning; second a clear and simple explanation of the same, when an application for a salutary purpose is added. This takes place from the podium, in schools, or from the pulpit in churches. You find the latter carefully explained in Method of Theological Study by Gerhard, section 4, chapter 2, how the dutiful preacher attends to this, and what aids he employs.
At this juncture, finally and briefly I will explain the other kind of interpretation (investigating the true and genuine meaning), and I do this especially at the end, so that this treatise on the meaning of Scripture does not lack its chief part, and thus become maimed, crippled, and incomplete. Therefore, in order to embark upon the work itself without delay, if the heavenly illumination of the Holy Spirit is granted (which is obtained by pious, continual prayers), together with Master D. Franzius, I am setting out two instruments for the legitimate investigation of the genuine meaning of Scripture. The first is the consideration of the sacred language and literature. The second is the investigation and examination of the texts themselves and their contexts. I will treat these subjects in order very briefly below.
Section 1
The First Instrument for Interpreting Scripture:
Consideration of Sacred Language and Literature.
By sacred language and literature, here I do not mean primarily the translations (although in this case these also usefully contribute to the assistance), but the sources, that is, those languages, in which holy Scripture was written, by God’s agency. Therefore in a spirit of common understanding, I propose the following thesis:
Whoever wants to be able, by the Holy Spirit’s assistance, thoroughly, accurately, usefully, sufficiently and perfectly to understand Scripture, in all its parts, and interpret it for others, first needs to acquire an understanding of Hebrew, Chaldean, and Greek languages.
([Note:] By ‘perfectly’ I mean a perfection on the way, not in life; in this age, not in the next; in the Church militant, not triumphant.) On this need, see the Introduction to Master D. Gerhard’s Method of Theological Study (part 2, section 1, ch. 1, seqq.).
I do not deny that translations of holy Scripture, especially the accurate ones, among which the German rendering of the sainted Luther shines out like a star, are sufficient for learning the meaning of Holy Scripture clearly enough, to the extent necessary for obtaining everlasting salvation. After all, they also contain the Word of almighty God, which is able to save our souls (James 1:21). At the same time, however, I think no right-minded Christian, much less a theologian, would dare to deny that it is not only salutary, but also necessary to study the original languages. By a special act of God’s providence, his Word was written down and came to us in these languages. And these are needed for a full understanding of the Word of God that is recorded in writing; for a full comprehension of the efficacy and power that lies hidden, as it were, within the shell of the words; and for a full application of the Word against the accusation of our adversaries. I will write a few more things about this near the end of the book, especially regarding the Hebrew language. There are, however, two ways of considering sacred speech and literature: general and specific.
In general, we weigh and consider the sacred styles, feelings, and generic qualities, first of the entire collection of Scriptures, then of its individual parts. Earlier in book one, for a measure of ingenuity, I explained this method of examination; and what I said about the sacred style in tractates 3 and 4 on page 262 and following are especially relevant.
In specific, we have to draw out and recognize the genuine meaning of individual passages, and consider the usages and structures of words and phrases. Again there is a twofold purpose, namely, consideration of (1) individual words, and (2) joined phrases.
When considering individual words, we must know (1) whether a word is being used properly or as a trope. I discussed how to examine this above (in book 2, tractate 2, section 1, on the literal meaning, article 4, page 399 and following), and I will treat it at greater length, God willing, in a book On Holy Rhetoric. We must also know (2) how the words are understood, when a word has multiple possible meanings, which happens frequently in Hebrew, because it is such a strongly concise language. An examination of the meanings pertains to this, as does an application of the meaning that is specific to the passage at hand.
Helpful for examining the meanings are (1) reading lexicons. Among these the Hebrew lexicons by Pagninus, Forster, Avenarius, Schindler, and Buxtorfius, and the Greek lexicons (for the New Testament) by Budaeus, and the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae by Henry Stephan—a work that is both eminently praisworthy and authoritative—and like an epitome of this thesaurus, the Lexicon of Johann Scapula. For the literature of both Testaments, we must add to these the Clavis Scripturae of Flacius Illyricus, of blessed memory. It is truly a golden book, especially the first part, where he accurately and concisely discusses the thoughts behind and the uses for the various words and phrases that occur in the sacred writings. (2) Examination of concordances. Concordances are, simply put, complete indices of the whole Bible. They are the most exquisite works, put together by learned and industrious men, worthy of the highest praise, in which every single word of the holy Scriptures is arranged in alphabetical order. They also succinctly indicate how many times, and in what passages of Scripture words are used, and in addition they present to us the different meanings of the words, as if in carefully arranged garden plots. This said, we should use both Hebrew and Greek concordances for finding an explanation of the words in the Old and New Testament respectively (see D. Frantzium, part 1, precept 2, on understanding Sacred Scripture, p. 65 and following).
Helpful for applying the meaning that is specific to the passage at hand are: (1) an accurate examination of the context. For although these two instruments and helps for interpretation are published separately, nevertheless we should use them together, in such a way that our consideration of the sacred utterance can and should fit the context itself, and vice versa, the context should fit the sacred utterance. Therefore if any word has multiple meanings, once we have looked carefully into the context, it will be clear what meaning we should understand in any given passage. (2) Comparing a parallel passage. Since we find synonyms in parallel passages, each of them can shed light on the other. These two methods are internal and concern the substance. Auxiliary to these are other external methods, namely: (3) Lexicons and concordances, the former of which put some, and the latter all the words of Scripture into specific categories of meaning. But we should not trust or adhere to these absolutely, unless the truth of what they say is proven by analysis of a text that has been properly considered. (4) Paraphrases and translations, among which the Old Testament Chaldean and the New Testament Syriac versions are preeminent. Anyone who knows what these are worth recognizes how much they contribute to grasping the true meaning of the biblical words. Quite often words (and phrases) occur in the Hebrew text, which at first glance are obscure, but are very clearly and lucidly translated and explained in the Chaldean paraphrase. (5) The Masorah. Those who have taken such great strides in Hebrew literature as to be able to enter even into the innermost sanctuary of the Masorah (I describe what this is at greater length in its own section in Book 1) will tell you that for explaining what is signified by the biblical words of the Old Testament, it is for them a lamp of unsurpassed brightness. Take, for example, the word כָּאֲרִי in Psalm 22:17. Althouth it has the same form as the word that means, “like a lion”, which occurs in Isaiah 38:13, nevertheless the Masorah reveals that it has a different meaning from this, and opens up an easy way to find the true meaning. See above, book 1, tract. 1 p. 123, where this word in this Psalm is delivered from corruption. Thus on Genesis 8:11, at the word “branch” the Masorah notes, “there are six times this is used for leaves” or with the meaning of a leaf. For elsewhere the same word is the imperative of the verb “go up” etc. (6) Lastly I add the interpreters and expositors of the Bible. This concludes what I have to say about individual words.
For phrases we must proceed in the same way, and here a comparison of phrases is especially useful; either a comparison of the same phrases in parallel passages, of which one explains the other; or a comparison of similar phrases, consisting of an understanding of Hebrew or Greek idioms. These idioms, and the specific way of speaking the Hebrew and Greek languages, can conveniently be defined by certain rules. So if God kindly grants me the strength, I hope to publish the book on them, under the title, “Sacred Grammar”. Here I am only tracing an outline, as I said previously; I am not writing a full commentary. For which reason, let us move on to other matters without further delay.
Section 2
The Second Instrument for Interpreting Scripture:
Consideration of Things themselves and Contexts.
This consideration is also twofold: general and specific. I call it general when Sacred Scripture is read as a whole, on a regular basis, and daily. For how you should go about this way of reading, see Dr. Gerhard’s Method of Theological Study, part 3, section 1.c.2, page 143 and following. The specific consideration is concerned with interpreting and rightly understanding the more obscure individual passages of Scripture, and can be defined as “The comparison of sacred Scriptures.” Again I establish this in two parts: remote and close. “Remote” is when a disputed text in question is put together with the analogy of faith, and explained according to it. For this is what Paul commands us to do in Romans 12:6. [“prophesy in accordance with the faith”] The analogy or rule of faith, however, is nothing other than all of the heavenly teaching, gathered together from the clearest passages of Scripture, of which there are two parts: First and foremost concerning the faith, the articles of which are set forth in the Apostles’ Creed; and secondarily concerning charity, of which the Decalogue is the summary. The Apostle in 2 Timothy 1:13 includes both when he says, “Have the form of sound words, which you heard from me, in faith and love”, that is, concerning faith and love. For the preposition “in” is also used this way elsewhere; see Romans 11:2. Firm and steadfast canons of the theologians apply to our rightly understanding this analogy of faith: (1) There is no dogma of the faith that is not set forth with clear literal words somewhere in holy Scripture. From these clear and perspicuous passages about each article of the faith, therefore, comes “the rule of faith”, that is, a system of articles that are necessary to know for salvation, which are gathered and linked together like a golden chain. But if a passage occurs that seems more obscure and lacks an explanation, we must be diligent and take care not to expound anything that militates against that steadfast eternal understanding of Scripture, the chain of Christian teachings and religion. For example, Paul sets forth the article of our free justification with the clearest most literal statements in Romans 2, 3, 4, etc., and in Galatians 2, 3, etc., and this article is part of the golden chain, or the analogy of faith. By contrast the second chapter of James seems more obscure, which seems to ascribe justification not to faith alone, but at the same time to works. While untangling this passage, therefore, we must look back carefully at the analogy of faith and at the clearest description of justification that Paul provides, and ensure that we do not expound anything contrary to it. How then should we explain that passage of James? The continuity of the passage itself teaches us, if we examine it well, that by “faith” we should understand an external profession of faith, and by “justification”, its outward declaration among men. (2) The theologians also give this warning, that we must accept the rule of faith in its entirety, without setting its parts against each other. To put it another way, one doctrine of the faith, which the Holy Spirit sets forth in the Scriptures with clear and perspicuous words, must not be opposed by any other doctrine of the faith, for which there is likewise a clear and perspicuous definition in the Scriptures. The Arians used to do this, who pitted the unity of the divine essence against the Trinity of persons and the true deity of the Son, even though the Holy Spirit with perspicuous revelations affirmed that we should believe both. The Calvinists of our own time do the same thing, who pit the true and substantial presence of the body and blood of our Lord in the holy Supper against the truth of his human nature, or the human body in Christ. Since, however, both are perspicuously set forth in the Scriptures, we must believe, etc. For more on this subject of the analogy of faith, and the logical conclusions to be drawn from it, see Gerhard, On the Interpretation of Scripture, section 147 and following.
The close comparison of the Scriptures is that by which a text that lacks an explanation is compared either with the continuous text surrounding it, or with a text that is separate and disconnected.
1. The First Kind of Comparison:
The things that precede and follow the text in need of interpretation (which pertain to the same material either directly or indirectly, depending on the situation) should be carefully, diligently and frequently examined and considered. If you do this, without doubt (provided you make use of the tools I mentioned previously) the true meaning of the words will emerge with clarity.
Augustine speaks about this comparison of what precedes and follows, in his Tractates on John 70, “The words of the holy evangelist are thus rightly understood, if they are found to be in agreement with what came before, since what precedes ought to agree with what follows, when the truth is being spoken.” And in Tractate 111, “Let no one disturb the calm meaning with a stormy contradition; the things that follow bear witness to those that precede them.” The Rabbis have a saying, “There is no accusation in court that does not have a solution on the side.” The meaning is this: if a difficult passage ever comes up, we must look to the sides, that is, to what comes before and after, and then the whole case will open up. The Jurists [Juris consulti] say it is disgraceful to adjudicate in law when the entire law has not been considered. All the more should theologians speak likewise and put this into practice, when explaining the Law and interpreting the Word of the most high Emperor that blessed Lord God, etc. In this collation, however, we must pay particular attention to both the order and the circumstances. The order encompases dialectic, the observation of the parts of speech. The circumstances are varying, which can be categorized according to the headings included in the following verse:
The who and the scope, the agent, the seat, and the time and the place,
And style; these seven the reader of Scripture must consciously trace.
(1) The who. First of all we must pay careful attention to who is speaking. For sometimes God is introduced as speaking either directly or mediately through the prophets and divinely-inspired men. Sometimes the devil speaks. Sometimes it is a pious or a wicked man. The observation that I made above in book 1, tract 2, in defence of the passage of Acts 7:16, pertains to this, namely, “Although the narration of Scripture is completely true, nevertheless not everything that is spoken there is believed to be true.” Augustine emphasizes this canon in chapter 9 of his book against Priscillian (On Lying). The reason for it is obvious, that the Holy Spirit is not always relating His own words, but also what was spoken by others, including demons and wicked men. Thus the narration about the Jews who were blaspheming Christ in Luke 11:15 and John 8:48 is certainly true, but their blasphemous words themselves are not true, etc. To this also pertains that observation, “In the prophets, there occurs a frequent change of the persons speaking.” God the Father is introduced as the speaker, then the Son of God our Mediator, then the Church, then a prophet. See Psalm 2, and Isaiah 63:1 and following; likewise 49:14-15, 51:11-12, etc.
(2) The scope. Paul says about seducers in 1 Timothy 1:7, that they pay no attention to what they are talking about, nor to what they should affirm or deny. By the antithesis, therefore, he wants us accurately to take note of the scope of every chapter or passage of sacred Scripture. We may think of the scope of Scripture in three ways: [universally, communally, and individually.] (1) Universally, in that the sacred books all point to the same scope, who is Christ the Saviour. “Everything that has been written in the sacred writings refers to Christ”, Augustine says on Psalm 71. Then Christ himself commends careful meditation on Scripture in John 5:39, “Search the Scriptures”, and that he is the one scope of Scripture, “And these are they that testify about me.” Compare also Luke 24:44, Acts 10:43, 1 Corinthians 2:2, Revelation 19:10. When we say, however, that everything in the Scriptures refers to Christ, we are not to understand it to mean that all the words and sayings in every place in Scripture are directly about Christ the Mediator. Some people once thought this way, whose opinion Isodore [of Pelusium] disproved with these words (book 2, Epistle 195), “Those who try to apply the entire Old Testament to the Christ are not without blame, since in their opposition to us they strengthen both the Greeks and the heretics who do not accept this. For they do violence to the words that are not to be interpreted about him, and bring into suspicion the passages that are interpreted about him without violence.” (That is, as translated by Billius, “Those who try to apply the entire Old Testament to Christ by no means lack cause for rebuke, since in their struggle against us they supply strength both to the Gentiles and to those heretics who reject it. For while they are forcefully distorting those passages that are not about him at all, they bring it about that those passages come under suspicion, which are about him without any distortion whatsoever”, etc.) But we should accept this as follows: (a) Scripture, especially of the Old Testament, says many things that at first glance seem to state one thing, but on balance, when considered in the fear of the Lord, are speaking either explicitly or typologically about our Saviour. Those passages therefore must be discerned, and we should look for Christ in them. To this pertains that saying of Augustine, from Tractate 9 on John, “The Old Scripture has no wisdom if Christ is not understood in it”, and likewise what another author writes, “We should read the sacred books as if they were written entirely with the blood of Christ.” (b) Whatever appears in the Scriptures ultimately points us, as if by an outstretched finger, to Christ’s love and the blessings offered to the human race, as to the ultimate end, from whom, as from the fount and source, everything that is conveyed in the Scriptures flows down to us. Therefore just as we must keep looking back to the rule of faith, so we must also always keep in mind this universal scope, so that we do not present any interpretation of Scripture that is opposed to Christ, his person, his office, or his blessings, or any interpretation that lessens his glory or diminishes his blessings. More is written about this elsewhere. (2) Communally. Every book of holy Scripture has its own scope, which the chapters together and individually serve to explain. This is learned from a devout reading of and reflection on the entire book. For example, the scope of Genesis is the historical account of the creation of the world, and the lives of the patriarchs. The scope of Exodus is the historical account of the Israelites’ oppression in Egypt and ultimate liberation from slavery. The scope of Leviticus is the establishment of the priesthood and all the parts of it. The scope of the other books is determined in the same way. Sometimes the scope is also gathered from the time in which the author lived. For example, the prophet Isaiah lived before the Babylonian captivity; Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel during the captivity itself; Haggai, Zachariah and Malachai around the time of the release and afterwards, from which there can be no doubt that we judge the scope of the same prophets. Sometimes the scope is expressed in the first chapter of a book by some well phrased sentence. Thus Psalm 1 seems to express the scope of the Psalms, which teaches about the blessedness of the righteous and the wretchedness of the wicked. The scope of the Proverbs is contained in Proverbs 1:7, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom”. Ecclesiastes 1:2 says, “Vanity of vanities and everything is vanity”, because everything that Qoheleth relates in that book is concerned with this scope. (3) Individually, insofar as the scope is proper to this or that passage and context of Scripture. We must carefully investigate this in every passage of Scripture, but especially in the parables, so that our interpretation is correct. I stated in its own section how we should rightly evaluate parables from the scope.
(3) The agent. A saying of Hilary goes, “We must take our understanding of what is spoken from the motives of the speaker.” The agent cause, however, means the occasion of the words that are spoken. Thus Christ speaks one way to the proud and stubborn Pharisees, another way to hearers who are dejected and hungry for the truth. He shows the path of salvation one way to the Pharisee, another way to Nicodemus; the former thought he could by his own strength enter the Kingdom of Heaven, while the other, acknowledging his own wretchedness, humbly submitted himself to Christ’s teaching. This way the different occasions affected the way Paul behaved; for at one time he circumcised Timothy, for the sake of the weak, in Acts 16, but another time he forbade Titus from being circumcized, on account of the opposition of his adversaries, in Galatians 2.
(4) The seat, namely, of some matter, theme or doctrine of the faith. For when we are explaining Scripture, we must carefully discern whether any given passage concerns a theme, argument, article of faith or doctrine, either explicitly or implicitly. For example, the passage in Genesis 1-2 is clearly and explicitly about the creation. The passage in Genesis 3 is about the corruption of man and original sin, as are Psalm 51, Romans 2-3, and 7. Romans 3:4 and Galatians 2:3 are about the doctrine of justification; Ephesians 1 and 2 Timothy 1 are about election; Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and 1 Corinthians 10-11 are about the holy Supper. We must make our judgment on these matters from these seats. But if these same themes are implicit in other passages, we should explain them with reference to the primary seats, and if they seem to contain some discrepancy, we should not make use of them in preference to the proper seat. But this also comes down to the analogy of faith, which we spoke about earlier.
(5) The time. “Set the times in order, and Scripture will be in agreement”, Augustine advised in Sermon 16, On the Words of the Lord. This framework is hugely important for an accurate understanding of the Scriptures. For God treated men differently at different times, and revealed himself to some more obscurely, and to others more clearly.
(6) The place. The reason for this also affects words and deeds. In Jerusalem, at first some Christians shared their goods in common, which they did on account of that time and place, namely because frequent persecutions and schisms were taking place, but today different places affect churches in different ways, etc. But from these two situations it is clear that chronology and topography, especially a description and understanding of the Holy Land contribute greatly to our understanding of the holy Scriptures.
(7) Style. We have observed this in speaking, writing, and doing. Christ preached in a different style when he called the Jews a “brood of vipers” and “sons of the devil” in Matthew 12:34 and 23:33, and John 8:44, and similarly when he called Peter “Satan” in Matthew 16:23. The style or form of his speech seems too harsh, but such severe speech was fitting for the importance of the matter at hand, and for Christ’s zeal, etc.
2. The second Kind of Comparison
Parallel passages, as they are called, which mutually point to each other, are set and weighed alongside one another.
Origin in Homily 24 on Numbers writes, “We find what we are looking for in the Scriptures more easily, if they are presented from many passages that were written about the same thing.” And this comparison—if I might use these definitions, for the sake of teaching—is either reciprocal or externally guided.
The reciprocal comparison is that by which a given passage is compared with itself, where it is repeated elsewhere in holy Scripture, whether in the Old or the New Testament. Thus the passage of Isaiah 6:10, “Make the heart of this people fat,” etc. is repeated six times in the New Testament: in Matthew 13:14, Mark 4:12, Luke 8:10, John 12:40, Acts 28:27, and Romans 11:8. Therefore all the passages like this need to be put together for an accurate interpretation. For sometimes there are some variations in such repeated passages, due to additional explanation, or for abbreviation. And here especially we rightly must commend a comparison of the Gospels. For they describe works that interact with one another in such a way that when one of them states something quite briefly and obscurely, another supplements it and explains it more clearly. The theologian Dr. Chemnitz of blessed memory gives an example of this phenomenon in the Examination of the Council of Trent, part 2, ‘on Marriage’, chapter 7 (page 434 in Francof’s edition).To this also pertains the comparison of the type with the antitype, and the comparison of predictions in the Old Testament with their fulfillment in the New.
An externally guided comparison is one where we compare a given passage with others that agree with it or are parallel, either on account of a certain phrase (which really pertains more to the first means of interpretation, where something is said about this kind of comparison), or with respect to the idea and subject matter itself. For one and the same matter, and one and the same subject of heavenly doctrine is quite often repeated in various places in Scripture, for the sake of clarity and the prevention of error. Thus the passage of Genesis 3:15, “The seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent” is guided by 1 John 3:8, “For this the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the Devil”, etc. Actually these things that I have explained so far are the internal or essential means for the correct explanation of the holy Scriptures, to which that external and accidental means is ancillary, namely, reading the writings of interpreters and expositors of the holy writings. Of these there are two categories: Christians and Jews. The Christians can be divided into the more ancient and more recent. The more ancient are those who come under the venerable title of “fathers”. We should by no means consider their exegetical works to be the model for interpreting Scripture (as the Pontifical writers consider them), but likewise they are not to be thrown out, but received with a thankful mind and treated with a grateful hand. Luther on Genesis chapter 2 (p.27) says, “It is fitting to treat the works of the Fathers respectfully; they were great men, but men nonetheless, who were capable of making mistakes, and they did make mistakes.” See the last section of Gerhard’s Method (cap. 3, p. 256 seqq.). The more recent are the men of this age in which we live, and the age before us, who brought their works and efforts into public view and common use. The Method (part. 3. sect. 1. cap. 4. p. 159) explains what discernment we should employ in reading them, and how to go about it. The Jews likewise are more ancient or more recent. Concerning each of them (and especially the first), in the same way as we think the brazenness of Pietro Galatino should hardly be praised, who gave way too much credit to the Thalmud and the other writings of the Jews, both when he was explaining the Scripture and when he correcting them and purging them of the errors he had imagined, so neither should we praise those who—to state my main criticism as gently as possible—in their literature plainly oppose Christians, and consider their writings, including their exegetical works, to be worth less than an empty nutshell. We agree with the opinion of D N. Schikard, who says, “There is a distinction to be made between different kinds of Jews. Those of ancient times in their own way hid many things in parables, which the pseudo-Jews of our day fail to comprehend. Truly vinegar is the offspring of wine! In other words, the descendants are very different from and inferior to their ancestors. We should not, therefore, out of blind zeal throw out the baby with the bathwater, but be careful to distinguish between the sacred and profane, and we must pay attention to what is being said, rather than who is saying it. Benzova relates a saying in his chapter on the Fathers, “Who is wise? He who learns from any man.” Casaubon, a most astute man, in Exercitationes in Baronium 16 c. 8, gives his judgment, “Christians rightly yield for the most part to Rabbinic scholars, when they are discussing the Hebrew language, and the proper use of some word, or some Thalmudic institution. But when they move on from words to things or to the history (as also to the meaning of holy Scripture, especially in those passages that are about the Messiah), unless we want to be misled and deceived, we should not put any trust in them at all.” And I think with this limiting bandage, as it were, I think the words of the blessed Luther must be softened, if his attacks against the teachers of the Jews anywhere seem to be too harsh, just as also the words of Johann Forster, an outstanding Hebraist, against the Peruschim or commentaries of the Rabbinic scholars. But at last this is enough for this proposition. May God the thrice highest and greatest preserve us in His truth forevermore: HIS WORD IS TRUTH! Amen.