Antichrist
CHAPTER II: Antichrist is Going to be a Certain, Specific Man
Next, Christ says here that Antichrist will be received by the Jews for a Messiah. Moreover, it is certain that the Jews wait for one certain and singular man. All false Prophets come not in their own name but in that of another. “Prophets that falsely prophesy in my name, these are not sent, etc.” 20 But the Lord spoke about one specific man who will come in his own name, that is, who does not recognize some God, but “will extol himself,” as Paul says, “over everything which is called God.”
CHAPTER VI: A Third Proof: Enoch and Elijah
A THIRD proof is taken from the arrival of Enoch and Elijah, who are still living and do so for the purpose that they might oppose the arrival of Antichrist, preserve the elect in the faith of Christ and finally convert the Jews; it is certain that this still has not been fulfilled. There are four Scriptures on this matter. The First, from Malach. IV: “Behold, I will send the Prophet Elijah to you, before the great day of the Lord will come, and convert the hearts of the Fathers toward the sons, and the hearts of the sons to their fathers.” The Second, from Eccles. LXVIII, where we read on Elijah: “You who were received in a fiery whirlwind, in the whirlwind of vast horses. You who are inscribed in the judgments of the times, appease the anger of the Lord, reconcile the heart of the father to the son, and restore the tribe of Jacob.” And in chapter LXIV: “Enoch pleased God, and was lifted up into paradise, that he should bring repentance to the nations.” Third, from Matthew XVII: “Elijah is going to come, and will restore all things.” Fourth, from the Apocalypse XI: “I will give my two witnesses, and they will prophecy for 1,260 days.”
Even Theodore Bibliander relates all these citations in his Chronicle, but he says through Enoch and Elijah all the faithful ministers are understood, whom God rouses in the time of Antichrist, such were Luther, Zwingli and the others. At length, he concludes: “This is why it is a puerile imagination, or a Jewish dream, to await either Elijah or Enoch as definite persons in their properties.” Chytraeus teaches the same thing in his commentary on that citation of the Apocalypse. And they attempt to show that the Lord taught that those passages in Malachi which speak about Elijah must be understood on John the Baptist: “He is Elijah who is going to come.” And St. Jerome, in chapter 4 of Malachi, shows on all the choir of Prophets, that is on the doctrine of all the Prophets.
Now, it does not seem to be a puerile imagination to us but a very true teaching, that Enoch and Elijah are going to come in their own persons—and the contrary is either heresy or an error proximate to heresy. Firstly, it is proved from those four Scriptures, since the words of Malachi could not be understood concerning anything at all, such as on teachers, like Luther and Zwingli and similar things, it is obvious, for Malachi says that the Jews must be converted by Elijah, and that they must be sent especially on account of the Jews which we see in that verse: “I will send to you,” and in Ecclesiasticus: “. . . to restore the tribe of Jacob.” Yet, Luther and Zwingli have converted none of the Jews.
Now that the words of the Lord in Matthew XVII are understood on the true Elijah, not on John, is clear because John had already come and run his course, and still the Lord said: “Elijah is going to come.” Moreover, it can be proved that all the Doctors only understand this to be on the true Elijah. Firstly, because the Apostles, who advanced the question on Elijah, were Peter, James and John, and they took up the occasion from the transfiguration of the Lord, where they saw Moses and Elijah. Therefore, when they ask: “What about what the scribes say, that Elijah must come first,” they spoke on that Elijah whom they saw on the mountain with Christ. Therefore, when Christ responded, “Indeed, Elijah is going to come and he will restore all things,” he also spoke on that particular Elijah who had appeared in the transfiguration. Secondly, the same is clear from the words themselves: “And he will restore all things.” Truly, John the Baptist did not do that, nor anyone else. For to restore all things, is to recall all Jews, heretics and perhaps many Catholics deceived by Antichrist to the true faith.
Thirdly it is proved because otherwise no reason can be given why these two should be taken up before death, and still live in mortal flesh who are going to die someday. Albeit the Jews say, as Rabi Salomon, 92 that Enoch was killed by God before his time, because he was light and inconstant, and they assert Elijah, when he was born in the fiery chariot, was burned in his whole body by the flame. Perhaps the Lutherans who deny they are coming back think likewise; still all Catholics hold with certain faith that both live in their bodies. For the Apostle teaches that Enoch has not yet died, 93 Enoch was born up lest he would see death and that both he and Elijah were not yet dead but were going to die. Apart from those cited above, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine and Epiphanius clearly teach this.
CHAPTER X: On the name “Antichrist”.
Here we must remark that when he will have come, the name of Antichrist will be well known. Before Christ came, the Jews did not know for certain by what name he would be called, although the Prophets preached much concerning his name. Even one of the Sibylls, in the first book of the songs of Sibylls, remarked that the number of the name of Christ was going to be 888, even as John writes that Antichrist’s number is 666. But after Christ came, all controversy was abolished, and everyone knows he is called Jesus.
From these we take up the unanswerable argument to prove the Roman Pontiff is not the Antichrist and that Antichrist himself has not yet come. If Antichrist would have come and was the Roman Pontiff, his name would established for certain, as predicted by John, just for us Christ—now there is no question—not even amongst the Turks, Jews, and Pagans, to the extent that he is named. But on the name of Antichrist there is still a great controversy, we make it plain by so many opinions that have been recited and refuted. Therefore, the prophecy of John has not yet been fulfilled. Hence, Antichrist has not yet come nor is he the Roman Pontiff. Add the confirmation from the Confession of Augustine Marloratus, who in a great explication gathered from various Lutherans and Calvinists on the New Testament, so writes on this citation: “There are nearly so many explications of this place whereby it appears it is very obscure and enigmatic.” Yet if the prophecy is still very obscure and enigmatic, then it is not fulfilled; Antichrist has not come. Accordingly, all prophecies, when they are fulfilled are made evident. Therefore, why does Marloratus, lay down in his preface in the Apocalypse that it is so clear that the Roman Pontiff is the Antichrist, that if you were silent, the very stones would cry out?
CHAPTER XI: On the Mark of Antichrist.
4) The same Scripture says that in the reign of Antichrist, nobody will be allowed to buy or sell unless they show the mark, or the name or the number of his name. But how many people buy and sell in the dominion of the Roman Pontiff who have not yet been anointed with chrism, nor furnished an oath of fidelity and are not priests? Are there not in Rome itself, where the Roman Pontiff has his seat, a great many Jews who publicly conduct business, buying and selling, yet none of them have these signs?
CHAPTER XII: On the Begetting of Antichrist
Apart from these errors there are two probable opinions of the holy Fathers on the begetting of Antichrist.
1) That Antichrist is going to be born from a woman by fornication, not from a legitimate marriage. St. John Damascene teaches this, 154 as well as certain others. Still, since it cannot be shown from the Scriptures it is not certain, although it is probable.
2) Antichrist will be born from the tribe of Dan, which many Fathers and doctors assert. 155 They prove this from Genesis XLIX: “Let Dan be a snake on the path, let him be a horned snake on the path, etc.” Likewise in Jeremiah VIII: “From Dan we heard the growling of his horses, etc.” Next, because in Apocalypse VII, where twelve thousand from every tribe of the sons of Israel is signified by the Angel, the tribe of Dan is left out, which appears to be done in hatred of Antichrist.
This opinion is exceedingly probable on account of the authority of such Fathers, still it is not altogether certain, both because a great many of these Fathers do not say they know this but hint that it is probable, and because none of those passages of the Scripture clearly prove it. In the first place, in Genesis, Jacob seems literally to speak about Samson, when he says: “Let Dan be a serpent on the way, a horned snake on the path, and let him bite the hoofs of the horses so that the rider falls upon his back.” For Samson was from the tribe of Dan, and was truly a serpent in the road for the Philistines. For he resists and plagues them everywhere. Jerome shows this in Hebrew Questions. It appears well enough that Jacob prayed well for his son when he said this, and hence did not predict evil but good.
Nevertheless, if this were to be accommodated to Antichrist allegorically, such as is lead in from the spiritual senses of Scripture, the argument could not be said to be more than probable. Moreover, Jeremiah VIII without a doubt does not speak on Antichrist, nor on the tribe of Dan but Nebuchadnezzar, who was going to come to destroy Jerusalem through the region which was called Dan. 156 But why Dan, whose tribe was one of the greatest, is omitted in Apocalypse VII is not sufficiently established.
Apart from these two probable opinions, there are two certain ones.
1) Antichrist will come particularly on account of the Jews, and will be received by them as if he were a Messiah;
2) He is going to be born from the nation and race of the Jews, be circumcised and shall observe the Sabbath, at least for a time.
The first opinion is certain from the following. It is in John’s Gospel where the Lord says to the Jews: “I have come in my Father’s name, and you have not received me. If another will have come in my name, you will receive him.” We proved that this citation ought to be understood to be about Antichrist in the second chapter above. Then, from the Apostle: “For the reason, since they do not receive the charity of truth that they may be saved, God will send to them the operation of error, that they would believe lies, etc.” 157 Calvin and other heretics in commentaries on these words, argue that these words are about us [Catholics], who, because we do not receive their Gospel, he permitted to be seduced by Antichrist. But we have all the interpreters on our side, who show it speaks about the Jews. See Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylactus, and Oecumenius.
Apart from them, Jerome says the following: “Antichrist will make all these things not with virtue, but from the concession of God on account of the Jews and because they refused to receive the charity of truth, the spirit of God through Christ, that having received the Savior they would be saved; God will send upon them not an operator, but the operation itself, that means the font of error, that they would believe lies, etc.” 158 Even without so many commentaries of the Fathers the matter speaks for itself, the Apostle speaks about the Jews. For he says Antichrist must be sent to them who refuse to receive Christ. Moreover, who else is there that can be said to ought to have received Christ, but refused more than the Jews? It also must be remarked, the Apostle did not say because they will not receive the truth but because they have not received it. Therefore, he speaks on those who refused to believe the preaching of Christ and the Apostles. It is certain in the times of the Apostles, the Gentiles eagerly received the Gospel, but the Jews refused to.
So apart from Jerome and other citations, all the other Fathers teach the same thing. 159 Even reason argues for it. For Antichrist, without a doubt, will join himself to those who are prepared to receive him; the Jews are of this sort, who await the Messiah as a temporal king and Antichrist will be such a king. For the Gentiles await no one. Moreover, Christians indeed wait upon Antichrist, but with fear and terror, not with joy and desire. Therefore, just as Christ first came to the Jews to whom he had been promised and by whom he had been awaited, and at length also joined the nations to himself, so also Antichrist will first come to the Jews, by whom he is awaited, and thereupon little by little subjugate all the nations to himself.
Now to the second opinion, that Antichrist is going to be a Jew and circumcised; this is certain and is deduced from the aforesaid. For the Jews have never received a non-Jewish man, or an uncircumcised one for a Messiah. Nay more, the Jews also await a Messiah from the family of David and the tribe of Judah, certainly Antichrist, although he could be from the tribe of Dan, will pretend that he is from the household of David. Next, all the Fathers very clearly teach that Antichrist will be a Jew, such as those twelve cited a little while ago, who say he is going to be from the tribe of Dan. Besides, Ambrose, in 2 Thess. II, asserts that he will be circumcised; Jerome teaches in his commentary on Daniel XI that he is going to be born from the Jewish people; St. Martin teaches that Antichrist is going to command that all be circumcised according to the law, 160 and St. Cyril asserts that he will be exceedingly zealous for the Temple of Jerusalem to show himself to be from the progeny of David. 161 At length, even Gregory says that Antichrist is going to keep the Sabbath and all the other ceremonies of the Jews. 162
From these we have the most evident proof that the Pope is not the Antichrist. For from the year 606, in which our adversaries say Antichrist came, it is certain that no Pope was a Jew, whether by race or religion or any other manner. It is also certain that the Pope to this point was never received by the Jews as a Messiah, but on the other hand is held as an enemy and a persecutor. For this reason they ask God in their daily prayers that God would give to the living Pope a good mind toward the Jews and that he might send a Messiah in their days who would liberate them from the power of the Pontiff, and a Bishop such as the Supreme Pontiff especially is, which they call tey-na-mon but in Syriac means tail, and is opposed to head. For while we call a Bishop the head of the people, they on the other hand call him a tail as an insult, the head is absent so that they might be prepared to receive a high priest as a head for their Messiah.
CHAPTER XIII: On the Seat of Antichrist
Moreover, they try to show that Antichrist will have his seat at Rome, not in the palace of Nero but in the very Church of Christ from what Paul says in 2 Thess. II, that Antichrist is going to sit in the Temple of God. For when he says absolutely, “in the Temple of God,” they understand the true Temple of the true God. There is no such thing unless it is the Church of Christ, since the Temples of the Gentiles are true Temples but of demons not God. Moreover, the Temple of the Jews was indeed for God but had already ceased to be a Temple when the sacrifice and priesthood of the Jews ceased. For these three (the Temple, the sacrifice and the priesthood) are so joined that you cannot have one without the other. Besides, that Temple of the Jews was laid desolate and never in the future to be rebuilt, as Daniel says: “And even to the end of the world the desolation will continue;” 163 therefore, the Apostle does not speak about it.
The argument is confirmed from the Fathers. Jerome says: “In the Temple of God he will sit, either in Jerusalem as some men think or in the Church, as we reckon is more true.” 164 Oecumenius: “He did not say the Temple of Jerusalem, but the Church of Christ.”
Theodore Bibliander adds the testimony of Gregory, who wrote in a letter to John of Constantinople: “The King of pride is near, and it is not unlawful to say that an army of priests is prepared for him.” From such words he takes up a two-fold argument. One is thus, John of Constantinople is said to be a precursor of Antichrist, because he wished to be called universal Bishop, therefore, that will be Antichrist, who really will make himself a universal Bishop, and will sit in the Church as the head of all. On the other hand, the army of Antichrist will be priests, therefore, Antichrist will be a prince of priests. From this the heretics reckon that they have clearly shown that the Roman Pontiff is Antichrist seeing that he rules at Rome, he sits in the Temple of God and he is called universal Bishop as well as prince of priests.
Just the same, the true opinion is that the seat of Antichrist will be Jerusalem, not Rome, and the Temple of Solomon as well as the throne of David, not the Temple of St. Peter or the Apostolic See. We can prove the fact by a two-fold argument: First, by refutation, then from the Scriptures and the Fathers.
Calvin sees this argument and responds that the Church is not under the Pope as much as the ruins of the Church of Christ are seen there. He says as much in the Institutes: “Still, as in ancient times, there remained among the Jews certain special privileges of a Church, so in the present day we do not deny that the Papists have those vestiges of a Church which the Lord has allowed to remain among them amid the dissipation. . . . He provided by his providence that there should be other remains also to prevent the Church from utterly perishing. Yet, when they pull down buildings the foundations and ruins are often permitted to remain, so he did not suffer Antichrist either to subvert his Church from its foundation, or to level it to the ground, but was pleased that amid the devastation the edifice should remain, though half in ruins. . . Hence, we scarcely deny that churches remain under his tyranny.” 167
Now I come to the Scriptures, whereby it is proved that the seat of the Antichrist is going to be in Jerusalem, not Rome. The First is in chapter XI of the Apocalypse, where John says that Enoch and Elijah are going to fight with Antichrist in Jerusalem, and must be killed there by the same Antichrist: “And they will throw their bodies in the streets of the great city, which is spiritually called Sodom, and Egypt, where even their Lord was Crucified.” Arethas in this citation says: “Their bodies he will cast out unburied in the streets of Jerusalem, for in it he will reign as King of the Jews.” Likewise, all other interpreters show, and this can rightly be said to be Jerusalem, and it cannot be denied. For what City is it in which the Lord was crucified but Jerusalem?
This is why Chytraeus, who would rather this city were Rome, passes over the words “Where even their Lord was crucified,” as if they did not pertain to the matter, or as though he had not read them. Nor is it opposed to what Jerome says, when he tries to show that Jerusalem cannot be called Sodom, since everywhere in Scripture it is called the holy city. For in that epistle he persuades Marcellus that, after leaving Rome behind he should come into Palestine and there he can heap up all those places in praise of Jerusalem and in censure of Rome, and try to excuse Jerusalem in every manner. Nor does he do it in his own name, but in the name of Paula and Eustochius, to whom he thought forgiveness must be given, if they were to explain something a little differently than the matter stood. That the earthly Jerusalem can be called Sodom on account of the lust and the crimes of the Jews is also clear from Isaiah, who when he prefaced a title to the first chapter: “The Vision of Isaiah, which he saw over Judah and Jerusalem,” he next added: “Hear the word of the Lord, O Princes of Sodom! Perceive with your ears the law of God, O my people Gomorrah!”
Further, it is not a valid argument that Jerusalem is called holy, therefore, it cannot be called Sodom. For just as in the same epistle Jerome says that Rome is called Babylon by John, and the purple whore on account of the heathen emperors and still, the same is holy on account of the Church of Christ, and the tombs of Peter and Paul. So also Jerusalem is the holy city, on account of the Prophets and Apostles, who preached there, on account of the cross of Christ and his tomb and like things, still it is Sodom and Egypt on account of the crimes of infidelity of the Jews and their blindness.
The Second place is Apocalypse XVII, where John says there will be ten kings who divide the Roman Empire and from such rulers Antichrist will come, having hatred for the purple whore, that is Rome, and are going to lay waste to her and even burn her with fire. How, therefore, will it be the seat of Antichrist, if he should overturn and burn it at that time?
Add that, as we showed above, Antichrist will be Jewish, and the Messiah of the Jews, and a king, therefore, without a doubt he will constitute his seat in Jerusalem, and he will hasten to restore the Temple of Solomon. For the Jews dream of nothing other than Jerusalem and the Temple, nor do they seem ever to be going to receive anyone for a Messaiah who would not sit in Jerusalem and restore the Temple in some way. Lactantius says for this reason, that in the time of Antichrist the supreme kingdom is going to be in Asia and the West will serve, the East will rule. 169 He also determines the part of Asia, in which this kingdom will be and says it will be Syria, that is, Judaea, which is part of Syria, and which is always called Syria by the Latins. 170 In like manner, Jerome and Theodoret, commenting on chapter XI of Daniel, gather from Daniel himself that Antichrist is going to set up his tents in the region of Jerusalem, and at length it will end on mount Olivet. Further, Irenaeus clearly said that Antichrist was going to rule in Jerusalem. 171
The Third place is in the words of Paul: “So that he would sit in the Temple of God.” 172 Although different expositions are given by the Fathers, some also understand the minds of the faithful through the Temple of God, in which Antichrist is said to sit after he will have seduced them, as Anselm expresses. Some understand Antichrist himself through the Temple, with his whole people; Antichrist would want himself and his own to seem the true spiritual Temple of God, that is, the true Church, as Augustine explains. 173 There, he deduces this exposition from the manner of speaking which Paul uses, who did not say in Greek en tō naō, (in the Temple) but eis ton naon( (into the Temple), as if to say Antichrist will sit within the Temple of God, that is, just as if he, with his own, were the Temple of God. Although this annotation of Augustine is not necessary, for even if in Latin it is not correct when it says to sit within the Temple, rather than in the Temple, still in Greek it is not said incorrectly: kathezoumai eis tēn ekklēsian, or eis ton naon, as it is commonly read.
Some also understand the Churches of Christians, which Antichrist will command to serve him, as Chrysostom interprets; still the exposition is the more common, probable and literal of those who teach that for the Temple of God is understood the Temple of Solomon, in whichever renewed Temple that Antichrist will sit in. Especially in the New Testament, the Churches of Christians are never understood for Temple of God, rather that is always understood as the Temple in Jerusalem. What is more, the Latin and Greek Fathers for so many centuries never called the Churches of Christians Temples, which in Greek are called naos, as St. Paul says in this passage, rather they call them euchtēria, that is oratories, as Churches, or houses of prayer, or basilicas, or martyria.
Certainly neither Justin Martyr, nor Irenaeus, nor Tertullian, nor Cyprian use the noun “Temple” when they treat on the Churches of Christians, and Jerome says that Julian the Apostate ordered that the basilicas of the Saints either be destroyed or turned into Temples. 174
Further, the reason why the Apostles do not call the Churches of Christians Temples is two-fold. 1) Because then they did not have any Temples, but only certain places in private houses that they set aside for prayer, a sermon and the holy celebration of the Mass. 2) Because while the memory of the Jewish Temple still flourished, the Apostles were to introduce something similar to distinguish the Church from the Synagogue, so they avoided the use of the word “Temple”, just as on account of the same reckoning the Apostles in Scripture never call Christian priests “priests” [sacerdotes], but only Bishops and Elders. But after Jerusalem was destroyed and the Temple burned, and the memory of the old Temple and its priesthood abolished, everywhere the holy Doctors began to use the word “Temple” and “priesthood”.
Therefore, since the Apostle, writing that Antichrist was going to sit in the Temple of God, said something which he wished to be understood by those to whom he wrote, and then they did not understand in the word “Temple” anything else but the Temple of Jerusalem, which appears for certain to be what the Apostle spoke about. But it is also confirmed from the common exposition of the Fathers.
Irenaeus says: “When Antichrist will have sat in the Temple of Jerusalem, then the Lord will come.” 175 Hippolytus the martyr, (loc. cit.) says: “he will build a Temple in Jerusalem.” St. Martin (loc. cit.), teaches the same thing. Cyril of Jerusalem says: “What kind of Temple does the Apostle speak of? In the Temple that is the relic of the Jews. God forbid that it should happen in this, in which we are.” 176 Hilary says on Matthew XXV, “Antichrist, being received by the Jews, will stand in the place of sanctification.” It is certain that he is talking about the Temple of the Jews, for he calls it the place of sanctification, which is what Christ calls it in Matthew XXIV when he said: “When you will have seen the abomination standing in the holy place.” Ambrose says Antichrist, according to history, is going to sit in that Temple in which the Romans threw in the head of a pig, in the time of the Emperor Titus, according to the mystical sense, he is going to sit in the interior Temple of the Jews, that is, in their faithless minds. 177
Sedulus explains, in this place of the Apostle, that in the Temple of God, “He will try to restore the Temple of Jerusalem, etc.” John Damascene says: “In the Temple, not ours, but the old Jewish Temple.” 178 Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylactus (who say Antichrist is going to sit in the Churches of Christians), also say he is going to sit in the Temple of Solomon. Chrysostom says on this verse: “He will command himself to be worshiped as a God, and to be placed in the Temple, not only in Jerusalem, but even in the Churches.” Theophylactus and Theodoret says the same thing; even Augustine and Jerome 179 do not deny Antichrist is going to sit in the Temple of Solomon.
There is only Oecumenius, who denies that Antichrist is going to sit in the Temple of the Jews, but he is the more recent of all of them, and by no means do we put him before the other Fathers. By chance his text might have been corrupted and lacked only one sentence, for it is strange that he would suddenly recede from Chrysostom, Theodoret and Theophylactus whom he otherwise always follows.
Now to the Second argument: we have already said Paul treats on the Temple of Solomon in that passage. Hence to the reasoning which we made, I respond: after the Jewish sacrifice and priesthood ceased that Temple ceased to be a Jewish Temple; but it did not immediately cease to be the Temple of God. The same Temple could have been the Temple of Christians and really was so long as it remained. For the Apostles preached and gave praise there after the ascension of Christ and the arrival of the Holy Spirit, as is clear from the words of Luke: “They were always in the Temple praising and blessing the Lord.” We read the same in Acts III: “Peter and John went up into the Temple for the prayer at the ninth hour.” 184 And in Acts V, the Angel says to the Apostles: “Speak in the Temple all the words of this life to the people.”
To the argument from Daniel I respond: either Daniel would have it that the Temple is not going to be rebuilt, except at the end of the world (which is true since Antichrist will be present at the end of the world), or it is going to remain desolate in eternity because although it will be rebuilt, still it will never be a Temple not profaned after the destruction carried out by Titus. When it will be raised up by Antichrist, then the abomination of desolation will especially remain in it, i.e. either Antichrist himself or his image, or the Temple will never be perfectly rebuilt, but will still be in the beginnings of rebuilding, and Antichrist is going to sit in that Temple at its beginning stages.
We have already responded to the passages of the Fathers that either assert, or at least do not deny, that Antichrist is going to sit in the Temple of Solomon. Moreover, many add the fact that Antichrist is also going to sit in the Churches of Christians; that is true and not opposed to our position. The Fathers would not have it that Antichrist is going to sit in the Church as a bishop, like the heretics dream up, rather he is going to sit as a god. Antichrist will command all Temples of the world to be converted to his worship, and he will make his own person worshiped. “He will command,” (says Chrysostom on this citation), “himself to be worshiped as a God, and to be venerated and placed in the Temple, not only in Jerusalem, but even in the Churches.” The rest speak in the same manner.
Now to the arguments taken up from the words of St. Gregory the Great, I respond: from his words we deduce the contrary to those which the heretics have mustered. They argue thus: The bishop of Constantinople was a precursor of Antichrist, because he made himself universal Bishop, therefore, Antichrist will be some universal Bishop, who will usurp all things to himself. But the opposite is gathered, since a precursor ought not be the same with the one he foreshadows, but by far lesser, even if in some matter he is similar to him just as we see in John the Baptist and Christ. So if he is a precursor of Antichrist, who makes himself universal Bishop, the true Antichrist himself will not make himself this, but something greater, without a doubt he will extol himself over everything that is called God. Or if the true Antichrist will only make himself a universal Bishop, then John of Constantinople, who did this, was not a precursor of Antichrist, but the true Antichrist, which still Gregory never says, nor our adversaries. So the sense of the words of Gregory is that because Antichrist will be very proud, and the head of all the proud, so also he will suffer no equals; whoever usurps something not due to him and wishes to go beyond and be over others, he is a precursor to him. Such were the Bishops of Constantinople, who, although in the beginning were only an Archbishop, first usurped the title of patriarch, and then the title of universal.
With equal reasoning, when Gregory says: “an army of priests is prepared for him,” he did not mean priests as in priests pertain to the army of Antichrist, since he will gather his own in that army: but priests as in the proud, prepare an army for Antichrist, since he speaks on the same John and priests like him that elevated themselves unjustly above the rest. It does not follow that Antichrist will be a prince of priests, but prince of the proud.
From this chapter we have an outstanding argument that the Pope is not Antichrist, seeing that his seat is not in Jerusalem, nor in the Temple of Solomon, nay more, it is believable that from the year 600 to the present (1589) no Roman Pontiff has been to Jerusalem.
CHAPTER XIV: On the Doctrine of Antichrist
ON the doctrine of Antichrist there is a great deal of controversy between us and the heretics. It certain from the Scriptures as well as from the testimony of our adversaries that there are going to be four points of doctrine of Antichrist.
1) He will deny Jesus is the Christ and hence he will oppose all the things our Savior established, such as Baptism, Confirmation, etc. He will teach that circumcision and the Sabbath have not yet ceased, as well as other ceremonies of the old law. “Who is a liar, but he who denies Jesus is the Christ? And this is Antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son, etc.” 185
2) After he will have persuaded the world that our Savior is not the true Christ, then he will assert that he is the true Christ promised in the law and Prophets. “If anyone will come in my name, you will receive him,” 186 that is as the Messiah.
3) He will declare that he is God and will demand to be worshiped as a God. “So that he shall sit in the Temple, showing himself just as if he were God.” 187
4) He will not only say that he is God, but even that he alone is God and will oppress all other gods, i.e., both the true God and false gods, and all idols. “Who extolls himself over everything which is called God, or that is worshiped.” 188 And in Daniel: “He will not think God is his father, nor will he worship anything of the gods, because he will rise against them all.” 189
Then let us begin from the first argument that Antichrist is going to openly deny Jesus is the Christ by public profession and in as much as all his sacraments will have been discovered he will trample them under foot. It is proved: 1) from the aforesaid, chapter 5 &6. For if Antichrist by nation and religion will be Jewish, and received by the Jews as a Messiah, as we have shown, certainly he will not preach our Christ, but will publicly oppose him. Otherwise, the Jews would receive our Christ through Antichrist, which is completely absurd. Besides, since there cannot be two Christs, how will Antichrist be able to thrust himself on the Jews as the Christ unless first he had taught that our Christ, who preceded him, was not really the true Christ?
Jerome says in his commentary on Daniel chapter XI: “Antichrist will rise from a modest nation; that is from the people of the Jews, and he will be so lowly and despised that he will not be given royal honor, but he shall obtain rule both through treachery and deceit. He will do this because he will feign himself the leader of the covenant, that is the law, and the covenant of God.” There, Jerome teaches that Antichrist is going to acquire rule over the Jews, because he will show himself zealous for the Judaic laws. Sedulius, commenting on 2 Thessalonians II:6, says that Antichrist is going to restore all Jewish ceremonies so as to abolish the gospel of Christ. Gregory says: “Because Antichrist will compel the people to judaize so that he might restore the rite of the exterior law, he will want the Sabbath to be kept to place the faithlessness of the Jews in himself.”
Then, in the time of Antichrist, all public offices and divine sacrifices will cease on account of the vehemence of the persecution, as we showed above in chapter III. It is evident from this that Antichrist is not going to corrupt the doctrine of Christ under the name of a Christian, as the heretics would have it. Rather, he will openly assault the name of Christ and the Sacraments while introducing Jewish ceremonies. Since the Pope does not do that, it is evident that he is not Antichrist.
Besides, the Fathers everywhere teach this. Irenaeus said: “He will try to show that he is Christ.” Ambrose says: “He will argue from the Scriptures that he is Christ.” 196 Theodoret says: “He will declare that he is Christ.” 197 St. Cyril of Jerusalem said: “He will induce a certain man to falsely call himself the Christ, and through this title of Christ he will deceive the Jews who await him.” 198 All the Fathers, as we showed above, say Antichrist will be received briefly as a Messiah by the Jews, thus he will openly and by name make himself the Messiah, that is, the Christ. Hence the Roman Pontiff, who does not do this, as is known, is not Antichrist. For this very reason, he calls himself the vicar of Christ, he asserts that he is not Christ, but his minister.
The fact that Antichrist will openly declare himself to be God and desire to be worshiped as God, not only by usurping some authority of God, but by the name of God itself is proved from the express words of the Apostle in 2 Thessalonians II: “So that he will sit in the Temple of God, revealing himself as though he were God.” Paul not only says that Antichrist is going to sit in the Temple, (for even we sit in Temples yet still we are not Antichrists), but he even explains the manner in which he will sit, that he will sit as a God, the only one to whom the Temple is properly raised. In Greek this is much more clear. For he does not say: hōs theos, as a God but hoti estin theos; that is, revealing that he is God. All the Fathers so understand that verse.
Irenaeus says: “Proving to be an Apostate and a robber, he will wish to be worshiped as if he were God.” Chrysostom said on that verse: “He will command that he be worshiped for God, and be placed in the Temple.” He says elsewhere on this same verse: “He will confess himself as God of all.” 199 Ambrose, commenting on 2 Thessalonians II, said: “He will assert that he is God himself, not the Son of God.” They all explain the verse similarly. From that we understand that the Roman Pontiff, who does not claim to be God, but the servant of God, is not Antichrist.
CHAPTER XVI: On the Kingdom and Battles of Antichrist
WE READ four things in the Scriptures about the kingdom and battles of Antichrist. 1) Antichrist shall come forth from the lowest place and will receive the rule over the Jews by frauds and treachery. 2) He is going to fight with three Kings, namely over Egypt, Libya and Ethiopia, and at length will occupy their kingdoms. 3) He is going to add to himself seven other Kings, and in that way evade the monarchy of the whole world. 4) With a countless army he will persecute Christians throughout the world, and this is the battle of Gog and Magog. It manifestly follows that none of these things agree with the Roman Pontiff, so that he in no way can be called Antichrist.
Daniel speaks on the first point: “He will stand, despised in his place, and neither honor nor royalty will be given him, and he will come secretly and obtain a kingdom in deceit.” 214 St. Jerome, writes in this place that these are also understood as concerning Antiochus Epiphanes, still by far they are more perfectly fulfilled in Antichrist. In just the same way, the things which are said in Psalm 71 (72) about Solomon are understood on Solomon himself, but are more perfectly fulfilled in Christ. For that reason the same Jerome, after he had shown this place on Antiochus, having followed Porphryius, so added: “We, however, interpret better and more rightly that in the end of the world Antichrist is going to do this, who has his rise from a small nation, that is the people of the Jews, and will be so lowly and despised that royal honor would not be given him, and through plotting and deceit he shall obtain rule, etc.” Jerome means, this is the common exposition of Christians. Daniel in chapter VII also compares Antichrist with a small horn because of its worthless and obscure beginning.
On the third, we have the clear testimony of the Fathers. Lactantius and Irenaeus say that after three of the ten kings will be killed by Antichrist, the other seven will be subjected and he will be the ruler of them all. 218 Jerome remarking on chapter XI of Daniel where it says, “And he will do what his fathers did not,” says: “None of the Jews except for Antichrist will ever have ruled the whole world.” Chrysostom asserts in his commentary on 2 Thessalonians II, that Antichrist was going to be a monarch and succeed the Romans in Monarchy, just as the Romans succeeded the Greeks, the Greeks the Persians, and the Persians the Assyrians.
CHAPTER XVII: On Gog and Magog
THEREFORE, the first opinion, or rather error, is of the Jews, who teach that Gog is Antichrist, Magog is the innumerable Scythian nations that hide within the Caspian mountains. Gog is going to come, that is Antichrist, with Magog, that is, with this army of Scythians, in the time which the Messiah will appear in Jerusalem, and then battle will be joined in Palestine, and there is going to be such a slaughter in the army of God, that for seven years the Jews will have no need to cut wood from trees to build fires because they will have spears, shields and like instruments thrown down everywhere with dead bodies, and then the golden age will come.
Jerome relates this opinion while commenting on chapter XXXVIII of Ezechiel, as well as the writings of Peter the Galatian, 221 and Rabi David Khimhi in their commentaries on the Psalms. Firstly, what they think is the coming battle of Gog and Magog that will take place is the first coming of Christ, confounding the first with the second, since the Scriptures clearly teach in the first coming Christ is going to come with humility, and finally will be immolated just as a tame sheep. 222 Secondly, that they think Antichrist is going to come to fight against them and with their Messiah is erroneous, since Antichrist really is going to be their Messiah, and will fight against the true Christ, our Savior, on behalf of the Jews.
But without a doubt this has been corrupted in this edition of the Septuagint. For the Hebrew does not have Gog, but Agag: vey-ya-dom me-agag ma-ley-ko, “and it will be abolished on account of Agag,” or his king before Agag. And the sense is, according to Jerome, commenting chapter 38 of Ezechiel, the first King of Israel, Saul, was removed on account of Agag because he will sin by not killing him. Or according to others, Saul will be raised up before Agag, that is he will prevail and conquer Agag himself. Both are true, and that citation of Numbers is certainly understood to be about the kingdom of the Jews, not about Christ or the Romans. For it begins: “How beautiful are thy tabernacles, O Jacob, thy tents O Israel, etc.”
The Fifth is of Theodore Bibliander whom Chytraeus follows in his commentary on Apocalypse XX. Therefore, Bibliander in his Chronology, accurately treats on Gog and Magog, and at length teaches the prophecy of Ezechiel and John do not pertain to the same time. Instead, the prophecy of Ezechiel was fulfilled in the time of the Maccabees, whereas Gog and Magog were Alexander the Great and his posterity that were Kings of Syria and Egypt that enjoined battles with the Jews and at length were conquered by the Maccabees. But the prophecy of John was fulfilled in the time of Pope Gregory VII and as many pontiffs who followed him, thus Gog and Magog were Popes, and other Christian princes and their armies, who so long fought against the Saracens for the holy land, and to recuperate the tomb of the Lord. 227 The first part of this opinion is also that of Theodoret in his commentary on Ezechiel XXXVIII, but it cannot be defended. Firstly, because without a doubt the prophecy of Ezechiel and John are one and the same, and hence each must be fulfilled after the coming of Christ. For John says the army of Gog is going to come from the four corners of the earth; Ezechiel says the same thing, namely showing the army of Gog is going to be Persians from the East, Ethiopians from the South, Tubal, that is, Spanish from the West, and Togorma, that is, Phrygians from the northern parts. Next John says that this army must perish from fire sent from heaven, and Ezechiel asserts the same thing at the end of chapter XXXVI. “Fire and sulphur will rain above him and over his army.” Next, John adds to this battle the renewal of Jerusalem, that is, the glorification of the Church and in a similar vein Ezechiel from chapter XL even to the end of the book treats on nothing but the wonderful renewal of Jerusalem.
Next, Ezechiel describes such a victory against Gog and Magog, that afterwards there would be no fear of enemies, rather it was going to be the end of all battles. But such was not the victory of the Maccabees against the kings of Syria and Egypt. For the Jews never completely conquered the kingdom of Syria or Egypt, and a little after the Jews were again disturbed by the Romans, captured and never freed from their hands, as Augustine deduced from the history. 228 Therefore, the prophecy of Ezechiel was not fulfilled before the times of Christ.
Therefore, our opinion, which is the tenth, contains three things. Firstly, we assert that the battle of Gog and Magog is the battle of Antichrist against the Church, as Augustine rightly teaches. Secondly, we say it is probably quite true that Antichrist is signified by Gog while through his army, Magog. For Ezechiel perpetually calls Gog the prince, and Magog the land, or nation. Thirdly, we say it is probable that Gog is called by Magog, not the other way around, so that Antichrist should be called Gog, because he is the prince of the nation which is called Magog. Hence, the army of Antichrist is called Magog from the nation of Scythia not because it is certain to be made of Scythians, which the Jews mean by beyond the Caucasus and the Caspian sea, but either because a great part of the army of Antichrist will consist of barbarians arising from Scythia (such as Turks, Tartars, and others), or what I rather more believe, because it will be an immense army and very cruel. For those whom we wish to say are savage, we call Scythian.
CHAPTER XXI: The Lies of Illyricus are Refuted
2) Another conjecture is that since Antichrist is going to come as the Messiah of the Jews, and the Jews await a multitude of wives from the Messaiah, apart from other goods, it is not in any way probable that Antichrist is going to command or praise celibacy.
Source. Mediatrix Press – Translated by Ryan Grant. Robert Bellarmine, Antichrist. Mediatrix Press. 2016.
I. Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei — Volume I
1. On the Word of God (De Verbo Dei), Book II, Chapter II
Subject: Whether the Jews have deliberately corrupted the Hebrew text of Scripture against the Christians.
This chapter contains Bellarmine’s central methodological argument about Jewish testimony to Christian truth. He refutes the claim (held by some Catholic polemicists) that the Jews systematically corrupted the Hebrew Bible, and constructs instead a positive argument that Providence dispersed the Jews precisely so that their unaltered scriptures would serve as unwilling witnesses for Christianity.
Latin (Opera Omnia I, p. 122):
Si Scripturas Hebræi aliquando corruperunt, vel id fecerunt ante Christi adventum, vel postea. Si antea; quare Christus et Apostoli nunquam eos de tam insigni crimine reprehenderunt, præsertim cum leviora non tacuerint? Quare Dominus ait Jo. V: Scrutamini Scripturas; et Matth. XXIII: Super cathedram Moysi sederunt Scribæ et Pharisæi; omnia ergo quæcumque dixerint vobis servate, et facite? Cui credibile erit, Christum ad corruptas Scripturas legendas sine ulla præmonitione homines invitasse: vel ad corruptores audiendos et sequendos amandasse? Sin autem post Christi adventum id factum est; quo pacto testimonia quæ a Christo et Apostolis citantur, omnia fere inveniuntur nunc in Mose et Prophetis ut ab illis citata sunt?
Translation:
If the Hebrews ever corrupted the Scriptures, they did so either before the coming of Christ or after. If before: why did Christ and the Apostles never reproach them for so notorious a crime, especially since they did not pass over lesser things in silence? Why did the Lord say in John 5, Search the Scriptures; and in Matthew 23, The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat — therefore whatever they tell you, observe and do? Who will find it credible that Christ invited men to read corrupted Scriptures without any warning, or sent them to hear and follow those who had corrupted them? But if it happened after the coming of Christ: how is it that virtually all the testimonies cited by Christ and the Apostles are still found now in Moses and the Prophets exactly as they were cited?
Latin (ibid., p. 122–123), Augustine’s argument:
Si quæram, inquit, quid sit credibilius, Judæorum gentem tam longe lateque diffusam, in hoc conscribendum mendacium uno consilio conspirare potuisse: et dum aliis invident auctoritatem, sibi abstulisse veritatem? An 70 homines, qui etiam ipsi Judæi erant, in uno loco positos, ipsam veritatem Gentibus alienigenis invidisse, et communicato istud fecisse consilio; quis non videat, quid proclivius, faciliusque credatur? Sed absit, ut prudens quispiam vel Judæos cujuslibet perversitatis atque malitiæ tantum potuisse credat in codicibus tam multis, et tam longe lateque dispersis.
Translation (Bellarmine quoting Augustine, City of God XV.13):
“Let me ask,” he says, “what is more credible: that the Jewish nation, dispersed so far and so widely, could have conspired with one common purpose to fabricate this lie — and, while begrudging others the authority [of their scriptures], stripped themselves of the truth? Or that the seventy men, who were themselves also Jews, placed together in one location, begrudged the truth to foreign Gentiles and did this by common agreement? Who cannot see which is more readily and easily believed? But God forbid that any prudent man should believe that the Jews, for all their perversity and malice, had so much power over manuscripts so numerous and so widely dispersed.”
Latin (ibid., p. 123), on Jewish scribal piety:
Scribit Philo… usque ad sua tempora per spatium amplius quam duorum millium annorum, ne verbum quidem fuisse unquam in Lege Hebræorum immutatum, et quemlibet Judæum centies potius moriturum, quam ut pateretur Legem in aliquo mutari.
Translation:
Philo writes … that up to his own time, over a period of more than two thousand years, not even a single word had ever been changed in the Law of the Hebrews, and that any Jew would sooner die a hundred times than permit the Law to be altered in any respect.
Latin (ibid., p. 123), the fourth argument — that Jews did not remove the most damaging prophecies:
Si Judæi falsare voluissent divinas Scripturas in odium Christianorum, sine dubio præcipua vaticinia sustulissent: id autem minime fecerunt; siquidem ea in quibus discrepant Hebræa a Græcis et Latinis, sæpe nullius momenti sunt, quantum attinet ad Fidem, et religionem, et sæpe codices Hebræi magis Judæos vexant, quam Græci aut Latini. Certe in II. Psalmo Latini et Græci habent: Apprehendite disciplinam, ne irascatur Dominus; ex quo nihil aperte contra Judæos deduci potest: at in Hebræo est, נשקו בר, Osculamini Filium ne irascatur, id est, reverentiam exhibite Filio Dei ne ipse irascatur, etc., qui locus est invictissimus contra Judæos.
Translation:
If the Jews had wished to falsify the divine Scriptures out of hatred of Christians, they would without doubt have removed the principal prophecies. But they did nothing of the kind. The places where the Hebrew differs from the Greek and Latin are often of no moment with respect to faith and religion, and often the Hebrew manuscripts are more troublesome to the Jews than the Greek or Latin are. Certainly in Psalm 2, the Latin and Greek have Embrace discipline, lest the Lord be angry — from which nothing directly against the Jews can be drawn. But in the Hebrew it reads נשקו בר, Kiss the Son, lest he be angry — that is, Show reverence to the Son of God lest he himself be angry — and this passage is absolutely unanswerable against the Jews.
Latin (ibid., p. 123), the fifth argument from Providence:
Non enim verisimile est, Deum id passurum fuisse, ut verba tot illustrium Prophetarum generaliter falsarentur, præsertim cum ad hunc finem Judæos disperserit per totum orbem terrarum, et circumferre eos voluerit libros Legis et Prophetarum, ut inimici nostri Christianæ veritati testimonium præberent.
Translation:
For it is not credible that God would have permitted the words of so many illustrious Prophets to be universally falsified, especially since he dispersed the Jews through the entire world precisely for this purpose, and wished them to carry about with them the books of the Law and the Prophets, so that our enemies would bear witness to Christian truth.
Latin (ibid., p. 123), continuing with Augustine and Psalm 58:
Ideo enim dispersi sunt Judæi libros sacros circumferentes, ut cum Pagani non credunt ea, quæ dicimus de Christo esse prædicta, sed a nobis ejusmodi vaticinia conficta, mittamus eos ad inimicos nostros Judæos, qui vaticinia secum ferunt.
Translation:
For the Jews were dispersed, carrying the sacred books with them, so that when the Pagans do not believe what we say — that these things were foretold of Christ, alleging that we fabricated such prophecies — we may send them to our enemies the Jews, who carry the prophecies with them.
2. On Christ (De Christo), Preface — On the Two Kinds of Enemies of the Divinity of Christ
Subject: The Jews as the original and prototypical enemies of Christ’s divinity.
Latin (Opera Omnia I, p. 236):
In hac summa, quæ de Christo ipso instituitur, disceptatione res nobis futura est cum exercitibus duobus, quorum alter ex iis constat, qui se id quod sunt, hostes atque adversarios esse, et signa conferre, atque aperto Marte pugnare profitentur: alter est longe major; ex proditoribus et insidiatoribus comparatus.
Translation:
In this supreme controversy, which concerns Christ himself, we shall have to deal with two armies: one made up of those who declare themselves openly for what they are — enemies and adversaries — and who engage in open battle under their own banner; the other is far larger, composed of traitors and ambushers.
Latin (ibid., p. 237), on the Jews as the first rank of open enemies:
Inter eos, qui aperte Divinitatis Christi hostes sunt, Judæi primum locum tenent, utpote hostes antiquissimi, quorum objectionibus omnes deinceps hæreses de Christo natæ sunt et alatæ.
Translation:
Among those who are open enemies of the divinity of Christ, the Jews hold the first place, as the most ancient enemies, from whose objections all the subsequent heresies concerning Christ were born and nourished.
3. On Christ (De Christo), Book I, Chapter IV — The Divinity of the Son of God Asserted
Subject: Nine classes of argument for Christ’s divinity; the Jews and Muhammadans are explicitly named as those who deny it; the core argument that Old Testament texts about the God of Israel are applied to Christ in the New Testament.
Latin (Opera Omnia I, p. 253):
Probandum est, Filium Dei esse verum Deum, et proinde unum numero Deum cum Patre. Nam Patrem esse verum Deum nemo negat… Est autem hoc diligentissime probandum; nam id negant hoc tempore tam novi Ariani, quam novi Samosateni, et præterea omnes Judæi, et Mahumetani.
Translation:
It must be proved that the Son of God is true God, and therefore one God in number with the Father. For no one denies that the Father is true God … This must be demonstrated most carefully, because it is denied in our time both by the new Arians and by the new Samosatenians, and besides them by all Jews and Muhammadans.
Latin (ibid., p. 253–254), the first class of argument — Numbers 21 and 1 Corinthians 10:
Numer. XXI: Locutus, inquit Moses, populus contra Dominum et Moysen, ait: Cur eduxisti nos de Ægypto, etc. Quamobrem Dominus immisit in populum ignitos serpentes, etc. Hic omnium consensu agitur de vero et summo Deo quem soli Judæi noverant: Et Servetiani et Gentilistæ habent hoc pro axiomate: Deum Israel esse verum Deum, et eum esse solum Patrem: at I Cor. X Paulus ait, illum ipsum Deum, esse Christum: Neque tentemus, inquit, Christum, sicut quidam eorum tentaverunt, et a serpentibus perierunt; igitur oportet Christum esse Deum verum, et unum omnino Deum cum Patre.
Translation:
Numbers 21: The people spoke against the Lord and against Moses, saying: Why have you brought us out of Egypt? … Therefore the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people. Here by universal agreement the text concerns the true and supreme God whom the Jews alone knew. And the Servetians and the Gentilists take this as an axiom: that the God of Israel is the true God, and that he is the Father alone. But Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 says that this same God is Christ: Let us not tempt Christ, as some of them tempted, and were destroyed by serpents. Therefore Christ must be the true God, and one in all respects with the Father.
Latin (ibid., p. 253–254), the third place — Psalm 67 and Ephesians 4:
Tertius locus Psal. LXVII, dicitur de Deo Israel: Currus Dei decem millibus multiplex, millia lætantium: Dominus in eis in Sina in sancto. Ascendisti in altum, cepisti captivitatem, accepisti dona in hominibus. Et hoc idem Paulus tribuit Christo ad Ephes. IV. Unicuique nostrum, inquit, data est gratia secundum mensuram donationis Christi, propter quod dixit: Ascendens in altum, captivam duxit captivitatem, dedit dona hominibus.
Translation:
The third place is Psalm 67, where it says of the God of Israel: The chariot of God is ten-thousand-fold, thousands of them rejoicing: the Lord is among them, at Sinai, in the holy place. You have ascended on high, you have taken captivity captive, you have received gifts among men. And this same text Paul attributes to Christ in Ephesians 4: To each of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift; therefore it says: Ascending on high, he led captivity captive, he gave gifts to men.
Latin (ibid., p. 254–255), the sixth place — Isaiah 6 and John 12:
Sextus locus Isai. VI. Vidi Dominum sedentem super solium excelsum, et elevatum … Et dixit exercituum vade, et dices populo huic, excæca oculos ipsorum, et cor eorum aggrava etc. Non potuit clarius describi majestas summi Dei. Et quamvis adversarii soli Patri hoc tribuant, tamen Joannes cap. XII. exponit de Christo. Nam posteaquam posuit verba illa cap. VI. Isaiæ: Excæcavit oculos eorum, et induravit cor eorum, ut non videant oculis etc. Subjungit: Hæc dixit Isaias quando vidit gloriam ejus, et locutus est de eo.
Translation:
The sixth place is Isaiah 6: I saw the Lord sitting upon a high and lofty throne … And he said: Go, and say to this people: Blind their eyes and harden their heart etc. The majesty of the supreme God could not be described more clearly. And although the adversaries attribute this to the Father alone, John in chapter 12 expounds it of Christ. For after citing the words of Isaiah 6, He blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they might not see with their eyes etc., he adds: These things Isaiah said when he saw his glory and spoke of him.
Latin (ibid., p. 254–255), the eighth place — Isaiah 40 and John the Baptist:
Octavus locus Isaæ XL. Vox clamantis in deserto, parate viam Domino, rectas facite in solitudine semitas Dei nostri. Hæc de Deo Israel dicuntur ab Isaia. Nec enim Judæi alium Dominum et Deum suum absolute vocabant, quam unum verum Deum, ac præsertim Prophetæ, aliique sancti viri: et tamen hanc vocem esse Joannem, qui paravit viam Christo, testantur omnes Evangelistæ, Matth. III, Marc. I, Luc. I, Joann. I. Est igitur Christus ille Dominus et Deus Israel, quem solum Patrem adversarii faciunt.
Translation:
The eighth place is Isaiah 40: A voice crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert the paths of our God. These words are spoken by Isaiah of the God of Israel. For the Jews — and especially the Prophets and other holy men — never called anyone Lord and God in absolute terms except the one true God. And yet all four Evangelists testify that this voice is John, who prepared the way for Christ (Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 1, John 1). Therefore Christ is that Lord and God of Israel whom the adversaries make to be the Father alone.
Latin (ibid., p. 255), conclusion of the argument and its implications for the Jews:
Vides quemadmodum Apostolo teste, Christus est ille Deus, præter quem non est alius Deus. [On Isaiah 45 / Romans 14]
Translation:
You see how, as the Apostle witnesses, Christ is that God besides whom there is no other God.
II. Commentary on the Psalms — Volume X
4. Psalm II — Quare fremuerunt gentes
Subject: The messianic Psalm — Jewish rabbinical acknowledgment of its messianic sense; the conspiracy of Herod and the princes of Judah; the scattering of the Jewish priesthood as the fulfillment of the divine derision.
Latin (Opera Omnia X, p. 13 — Argumentum):
Est autem totus hic Psalmus prophetia de regno Christi manifestissima, et explicata ab Apostolis, Actor. cap. IV et XIII, et ad Hebr. I et V, ut omnino errare videantur, qui ad litteram de Davide hunc Psalmum explicare nituntur.
Translation:
This entire Psalm is a most manifest prophecy of the kingdom of Christ, expounded by the Apostles in Acts 4 and 13, and in Hebrews 1 and 5, so that those who strive to expound this Psalm literally of David appear to err altogether.
Latin (ibid., p. 13 — Argumentum, citing Rabbi Jarchi and Rabbi Kimchi):
De Messia unanimi doctorum veterum consensu ac traditionis auctoritate exponitur hic Psalmus. Ut SS. Patres omittam, hæc de Judæis R. Jarchi: «Doctores nostri hunc Psalmum exposuerunt de rege Messia; sed ad sensum litteralem, et ut occurratur Hæreticis (Christianis) expedit, eum de Davide ipso interpretari.» Similiter Kimchi: «Sunt qui hunc Psalmum de Gog et Magog interpretantur, estque unctus rex Messias, atque ita exposuerunt doctores nostri, beatæ memoriæ, estque Psalmus, hoc modo explicatus, perspicuus.»
Translation:
This Psalm is expounded of the Messiah by the unanimous consent of the ancient doctors and by the authority of tradition. To say nothing of the holy Fathers, Rabbi Jarchi says this of the Jews: “Our doctors expounded this Psalm of the King Messiah; but for the literal sense, and in order to counter the Heretics [i.e., Christians], it is expedient to interpret it of David himself.” Similarly Kimchi: “There are those who interpret this Psalm of Gog and Magog, and the anointed one is the King Messiah, and thus our doctors of blessed memory expounded it, and the Psalm, expounded in this manner, is clear.”
Latin (ibid., p. 14 — on verse 2):
Tam autem est aperta hæc Prophetia, ut non solum Apostoli, Act. IV, intellexerint ad litteram de Jesu Christo Domino nostro hunc locum, sed etiam veteres Rabbini, teste R. Salomone in Commentario hujus Psalmi, exposuerint hunc eumdem locum de vero Messia, quem adhuc cæci et infatuati exspectant.
Translation:
So clear is this prophecy that not only did the Apostles in Acts 4 understand this passage literally of Jesus Christ our Lord, but even the ancient Rabbis — as Rabbi Solomon witnesses in his Commentary on this Psalm — expounded this very passage of the true Messiah, whom they still await, blind and infatuated.
Latin (ibid., p. 14 — on verse 4, the divine laughter and the destruction of the Jewish priesthood):
Quod autem dicit Dominum irrisurum et subsannaturum eos, significat eos divino judicio per signa et prodigia, per Martyrum patientiam, per conversionem gentium et populorum, perque alios modos soli Deo notos, ita confundendos, ut omnium irrisioni atque subsannationi pateant. Id videmus impletum. Nam sacerdotium Judaicum et idololatricum nunc ab omnibus irridetur. Carent enim Judæi et Gentiles templis et sacrificiis; reges quoque Gentilium, qui Ecclesiam persequebantur, omnes misere perierunt.
Translation:
But when it says that the Lord will deride and mock them, this means that they are to be confounded by divine judgment — through signs and wonders, through the patience of the Martyrs, through the conversion of nations and peoples, and through other means known to God alone — so that they lie open to the derision and mockery of all. We see this fulfilled. For the Jewish priesthood and the idolatrous [pagan priesthood] are now derided by all. For Jews and Gentiles alike are without temples and sacrifices; and the kings of the Gentiles who persecuted the Church have all perished wretchedly.
Latin (ibid., p. 17–18 — on verse 12, Kiss the Son / Apprehendite disciplinam):
Hunc locum ex Hebræo alii reddunt, osculamini filium; alii, adorate filium; alii, adorate pure … suspicor omnino, vel in Hebræo aliquid mutatum vitio temporum, aut certe vocem בר bar non solum filium et puritatem, sed etiam disciplinam significare.
Translation:
Some render this passage from the Hebrew as Kiss the Son; others as Worship the Son; others as Worship purely … I strongly suspect that either something in the Hebrew has been changed through the corruption of time, or that the word bar signifies not only son and purity but also discipline.
Latin (ibid., p. 18 — context and warning):
Sensus igitur est: Apprehendite disciplinam, ne quando irascatur in impios et rebelles is, cui dixi serviendum esse cum timore; et vos pereatis, sive exterminemini de via justitiæ.
Translation:
The meaning therefore is: Embrace discipline, lest he against whom I said you must serve with fear — lest he be angered at the impious and the rebellious, and you perish, that is, be utterly exterminated from the way of justice.
5. Psalm VIII — Domine, Dominus noster
Subject: Christ as the true Man whose dominion over creation fulfills what Adam failed to maintain; the Jewish interpretation refuted; the Apostle’s binding application to the Incarnation and Passion.
[Latin text to be supplied from Vol. X on Psalm VIII — verse 5 passage, citing Hebrews 2, and the argument that David’s words exceed any historical fulfillment and must refer to Christ.]
Latin (Opera Omnia X, p. 45–46 — on verse 5, Quid est homo, quod memor es ejus):
Visitatio autem significat specialem providentiam, quam Deus habet erga homines, sed præcipue illam, quam Deus ostendit, cum venit in hunc mundum, et assumpsit humanam naturam, et in terris visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est. Hæc est proprie visitatio, de qua Zacharias in Cantico, Luc. I: «Benedictus Dominus Deus Israel, quia visitavit, et fecit redemptionem plebis suæ.» Et infra: «Visitavit nos oriens ex alto.» Hæc sane visitatio maxime meretur illam admirationem: «Quid est homo, etc.»
Translation:
But visitation signifies the special providence that God has toward men — and above all that which God showed when he came into this world, took human nature, was seen on earth, and conversed with men. This is properly the visitation spoken of by Zechariah in his canticle, Luke 1: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, because he has visited and accomplished the redemption of his people. And below: The dayspring from on high has visited us. This visitation above all others deserves that exclamation: What is man, etc.
Latin (ibid., p. 46 — on verse 6, the allegorical sense applied to Christ, citing Hebrews 2):
Jam vero secundum allegoricum sensum, sed certum, et a Deo intentum Apostolo teste, Hebr. II, et I Cor. XV, significatur hominem in Christo post illam insignem Dei visitationem, id est Verbi incarnationem, minoratum aliquantulum ab Angelis propter passionem: tunc enim Christus visus est aliquo modo minor Angelis, cum ei apparuerit Angelus de cœlo confortans eum, et cum Angeli sunt impassibiles et immortales; Christus autem eo tempore passus et mortuus sit. Absolute autem semper fuit Christus Angelis superior, et omni ex parte major.
Translation:
Now according to the allegorical sense — but a certain allegorical sense, intended by God himself as the Apostle witnesses in Hebrews 2 and 1 Corinthians 15 — it is signified that man in Christ, after that remarkable visitation of God (that is, the Incarnation of the Word), was diminished a little below the angels on account of the Passion. For at that time Christ appeared in some fashion lesser than the angels: an angel appeared to him from heaven to strengthen him, and the angels are impassible and immortal, whereas Christ at that time suffered and died. But in absolute terms, Christ was always superior to the angels and greater in every respect.
6. Psalm XXI — Deus, Deus meus, respice in me
Subject: The supreme Passion Psalm, applied to Christ by Christ himself on the Cross; the nations gathering against him; the fulfillment in the Crucifixion; the founding of the universal Church prophesied within the same Psalm.
Latin (Opera Omnia X — Argumentum):
Hunc Psalmum esse de passione Christi, cum ex eo patet, quod Dominus noster ipse in cruce positus prima verba ejus protulit, tum etiam quia singula propemodum quadrant exactissime ad passionem Christi, ut videbimus in explicatione.
Translation:
That this Psalm concerns the Passion of Christ is evident both from the fact that our Lord himself, placed on the Cross, uttered its opening words, and also from the fact that nearly every detail fits the Passion of Christ with the greatest exactness, as we shall see in the exposition.
Latin (Opera Omnia X, p. 124–125 — on verse 17 [18], Foderunt manus meas et pedes meos):
In hebræo legitur כארי caari, quod significat, quasi leo, sed Septuaginta legerunt כארו caaru, quod est foderunt. Et sic omnino esse legendum non dubium est, quia Septuaginta nunquam vertissent foderunt, si legissent caari. S. Hieronymus quoque ex hebræo vertit foderunt, ac per hoc legisse credendus est caaru. In ipso etiam libro Massoreth … monent Rabbini in Psalmo hoc legendum quidem esse caari, sed juxta codices emendatiores scribendum cuaru. Quamvis enim ex perfidia sua legere velint, quasi leo, tamen fatentur scriptum esse caaru, id est foderunt. Denique sententia multo est clarior, foderunt manus meas, quam, quasi leo manus meas.
Translation:
In the Hebrew one reads כארי caari, which means like a lion; but the Seventy read כארו caaru, which means they dug [i.e., they pierced]. And there is no doubt that this is the right reading, because the Seventy would never have translated they pierced if they had read caari. Jerome also translates from the Hebrew as they pierced, and must therefore be believed to have read caaru. In the book of the Masorah itself … the Rabbis note that in this Psalm one should indeed read caari, but that according to more corrected manuscripts it should be written cuaru. For although out of their own obstinacy [perfidia] they wish to read like a lion, they nonetheless admit that the written form is caaru — that is, they pierced. And the meaning is in any case far clearer as they pierced my hands, than as like a lion my hands.
Note. The Latin word perfidia here is the standard technical term in Bellarmine’s vocabulary for Jewish rejection of Christ; it means literally “bad faith” or “faithlessness” and does not imply personal wickedness but the doctrinal stance of disbelieving the Messiah. The Rabbis’ own manuscript tradition, Bellarmine argues, undermines their preferred anti-Christian reading of this verse.
7. Psalm LXVIII — Salvum me fac, Deus
Subject: The Passion Psalm cited by John, Paul, and Peter; the verses on the darkened eyes and desolate habitation expounded as prophecy of the Jewish dispersion.
Latin (Opera Omnia X, p. 448–449 — Argumentum):
Consentiunt fere omnes expositores veteres, ut Hilarius, Augustinus, Hieronymus; et recentiores, ut Genebrardus, Jansenius, Agellius et alii, in hoc Psalmo prædici passionem Christi plane ad litteram, nec non eversionem Judæorum, et ædificationem Ecclesiæ.
Translation:
Almost all the ancient expositors agree — Hilary, Augustine, Jerome — as do more recent ones such as Genebrard, Jansenius, Agellius, and others, that this Psalm foretells the Passion of Christ plainly at the literal level, and also the overthrow of the Jews and the building of the Church.
Latin (ibid., p. 448 — on verse 23, Fiat mensa eorum coram ipsis in laqueum):
«Fiat mensa eorum coram ipsis in laqueum;» per mensam intelligunt Patres lectionem Scripturarum, unde pascuntur animæ fidelium veritate divina … Hæc mensa coram Judæis est, quia assidue legunt Mosem et Prophetas, sed facta est illis in laqueum, quia perperam intelligentes capiuntur laqueo infidelitatis, et illa ipsa Scriptura, quæ fideliter considerata poterat eis salutem adferre, adfert eis perditionem, quia detinet illos in incredulitate.
Translation:
Let their table become a snare before them. By the table the Fathers understand the reading of the Scriptures, from which the souls of the faithful are fed on divine truth … This table is before the Jews, because they continually read Moses and the Prophets; but it has become a snare for them, because understanding it perversely they are caught in the snare of unbelief, and that very Scripture which, faithfully considered, could have brought them salvation, brings them perdition — because it holds them fixed in unbelief.
Latin (ibid., p. 449 — on verse 24, Obscurentur oculi eorum ne videant):
Hæc est radix malorum supradictorum, quia permittente Deo depravatus est intellectus, et affectus eorum. «Obscurati sunt oculi eorum» interiores; imo «velamen est super cor eorum,» teste Paulo II Cor. III; «imo excæcati sunt, ut dicitur Isai. cap. VI, Matth. XIII, Joan. XII et Rom. XI. Depravatus quoque est eorum affectus, ut nihil appetant, nisi terrena; quod significat illud: «Dorsum eorum semper incurva,» id est, te permittente, ac per hoc puniente eorum ingratitudinem, semper curvi incedent, ut nihil nisi terram aspiciant.
Translation:
This is the root of the foregoing evils: for with God permitting it, their intellect and their will have been perverted. Their inner eyes have been darkened — indeed, a veil is over their heart, as Paul witnesses in 2 Corinthians 3; indeed, they have been blinded, as is said in Isaiah 6, Matthew 13, John 12, and Romans 11. Their will too has been corrupted, so that they desire nothing but earthly things — which is signified by bend their back always down: that is, with your permission, and thereby punishing their ingratitude, they will always walk bent, so that they look at nothing but the ground.
Latin (ibid. — on verse 26, Fiat habitatio eorum deserta):
«Fiat habitatio eorum deserta, et non sit qui in tabernaculis eorum inhabitet:» id impletum est ad litteram, cum Tito imperatore jubente eversa est Jerusalem, et inhabitabilis reddita; postea vero reædificata quidem est, et habitari cœpta, sed a Gentilibus, vel Christianis, vel Saracenis, non autem a Judæis. Unde quod ad Judæos attinet, adhuc deserta est, quia ibi non permittuntur habitare, nisi pauci admodum; prædixit hoc etiam Dominus, Matth. cap. XXIII: «Ecce relinquetur vobis domus vestra deserta.»
Translation:
Let their habitation be made desolate, and let there be none to dwell in their tents: this was fulfilled literally when the Emperor Titus ordered Jerusalem to be destroyed and rendered uninhabitable. Afterwards it was indeed rebuilt and began to be inhabited again — but by Gentiles, or Christians, or Saracens, and not by Jews. And so as far as the Jews are concerned it is still desolate, because they are not permitted to dwell there except in very small numbers — as the Lord himself had foretold in Matthew 23: Behold, your house shall be left to you desolate.
8. Psalm CXVII — Confitemini Domino
Subject: The cornerstone rejected by the builders — applied to Christ by Christ himself in the Temple; the Jewish builders identified; the argument that Christ’s own public application of the verse is binding.
Latin (Opera Omnia XI, p. 290–291 — on verses 21–22, Lapidem quem reprobaverunt ædificantes):
Certe non auderem Scripturam ita celebrem et decantatam, a Christo et Apostolis explicatam, ullo modo cum Davidis persona communicare … dicendum est quod cum David in persona sua et populi Dei decantasset liberationem a temporalibus malis, et petiisset introitum in æternam salutem, declarat nunc quomodo Deus aperuerit viam ad hanc æternam salutem, et sine dubio actus majore lumine prophetico hos versiculos scripsit: «Lapidem, quem reprobaverunt ædificantes, hic factus est in caput anguli,» id est, misit Deus lapidem vivum, pretiosum, electum in terras; sed Judæi, ad quos tunc pertinebat officium ædificandæ Ecclesiæ, hunc lapidem reprobaverunt, dicentes de Christo: «Non est hic homo a Deo, qui sabbatum non custodit;» et: «Non habemus regem nisi Cæsarem;» et: «Seductor ille dixit: Post tres dies resurgam,» et similia. Sed hic idem lapis ab ædificantibus reprobatus, quasi inutilis ad ædificium spirituale, a Deo principali architecto «factus est in caput anguli,» id est, constitutus est super duos parietes, ut eos conjungeret et contineret, id est, factus est caput totius Ecclesiæ ex Hebræis et Gentibus congregatæ.
Translation:
I would certainly not venture to share a Scripture so celebrated and so much repeated, expounded by Christ and the Apostles, in any degree with the person of David … what must be said is this: David, having sung in his own person and in that of the people of God of deliverance from temporal evils, and having sought entry into eternal salvation, now declares how God opened the way to that eternal salvation; and without doubt, moved by a greater prophetic light, he wrote these verses: The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner — that is, God sent a living, precious, chosen stone into the world; but the Jews, to whom at that time the office of building the Church belonged, rejected this stone, saying of Christ: This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath; and: We have no king but Caesar; and: That deceiver said: After three days I will rise again; and the like. But this same stone, rejected by the builders as useless for the spiritual edifice, was made by God the principal Architect the head of the corner — that is, he was set over two walls to join and hold them together — that is, he was made the head of the whole Church gathered from Hebrews and Gentiles.
Latin (ibid., p. 291 — on verse 22, A Domino factum est istud):
Atque hoc a Domino factum est, id est, electione et potestate divina, non consilio, vel ope humana, et ideo «mirabile est in oculis nostris.» Quis enim non miretur hominem crucifixum et mortuum, ac sepultum, post tres dies resurgere immortalem cum amplissima potestate; et caput ac principem declarari omnium hominum et angelorum; et per eum aditum patefieri hominibus mortalibus ad regnum cœlorum?
Translation:
And this was done by the Lord — that is, by divine election and power, not by human counsel or effort — and therefore it is marvellous in our eyes. For who would not marvel that a man crucified, dead, and buried, should rise after three days immortal with the fullest power; and be declared the head and prince of all men and angels; and that through him the way should be opened for mortal men to the kingdom of heaven?
Psalm XV
Argumentum (Opera Omnia X, p. 77)
Latin:
Argumentum Psalmi est oratio Christi ad Patrem: et eadem accommodari potest membris Christi, tum universis, tum singulis. De Christo enim, et non de Davide intelligendos esse quatuor versus postremos, ac præsertim illa verba: «Non dabis sanctum tuum videre corruptionem,» docent apostoli Petrus Act. II, et Paulus Act. XIII; et quia totus Psalmus est oratio quædam continuata, non possunt intelligi quatuor ultimi versus de Christo, quin totus Psalmus de Christo intelligatur.
Translation:
The argument of this Psalm is the prayer of Christ to the Father, and the same can be accommodated to the members of Christ both collectively and individually. That the last four verses — and above all those words, thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption — are to be understood of Christ and not of David is the teaching of the apostles Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in Acts 13; and because the whole Psalm is a single continuous prayer, the last four verses cannot be understood of Christ without the entire Psalm being understood of Christ.
On verse 10: Quoniam non derelinques animam meam in inferno, nec dabis sanctum tuum videre corruptionem (Opera Omnia X, p. 78–79)
Latin:
Hæc explicata sunt ab apostolis Petro et Paulo, Act. II et XIII, et quamvis proprie de solo Christo hæc dicantur, cujus anima non est relicta apud inferos, in limbo videlicet sanctorum Patrum, neque caro in sepulcro experta est ullam putrefactionem; tamen nos omnes hæc dicere possumus, tum quia membra Christi sumus, et in illo, ut ait Apostolus Ephes. II, «conresuscitavit nos Deus;» tum quia animæ nostræ non relinquentur in inferno, id est in Purgatorio, neque caro nostra videbit æternam corruptionem.
Translation:
These words have been expounded by the apostles Peter and Paul in Acts 2 and Acts 13. And although they are properly said of Christ alone — whose soul was not left among the dead, that is, in the limbo of the holy Fathers, nor did his body undergo any putrefaction in the tomb — nevertheless all of us can say these words: both because we are members of Christ and in him, as the Apostle says in Ephesians 2, God has co-raised us up; and because our own souls will not be left in the lower regions, that is in Purgatory, nor will our flesh see eternal corruption.
Note: The adversus Judaeos force of this passage derives from Bellarmine’s Argumentum: Peter’s argument in Acts 2 is that David spoke as a prophet, not about himself — since David both died and saw corruption — and therefore necessarily of Christ. Any reading that confines the Psalm to David (as rabbinic interpreters do) is foreclosed by the apostolic exposition.
On verse 11: note on Theodore Beza (Opera Omnia X, p. 79)
Latin:
Ad finem hujus Psalmi annotare placet incredibilem temeritatem Theodori Bezæ, qui verba illa: «Non relinques animam meam in inferno,» ex textu græco, Act. II, sic interpretari ausus est: Non derelinques cadaver meum in sepulcro: quæ enim corruptio sacrarum litterarum est, si hæc non est? Vide, si placet, refutationem hujus paradoxi in nostris Controversiis, lib. De Anima Christi, cap. XII, ubi demonstramus voces tum hebraicas, tum græcas, quæ in hoc Psalmo et cap. II Actorum habentur, non cadaver et sepulcrum, sed animam et infernum proprie significare.
Translation:
At the close of this Psalm it is worth noting the incredible audacity of Theodore Beza, who dared to render those words thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, from the Greek text of Acts 2, as: thou wilt not leave my corpse in the sepulchre — for if this is not a corruption of sacred letters, what is? See, if you please, the refutation of this paradox in my Controversies, book On the Soul of Christ, chapter 12, where I demonstrate that both the Hebrew and Greek words found in this Psalm and in Acts 2 chapter 2 properly signify soul and hell, not corpse and sepulchre.
Psalm XL
Argumentum (Opera Omnia X, p. 267)
Latin:
Videtur hic etiam Psalmus, ut præcedens, ad Christi passionem totus pertinere. Sic enim eum Patres accipiunt, Ambrosius, Hieronymus, Augustinus et Chrysostomus, qui addit temerarium esse aliter exponere, cum citetur ab ipso Christo, Joan. XII, unus versiculus ex Psalmo ad demonstrandum Judæ proditionem fuisse multo ante prædictam.
Translation:
This Psalm also, like the preceding one, appears to pertain entirely to the Passion of Christ. So the Fathers receive it — Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom, who adds that it is rash to expound it otherwise, since Christ himself cites one verse from the Psalm in John 12 to demonstrate that the betrayal by Judas had been foretold long in advance.
On verse 5: Inimici mei dixerunt mala mihi, quando morietur et peribit nomen ejus (Opera Omnia X, p. 268)
Latin:
Hæc manifeste pertinent ad pharisæos et sacerdotes Judæorum, qui avidissime Christi mortem sitiebant, et de ipso interficiendo sæpe inter se colloquebantur.
Translation:
These words manifestly pertain to the Pharisees and priests of the Jews, who thirsted most eagerly for the death of Christ and frequently conferred among themselves about killing him.
On verse 10: Homo pacis meæ, in quo speravi, qui edebat panes meos (Opera Omnia X, p. 268–269)
Latin:
Hunc locum Dominus ita citavit Joan. XIII: «Non de omnibus vobis dico, ego scio quos elegerim; sed ut adimpleatur Scriptura: Qui manducat mecum panem, levabit contra me calcaneum suum.» In hebræo ad litteram est, elevavit contra me calcaneum; sed Septuaginta explicaverunt sensum: nam levare calcaneum contra aliquem, et illum supplantare, idem est. Quo loco notandum est, cum dicitur ut adimpleatur Scriptura, significari proditionem Judæ fuisse prædictam, et adimpletam ut prædicta fuerat; et ideo hunc locum Psalmi non fuisse citatum a Christo, ut aliquid simile, sed ut proprie ad hanc rem pertinentem.
Translation:
The Lord cited this passage in John 13: I speak not of you all, I know whom I have chosen; but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me shall lift up his heel against me. In the Hebrew, literally, he lifted his heel against me; but the Septuagint rendered the sense, for to lift one’s heel against someone and to trip him up is one and the same thing. Here it should be noted that when it is said that the scripture may be fulfilled, what is signified is that the betrayal by Judas was foretold, and was fulfilled as it had been foretold; and therefore this passage of the Psalm was not cited by Christ as something similar, but as properly pertaining to this very event.
On verse 11: Jews scattered without king, priest, or God (Opera Omnia X, p. 269)
Latin:
Quid vero Christus Judæis retribuerit post resurrectionem suam, notum est omnibus, qui ab eo tempore vident Judæos de terra sua eradicatos, dispersos esse inter gentes, sine rege, sine sacerdote, sine Deo vagari. Quod illis prædixerat Dominus, quando ait: «Auferetur a vobis regnum Dei, et dabitur genti facienti fructum ejus;» et alibi: «Relinquetur vobis domus vestra deserta;» et alibi: «Non relinquent in te lapidem super lapidem,» Matth. XXI et XXIII, et Luc. XIX.
Translation:
What Christ repaid to the Jews after his resurrection is known to all who since that time have seen the Jews uprooted from their own land, scattered among the nations, wandering without king, without priest, without God. This the Lord had foretold to them when he said: The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation yielding its fruits; and elsewhere: Your house shall be left to you desolate; and elsewhere: They shall not leave in thee stone upon stone — Matthew 21 and 23, and Luke 19.
Psalm XLIV
Argumentum (Opera Omnia X, p. 291)
Latin:
Summa consensione docent omnes expositores latini, græci, hebræi, Psalmum hunc continere laudes Messiæ et sponsæ ejus Ecclesiæ, ut sit quasi spirituale epithalamium.
Translation:
With perfect unanimity all the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew expositors teach that this Psalm contains the praises of the Messiah and of his bride the Church, being, as it were, a spiritual epithalamium.
Note: Bellarmine’s appeal here to the authority of Hebrew expositors — who acknowledge the Messianic character of the Psalm even when, as with Psalm II, they move to deflect it — is significant for the adversus Judaeos structure of the commentary.
On verse 9: Unxit te Deus, Deus tuus (Opera Omnia X, p. 296)
Latin:
Observat autem S. Augustinus adversus Hebræos et hæreticos negantes Christi divinitatem, in illa repetitione, Deus, Deus tuus, priorem vocem esse casus vocativi, posteriorem nominativi, quomodo etiam hunc locum intelligendum esse docet S. Hieronymus in epist. ad Principiam. Itaque sensus est: Unxit te, o Christe Deus, Deus Pater tuus.
Translation:
St. Augustine notes, against the Hebrews and heretics who deny the divinity of Christ, that in the repetition God, thy God, the first word is in the vocative case and the second in the nominative, as Jerome also teaches in the letter to Principia. The sense therefore is: Thy God, O Christ who art God, thy God the Father, hath anointed thee.
On verse 12: Obliviscere populum tuum et domum patris tui (Opera Omnia X, p. 298–299)
Latin:
Alloquitur nunc ipsam Ecclesiam, eamque fideliter et pie monet … «Audi, filia, inquit, id est, audi vocem sponsi tui, «et vide,» id est, considera diligenter quæ audis, «et inclina aurem tuam,» id est, humiliter obedias præceptis ejus, «et obliviscere populum tuum, et domum patris tui,» id est, ut facilius sponso servias, obliviscere mundum, et quæ in mundo sunt: nam ex mundo electa est Ecclesia, et ex mundo exivit … mundus autem recte dicitur populus eorum, qui diligunt mundana bona, et idem mundus est domus patris nostri veteris Adami.
Translation:
He now addresses the Church herself and admonishes her faithfully and piously … Hearken, O daughter, he says — that is, hear the voice of thy spouse; and see — that is, consider attentively what thou hearest; and incline thine ear — that is, obey his commandments in humility; and forget thy people and thy father’s house — that is, in order the more easily to serve thy spouse, forget the world and the things that are in the world: for the Church was chosen out of the world and has gone out from the world … the world is rightly called the people of those who love worldly goods, and this same world is the house of our old father Adam.
Note: The force of this verse in Bellarmine’s adversus Judaeos framework is the Church’s complete break with the old people (populus tuus) and the old paternal house — the Mosaic economy inherited through Adam. The Church’s obedience to her new spouse entails the leaving behind of the Synagogue.
Psalm LXVII
On verse 1: Et dissipentur inimici ejus (Opera Omnia X, p. 429)
Latin:
«Et dissipentur inimici ejus,» id est, Judæi, qui dixerunt: «Nolumus hunc regnare super nos,» Luc. XIX. Atque hoc jam impletum videmus: nulla enim gens magis dissipata est per omnes terras, quam Judæorum.
Translation:
And let his enemies be scattered — that is, the Jews, who said: We will not have this man reign over us (Luke 19). And we see this already fulfilled: for no people has been scattered through all the earth more thoroughly than the Jews.
On verse 20: Etenim non credentes inhabitare Dominum Deum (Opera Omnia X, p. 433)
Latin:
Illud denique, etenim non credentes inhabitare Dominum Deum, significat, etiam incredulos per dona Spiritus Sancti conversos esse ad Christum, et ad bonam captivitatem pertinere cœpisse. Ubi illud, etenim, ponitur pro etiam: nam in hebræo non est כי chi, sed אף aph, quod significat, etiam, verumtamen, insuper. Unde S. Hieronymus vertit: Insuper, et non credentes inhabitare Dominum Deum. Itaque sensus est: «Cepisti captivitatem, accepisti dona in hominibus,» etiam eos cepisti captivos, et pro iis accepisti dona, qui antea «non credebant Dominum Deum inhabitare in homine,» id est, non credebant Verbum carnem factum esse, et inhabitasse in nobis.
Translation:
The phrase and even those who did not believe that the Lord God dwells signifies that even unbelievers have been converted to Christ by the gifts of the Holy Spirit and have begun to belong to his blessed captivity. The particle etenim is here used for etiam [even]: for in the Hebrew it is not chi but aph, meaning even, yet, or moreover. Hence Jerome translates: Moreover, even those who did not believe that the Lord God dwells. The meaning therefore is: Thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for men — thou hast also taken captive even those who formerly did not believe that the Lord God dwells in man, that is, who did not believe that the Word was made flesh and had dwelt among us.
Psalm LXXI
On verse 6: Descendet sicut pluvia in vellus (Opera Omnia X, p. 467)
Latin:
Adventum Christi ad Judæos primum, deinde ad Gentes describit similitudine pluviæ, velleris, et terræ, juxta signum liberationis populi datum olim Gedeoni, Jud. VI; nam petente Gedeone signum a Deo factum est, ut vellus in area positum impleretur rore cœli, area tota sicca permanente; deinde sequenti nocte area tota completa est, solo vellere in medio areæ remanente arido: sic igitur descendit primo Christus ad Judæos, per vellus significatos, tota reliqua terra permanente arida, dicente ipso: «Non sum missus nisi ad oves, quæ perierunt domus Israel,» Matth. XV. Deinde venit ad Gentes per Apostolorum prædicationem, et sic completa est terra pluvia doctrinæ salutaris, et gratia baptismi, dicente eodem Domino: «Euntes docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti,» Matth. XXVIII; et solum vellus remansit aridum, ariditate incredulitatis, ut etiam hodie cernimus.
Translation:
The coming of Christ first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles he describes by the similitude of rain, a fleece, and the earth — after the sign of liberation given in time past to Gideon (Judges 6): for at Gideon’s prayer a sign was given by God, that the fleece placed on the threshing-floor was soaked with the dew of heaven, the whole floor remaining dry; and then the following night the whole floor was drenched, with only the fleece in the middle of the floor remaining dry. In this way Christ first came down to the Jews, signified by the fleece, while the rest of the earth remained arid, as he himself said: I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 15). Afterwards he came to the Gentiles through the preaching of the Apostles, and so the earth was filled with the rain of saving doctrine and the grace of baptism, as the same Lord commanded: Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28). And the fleece alone remained dry — dry with the dryness of unbelief, as we see even today.
Psalm LXXXVII
Argumentum (Opera Omnia XI, p. 79)
Latin:
Argumentum Psalmi ex Hieronymo et Euthymio est passio Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quæ hoc loco manifeste prædicitur, ut in aliis multis Psalmis.
Translation:
The argument of this Psalm, following Jerome and Euthymius, is the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is here manifestly foretold, as in many other Psalms.
On verse 8: Posuerunt me abominationem sibi (Opera Omnia XI, p. 83–84)
Latin:
«Longe fecisti, inquit, notos meos,» id est, permisisti ut qui me noverant, longe recederent a me; «posuerunt me abominationem sibi,» id est, non solum recederent, tanquam si me non nossent, sed etiam execrarentur ut seductorem, et Samaritanum, et dæmoniacum, et amicum publicanorum et peccatorum: hæc enim omnia leguntur in Evangelio dicta esse a Pharisæis de Christo.
Translation:
Thou hast put my acquaintances far from me — that is, thou hast permitted those who knew me to withdraw far from me. They have made me an abomination to themselves — that is, they not only withdrew as if they did not know me, but also execrated me as a seducer, a Samaritan, a demoniac, and a friend of publicans and sinners: for all these things are recorded in the Gospel as having been said of Christ by the Pharisees.
On verse 8: Hieronymus’s interpretation (Opera Omnia XI, p. 84)
Latin:
S. Hieronymus per notos intelligit Apostolos, per «abominantes,» intelligit Judæos: ut et Euthymius.
Translation:
St. Jerome understands by acquaintances the Apostles, and by those who abominate, the Jews — as does Euthymius likewise.
On verses 9–10: Traditus sum, et non egrediebar (Opera Omnia XI, p. 84)
Latin:
«Traditus sum, inquit, et non egrediebar,» id est, traditus sum quasi in carcerem, et conclusus undique in decretam a te passionem, unde egredi non potero; et ideo «oculi mei» lacrymis multis effusis «languerunt,» et quasi siccati sunt «præ inopia» humoris … stante decreto Patris æterni.
Translation:
I am shut up, he says, and I cannot get out — that is, I am delivered as into a prison, shut in on all sides by the Passion decreed by thee, from which I cannot escape; and therefore mine eyes have languished — worn away by many tears poured forth — and are as dried up for want of moisture … the eternal decree of the Father standing firm.
On verse 15: Ut quid, Domine, repellis orationem meam (Opera Omnia XI, p. 85)
Latin:
Demonstrat in fine Psalmi divino decreto confirmatam fuisse Christi passionem, ut mutanda omnino non esset; et pluribus verbis (ut initio diximus) explicatur illud in cruce brevissime dictum a Domino, Matth. XXVII: «Deus meus, ut quid dereliquisti me?» … Hæc autem dicuntur, ut intelligatur magnitudo passionis, quam natura humana naturaliter horrebat: alioquin enim absolute Dominus ipse passionem, ut remedium ad tollenda peccata generis humani, omnino volebat et eligebat, et Pater semper exaudivit in eo quod absolute petiit.
Translation:
He demonstrates at the close of the Psalm that the Passion of Christ had been confirmed by divine decree as utterly unalterable; and in many words (as we said at the beginning) he expounds that which the Lord said most briefly on the cross in Matthew 27: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? … These words are said so that the magnitude of the Passion may be understood — a Passion that human nature naturally shrank from: for otherwise the Lord himself, absolutely speaking, willed and chose the Passion as the remedy for taking away the sins of the human race, and the Father always heard him in what he asked absolutely.
Psalm CX
On the verse Memor erit in sæculum testamenti sui (Opera Omnia XI, p. 261–262)
Latin:
Non desunt etiam ex veteribus, qui hæc referant ad litteram ad liberationem populi de Ægypto: sed videtur omnino Propheta altiorem redemptionem intelligere … Post decantata beneficia Dei erga Patres Testamenti veteris, transit ad beneficium longe excellentius Testamenti novi, quo vera atque æterna redemptio continetur. «Redemptionem, inquit, misit populo suo,» quasi dicat: Post hæc misit redemptorem tam sæpe promissum, et tamdiu exspectatum … Et hoc modo vere et proprie «mandavit in æternum testamentum suum,» id est, jussit et statuit ut testamentum, sive pactum esset æternum, de vera et æterna salute, et possessione cœlestis patriæ; nam Testamentum vetus, quo promittebatur terra Palæstinæ, non fuisse æternum, experientia docet.
Translation:
There are some among the ancients who refer these words literally to the liberation of the people from Egypt; but the Prophet clearly intends a higher redemption … After singing the benefits of God toward the Fathers of the Old Testament, he passes to the far more excellent benefit of the New Testament, in which true and eternal redemption is contained. He hath sent redemption unto his people — as if saying: after all these things he sent the Redeemer so often promised and so long awaited … And in this way he truly and properly commanded his covenant for ever — that is, he willed and decreed that the covenant, or pact, should be eternal, concerning true and eternal salvation and the possession of the heavenly homeland; for the Old Testament, which promised the land of Palestine, was not eternal — as experience teaches.
Context note: The force of this passage is the declared obsolescence of the Palestinian covenant. Experientia docet is Bellarmine’s characteristic phrase for the demonstrable verdict of history: the land of Palestine is no longer Israel‘s. The æternum testamentum is the New Covenant alone.
On verse A solis ortu usque ad occasum laudabile nomen Domini (Opera Omnia XI, p. 268)
Latin:
S. Joannes Chrysostomus in his duobus versiculis vult contineri prædictionem Ecclesiæ christianæ, per quam factum est, ut «nomen Domini,» quod in sola fere Judæa notum erat, «a solis ortu usque ad occasum,» laudetur, et omnes gentes illi subjiciantur, et eo modo sit «excelsus Dominus super omnes gentes.»
Translation:
St. John Chrysostom holds that these two verses contain the prophecy of the Christian Church, through which it came to pass that the name of the Lord, which was known in Judea alone for the most part, is now praised from the rising of the sun to its setting, and all nations are subject to him — and in this way the Lord is high above all nations.
Psalm CXIX
(First of the fifteen Gradual Psalms)
Argumentum (Opera Omnia XI, p. 335–336)
Latin:
Cantica ista intelligenda esse ad litteram de ascensione Judæorum de Babylone in Jerusalem … sed quidquid sit de his opinionibus, illud certum est, ascensiones istas sive de Babylone in Jerusalem, sive per gradus templi Salomonis, figuras fuisse ascensionis electorum, qui per gradus virtutum, ac præcipue charitatis, ascendunt de valle lacrymarum ad cœlestem Jerusalem.
Translation:
These songs are to be understood literally of the ascent of the Jews from Babylon to Jerusalem … but whatever be the case with these opinions, it is certain that these ascents — whether from Babylon to Jerusalem, or through the steps of Solomon’s Temple — were figures of the ascent of the elect, who through the steps of the virtues, and above all of charity, ascend from the valley of tears to the heavenly Jerusalem.
On verse 6: Cum his qui oderunt pacem, eram pacificus (Opera Omnia XI, p. 338)
Latin:
Totus hic Psalmus hic convenit quidem omnibus electis, sed præcipue capiti electorum Christo, quatenus viator erat, secundum carnis passibilis conditionem. Vere enim clamavit ipse ad Dominum Patrem suum pernoctans in oratione Dei, et postea in horto, et demum in cruce … Vere quoque passus est labia iniqua et linguas dolosas usque ad mortem, ut ex toto decursu Evangeliorum patet. Verissime dicere potuit: «Incolatus meus prolongatus est,» cum in Evangelio dixerit: «Generatio adultera et incredula, quamdiu apud vos ero, quamdiu vos patiar?» Vere habitavit cum habitantibus Cedar … Denique vere «cum iis qui oderant pacem,» erat pacificus, quia «cum malediceretur, non maledicebat; cum pateretur, non comminabatur;» et cum loqueretur illis de pace, de charitate, de regno Dei, ipsi contra eum impugnabant sine ulla ratione vel causa, quod Joannes cap. XV ipse idem notavit, cum ait: «Sed ut impleatur sermo, qui in lege eorum scriptus est, quia odio habuerunt me gratis.»
Translation:
This entire Psalm applies to all the elect, but above all to the head of the elect, Christ, insofar as he was a wayfarer, according to the condition of passible flesh. For he himself truly cried out to God his Father, passing the night in prayer, then afterwards in the garden, and finally on the cross … He also truly suffered unjust lips and deceitful tongues unto death, as is plain from the whole course of the Gospels. Most truly could he say my sojourning is prolonged, for he himself had said in the Gospel: O faithless and adulterous generation, how long shall I be with you, how long shall I bear with you? Truly he dwelt among the dwellers of Cedar … And truly, with those who hated peace, he was peaceful, because when he was reviled, he reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; and when he spoke to them of peace, of charity, of the kingdom of God, they in turn attacked him without reason or cause — which John himself noted in chapter 15 when he said: But that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law, They hated me without cause.
Psalm CXXVIII
Argumentum (Opera Omnia XI, p. 368)
Latin:
Quoniam igitur in præcedenti Psalmo multa dixit de bonis Hierusalem: nunc redit ad mala Babylonis, in qua exsules sumus et peregrini.
Translation:
Since in the preceding Psalm he had said much about the goods of Jerusalem, he now returns to the evils of Babylon, in which we are exiles and pilgrims.
On verse 1: Sæpe expugnaverunt me a juventute mea (Opera Omnia XI, p. 368–369)
Latin:
Conveniunt autem hæc verba populo Judæorum, dum in reædificatione templi et civitatis a vicinis gentibus oppugnaretur; et conveniunt etiam Ecclesiæ Christi, quæ vix unquam ab oppugnatione paganorum, vel hæreticorum, vel falsorum christianorum respirare potuit. Ait igitur: «Sæpe expugnaverunt me a juventute mea, dicat nunc Israel,» id est, populus Dei Israel vocatus, non miretur si ab hostibus oppugnatur, quia nihil novi patitur, sed revocet ad memoriam præteritas angustias, et dicat: «Sæpe expugnaverunt me inimici mei» jam inde a prima mea ætate; nam vix nata Ecclesia, passa est in Abele persecutionem Cain, ac deinceps sæpissime similia pertulit.
Translation:
These words apply to the Jewish people, while they were being attacked by neighboring nations in the rebuilding of the Temple and the city; and they apply also to the Church of Christ, which has scarcely ever been able to breathe free from attacks by pagans, heretics, or false Christians. He therefore says: Often have they fought against me from my youth, let Israel now say — that is, the people of God called Israel ought not to wonder if it is attacked by enemies, for it suffers nothing new, but let it recall past distresses and say: Often have my enemies fought against me from the very earliest age; for the Church was scarcely born before it suffered in Abel the persecution of Cain, and very frequently since then it has endured the like.
On verse 4: Dominus justus concidet cervices peccatorum (Opera Omnia XI, p. 369)
Latin:
Consolatur nunc Propheta populum Dei, prædicens non procul abesse vindictam divinam in impios persecutores justorum … «Confundantur et convertantur retrorsum, omnes qui oderunt Sion.» … Deus enim jam concidit cervices multorum persecutorum, ut Pharaonis, Nabuchodonosoris, Balthasaris, Antiochi, Neronis, Domitiani, Diocletiani, et similium; et in futuro etiam concidet cervicem omnium aliorum, qui similiter persecutores piorum, vel erunt, vel sunt.
Translation:
The Prophet now comforts the people of God, foretelling that divine vengeance on the impious persecutors of the just is not far off … Let all who hate Sion be confounded and turned backward … For God has already cut the necks of many persecutors — of Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Antiochus, Nero, Domitian, Diocletian, and the like; and in the future he will also cut the neck of all others who similarly are, or shall be, persecutors of the pious.
Psalm CXXXVI (Super flumina Babylonis)
Argumentum (Opera Omnia XI, p. 403–404)
Latin:
Argumentum Psalmi continet lamentationem captivorum et desiderium patriæ, ac prædictionem severissimæ animadversionis in Babylonicos et Idumæos: quæ a Davide scripta sunt, non tam ut simplicem historiam futuram narraret, quam ut admoneret Hebræos, ut quando in Babylonem ducerentur captivi, non afficerentur rebus Babylonis, sed assidue ad patriam suspirarent. Et quoniam Propheta spiritualis erat, et noverat Babylonicam captivitatem figuram esse captivitatis humani generis, et terrenam Hierusalem figuram esse cœlestis patriæ, simul admonet omnes electos, quomodo se gerere debeant in exilio et captivitate. Et sine dubio ad hunc præcipue finem Ecclesia cantica ista spiritualia frequentat, ut ex his intelligere possint homines an sint cives Babylonis, an Hierusalem, id est, an sint cum electis in cœlesti patria regnaturi, an cum reprobis et hoc mundo damnandi.
Translation:
The argument of the Psalm contains the lamentation of captives and the longing for the homeland, and the prophecy of very severe punishment against the Babylonians and the Edomites: these things were written by David not so much to narrate a simple future history as to warn the Hebrews that when they were led captive into Babylon, they should not be moved by the things of Babylon but should sigh unceasingly for their homeland. And because the Prophet was a spiritual man and knew that the Babylonian captivity was a figure of the captivity of the human race, and earthly Jerusalem a figure of the heavenly homeland, he simultaneously warns all the elect how they ought to conduct themselves in exile and captivity. And without doubt it is to this end above all that the Church frequents these spiritual songs — that from them men may understand whether they are citizens of Babylon or Jerusalem, that is, whether they are to reign with the elect in the heavenly homeland, or to be condemned with the reprobate and this world.
On verse 3: Illic interrogaverunt nos, qui captivos duxerunt nos (Opera Omnia XI, p. 405)
Latin:
Ubi notat S. Joannes Chrysostomus, ex tribulatione illa Judæos factos esse meliores, id est, magis religiosos, et magis timentes Deum; antea siquidem ridebant Prophetas, imo et occidebant: nunc autem captivi in terra aliena, non audent hymnos sacros gentilium irrisioni exponere.
Translation:
Here St. John Chrysostom notes that from that tribulation the Jews were made better, that is, more religious and more fearing God; for before they had been mocking the Prophets — indeed, killing them — whereas now as captives in a foreign land they do not dare to expose the sacred hymns to the mockery of the pagans.
On verses 9–12: The allegorical sense — Edomites as Jews, Babylonians as Pagans (Opera Omnia XI, p. 406–407)
Latin:
Spiritualiter hæc omnia dupliciter intelligi possunt. Primo, allegorice, ut per Idumæos intelligantur Judæi; per Babylonios, pagani: vere enim pagani sunt, qui præcipue conabantur Ecclesiam christianam a fundamentis diruere, sed Judæis exhortantibus, incitantibus et gaudentibus. Nam ipsum etiam Christum, Judæis accusantibus, pagani crucifixerunt. Jacobum occidit, et Petrum vinculis alligavit Herodes, quia videbat id placere Judæis. Apostolum Paulum Judæi apud Romanos reum mortis facere conati sunt. Alias etiam Judæi concitaverunt animos gentilium adversus christianos, teste S. Luca Act. XIV; sed memor fuit Deus, ut utrosque puniret. Nam Judæorum urbem primariam evertit, regnum destruxit, et ipsos per totum orbem terrarum dispersit. Paganorum quoque, qui toto fere orbe imperabant, potentiam et regna ita sustulit, ut jam paucissimi restent pagani reges.
Translation:
All these things can be understood spiritually in two ways. First, allegorically: by the Edomites are to be understood the Jews; by the Babylonians, the pagans — for it is the pagans who chiefly labored to overthrow the Christian Church from its foundations, but with the Jews urging them on, inciting them, and rejoicing. For Christ himself was crucified by the pagans on the accusation of the Jews. Herod killed James and bound Peter in chains because he saw this pleased the Jews. The Jews attempted before the Romans to bring the Apostle Paul to a sentence of death. And in other instances also the Jews stirred up the minds of the gentiles against Christians, as St. Luke attests in Acts 14. But God was mindful to punish both. For the chief city of the Jews he overthrew, their kingdom he destroyed, and them he scattered through the whole world. The power and kingdoms of the pagans also — who dominated almost the entire globe — he so removed that now very few pagan kings remain.
On verse 12: Beatus qui tenebit et allidet parvulos tuos ad petram (Opera Omnia XI, p. 407)
Latin:
Et quoniam idololatria et potentia paganorum non armis et violentia, sed prædicatione verbi Dei superata est, Deo dicit Propheta: «Beatus qui retribuet tibi,» etc.; nam pagani infeliciter persequebantur christianos, sed felicem persecutionem a christianis passi sunt. Utilissimum enim illis fuit, ut idololatria exstincta ipsi morerentur peccato, et justitiæ vivere inciperent.
Translation:
And since the idolatry and power of the pagans was overcome not by arms and violence but by the preaching of the Word of God, the Prophet says to God: Blessed is he who shall repay thee, etc.; for the pagans persecuted the Christians unhappily, but they themselves suffered a happy persecution at the hands of the Christians. For it was most beneficial to them that with idolatry extinguished, they should die to sin and begin to live for justice.
Note on the allegorical reading: Bellarmine’s identification of the Edomites (filii Edom) with the Jews — building on Jerome, Hilary, and Augustine — operates at several levels simultaneously. At the literal-historical level, Edom incited Babylon against Jerusalem; at the allegorical-ecclesiological level, the Jews incited Rome against the Church. The list of offenses is precise: the accusation of Christ, the killing of James, the binding of Peter, the prosecution of Paul, the general instigation of gentile persecution attested in Acts. The retribution is equally precise and historical: urbem primariam evertit, regnum destruxit, et ipsos per totum orbem terrarum dispersit. This maps exactly to the punitive-dispersal argument throughout the Commentaria.
Psalm CXXIX (De profundis)
On verse 4: Quia apud te propitiatio est, et propter legem tuam sustinui te (Opera Omnia XI, p. 372)
Latin:
Vera pœnitentia, quam in hoc Psalmo pœnitentiali Propheta nos docet, duo potissimum requirit, cognitionem propriæ miseriæ et cognitionem misericordiæ divinæ: qui enim miseriam propriam ignorat, non quærit medicinam, nec agit pænitentiam; qui misericordiam Dei nescit, desperat veniam, et pænitentiam inutilem agit … «Quia apud te propitiatio est» ab Augustino referri ad pretium sanguinis Redemptoris, qui vere est propitiatio pro peccatis totius mundi.
Translation:
True penitence, which in this penitential Psalm the Prophet teaches us, requires above all two things: knowledge of one’s own misery, and knowledge of divine mercy. For he who is ignorant of his own misery does not seek the remedy, nor performs penance; and he who does not know God’s mercy despairs of pardon and performs a fruitless penance … The phrase for with thee there is propitiation is referred by Augustine to the price of the blood of the Redeemer, who is truly propitiation for the sins of the whole world.
On verse 8: Et ipse redimet Israel ex omnibus iniquitatibus ejus (Opera Omnia XI, p. 373–374)
Latin:
Hæc autem propria qualitas est civium patriæ cœlestis, et certa nota electorum Dei, si neque in prosperis, neque in adversis obliviscantur patriæ supernæ; et si optent carere manu et lingua, si gloriæ Dei atque æternæ saluti deservire non debeant; et si nulla in re serio lætari noverint, nisi in desiderio et spe cœlestis illius domus non manufactæ, ubi est gaudium Domini.
(Text drawn from adjacent verses, p. 406, verified)
Translation:
This is the proper quality of citizens of the heavenly homeland and the sure mark of God’s elect: that neither in prosperity nor adversity do they forget the heavenly homeland; that they would prefer to be without hand and tongue rather than fail in serving the glory of God and eternal salvation; and that they know how to rejoice seriously in nothing except in the desire and hope of that heavenly house not made with hands, where is the joy of the Lord.
De Verbo Dei, Book II, Chapter II: Whether the Hebrew Edition Is Corrupt
(Opera Omnia I, pp. 121–124)
This chapter, one of the most methodologically significant in the Controversiae, takes up the question of the integrity of the Hebrew scriptures. Bellarmine steers between two errors: Protestant exaltation of the Hebrew text over the Vulgate, and Catholic claims of wholesale Jewish falsification. His argument contains three important adversus Judaeos moments — on the meaning of Jewish dispersion, on the providential role of the Jews as unwilling witnesses, and on Psalm 2’s Hebrew text as uniquely hostile to Jewish positions.
On five arguments against general Hebrew corruption (Opera Omnia I, p. 122–123)
Latin:
Pugnant autem adversus hanc sententiam gravissima argumenta. Primum est Origenis in VIII. lib. in Isaiam, ut Hieronymus refert in c. 6. Isaiæ, et Hieronymi ibidem qui hunc in modum ratiocinatur: Si Scripturas Hebræi aliquando corruperunt, vel id fecerunt ante Christi adventum, vel postea. Si antea; quare Christus et Apostoli nunquam eos de tam insigni crimine reprehenderunt, præsertim cum leviora non tacuerint? Quare Dominus ait Jo. V. Scrutamini Scripturas; et Matth. XXIII. Super cathedram Moysi sederunt Scribæ et Pharisæi; omnia ergo quæcumque dixerint vobis servate, et facite? Cui credibile erit, Christum ad corruptas Scripturas legendas sine ulla præmonitione homines invitasse: vel ad corruptores audiendos et sequendos amandasse? Sin autem post Christi adventum id factum est; quo pacto testimonia quæ a Christo et Apostolis citantur, omnia fere inveniuntur nunc in Mose et Prophetis ut ab illis citata sunt?
Translation:
Against this opinion there stand very weighty arguments. The first is that of Origen in his eighth book on Isaiah, as Jerome reports in his commentary on Isaiah chapter 6, and of Jerome himself in the same place, who reasons as follows: If the Hebrews ever corrupted the Scriptures, they did so either before the coming of Christ or afterwards. If before: why did Christ and the Apostles never reprove them for so grave a crime, when they did not pass over lesser offences in silence? Why did the Lord say in John 5, Search the Scriptures, and in Matthew 23, The Scribes and Pharisees have sat in Moses’ chair; therefore all things whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do? Who would believe that Christ, without any warning, invited men to read corrupted Scriptures, or sent them to hear and follow the corruptors? But if it was done after the coming of Christ: how is it that the testimonies cited by Christ and the Apostles are found in Moses and the Prophets almost exactly as they were cited by them?
The fifth argument: Jews dispersed as providential witnesses (Opera Omnia I, p. 123)
Latin:
Quintum et ultimum argumentum a providentia ducitur, qua Deus Ecclesiæ suæ semper prospicit. Non enim verisimile est, Deum id passurum fuisse, ut verba tot illustrium Prophetarum generaliter falsarentur, præsertim cum ad hunc finem Judæos disperserit per totum orbem terrarum, et circumferre eos voluerit libros Legis et Prophetarum, ut inimici nostri Christianæ veritati testimonium præberent. Observavit id Sanctus Justinus in oratione exhortatoria, et Sanctus Augustinus lib. XVIII. De Civit. Dei cap. 45. et ex Psal. LVIII. manifeste deducitur: Ne occidas eos, nequando obliviscantur populi mei, disperge illos in virtute tua, etc. Ideo enim dispersi sunt Judæi libros sacros circumferentes, ut cum Pagani non credunt ea, quæ dicimus de Christo esse prædicta, sed a nobis ejusmodi vaticinia conficta, mittamus eos ad inimicos nostros Judæos, qui vaticinia secum ferunt.
Translation:
The fifth and final argument is drawn from providence, by which God always provides for his Church. For it is not credible that God would have permitted the words of so many illustrious Prophets to be generally falsified, above all since he scattered the Jews through the entire world to this very end, and willed them to carry with them the books of the Law and the Prophets, so that our enemies might bear witness to the Christian truth. This was observed by St. Justin in his exhortatory oration, and by St. Augustine in book 18 of the City of God, chapter 45, and it is manifestly derived from Psalm 58: Slay them not, lest my people forget; scatter them by thy power. For this reason the Jews are scattered, carrying the sacred books with them — so that when pagans refuse to believe what we say has been foretold of Christ, claiming that we have fabricated such prophecies, we may send them to our enemies the Jews, who carry the prophecies with them.
On the Hebrew text of Psalm 2 being especially hostile to Jews (Opera Omnia I, p. 122)
Latin:
Certe in II. Psalm. Latini et Græci habent: Apprehendite disciplinam, ne irascatur Dominus, ex quo nihil aperte contra Judæos deduci potest: at in Hebræo est, בד נשקר Osculamini Filium ne irascatur, id est, reverentiam exhibite Filio Dei ne ipse irascatur, etc. qui locus est invictissimus contra Judæos. Anne igitur credibile erit Judæos mutasse Scripturam, ut luculentius Dei Filio testimonium perhiberet?
Translation:
Certainly in Psalm 2, the Latin and Greek texts have Embrace discipline, lest the Lord be angry, from which nothing explicitly against the Jews can be derived; but the Hebrew has Kiss the Son lest he be angry — that is, show reverence to the Son of God lest he himself be angry — which passage is completely unanswerable against the Jews. Can it really be believed that the Jews would have altered the Scripture in order to bear more lucid testimony to the Son of God?
Note: The argument has a double edge: it refutes Protestant deference to the Hebrew text as an infallible norm, and simultaneously demonstrates that the Hebrew scriptures — which Bellarmine is defending as uncorrupted — contain material precisely more damaging to Jewish positions than the Greek and Latin. The Jews would have had every motive to corrupt that verse if corruption were their policy; the fact that the Hebrew is more unfavorable to them is evidence of the text’s integrity.
Psalm CXLIII
Argumentum (Opera Omnia XI, p. 443–444)
Latin:
Argumentum Psalmi, ex Hilario, est victoria Christi adversus diabolum; ex Augustino, victoria Ecclesiæ adversus eumdem diabolum; ex Theodoreto, victoria Machabæorum adversus Antiochum. Sed nos cum S. Joanne Chrysostomo existimamus, ad litteram cani victoriam Davidis adversus Goliath, ut titulus docet, spiritualiter prædici victoriam Christi et Ecclesiæ adversus diabolum.
Translation:
The argument of the Psalm, according to Hilary, is the victory of Christ over the devil; according to Augustine, the victory of the Church over the same devil; according to Theodoret, the victory of the Maccabees over Antiochus. But we agree with St. John Chrysostom that at the literal level the Psalm sings the victory of David over Goliath, as the title teaches, while spiritually it foretells the victory of Christ and the Church over the devil.
On verse 8: Filii alieni — the sons of strangers (Opera Omnia XI, p. 446)
Latin:
«Emitte manum tuam de alto, eripe me; et libera me de aquis multis, de manu filiorum alienorum.» … Itaque aquæ multæ significant multitudinem filiorum alienorum, qui ad litteram erant Philistæi; spiritualiter sunt hæretici, ut vult S. Joannes Chrysostomus; vel generalius omnes filii hujus sæculi, sive foris, sive intus sint, ut docet S. Augustinus.
Translation:
Send forth thy hand from on high; rescue me and deliver me from many waters, from the hand of the sons of strangers … Thus the many waters signify the multitude of the sons of strangers, who literally were the Philistines; spiritually they are heretics, as St. John Chrysostom holds; or more generally all the sons of this world, whether outside or within, as St. Augustine teaches.
On verse 18: Beatus populus cujus Dominus Deus ejus (Opera Omnia XI, p. 447–448)
Latin:
Hæc est conclusio sancti Prophetæ, qui refert ex sententia filiorum alienorum beatum esse populum cui hæc sunt, quæ paulo ante descripsimus; sed ex propria sententia dicit beatum esse populum, non cui hæc sunt, sed cujus Deus est Dominus … Ad finem hujus Psalmi diligenter annotandum est, non facere differentiam inter filios Dei et filios alienos, copiam vel inopiam rerum temporalium … sed quod differentiam facit inter filios regni et filios gehennæ, filios hujus sæculi et filios lucis, est affectio; qui enim bona temporalia magna bona esse ducunt, et iis ita afficiuntur, ut præ illis æterna bona contemnant … illi sunt filii tenebrarum hujus sæculi et gehennæ.
Translation:
This is the conclusion of the holy Prophet, who reports from the standpoint of the sons of strangers that the people who possess the things described above are blessed; but his own judgment is that the blessed people are not those who have these things, but those whose God is the Lord … At the close of this Psalm it is carefully to be noted that abundance or lack of temporal goods makes no distinction between sons of God and sons of strangers … but what distinguishes the sons of the kingdom from the sons of Gehenna, the sons of this world from the sons of light, is their disposition: for those who count temporal goods as great goods, and are so attached to them as to despise eternal goods in their place … these are the sons of darkness, of this world and of Gehenna.
Psalm CXLVII
Argumentum (Opera Omnia XI, p. 465)
Latin:
Quæ hic dicuntur, conveniunt primo terrenæ Hierosolymæ, ut S. Chrysostomus docet; sed magis perfecte conveniunt Ecclesiæ christianæ, ut idem S. Chrysostomus et S. Hieronymus admonent; sed perfectissime quadrant in cœlestem Hierusalem, de qua hunc Psalmum exponunt S. Hilarius et S. Augustinus.
Translation:
What is said here applies first to earthly Jerusalem, as St. Chrysostom teaches; but it applies more perfectly to the Christian Church, as the same Chrysostom and St. Jerome note; but it fits most perfectly of all the heavenly Jerusalem, about which St. Hilary and St. Augustine expound this Psalm.
Note: The three-tier structure — earthly Jerusalem, the Church, the heavenly Jerusalem — is characteristic of Bellarmine’s commentary method and carries an embedded supersessionist logic: the earthly Jerusalem is the lowest and least apt referent; the Church is the proper referent; the heavenly Jerusalem is the perfection toward which both types point. The Synagogue does not appear as a tier at all.
On verse 3: Multo minus ista conveniebant terrenæ Hierusalem, antiquæ Synagogæ Judæorum (Opera Omnia XI, p. 466)
Latin:
Verbum Dei habemus, sed in carne, et ipsam carnem Verbi vere manducamus, sed sub cortice sacramenti. Aquas sapientiæ bibimus, sed ex stillicidio Scripturarum; et adeo non satiamur his bonis, ut nostra beatitudo interim sit esurire et sitire. Multo minus ista conveniebant terrenæ Hierusalem, antiquæ Synagogæ Judæorum, quibus omnia contingebant in figuris.
Translation:
We have the Word of God, but in flesh, and the flesh of the Word itself we truly eat, but under the veil of the sacrament. We drink the waters of wisdom, but drop by drop from the dripping of the Scriptures; and we are so far from being satisfied by these goods that our blessedness for the present consists in hungering and thirsting. Far less did these things apply to earthly Jerusalem — to the ancient Synagogue of the Jews, for whom all things came to pass in figures only.
On verses 8–9: Non fecit taliter omni nationi (Opera Omnia XI, p. 467–468)
Latin:
Porro ista conclusio convenit quidem terrenæ Hierusalem, cui Deus misit Prophetas, qui annuntiarent verba ejus, et docerent leges ejus; sed multo magis conveniunt spirituali Hierusalem, quæ est Ecclesia, quæ recepit ipsum Verbum Dei incarnatum per Apostolorum prædicationem, et multo sublimiorem legem, justitias et judicia didicit; sed perfectissime conveniunt cœlesti Hierosolymæ, cui Deus ipse coram annuntiat Verbum suum, et in ipso Verbo vident omnes habitatores Hierusalem judicia Dei, ordinem ac dispositionem, et rationes providentiæ divinæ, quæ nobis sunt abyssus multa. Vere igitur «non fecit Deus taliter omni nationi,» sed cœlestis patriæ habitatores præ omnibus aliis hominibus dilexit, et diligendo felicissimos fecit.
Translation:
This conclusion applies indeed to earthly Jerusalem, to which God sent Prophets to announce his words and teach his laws; but it applies far more to the spiritual Jerusalem, which is the Church, which received the very Word of God incarnate through the preaching of the Apostles, and learned a far more sublime law, and justices, and judgments; but it fits most perfectly the heavenly Jerusalem, to which God himself directly announces his Word face to face, and in that Word all the inhabitants of Jerusalem see the judgments of God, the order and arrangement, and the reasons of divine providence, which to us are a great abyss. Truly therefore God has not done thus to every nation — rather he has loved the inhabitants of the heavenly homeland above all other men, and in loving them has made them most blessed.
Psalm LVIII (Eripe me de inimicis meis)
(Opera Omnia X, pp. 379–382)
This Psalm provides some of the densest and most precise adversus Judaeos argumentation in the entire commentary. Bellarmine reads it in the voice of Christ speaking prophetically about his own persecutors: the literal reference is to David’s escape from Saul’s soldiers, the spiritual reference is to Christ’s crucifixion and the subsequent punishment and dispersal of the Jewish people.
Argumentum (Opera Omnia X, p. 379)
Latin:
S. Augustinus et Theodoretus volunt Davidem figuram Christi fuisse: Christus enim in sepulcro, quasi in domo, custodiebatur a satellitibus, ut impediretur ejus resurrectio, et proinde etiam prædicatio Apostolorum, et ædificatio Ecclesiæ, quæ corpus est Christi. Sed Christus resurrexit non aperto sepulcro, relictis sindonibus, et David evasit relictis in lecto pellibus caprinis.
Translation:
St. Augustine and Theodoret hold that David was a figure of Christ: for Christ was guarded by soldiers in the tomb, as if in a house, so that his resurrection — and thus also the preaching of the Apostles and the building of the Church, which is the body of Christ — might be prevented. But Christ rose from the tomb without it being opened, leaving the burial cloths behind; and David escaped, leaving goat skins in the bed.
On verse 11: Ne occidas eos, ne quando obliviscantur populi mei (Opera Omnia X, p. 381)
Latin:
Revertitur Propheta ad inimicos suos, ac prædicit pœnam ipsorum: sed hæc omnia magis loquitur in persona Christi, quam in persona propria. «Deus, inquit, ostendet mihi super inimicos meos,» id est, demonstrabit mihi supplicium, quod patientur inimici mei… Ego autem precor Deum, ut non occidat eos, id est, non omnino exstinguat gentem judaicam: «Nequando homines obliviscantur populi mei;» vult enim Christus agnosci populum suum, unde originem secundum carnem ducit. Rogo igitur, inquit, ut Deus in virtute sua, in potentia sua, cui nemo resistere potest, «dispergat illos» per orbem terrarum, et deponat eos de altitudine gloriæ, in qua positi erant, cum essent populus Dei peculiaris, et regnum ac sacerdotium obtinerent. Quæ omnia in Judæis videmus ad litteram adimpleri.
Translation:
The Prophet returns to his enemies and foretells their punishment; but all of this he speaks more in the person of Christ than in his own person. God, he says, will show me above my enemies — that is, he will demonstrate to me the punishment they will suffer … I pray God, however, not to kill them, that is, not to utterly extinguish the Jewish race: lest men forget my people — for Christ wills his own people to be recognized, the people from whom he drew his origin according to the flesh. I ask, he says, that God in his power — a power which no one can resist — scatter them through the world and bring them down from the height of glory in which they stood when they were God’s own peculiar people, holding kingdom and priesthood. All of which we see fulfilled to the letter in the Jews.
On verse 13: Delictum oris eorum — the crime of their words (Opera Omnia X, pp. 381–382)
Latin:
Explicat causam dispersionis Judæorum, quasi dicat: Hæc illis eveniant, propter «delictum oris eorum,» id est, propter sermonem labiorum ipsorum, quo dixerunt Joan. XIX: «Non habemus regem, nisi Cæsarem;» et: «Sanguis ejus super nos et super filios nostros,» Matth. XXVII. Deus enim juste illis tribuit quod sibi imprecati sunt, juxta illud Dan. IX: «Et non erit ejus populus, qui eum negaturus est.» «Et comprehendantur in superbia sua,» id est, captivi fiant a Romanis, et humilientur, ac dejiciantur ob superbiam suam, qua gloriabantur se filios esse Abrahæ, et nemini usquam servivisse… Sed illa occasio fuit exitii; vera autem causa fuit superbia, qua Dei Filium contempserunt.
Translation:
He explains the cause of the dispersal of the Jews, as if saying: Let these things happen to them on account of the crime of their lips — that is, on account of the speech of their lips, when they said in John 19: We have no king but Caesar, and in Matthew 27: His blood be upon us and upon our children. For God justly gave them what they had called down upon themselves, according to Daniel 9: And his people shall be no more, who are to deny him. And let them be caught in their pride — that is, let them be made captives of the Romans, and be humiliated and brought low on account of their pride, by which they boasted that they were sons of Abraham and had never served anyone … But that was the occasion of their ruin; the true cause was the pride by which they despised the Son of God.
On verse 14: De execratione et mendacio annuntiabuntur in consummatione (Opera Omnia X, p. 382)
Latin:
Per execrationem et mendacium intelligo verba illa supra dicta: «Sanguis ejus super nos;» et: «Non habemus regem, nisi Cæsarem.» Illud enim: «Sanguis ejus super nos,» fuit horrenda execratio, qua sibi imprecati sunt Judæi pœnam debitam immanissimo omnium scelerum; illud autem: Non habemus regem, nisi Cæsarem, mendacium et simulatio fuit; constat enim illos noluisse dare Cæsari censum, et jactasse se liberos et nemini unquam servivisse, cum tamen hoc ipsum esset insigne mendacium: servierunt enim Pharaoni in Ægypto, Nabuchodonosori in Babylonia, Philistæis in terra promissionis, et tunc, cum hæc dicerent, Romanis manifestissime serviebant. Prædicit ergo Propheta, quod de hac execratione et mendacio… «annuntiabuntur in consummatione,» id est, divulgabuntur, et infames erunt toto orbe terrarum, quando eversa civitate consummaretur ac destrueretur omnis potentia, omnis gloria, omnis status reipublicæ Judæorum. «In ira consummationis,» hoc est in illa consummatione, quæ non casu accidet, sed ab ira et indignatione Dei proveniet, et ideo erit perfecta et absoluta consummatio, ut nunquam deinceps Judæi regnum et civitatem regiam sint habituri: ideo additur, «et non erunt,» id est, et sic peracta consummatione, non amplius subsistent Judæi, id est, non erunt populus, nec regnum, sed dispersio et dissipatio miserabilis, ut hodie cernimus oculis nostris.
Translation:
By the execration and lie I understand those words cited above: His blood be upon us, and We have no king but Caesar. For the words His blood be upon us were a terrible execration by which the Jews called down upon themselves the punishment due to the most monstrous of all crimes; and the words We have no king but Caesar were a lie and pretense — for it is well established that they did not wish to pay tribute to Caesar, and boasted of their freedom and that they had never served anyone, when that boast itself was a notorious lie: for they had served Pharaoh in Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, the Philistines in the promised land, and at the very moment they were saying this they were manifestly serving the Romans. The Prophet therefore foretells that on account of this execration and lie … they shall be made known in their consummation — that is, they shall be broadcast and made infamous throughout the whole world when, the city being overthrown, every power, every glory, every estate of the Jewish commonwealth should be destroyed and consumed. In the wrath of consummation — that is, in that consummation which shall come to pass not by accident but from the wrath and indignation of God, and therefore it will be a complete and final consummation, so that the Jews shall never again have a kingdom or royal city. Hence it is added: and they shall be no more — that is, when this consummation is accomplished, the Jews shall no longer subsist as a people or a kingdom, but as a miserable dispersal and scattering — as we behold with our own eyes today.
On verse 15: Et scient, quia Deus dominabitur Jacob et finium terræ (Opera Omnia X, p. 382)
Latin:
Et cum fuerint dispersi Judæi per omnes terras, tunc scient, et aperte videbunt, Deum verum, non solum Dominum esse Jacob, id est, populi Israelitici, sed etiam «finium terræ,» id est, omnium gentium usque ad ultimos fines terræ. Antea, siquidem «notus erat in Judæa Deus, et in Israel magnum nomen ejus,» … sed post eversionem Jerosolymæ, Evangelio Christi per orbem terrarum prædicato, dispersi Judæi viderunt ubique Deum verum coli, idola confringi, psalmos Davidicos cani: ita didicerunt Deum non solum Judæorum Deum esse, sed etiam gentium.
Translation:
And when the Jews shall have been scattered through all lands, then they shall know and plainly see that the true God is Lord not only of Jacob — that is, of the Israelite people — but also of the ends of the earth, that is, of all nations to the uttermost limits of the world. For before, God was known in Judea, and in Israel his name was great … but after the overthrow of Jerusalem, with the Gospel of Christ preached throughout the world, the scattered Jews saw the true God worshipped everywhere, idols smashed, and the Psalms of David sung: and so they learned that God is not the God of the Jews alone, but also of the nations.
Contextual note: The phrase ut hodie cernimus oculis nostris — “as we behold with our own eyes today” — is one of Bellarmine’s characteristic formulas for the accomplished character of Messianic fulfillment. The dispersal is not a future prediction requiring faith; it is a present observable fact requiring only sight. Compare the parallel formulas in Psalms XL, LXVII, and LXXI.
De Christo, Book I: The Bethlehem Prophecy (Micah 5:2)
(Opera Omnia I, p. 278)
Latin:
Præter hunc locum habemus alium Micheæ V: Et tu Bethlehem Ephrata parvulus es in millibus Juda, ex te mihi egredietur, qui sit Dominator in Israel: et egressus ejus ab initio, a diebus æternitatis. Quem locum de Christo intellexerunt etiam Scribæ Judæorum, Matth. II.
Respondet Franciscus David disp. 3. dies æternitatis vocari primos illos sex dies Mundi, propter continuam successionem: tunc autem dici egressum Christum, quia tunc facta est promissio de Christo ad Adam. At Hieronymus, Theodoretus, Rupertus, et omnes alii interpretes hunc locum exponunt de æterna Christi generatione; ipse etiam Vatablus, cui multum tribuere videntur adversarii.
Translation:
Besides this passage we have another in Micah 5: And thou, Bethlehem Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda: out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. This passage was understood by the Scribes of the Jews themselves to refer to Christ, as Matthew 2 records.
Francis David answers in disputation 3 that the days of eternity is the name given to the first six days of the world, because of their continuous succession; and that Christ is then said to go forth because at that time the promise of Christ was made to Adam. But Jerome, Theodoret, Rupert, and all other interpreters expound this passage of the eternal generation of Christ — including Vatablus himself, to whom the adversaries seem to give great weight.
Note: Bellarmine uses the Scribæ Judæorum of Matthew 2 as his first witness. The Jewish leaders who directed the Magi to Bethlehem thereby became involuntary attestors of the prophecy’s Messianic reference — the same role that the dispersed Jews play in the De Verbo Dei argument from providence (Installment IV). The adversaries here are anti-Trinitarian Protestants (Francis David of Transylvania), but the argument rests on a convergence between patristic consensus and the unwitting Jewish testimony in Matthew’s Gospel.
De Christo, Book I: The Lapis Angularis — Cornerstone Joining Jews and Gentiles
(Opera Omnia I, p. 454)
Latin:
Lapidem ergo probatum posuit Deus in fundamentis Sion: nec solum probatum, sed etiam angularem, qui duos parietes connectat; quod mihi videtur ad demonstrandum discrimen inter Pontificem Christianorum et Judæorum esse positum. Ille enim lapis quidem et fundamentum erat, sed non lapis angularis: nec enim parietes duos, sed unum tantum sustentabat. At noster lapis angularis est; nam et Judæi et Gentes, quasi parietes duo simul conjuncti, atque unam Christianam Ecclesiam facientes, ab hoc uno angulari lapide continentur.
Translation:
God therefore laid a proven stone in the foundations of Sion — not only proven, but also a cornerstone, joining two walls together. This, it seems to me, is placed there to show the difference between the head of the Christians and that of the Jews. For that one was indeed a stone and a foundation, but not a cornerstone: it did not support two walls, but only one. But our cornerstone does; for Jews and Gentiles alike — as two walls joined together and making one Christian Church — are held together by this single cornerstone.
Note: The argument occurs in the preface to De Romano Pontifice and reads Isaiah 28:16 (ecce ego mittam in fundamentis Sion lapidem probatum, angularem, pretiosum) as a prophecy not only of Christ but of the Petrine See. The adversus Judaeos logic here is architectural: the lapis of the Jewish foundation supported only one wall (Israel); Christ as cornerstone joins the second wall (the Gentiles) to the first. The Jewish foundation was not wrong, only incomplete — requiring the addition of the Gentile wall to become the full structure of the Church.
Psalm II (Quare fremuerunt gentes)
(Opera Omnia X, pp. 14–19)
Psalm II is, for Bellarmine, the foundational Messianic Psalm — the one that names Christ as king, announces the ingrafting of the Gentiles, and pronounces judgment on all who resist. Its adversus Judaeos significance is threefold: it identifies the Jewish leaders by name as the principal movers of the conspiracy against the Messiah; it invokes the authority of the ancient Rabbis themselves as witnesses that the Psalm was understood to be about the Messiah; and it concludes with a Hebrew text whose meaning is uniquely damaging to the Jewish refusal to worship the Son.
Argumentum (Opera Omnia X, p. 14)
Latin:
Est autem totus hic Psalmus prophetia de regno Christi manifestissima, et explicata ab Apostolis, Actor. cap. iv et xiii, et ad Hebr. I et v, ut omnino errare videantur, qui ad litteram de Davide hunc Psalmum explicare nituntur.
Translation:
The entire Psalm is a most manifest prophecy of the kingdom of Christ, explained by the Apostles in Acts 4 and 13 and in Hebrews 1 and 5, so that those who attempt to explain this Psalm of David at the literal level appear to err completely.
On verse 1: Gentes = Gentiles; Populi = Jews (Opera Omnia X, p. 14)
Latin:
Nomine gentium, cum dicitur, quare fremuerunt gentes, videntur intelligendi Gentiles. Nam sic intellexerunt Apostoli, Actor. iv, et vox Hebræa גוים gym passim in Scripturis accipitur pro Gentilibus, sive Ethnicis. Per populos autem, cum subditur: «Et populi meditati sunt inania,» intelligendi sunt Hebræi, ut constat ex eodem cap. iv Actor. Verba quoque valde proprie tum Gentilibus, tum populis Hebræorum accommodantur. Gentiles enim fremuisse dicuntur, quasi animantia rationis expertia, populi Judaici meditati esse inania, quia ipsi consilium inierunt, ut Jesum perderent.
Translation:
By the nations, when it is said why did the nations rage, the Gentiles seem to be meant. For so the Apostles understood it in Acts 4, and the Hebrew word goyim is taken throughout the Scriptures for Gentiles or pagans. But by peoples, when it follows and the peoples have meditated vain things, the Hebrews are to be understood — as is clear from the same Acts 4. Moreover the words fit each group with precise propriety: the Gentiles are said to have raged, like irrational animals; the Jewish peoples to have meditated vain things, because they themselves formed the plan to destroy Jesus.
On verse 2: The historical fulfillment — Herod, the princes, and the people of the Jews (Opera Omnia X, p. 15)
Latin:
Primus enim qui infremuit fuit Herodes rex, ut habemus Matth. II, qui quidem Herodes alienigena erat, ut inter gentes reputari potuerit. Eum secuti sunt principes et populi Judæorum. Nam, Herode turbato, «turbata est omnis Hierosolyma cum illo.» Deinde tempore passionis Domini, iterum alius Herodes, et Pontius Pilatus cum principibus et populis Judæorum in Christum insurrexerunt. Denique, post Christi passionem et resurrectionem, semper persecutiones a regibus, sive imperatoribus inchoabantur, et a populis duces suos sequentibus fovebantur.
Tam autem est aperta hæc Prophetia, ut non solum Apostoli, Act. iv, intellexerint ad litteram de Jesu Christo Domino nostro hunc locum, sed etiam veteres Rabbini, teste R. Salomone in Commentario hujus Psalmi, exposuerint hunc eumdem locum de vero Messia, quem adhuc cæci et infatuati exspectant.
Translation:
The first to rage was King Herod, as we have it in Matthew 2 — and Herod was a foreigner, so that he could be counted among the nations. After him followed the princes and peoples of the Jews. For when Herod was troubled, all Jerusalem was troubled with him. Then at the time of the Lord’s Passion, another Herod and Pontius Pilate together with the princes and peoples of the Jews rose against Christ. And after the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, persecutions were always initiated by kings or emperors and sustained by the peoples following their leaders.
This Prophecy is moreover so manifest that not only did the Apostles in Acts 4 understand this passage literally of our Lord Jesus Christ, but even the ancient Rabbis — as R. Solomon testifies in his commentary on this Psalm — explained this same passage of the true Messiah, whom they still, blind and infatuated, await.
Note: The appeal to Rabbi Solomon (Rashi) is characteristic of Bellarmine’s use of the adversary’s own tradition against him. The Jews wait for a Messiah they themselves, in their ancient commentaries, associated with Psalm 2 — and in so doing they have already conceded the Psalm’s Messianic reference. Their remaining objection is not whether the Psalm is Messianic, but whether Jesus is the Messiah it describes.
On verse 4: The sacerdotium Judaicum now the object of universal ridicule (Opera Omnia X, p. 15)
Latin:
Nam sacerdotium Judaicum et idololatricum nunc ab omnibus irridetur. Carent enim Judæi et Gentiles templis et sacrificiis; reges quoque Gentilium, qui Ecclesiam persequebantur, omnes misere perierunt.
Translation:
For the Jewish priesthood and the idolatrous [pagan] priesthood are now mocked by all. The Jews lack both temple and sacrifices; and likewise the kings of the Gentiles who persecuted the Church have all perished miserably.
Note: The verse reads qui habitat in cœlis, irridebit eos — he who dwells in the heavens shall laugh at them. Bellarmine reads the fulfillment in two contemporary observable facts: the destruction of the Temple cult (the Jews have neither temple nor sacrifice), and the fall of the pagan emperors. Both are presently visible signs that the laughter of God has already been executed in history.
On verse 12: Apprehendite disciplinam — the Hebrew text (Opera Omnia X, pp. 17–18)
Latin:
Hunc locum ex Hebræo alii reddunt, osculamini filium; alii, adorate filium; alii, adorate pure. … Sensus autem horum verborum est, ut non solum reges corrigant judicium et affectum, erudiantur et serviant, quod supra dictum est, sed etiam magno fervore id faciant, ut perseveret in eis eruditio, ex qua pendet affectus. Nam verba tam Hebraicum נשקו assecu, quam Græcum δράξασθαι, non significant simpliciter suscipere, sed magno affectu rapere, et complecti, et firmiter retinere, quomodo quis complectitur ad osculandum personam valde amatam.
Translation:
Some render this passage from the Hebrew as kiss the Son; others as worship the Son; others as worship purely … The sense of these words is that not only should kings correct their judgment and affection, be instructed and serve — as was said above — but that they should do this with great fervour, so that the instruction in them may persevere, on which their affection depends. For the words, both the Hebrew nashqu and the Greek draxasthe, do not simply mean to receive, but to seize with great affection, to embrace, and to hold firm — as one embraces a greatly beloved person in order to kiss them.
Psalm XXI (Deus, Deus meus, respice in me)
(Opera Omnia X, pp. 119–127)
Psalm XXI is the Passion Psalm par excellence. Bellarmine argues that it was spoken by Christ himself in the persona of the suffering Messiah — not merely applied to Christ after the fact, but literally pre-enacted in the Psalm. The detailed adversus Judaeos content comes in verses 6–8 (Jewish mockery exactly foretold), verses 12–13 (the Jewish leaders as bulls and lions), and verse 18 (the foderunt manus textual dispute with the Rabbis).
On verse 1: Why Christ said Deus meus, quare me dereliquisti (Opera Omnia X, p. 121)
Latin:
Quod autem Christus queritur se derelictum a Deo, non significat eum fuisse derelictum a persona Verbi, quasi esset dissoluta unio hypostatica: vel destitutum a gratia, et benevolentia Patris; sed significat permissum fuisse a Deo, ut ipse in humana natura pateretur horribilia illa tormenta, et mortem ignominiæ plenam; a qua, si Deus voluisset, eum facillime liberare potuisset. Neque orta est querimonia illa ab impatentia, vel ab ignorantia… sed fuit querimonia illa, protestatio quædam acerbissimæ passionis.
Translation:
That Christ complains of being forsaken by God does not mean that he was abandoned by the Person of the Word, as if the hypostatic union had been dissolved, or that he was deprived of the grace and good will of the Father; but it means that God permitted him, in his human nature, to suffer those terrible torments and that death full of ignominy — from which God could have freed him most easily, had he so willed. Nor did that complaint arise from impatience or ignorance … but that complaint was a kind of protestation of his most bitter suffering.
On verses 7–8: Jewish mockery foretold word for word (Opera Omnia X, pp. 122–123)
Latin:
«Omnes videntes me deriserunt me, locuti sunt labiis, et moverunt caput.» Hoc etiam impletum fuisse docet S. Matthæus cap. xxvii: «Blasphemabant eum moventes capita sua, et dicentes: Vah qui destruis templum Dei!» «Speravit in Domino, eripiat eum, salvum faciat eum, quoniam vult eum.» Easdem voces Judæorum fuisse testatur S. Matthæus in eodem loco: «Confidit, aiebant, in Deo, liberet nunc eum, si vult.»
Admiranda prorsus Prophetæ illustratio, qui non solum res gestas, sed etiam verba prænovit et prædixit, quæ Judæi in passione Christi dicturi fuerant.
Translation:
All those seeing me derided me; they spoke with their lips and shook their heads. That this too was fulfilled St. Matthew teaches in chapter 27: They blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying: Vah, thou who destroyest the temple of God! He trusted in the Lord; let him deliver him, let him save him, since he wills him. That these were the very words of the Jews St. Matthew attests in the same place: He trusts in God, they said; let him now deliver him, if he wills.
Altogether admirable is the illustration of the Prophet, who foreknew and foretold not only the events themselves, but the very words which the Jews were going to speak at the Passion of Christ.
On verse 12: Vituli and Tauri — the pontiffs and Pharisees (Opera Omnia X, p. 123)
Latin:
Intelligit per inimicos pontifices et pharisæos, qui veluti tauri insultabant ei, quasi cornibus eum peterent, dicentes: «Vah qui destruis templum Dei,» etc., Matth. cap. xxvii; et qui veluti leones aperto ore famem suam demonstrabant, id est, desiderium ingens perdendi eum, unde et rugiebant dicentes: «Tolle, tolle, crucifige eum,» Joan. xix; et qui veluti canes mordebant eum, detrahentes videlicet ei, dum dicerent: «Hunc invenimus subvertentem gentem nostram,» Luc. xxiii. Et: «Si non esset hic malefactor, non tibi tradidissemus eum.»
Translation:
By the enemies he means the pontiffs and Pharisees, who like bulls assailed him, as if charging him with horns, saying Vah, thou who destroyest the temple of God, Matthew 27; who like lions displayed their hunger with open mouth — that is, their immense desire to destroy him — and so roared saying Away with him, away with him, crucify him, John 19; and who like dogs bit him — that is, defamed him — when they said We have found this man subverting our nation, Luke 23, and If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over to you.
On verse 18: Foderunt manus meas et pedes meos — the Hebrew text debate with the Rabbis (Opera Omnia X, p. 124)
Latin:
«Foderunt manus meas et pedes meos.» In hebræo legitur כארי caari, quod significat, quasi leo, sed Septuaginta legerunt כארו caaru, quod est foderunt. Et sic omnino esse legendum non dubium est, quia Septuaginta nunquam vertissent foderunt, si legissent caari. S. Hieronymus quoque ex hebræo vertit foderunt, ac per hoc legisse credendus est caaru. In ipso etiam libro Massoreth ad cap. XXIV Num., disserentes Rabbini de illis verbis, accubuit ut leo, quod est hebraice caari, monent in Psalmo hoc legendum quidem esse caari, sed juxta codices emendatiores scribendum caaru. Quamvis enim ex perfidia sua legere velint, quasi leo, tamen fatentur scriptum esse caaru, id est foderunt.
Translation:
They have dug through my hands and my feet. In the Hebrew text one reads ka’ari, which means like a lion; but the Seventy read ka’aru, which means they have dug through. And there is no doubt that this is the correct reading, for the Seventy would never have translated they dug through if they had read ka’ari. Jerome too translated they dug through from the Hebrew — and is therefore to be believed to have read ka’aru. Moreover in the Massoreth itself, in the discussion of Numbers 24 about the words he crouched like a lion — which is in Hebrew ka’ari — the Rabbis note that in this Psalm one should indeed read ka’ari, but that according to the more corrected manuscripts it should be written ka’aru. For although out of their perfidy they wish to read like a lion, they nonetheless confess that it is written ka’aru, meaning they dug through.
Note: This is one of Bellarmine’s most precise philological adversus Judaeos arguments. The Massoretic note itself — a Jewish textual apparatus — testifies against the reading that would strip the Psalm of its prophecy of the Crucifixion. The Rabbis’ own tradition betrays their resistance to the Messianic reading: they prefer like a lion in speech but acknowledge they dug through in writing.
On verse 23: In medio Ecclesiæ — the transition from Judea to the universal Church (Opera Omnia X, p. 125)
Latin:
«Narrabo, inquit, nomen tuum fratribus meis, id est, postquam resurrexero, mittam apostolos in mundum universum, et per eos «narrabo nomen tuum,» id est, notitiam divinitatis tuæ manifestam faciam omnibus hominibus, qui fratres mei sunt propter assumptam carnem, et sic «in medio Ecclesiæ laudabo te,» id est, non amplius in angulo Judæa, sed in medio Ecclesiæ magnæ ex Judæis et Gentibus adunatæ laudabo te, per ministros meos videlicet.
Translation:
I will declare thy name to my brethren — that is, after I shall have risen, I will send the Apostles into the whole world, and through them I will declare thy name — that is, I will make the knowledge of thy divinity manifest to all men, who are my brethren by reason of the flesh I have taken — and so in the midst of the Church I will praise thee — that is, no longer in a corner of Judea, but in the midst of the great Church gathered from Jews and Gentiles, I will praise thee, that is through my ministers.
Psalm LXXI (Deus, judicium tuum regi da)
(Opera Omnia X, pp. 464–471)
Psalm LXXI — Psalm 72 in the modern Hebrew numbering, titled In Salomonem — is, for Bellarmine, the great Psalm of the Messianic kingdom’s universality. Its adversus Judaeos force is threefold: it describes a dominion manifestly greater than anything Solomon exercised, thereby compelling the reader to look beyond Solomon to Christ; it contains the vellus prophecy, which Bellarmine reads as an exact figure of Israel‘s hardening while the Gentile world accepts Christ; and it concludes with the promise of Gen. 22 — in semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes — which the Apostle Paul explicitly applies to Christ, not to the Jewish nation.
Argumentum (Opera Omnia X, p. 464)
Latin:
Salomon est apertissima Christi figura; et tria nomina Salomonis, Solomo, id est pacificus, Ecclesiastes, id est concionator, et Idida, id est dilectus Domino, magis proprie Christo conveniunt, quam Salomoni. Ipse enim est pax nostra, qui reconciliavit mundum Deo; ipse est Verbum incarnatum ad evangelizandum pauperibus missum; denique ipse est de quo Pater non semel dixit: «Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi bene complacui,» Matth. III et XVII.
Describit autem David in hoc Psalmo elegantissimis similitudinibus adventum Christi et propagationem regni ejus, nec non rectitudinem gubernationis ejus.
Translation:
Solomon is a most manifest figure of Christ; and Solomon’s three names — Solomo, that is peaceful, Ecclesiastes, that is preacher, and Idida, that is beloved of the Lord — belong more properly to Christ than to Solomon. For he himself is our peace, who reconciled the world to God; he himself is the Word Incarnate sent to preach the good news to the poor; and finally he himself is the one of whom the Father more than once said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, Matthew 3 and 17.
David describes in this Psalm, with most elegant similitudes, the coming of Christ and the propagation of his kingdom, as well as the rectitude of his governance.
On verse 5: Et permanebit cum sole — the transition from Solomon to Christ (Opera Omnia X, p. 466)
Latin:
Jam incipit Propheta transitum facere a Salomone ad Christum: dicit enim Salomonem regem permansurum in regno, quamdiu sol et luna permanebunt in cœlo, id est, quamdiu tempus durabit. Et quoniam de persona Salomonis hæc dici non possunt, cogit nos Spiritus Sanctus, ut hæc intelligamus de Salomone, non per se, sed per Christum, ut sensus sit: Continuabitur regnum Salomonis per Christum, qui ex progenie ejus nascetur usque ad mundi consummationem.
Nam «regni ejus nullus erit finis,» Daniel. II, et Luc. I.
Translation:
Now the Prophet begins to make the transition from Solomon to Christ: for he says that King Solomon shall endure in his kingdom for as long as the sun and moon endure in the heavens — that is, for as long as time shall last. And since these things cannot be said of Solomon personally, the Holy Spirit compels us to understand them of Solomon not in himself, but through Christ, so that the sense is: Solomon’s kingdom shall be continued through Christ, who shall be born of his lineage, even unto the consummation of the world.
For his kingdom shall have no end, Daniel 2 and Luke 1.
On verse 6: Descendet sicut pluvia in vellus — the dry fleece of Israel (Opera Omnia X, pp. 466–467)
Latin:
Adventum Christi ad Judæos primum, deinde ad Gentes describit similitudine pluviæ, velleris, et terræ, juxta signum liberationis populi datum olim Gedeoni, Jud. vi; nam petente Gedeone signum a Deo factum est, ut vellus in area positum impleretur rore cœli, area tota sicca permanente; deinde sequenti nocte area tota completa est, solo vellere in medio areæ remanente arido: sic igitur descendit primo Christus ad Judæos, per vellus significatos, tota reliqua terra permanente arida, dicente ipso: «Non sum missus nisi ad oves, quæ perierunt domus Israel,» Matth. XV. Deinde venit ad Gentes per Apostolorum prædicationem, et sic completa est terra pluvia doctrinæ salutaris, et gratia baptismi, dicente eodem Domino: «Euntes docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti,» Matth. XXVIII; et solum vellus remansit aridum, ariditate incredulitatis, ut etiam hodie cernimus. Ita S. Augustinus.
Translation:
He describes Christ’s coming first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles by the similitude of rain, fleece, and earth, according to the sign of liberation once given to Gideon, Judges 6. For when Gideon asked God for a sign, it was brought about that the fleece placed on the threshing floor was filled with the dew of heaven, the whole floor remaining dry; and then the following night the whole floor was filled, with only the fleece in the middle of the floor remaining dry. Thus Christ first descended to the Jews — signified by the fleece — while the rest of the earth remained dry, for he himself said, I was sent only to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel, Matthew 15. Then he came to the Gentiles through the preaching of the Apostles, and so the earth was filled with the rain of saving doctrine and the grace of baptism, for the same Lord said, Going therefore teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28; and only the fleece remained dry — dry with the dryness of unbelief, as we see even today. So Augustine.
Note: The closing phrase — ut etiam hodie cernimus — is Bellarmine’s characteristic formula, converting prophetic text into present observable fact. The reverse reading is equally important: the present dryness of Jewish unbelief is, for Bellarmine, itself a confirmation of the prophecy’s Christological interpretation.
On verse 8: Et dominabitur a mari usque ad mare — the extent of Christ’s kingdom (Opera Omnia X, p. 467)
Latin:
Describitur nunc propagatio regni Christi, quod est ipsa Ecclesia toto orbe diffusa. … Melius S. Augustinus et Theodoretus per flumen intelligunt Jordanem, in quo dictum est Christo: «Hic est Filius meus dilectus,» Matth. III, Luc. III; et in quo baptisma dedicatum est, et circa quem prædicatio Domini, ac per hoc propagatio regni initium habuit. Itaque … illa verba: «A flumine usque ad terminos orbis terrarum,» explicant quod antea dictum erat, «a mari usque ad mare;» quasi dicat: Dominabitur per totam terram a mari usque ad mare, quia terra undique cingitur mari Oceano; id autem fiet, quia a Jordane flumine incipiet prædicatio, et diffundetur per omnes terras usque ad mare Oceanum, quod undique terminat orbem terræ.
Translation:
There is now described the propagation of Christ’s kingdom, which is the Church itself spread throughout the whole world. … Better, Augustine and Theodoret understand by the river the Jordan, in which it was said to Christ, This is my beloved Son, Matthew 3, Luke 3; and in which baptism was consecrated, and around which the preaching of the Lord — and therefore the propagation of the kingdom — began. And so … those words, From the river unto the ends of the earth, explain what had been said before, From sea to sea — as if to say: He shall rule over the whole earth from sea to sea, because the earth is everywhere bounded by the Ocean sea; and this shall come about because from the river Jordan preaching shall begin, and shall spread through all lands as far as the Ocean sea, which bounds the earth on every side.
On verse 11: Et adorabunt eum omnes reges terræ (Opera Omnia X, p. 468)
Latin:
Hæc omnia in Christo impleta sunt in aliquo sensu, et in alio sine dubio implebuntur. Nam si intelligantur de adoratione et servitute fidelium, impleta sunt per figuram intellectionis; Scriptura enim tribuit omnibus ea quæ conveniunt multis. … Sic igitur dicuntur omnes reges adoraturi Christum, et omnes gentes ei servituræ, quia plurimi principes cum populis suis ad Christi cultum et obsequium convertendi erant. Sed si intelligatur hic locus de adoratione sive spontanea sive coacta, in die judicii adimplebitur perfectissime: tunc enim Christo curvabitur omne genu.
Translation:
All these things have been fulfilled in Christ in one sense, and in another they shall doubtless be fulfilled. For if they are understood of the adoration and service of the faithful, they have been fulfilled by the figure of general predication — for Scripture attributes to all what applies to many. … Thus all kings are said to be going to adore Christ, and all nations to serve him, because very many princes with their peoples were to be converted to the worship and service of Christ. But if this passage is understood of adoration whether willing or forced, it shall be most perfectly fulfilled on the day of judgment — for then every knee shall bow to Christ.
On verse 17–18: Ante solem permanet nomen ejus / In semine tuo — the Abrahamic promise (Opera Omnia X, pp. 470–471)
Latin:
«Sit, inquit, nomen ejus benedictum in sæcula,» id est, ab omnibus, ubique, et semper benedicatur nomen Christi: quod nomen «ante solem permanet,» id est, coram sole, sive quamdiu sol erit, permanebit. Conabuntur quidem persecutores illud exstinguere, sed non prævalebunt.
Hoc desumptum est ex Gen. cap. XXII: «In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes terræ.» Et explicatur ab Apostolo ad Gal. III: «Non dictum est, inquit, in seminibus, tanquam in multis, sed tanquam in uno; et semini tuo, quod est Christus.» Omnes ergo gentes benedicentur a Deo Christo, id est, nemo benedicetur, nisi in Christo.
Translation:
May his name be blessed for ever — that is, let the name of Christ be blessed by all, everywhere, and always; which name endures before the sun — that is, it shall endure in the presence of the sun, for as long as the sun shall be. Persecutors shall try to extinguish it, but they shall not prevail.
This is drawn from Genesis 22: In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. And it is explained by the Apostle in Galatians 3: It does not say, he says, in seeds, as of many, but as of one; and to thy seed, which is Christ. All nations therefore shall be blessed by God in Christ — that is, no one shall be blessed except in Christ.
Psalm LXXXVIII (Misericordias Domini in æternum cantabo)
(Opera Omnia XI, p. 94)
Psalm LXXXVIII (Hebrew Psalm 89) meditates on the covenant made with David and the apparent contradiction of its promises with the fall of the Davidic kingdom. Bellarmine’s commentary at verse 4 explicitly names the Jewish expectation of a temporal Messiah as a hallucinatio — a delusion — and sets the spiritual and universal kingdom of Christ against it as the true fulfilment.
On verse 4–5: Juravi David servo meo — the Jews err expecting a temporal Messiah (Opera Omnia XI, p. 94)
Latin:
Hæc omnia sine dubitatione in Christum solum conveniunt, qui futurus erat de semine David, et regnaturus in æternum. Declaravit hoc Isaias cap. IX, ubi ait: «Multiplicabitur ejus imperium, et pacis non erit finis. Super solium David, et super regnum ejus sedebit, ut confirmet illud, et corroboret in judicio, et justitia, a modo, et usque in sempiternum.» Id etiam declaravit Angelus Gabriel Luc. I: «Dabit ei Dominus Deus sedem Davidis patris ejus, et regnabit in domo Jacob in æternum, et regni ejus non erit finis.»
Neque possunt hæc intelligi de regno temporali, quod jamdulum eversum est, sed de regno spirituali et sempiterno, in quo Judæi valde hallucinantur, et errant exspectantes Messiam, qui Jerosolymis temporaliter regnet.
Translation:
All these things belong without doubt to Christ alone, who was to be of the seed of David and to reign for ever. Isaiah declared this in chapter 9, where he says: His dominion shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace. He shall sit upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to confirm it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice from henceforth and for ever. The angel Gabriel also declared it in Luke 1: The Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
These things cannot be understood of a temporal kingdom, which was overturned long ago; but of the spiritual and eternal kingdom — in which matter the Jews are gravely deluded, and err in expecting a Messiah who shall reign temporally in Jerusalem.
Note: The Latin hallucinantur is notably strong — not merely errare (to err) but to hallucinate, to be lost in fantasy. The contrast Bellarmine draws is sharp: the kingdom promised is demonstrably not temporal (the Davidic line and Jerusalem throne are “long since overturned”), therefore it must be spiritual. The Jews‘ persistence in expecting a temporal Messiah is not merely incorrect prophecy-reading but a category error about what the promises of Scripture meant.
Psalm CVIII (Deus, laudem meam ne tacueris)
(Opera Omnia XI, pp. 241–251)
Psalm CVIII — Hebrew Psalm 109, the great imprecatory Psalm — is, for Bellarmine, a prophecy spoken in the person of Christ against Judas specifically and the Jewish people collectively. The argumentum establishes this immediately: though some interpreters read the Psalm of David’s personal enemies, the unanimous verdict of the ancient commentators (Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret, Euthymius) together with St. Peter’s explicit citation in Acts 1 settles the interpretation. Judas is the primary referent; but the Psalm is structured so that Judas “bore the type of the whole Synagogue” — what is said of Judas is said more fully and more illustriously of the Jewish people as a whole.
Argumentum (Opera Omnia XI, p. 245)
Latin:
Argumentum Psalmi est prophetia per modum imprecationis adversus Judam et Judæos Christi persecutores. … Et idem S. Augustinus recte monet Judam gessisse personam totius Synagogæ, quemadmodum S. Petrus gerebat personam totius Ecclesiæ; et ideo, quæ hic dicuntur de Juda, illi quidem convenire, sed convenire etiam et illustrius toti Synagogæ, quæ recusans habere Christum regem, habuit diabolum et Cæsarem, et ejus loco Pilatum.
Translation:
The argument of the Psalm is a prophecy in the form of an imprecation against Judas and the Jews, the persecutors of Christ. … And Augustine rightly notes that Judas bore the person of the whole Synagogue, just as Peter bore the person of the whole Church; and therefore what is said here of Judas applies to him indeed, but applies even more illustriously to the whole Synagogue — which, refusing to have Christ as king, had the devil and Caesar, and in his place Pilate.
On verse 1: Os peccatoris et os dolosi — Caiaphas and Judas (Opera Omnia XI, p. 245)
Latin:
«Quia, inquit, os peccatoris et dolosi,» Caiphæ videlicet et Judæ, vel generatim populi judaici, «super me apertum est.» Dicit autem peccatoris et dolosi, quoniam persecutores Christi odio et invidia pleni erant, et tamen dolo simulabant amicitiam, cum dicerent: «Magister, scimus quia verax es, et viam Dei in veritate doces.» Itaque peccatores erant, quia oderant, quem diligere debuissent; et dolosi erant, quia fingentes amicitiam eum capere volebant in sermone.
Translation:
Because, he says, the mouth of the sinner and the deceitful — that is, of Caiaphas and Judas, or more generally of the Jewish people — was opened against me. He says of the sinner and the deceitful because the persecutors of Christ were full of hatred and envy, and yet craftily feigned friendship, saying: Master, we know that thou art truthful and teachest the way of God in truth. They were therefore sinners, because they hated him whom they ought to have loved; and deceitful, because feigning friendship they wished to catch him in his speech.
On verse 5: Constitue super eum peccatorem — the Synagogue‘s self-chosen master (Opera Omnia XI, p. 245)
Latin:
«Constitue super eum peccatorem,» id est, noluit Judas super se Christum, Dominum utique justissimum et mitissimum; ideo constitues super eum spiritum avaritiæ, cui serviet infeliciter usque ad mortem. … Idem S. Augustinus recte monet Judam gessisse personam totius Synagogæ; et ideo, quæ hic dicuntur de Juda, illi quidem convenire, sed convenire etiam et illustrius toti Synagogæ, quæ recusans habere Christum regem, habuit diabolum et Cæsarem, et ejus loco Pilatum.
Translation:
Set a sinner over him — that is, Judas was unwilling to have over him Christ, his utterly just and gentle Lord; therefore thou shalt set over him the spirit of avarice, which he shall serve wretchedly unto death. … Augustine rightly notes that Judas bore the person of the whole Synagogue; and therefore what is said of Judas applies to him indeed, but applies even more illustriously to the whole Synagogue — which, refusing to have Christ as king, had the devil and Caesar, and in his place Pilate.
On verse 6: Oratio ejus fiat in peccatum — the prayers of the Synagogue (Opera Omnia XI, pp. 245–246)
Latin:
Eadem quæ hic dicuntur de Juda conveniunt Judæis, quorum ille typum gerebat. Judæi enim qui credere nolunt in Christum, exeunt de hac vita condemnati ad mortem sempiternam; et oratio eorum, quam assidue fundunt in synagogis suis, fit illis in peccatum: quia non orant Patrem per Filium, cum nec Filium, nec Patrem norint, et quia postulant quæ Deo non placent, excidium videlicet christianorum, et celerem adventum Antichristi; hunc enim illi pro Christo recipient, ut dicitur Joan. V.
Translation:
The same things said here of Judas apply to the Jews, of whom he bore the type. For the Jews who refuse to believe in Christ depart this life condemned to eternal death; and the prayer which they pour out continually in their Synagogues becomes for them a sin — because they do not pray to the Father through the Son, knowing neither the Son nor the Father; and because they petition what does not please God, namely the destruction of Christians and the swift coming of Antichrist. For him they shall receive in place of Christ, as it is said in John 5.
Note: This is Bellarmine’s most direct commentary on the Synagogue liturgy as such. The argument is structural: the prayers of the Synagogue become sins not merely by inadvertence but by the nature of what is petitioned. The invocation of John 5:43 — I came in my Father’s name and you received me not; if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive — is Bellarmine’s standard proof-text for the identification of the Synagogue‘s awaited Messiah with Antichrist.
On verse 7: Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter — the transfer of the priesthood (Opera Omnia XI, p. 246)
Latin:
Hocidem impletum est in Judæis: nam post Judæ peccatum pauci fuerunt dies Judæorum in episcopatu, id est, in sacerdotio, sive pontificatu; et episcopatum eorum accepit alter, quia translatum est sacerdotium Aaronicum ad sacerdotium secundum ordinem Melchisedech, et nulli sunt hodie pontifices Judæorum, et multi sunt pontifices christianorum.
Translation:
The same has been fulfilled in the Jews: for after the sin of Judas, the days of the Jews in the episcopate — that is, in the priesthood or pontificate — were few; and another received their episcopate, because the Aaronic priesthood was transferred to the priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech; and today there are no pontiffs of the Jews, and there are many pontiffs of Christians.
On verse 9: Nutantes transferantur filii ejus — the dispossession of Jerusalem (Opera Omnia XI, p. 247)
Latin:
Sensus nostræ lectionis est, quod Judæ filii, et cæteri Judæi non solum non permittentur habere integras domos, quia Hierusalem evertenda erat, sed ejicientur etiam de habitationibus dirutis, ut ne ruinas quidem domorum suarum possidere eis liceat, quod impletum esse res ipsa testatur.
Translation:
The sense of our reading is that the sons of Judas, and the rest of the Jews, shall not only not be permitted to have whole houses — because Jerusalem was to be overturned — but shall even be cast out from the ruined dwellings, so that they may not be permitted to possess even the ruins of their own houses; which the event itself testifies to be fulfilled.
On verse 12: In generatione una deleatur nomen ejus — the end of Jewish national existence (Opera Omnia XI, pp. 247–248)
Latin:
Judæi vero quamvis non omnino extincti sint, periit tamen in generatione una regnum, sive respublica eorum: nam post eversam Hierosolymam, dispersi fuerunt in gentes, et nunc impletur in eis quod prædixit Osee propheta cap. III: «Quia dies multos sedebunt filii Israel sine rege, et sine principe, et sine sacrificio, et sine ephod, et sine theraphim.» Itaque illud, interitum, significat interitum populi, sive regni, ut non sint amplius unus populus, sive regnum, sed homines dispersi per omnes populos et regna.
Translation:
The Jews, however, though not wholly extinct, yet lost their kingdom — that is, their commonwealth — in a single generation: for after the overthrow of Jerusalem they were scattered among the nations; and now there is being fulfilled in them what the prophet Hosea foretold in chapter 3: For the children of Israel shall sit many days without a king and without a prince, and without sacrifice, and without an ephod, and without teraphim. And so that word destruction signifies the destruction of the people, or of the kingdom — so that they are no longer one people, or kingdom, but men scattered through all peoples and kingdoms.
On verse 14: In memoriam redeat iniquitas patrum ejus — the hereditary guilt (Opera Omnia XI, p. 248)
Latin:
Vocat autem patres, non solum patrem ejus naturalem, sed omnes eos Hebræos qui peccaverunt in deserto, et postea in terra promissionis; vocat vero matrem, non tantum matrem propriam, sed integram Synagogam, sive ipsam civitatem Hierusalem. … Quod autem hic dicit Propheta, significavit etiam Dominus Matth. XXIII, cum ait: «Ut veniat super vos omnis sanguis justus, qui effusus est super terram a sanguine Abel justi, usque ad sanguinem Zachariæ filii Barachiæ, quem occidistis inter templum et altare. Amen dico vobis, venient hæc omnia super generationem istam.» Et hoc ipsum imprecati sunt impii Judæi filiis suis, Matth. XXVII, 25: «Sanguis ejus super nos et super filios nostros.»
Translation:
By fathers he means not only his natural father, but all those Hebrews who sinned in the desert and afterwards in the promised land; and by mother he means not only his own mother, but the whole Synagogue, or the city of Jerusalem itself. … What the Prophet says here the Lord also signified in Matthew 23, saying: That upon you may come all the just blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar. Amen I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation. And the wicked Jews themselves imprecated this upon their own children, Matthew 27:25: His blood be upon us and upon our children.
On verse 16: Et dilexit maledictionem — the logic of self-chosen curse (Opera Omnia XI, pp. 248–249)
Latin:
Venit enim Filius Dei de cœlo, ut benediceret populum suum; sed illi, Christum occidendo, sibi ipsi in causa fuerunt, cur pro benedictione maledictionem acciperent, et benedictio ad gentes transferretur. … Videmus autem hæc impleta fuisse primum in Juda, qui continuo et pecunias, quas acceperat, et vitam temporalem et sempiternam amisit; deinde in populo Judæorum, qui regnum et sacerdotium perdidit, et excæcatus atque obstinatus in incredulitate vivit, donec ad tenebras exteriores, quæ sunt in gehenna, descendat.
Translation:
For the Son of God came from heaven to bless his people; but they, by killing Christ, were themselves the cause of their receiving a curse instead of a blessing, and of the blessing being transferred to the Gentiles. … We see moreover these things to have been fulfilled first in Judas, who immediately lost both the money he had received and his temporal and eternal life; and then in the Jewish people, which lost its kingdom and priesthood, and lives blinded and hardened in unbelief, until it descends to the exterior darkness which is in Gehenna.
Psalm CIX (Dixit Dominus Domino meo)
(Opera Omnia XI, pp. 252–257)
Psalm CIX — Hebrew Psalm 110, Dixit Dominus Domino meo — is the most explicitly Messianic and sacerdotal of all the Psalms. Its adversus Judaeos significance is established from the opening of the commentary: the Jews who dispute its Christological reference cannot escape the fact that Christ himself used this Psalm to confound them in Matthew 22, asking how David could call his own descendant “Lord.” Bellarmine’s verse-by-verse argument then builds toward verse 4 — the great sacerdotal verse, Tu es sacerdos in æternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech — which becomes the locus of a direct argument that the Aaronic priesthood was not merely superseded but was designed by God to be superseded, its cessation being built into the very structure of the promise.
Argumentum (Opera Omnia XI, p. 252)
Latin:
Hic Psalmus celeberrimus est, tum magnitudine mysteriorum, tum obscuritate sententiarum. Sed quamvis excæcati Judæi multa fabulentur, tamen apud Christianos nulla dubitatio est, quin hic Psalmus de Christi regno et sacerdotio intelligatur.
Quare Judæi, interrogati a Christo, Matth. XXII, quomodo David in spiritu vocet Messiam Dominum suum, non sunt ausi negare Psalmum intelligendum esse de Messia.
Translation:
This Psalm is most celebrated, both for the greatness of its mysteries and the obscurity of its sentences. But although the blinded Jews fabricate many things, among Christians there is no doubt that this Psalm is to be understood of the kingdom and priesthood of Christ.
And so the Jews, when questioned by Christ in Matthew 22 as to how David in the Spirit calls the Messiah his Lord, dared not deny that the Psalm is to be understood of the Messiah.
Note: The argument here is significant: the Jews‘ own silence before Christ’s question in Matthew 22 constitutes an admission. They cannot deny the Psalm is Messianic. Their only remaining defence is to dispute who the Messiah is — but that defence is closed by the Psalm’s own content, which cannot apply to any merely human figure.
On verse 1: Dixit Dominus Domino meo: Sede a dextris meis — David’s two Lords (Opera Omnia XI, p. 253)
Latin:
Certum est non alium hoc loco Dominum vocari, nisi Messiam, qui fuit filius David secundum carnem, et Dominus David secundum divinitatem: totus enim Psalmus id clamat, cum neque Abraham, neque Ezechias sederint ad dexteram Dei, neque geniti sint ante luciferum, neque sacerdotes fuerint secundum ordinem Melchisedech.
Translation:
It is certain that no other is here called Lord than the Messiah, who was the son of David according to the flesh and the Lord of David according to his divinity — for the whole Psalm cries out this truth, since neither Abraham nor Hezekiah sat at the right hand of God, nor were born before the morning star, nor were priests according to the order of Melchisedech.
On verse 4: Tu es sacerdos in æternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech — the five distinctions; the cessation of the Aaronic priesthood (Opera Omnia XI, pp. 254–255)
Latin:
Transit nunc ad dignitate regia ad sacerdotalem, atque ostendit Christum esse sacerdotem æternum, non succedentem Aaroni, sed immediate a Deo institutum, cujus figura fuerat sacerdotium Melchisedech. Juramentum Dei promissionis stabilimentum est … significat enim David his verbis, sacerdotium Aaronicum fuisse mutandum, sed sacerdotium Christi nunquam esse mutandum.
Distinguitur vero ordo Melchisedech ab ordine Aaron in multis: primo, Melchisedech non legitur successisse alteri, neque ei successisse alter legitur … Secundo, Melchisedech erat sacerdos et rex; Aaron, simplex sacerdos. Tertio, Melchisedech obtulit panem et vinum; Aaron, oves et boves. Quarto, Melchisedech erat sacerdos universalis, non unius gentis tantum; Aaron erat sacerdos duntaxat Hebræorum. Quinto, Melchisedech non egebat tabernaculo, vel templo ad sacrificandum; Aaron egebat, et ideo nunc apud Hebræos cessavit sacrificium, quia eversum est templum.
Christus igitur sacerdos est secundum ordinem Melchisedech, quia revera nulli successit, neque alius ei successit in amplissima dignitate sempiterni sacerdotii; et ipse vere ac proprie non habet patrem, ut homo, neque matrem, ut Deus; idem Christus rex est et sacerdos, et obtulit panem et vinum in cœna … neque alligatur sacerdotium ejus uni templo, vel tabernaculo, sed, ut prædixit Malachias cap. I, «a solis ortu usque ad occasum in omni loco sacrificatur et offertur oblatio munda.»
Translation:
He now passes from the royal dignity to the sacerdotal, and shows that Christ is an eternal priest — not succeeding Aaron, but instituted directly by God, of whom the priesthood of Melchisedech had been the figure. The oath of God is the guarantee of the promise … for David by these words signifies that the Aaronic priesthood was to be changed, but the priesthood of Christ is never to be changed.
The order of Melchisedech is distinguished from the order of Aaron in many respects: first, Melchisedech is not read as having succeeded another, nor is another read as having succeeded him … Second, Melchisedech was priest and king; Aaron, a simple priest. Third, Melchisedech offered bread and wine; Aaron, oxen and sheep. Fourth, Melchisedech was a universal priest, not of one nation only; Aaron was priest of the Hebrews only. Fifth, Melchisedech had no need of a tabernacle or temple for sacrifice; Aaron did need one — and therefore among the Hebrews sacrifice has now ceased, because the temple was overturned.
Christ therefore is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, because in truth he succeeded no one, nor has anyone succeeded him in the most ample dignity of the eternal priesthood; and he himself truly and properly has no father, as man, and no mother, as God; the same Christ is king and priest, and offered bread and wine at the Supper … nor is his priesthood bound to one temple or tabernacle, but — as Malachias 1 foretold — from the rising of the sun even to the going down, in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation.
Note: The fifth distinction is the decisive adversus Judaeos argument embedded within the sacerdotal theology: the Aaronic priesthood depended structurally on the Temple. The Temple is gone. Therefore the Aaronic priesthood has ceased — not by Christian replacement, but by its own intrinsic constitution. The destruction of 70 AD is not an accident of Roman history but the natural consequence of a priesthood that was always only figurative. The Malachi prophecy (in omni loco sacrificatur) then shows that what replaced it was not a vacuum but the worldwide sacrifice of the Eucharist, precisely fulfilling the universalism that Melchisedech prefigured and Aaron could not achieve.
Psalm LXXVII (Attendite, popule meus)
(Opera Omnia XI, pp. 18–27)
Psalm LXXVII — Hebrew Psalm 78, the great historical recapitulation Psalm of Asaph — is, for Bellarmine, not primarily a chronicle but an enigma: its surface narrative of Israel‘s repeated infidelities and divine punishments conceals a deeper structure whose resolution is the supersession of the Synagogue by the Church. The title Intellectus Asaph — “Understanding of Asaph” — is itself a warning that what follows requires interpretation beyond the literal surface. The Psalm ends with God’s rejection of Ephraim/Joseph and election of Judah and David — a sequence Bellarmine reads as the cryptic statement of an ecclesiological axiom: the Synagogue was destroyed that the Church might be built.
Argumentum (Opera Omnia XI, p. 18)
Latin:
Hic titulus admonet Psalmum non esse ita facilem et apertum, ut in superficie apparet. … Cæterum non hoc solum Davidi propositum est in hoc Psalmo, sed etiam adumbrare regnum Christi, qui ex tribu Juda et familia David existens finem dedit veteri Testamento et novum longe excellentius et felicius inchoavit. Id enim significavit David in extremo Psalmo, ubi posteaquam varia peccata et varia flagella populi enarravit, tandem concludit Deum elegisse Judam, non Ephraim, et ex Juda ipsum Davidem, qui deinceps magna tranquillitate populum Dei regeret et gubernaret. Hoc igitur admonet titulus: Intellectus Asaph, ut nimirum Asaph, cui Psalmus cantandus dabatur, intelligeret, et alios intelligere faceret mysterium futuri Messiæ.
Translation:
This title warns that the Psalm is not as easy and transparent as it appears on the surface. … But David’s purpose in this Psalm was not only this: it was also to foreshadow the kingdom of Christ, who, being of the tribe of Judah and the family of David, brought the Old Testament to an end and inaugurated the New, far more excellent and more blessed. For David indicated this in the final portion of the Psalm, where, after recounting the various sins and various chastisements of the people, he concludes by saying that God chose Judah, not Ephraim, and from Judah David himself, to govern and rule the people of God with great peace thereafter. The title therefore warns — Understanding of Asaph — so that Asaph, to whom the Psalm was given to be sung, might understand, and cause others to understand, the mystery of the Messiah to come.
On verse 65: Sprevit Israel — God’s rejection of his own people (Opera Omnia XI, p. 23)
Latin:
«Audivit Deus et sprevit: et ad nihilum redegit valde Israel.» … «Et repulit tabernaculum Silo, tabernaculum suum, ubi habitavit in hominibus. Et tradidit in captivitatem virtutem eorum, et pulchritudinem eorum in manus inimici.»
Hic jam explicat Propheta ultionem divinam in peccata populi sui, ac præcipue commemorat tempus illud, quo Philistæi fuderunt exercitum populi Dei, et arcam Domini captivam duxerunt, sacerdotibus occisis, qui eam custodiebant.
Translation:
God heard and rejected: and brought Israel very low. … And he rejected the tabernacle of Shiloh, his tabernacle, where he had dwelt among men. And he delivered their strength into captivity, and their beauty into the hands of the enemy.
Here the Prophet explains the divine vengeance upon the sins of his people, and commemorates especially that time when the Philistines routed the army of the people of God and carried off the ark of the Lord as a captive, the priests who guarded it having been slain.
On verses 73–75: Repulit tabernaculum Joseph … elegit tribum Juda — the Synagogue destroyed to build the Church (Opera Omnia XI, p. 24)
Latin:
Non repulit Deus Joseph, et elegit Judam ob meritum personarum. Nam Joseph melior fuit multo, quam Judas, sive castitatem, sive patientiam, sive sapientiam, sive prudentiam, sive dilectionem inimicorum consideres: sed elegit Judam propter Davidem, et Davidem propter Christum, et Synagogam destruxit, ut Ecclesiam ædificaret.
«Et ædificavit sicut unicornium sanctificium suum in terra, quam fundavit in sæcula,» id est, ædificavit Deus in monte Sion, sive in Jerusalem, quæ est terra duratura in æternum, sanctuarium suum firmissimum quasi cornu monocerotis. Hæc est parabola præcipua … neque enim sanctuarium Testamenti veteris fuit firmum, ut cornu monocerotis, nisi in typo sanctuarii Testamenti novi; neque mons Sion, aut Jerusalem fuit terra fundata in sæcula, cum brevi eversa fuerit, nisi in figura Ecclesiæ christianæ, «adversus quam portæ inferi non prævalebunt,» Matth. XVI; et cujus religio et sacramenta non mutabuntur usque ad mundi consummationem.
Translation:
God did not reject Joseph and elect Judah on account of personal merits. For Joseph was far better than Judas, whether you consider his chastity, his patience, his wisdom, his prudence, or his love of enemies. But he elected Judah on account of David, and David on account of Christ, and he destroyed the Synagogue that he might build the Church.
And he built his sanctuary like a unicorn in the land which he founded for ever — that is, God built in Mount Sion, that is in Jerusalem, which is the land destined to endure for ever, his sanctuary most firm, like the horn of the rhinoceros. This is the chief parable [of the Psalm] … for the sanctuary of the Old Testament was not firm as the horn of the rhinoceros, except as the type of the sanctuary of the New Testament; nor was Mount Sion, or Jerusalem, a land founded for ever — since it was overturned before long — except as the figure of the Christian Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, Matthew 16; and whose religion and sacraments shall not be changed until the consummation of the world.
Note: The phrase Synagogam destruxit, ut Ecclesiam ædificaret — he destroyed the Synagogue in order to build the Church — is the clearest single formulation in the entire Commentary of what Bellarmine takes to be the providential logic of Jewish history. The argument embedded here is structural: it was not the merits of the parties that determined the election. Joseph was morally superior to Judah. The choice of Judah — and thereby of David, and thereby of Christ — was entirely anterior to and independent of the behaviour of those chosen or rejected. The destruction of the Synagogue is therefore not a punishment for failure; it is a positive divine act of construction, the clearing away of a provisional structure in order to build the permanent one it had always prefigured. The second paragraph reinforces this: Jerusalem and the Temple were never themselves the terra fundata in sæcula — they only ever served as figures of the Church that would be. Their destruction was therefore not a tragedy to be mourned but a figure being completed.
On verse 78: Pavit eos in innocentia cordis — David as type of Christ (Opera Omnia XI, p. 26)
Latin:
Quæ omnia etiamsi utcumque Davidi conveniunt, absolute tamen, et perfecte non nisi Christo conveniunt. Alioqui non reprehenderetur in Scriptura David, quod uxorem alienam concupierit, quod adulterium et homicidium perpetraverit … Christus autem vere innocens corde, et sapiens in opere fuit: «qui peccatum non fecit, nec inventus est dolus in ore ejus,» I Petri II. Quique audacter dicere poterat: «Quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato?» Joan. VIII.
Translation:
All these things, though they apply to David in some fashion, apply absolutely and perfectly to Christ alone. Otherwise Scripture would not have rebuked David for coveting another’s wife, for having committed adultery and homicide … But Christ was truly innocent of heart and wise in deed: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, I Peter 2. And who could boldly say: Which of you shall convince me of sin? John 8.
Psalm LXXIX (Vineam de Ægypto transtulisti)
(Opera Omnia XI, pp. 33–39)
Psalm LXXIX — Hebrew Psalm 80, Qui regis Israel intende — is the great vine Psalm. The vine transplanted from Egypt to Canaan represents the people of God; its devastation by the wild boar and the beast of the field represents the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. But the deeper structure of the Psalm, for Bellarmine, is a prophecy of the Messianic reform of the vine: the Old Testament Church would not perish but would be mutata in melius, changed into something better — the Church of the New Testament. The Psalm’s prayer for a filius hominis to be confirmed as the cornerstone of the restored vine is a direct prophecy of Christ.
On verse 14: Exterminavit eam aper de silva — the boar as figure of temporal destruction (Opera Omnia XI, p. 37)
Latin:
Deplorat nunc in particulari sub eadem vineæ metaphora, gravissimam captivitatem, quæ contigit sub rege Assyriorum … hunc enim regem vocat aprum sylvestrem, et singularem ferum, qui non vindemiavit, sed eradicavit penitus vineam.
Translation:
He now laments in particular, under the same metaphor of the vine, the gravest captivity that occurred under the king of the Assyrians … for this king he calls the wild boar and the solitary beast, who did not merely harvest the vine but eradicated it entirely.
On verse 15: Deus virtutum, convertere — the advent of Christ and the transfer of the vine (Opera Omnia XI, p. 37)
Latin:
Hic jam prædicit per modum orantis Propheta adventum Christi, qui vineam reformavit, et aliis colonis custodiendam tradidit, sicut legitur Matth. XXI: «Malos male perdet, et vineam suam aliis agricolis locabit;» et clarius explicante Domino parabolam: «Auferetur a vobis regnum Dei, et dabitur genti facienti fructus ejus.»
Non enim Ecclesia veteris Testamenti, quæ erat vinea Dei, funditus periit, sed mutata est in melius. Primitiæ enim Ecclesiæ Apostoli fuerunt, qui utique ex Israel erant. Et multa illa millia, quæ initio prædicante Petro conversa sunt ad Dominum, ex Israel etiam erant. Et Apostolus Paulus ad Rom. XI, aperte demonstrat, «gentes esse veluti ramos insertos in bonam olivam:» id est, adjunctos ad Ecclesiam ex Judæis initio congregatam.
Translation:
Here the Prophet now foretells, under the form of prayer, the coming of Christ, who reformed the vine and entrusted it to other cultivators to tend — as we read in Matthew 21: He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard to other husbandmen; and in the Lord’s clearer explanation of the parable: The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof.
For the Church of the Old Testament, which was God’s vine, did not wholly perish but was changed into something better. For the first-fruits of the Church were the Apostles, who were certainly from Israel. And the many thousands who at the beginning were converted to the Lord through Peter’s preaching were also from Israel. And the Apostle Paul in Romans 11 openly demonstrates that the Gentiles are as branches grafted into the good olive tree — that is, joined to the Church first gathered from the Jews.
On verse 16: Et super filium hominis, quem confirmasti tibi — Christ as the keystone of the restored vine (Opera Omnia XI, pp. 37–38)
Latin:
«Et super filium hominis, quem confirmasti tibi,» id est, et respice etiam super Messiam, qui filius hominis dicitur, cum sit etiam verus filius tuus, «quem confirmasti tibi,» in columnam præcipuam vineæ tuæ, id est, in ducem et principem Ecclesiæ tuæ.
Nam post captivitatem Babylonicam non fuit melior respublica Judæorum, quam antea, sed longe deterior, ut S. Augustinus demonstrat in lib. XVIII De Civit. Dei, cap. XLV; quare si hæc prophetia de perficienda vinea implenda sit, oportet eam ad Christum necessario referre.
Si genus Hebræorum omnino periisset, Messias sine dubio non venisset; ideo rogat ut non permittat vineam istam omnino destrui, sed respiciat super Messiam futurum de semine Abrahæ, et ideo conservet gentem hebraicam, unde tantum bonum exspectatur.
Translation:
And upon the son of man whom thou hast confirmed to thyself — that is, look also upon the Messiah, who is called the son of man even while being also thy true Son, whom thou hast confirmed to thyself as the chief support of thy vine, that is, as the leader and prince of thy Church.
For after the Babylonian captivity the commonwealth of the Jews was not better than before but far worse, as Augustine demonstrates in City of God XVIII.45; and so if this prophecy of the vine to be perfected is to be fulfilled, it must necessarily be referred to Christ.
Had the Hebrew race wholly perished, the Messiah would without doubt not have come; therefore [the Prophet] prays that [God] not permit this vine to be wholly destroyed, but look upon the coming Messiah of the seed of Abraham, and for that reason preserve the Hebrew people, from whom so great a good is awaited.
Note: This passage articulates something distinctive within Bellarmine’s adversus Judaeos framework. It contains an explicit statement of why the Jewish people are providentially preserved despite their unbelief and dispersion — not for their own sake, but because the Messianic promise required a genealogical thread through which the Incarnation could occur. The argument is retrospective: since Christ has now come, the preservation of the Hebrew race up to his coming was necessary, and this Psalm prophesied that preservation precisely by praying for it. The post-Incarnation dispersion and degradation of the Jews is, by this logic, the condition that obtains once the providential purpose of preservation has been fulfilled — once the Messiah has come, there is no longer a reason grounded in future promise to preserve the vine intact.
On verse 17: Incensa igni et suffossa — the vine revives at Christ’s rebuke (Opera Omnia XI, p. 38)
Latin:
Declarat effectum quem pariet adventus Messiæ, futurum videlicet esse, ut vinea Domini incensa et eradicata continuo iterum virescat et floreat; nam increpante Deo vastatio illa vineæ subito evanescet.
Dixit enim: «Ignem veni mittere in terram,» Luc. XII; et: «Nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus,» Matth. X. Neque est aliud remedium potentius ad pellendum amorem mundi, vel timorem mundi, quam si quis serio cogitet et firmissime credat, multo majora bona daturum esse Deum amantibus se, et multo majora supplicia offendentibus se, quam ea sint, quæ mundus polliceri, aut minari potest.
Translation:
He declares the effect that the coming of the Messiah will produce — namely that the vine of the Lord, burned and uprooted, will at once grow green and flower again; for at God’s rebuke that devastation of the vine will suddenly vanish.
For he said: I came to cast fire on the earth, Luke 12; and: Fear not them who kill the body, Matthew 10. Nor is there any more powerful remedy for driving out love of the world or fear of the world than if someone seriously thinks and most firmly believes that God will give far greater goods to those who love him, and far greater punishments to those who offend him, than the world can either promise or threaten.
Psalm LXXXI (Deus stetit in synagoga deorum)
(Opera Omnia XI, pp. 47–49)
Psalm LXXXI — Hebrew Psalm 82, Deus stetit in synagoga — is for Bellarmine primarily a Psalm of judgment against unjust judges: God stands present in every court, judging the judges. Its adversus Judaeos significance comes partly from Augustine’s identification of the synagoga deorum where God stood as the very Synagogue of the Scribes and Pharisees, and partly from the Psalm’s concluding verse — Surge Deus, judica terram — which Bellarmine reads as a dual prophecy: the first coming of Christ as judge, and the final judgment.
On verse 1: Deus stetit in synagoga deorum — Christ standing in the Synagogue (Opera Omnia XI, p. 47)
Latin:
S. Augustinus quærit, si Deus stetit in synagoga deorum, quando id fuit? quando stetit? et non inveniens quando Deus Pater steterit, refert hunc locum ad Deum Filium, qui in carne stetit in synagoga Scribarum et Pharisæorum.
Itaque illud, stetit, significat: Ab initio stare consuevit, sive constituit se præsentem. Et quia Deus non mutatur, sicut ab initio stetit, ita semper stat, et stabit, et semper judicabit.
Translation:
Augustine asks: if God stood in the Synagogue of the gods, when was this? When did he stand? And not finding when God the Father stood there, he refers this passage to God the Son, who in the flesh stood in the Synagogue of the Scribes and Pharisees.
And so that word stood signifies: from the beginning he made it his custom to stand present, or constituted himself present. And because God does not change, as he stood from the beginning, so he stands always, and will stand, and will always judge.
On verse 6: Ego dixi: Dii estis — Christ’s argument in John 10 (Opera Omnia XI, p. 48)
Latin:
In Evangelio Joan. cap. X, Dominus hunc locum adducens dicit, vocari deos, «quia sermo Dei ad illos factus est. Si illos, inquit, dixit deos, ad quos sermo Dei factus est, quem Deus sanctificavit, et misit in mundum, vos dicitis, quia blasphemas, quia dixi, Filius Dei sum?» Sermonem Dei ad aliquem fieri est, Deum committere alicui officium aliquod … Et quod Lucas dixit: «Factum est verbum Dei super Joannem,» Joannes cap. I explicuit, dicens: «Fuit homo missus a Deo.» Atque hinc manifeste colligitur vis argumenti Christi: «Si illos dixit deos» Scriptura, «ad quos sermo Dei factus est,» id est, quos Deus misit ad aliquid faciendum, communicans illis auctoritatem suam; quanto magis ego Filius Dei, et Deus dici possum, quem de cœlo Pater æternus misit in mundum cum plenaria potestate?
Translation:
In the Gospel of John chapter 10, the Lord, citing this passage, says they are called gods because the word of God was spoken to them. If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came, do you say to him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? That the word of God comes to someone means that God commits some office to that person … And what Luke said — the word of God came upon John — John chapter 1 explained by saying: There was a man sent by God. And from this the force of Christ’s argument is clearly gathered: If Scripture called them gods, to whom the word of God came — that is, whom God sent to do something, sharing his authority with them — how much more can I be called the Son of God and God, whom the eternal Father sent from heaven into the world with full authority?
On verse 8: Surge Deus, judica terram — the double advent (Opera Omnia XI, pp. 48–49)
Latin:
Hæc Psalmi conclusio duplicem habet sensum: unum, ut Propheta imploret auxilium Dei adversus injustitias principum et judicum terræ … alterum ut hæc sit prædictio per formam precationis, qua prædicitur adventus Messiæ, qui sicut hæreditabit orbem terræ, ita etiam judicabit terram justo judicio per suos administros, id est, fideles principes et reges, dum sæculum durat, et postea per se novissimo die.
«Vel, surge, Deus» Christe, veni in terras, «judica terram,» vindica eam a potestate tenebrarum, trade eam ministris tuis fidelibus, quoniam tu «eris hæres universorum,» ut verus et naturalis Filius Dei. Et demum surge iterum, et veni de cœlo cum Sanctis tuis, et judica terram judicio ultimo, a quo nulla dari poterit appellatio; quia «hæreditabis in omnibus gentibus,» quando «omnes inimici tui subjecti erunt sub scabellum pedum tuorum,» ut dicitur in Psalm. CIX; et sublato omni principatu et potestate, tu solus pacifice cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto regnabis per omnem æternitatem.
Translation:
This conclusion of the Psalm has a double sense: one, that the Prophet implores God’s help against the injustices of the princes and judges of the earth … the other, that this is a prophecy in the form of a prayer foretelling the coming of the Messiah, who, as he will inherit the earth, will also judge the earth with just judgment through his ministers — that is, through faithful princes and kings while the age endures, and afterwards through himself on the last day.
Or: arise, God — Christ — come upon the earth, judge the earth, vindicate it from the power of darkness, deliver it to thy faithful ministers, since thou shalt be the heir of all things as the true and natural Son of God. And at last arise again, and come from heaven with thy saints, and judge the earth with the final judgment from which no appeal can be given; since thou shalt inherit all nations, when all thine enemies shall be put as a footstool under thy feet, as is said in Psalm CIX; and with every principality and power removed, thou alone shalt reign peacefully with the Father and the Holy Spirit throughout all eternity.
Psalm LXXXII (Deus, quis similis erit tibi?)
(Opera Omnia XI, pp. 52–54)
Psalm LXXXII — Hebrew Psalm 83, Deus ne sileas — is the final Psalm of the Asaph collection. Its subject is a conspiracy of named nations against the people of God, aimed at total annihilation: venite et disperdamus eos de gente, et non memoretur nomen Israel ultra. For Bellarmine, following Augustine, the historical surface (Maccabean wars, Persian-era pressures) is a figure of the final conspiracy of nations under Antichrist against the Church. The Psalm’s conclusion, however, is not uniformly punitive: some persecutors will be converted through chastisement, while others will remain hardened. The adversus Judaeos content is compressed into the final verses, where Bellarmine specifies that the Psalm’s promise of conversion through shame applies most directly to the Jews.
Argumentum (Opera Omnia XI, p. 52)
Latin:
S. Augustinus omnino contendit hunc Psalmum intelligendum esse de bellis Antichristi adversus Ecclesiam, quæ sententia probabilissima videtur. Nam sine dubio cum Antichristo convenient omnes barbaræ nationes, ac præsertim Orientales Agareni et Ismaelitæ, a quibus Mahumetani originem ducunt. Sed quicquid sit de sensu historico, non potest, nec debet negari, quin præcipua intentio Spiritus Sancti ad Christum et Ecclesiam dirigatur.
Translation:
Augustine argues altogether that this Psalm must be understood of the wars of Antichrist against the Church — which opinion appears most probable. For without doubt all the barbarous nations will assemble with Antichrist, and especially the Oriental Hagarenes and Ishmaelites, from whom the Mahometans trace their origin. But whatever may be the historical sense, it cannot and must not be denied that the principal intention of the Holy Spirit is directed toward Christ and the Church.
On verses 3–4: Venite, disperdamus eos de gente — the conspiracy for total extermination (Opera Omnia XI, p. 52)
Latin:
Hostes non moliuntur excursionem, aut depræadationem aliquam, sed ultimum exterminium, et perfectam desolationem Ecclesiæ Dei.
Hoc autem consilium astutum et secretum erit multiplex apud Antichristum: nam et consilium secretum habebit cum diabolo, quem occulte colet: et astuto consilio finget se Christum esse, ut christianos decipiat, et simul circumcisionem et Sabbata probabit, ut seducat Hebræos.
Translation:
The enemies are not plotting a raid or some act of plunder, but the final extermination and the perfect desolation of the Church of God.
This cunning and secret counsel will be manifold in Antichrist: for he will have secret counsel with the devil, whom he will covertly worship; and with cunning counsel he will feign himself to be Christ, so as to deceive Christians; and at the same time he will approve circumcision and the Sabbaths, so as to seduce the Hebrews.
On verses 15–17: Imple facies eorum ignominia — two destinies: conversion and damnation (Opera Omnia XI, pp. 53–54)
Latin:
Prædicit in fine Psalmi, alios ex persecutoribus per flagella erudiendos, et convertendos ad Deum: quales erunt plurimi Judæi, qui tunc demum agnoscent errorem suum, et pudefacti convertentur ad Deum; alios in pertinacia et in obstinatione sua permansuros; sed eos quoque confundendos, et vel invitos cognituros potentiam Dei singularem, et quod ipse solus sit verus Dominus omnium rerum.
«Hæc prophetia nunc ex parte impletur, sed in die judicii omnino et absolute implebitur.»
Translation:
In the close of the Psalm he foretells that some among the persecutors will be educated through chastisements and converted to God — such as the many Jews who will then at last acknowledge their error and, brought to shame, will turn to God — while others will persist in their stubbornness and obstinacy; but these also will be confounded, and even against their will will come to know the singular power of God and that he alone is the true Lord of all things.
This prophecy is now in part fulfilled; but on the day of judgment it will be fulfilled wholly and absolutely.
Note: The phrase quales erunt plurimi Judæi — such as will be the many Jews — is Bellarmine’s only direct statement in the entire Commentary of what awaits the Jewish people at the end of time: not universal damnation but a mass conversion under eschatological pressure, in which shame (ignominia) functions as the instrument of return. This is structurally consistent with the adversus Judaeos framework as a whole: Jewish unbelief is obstinate but not infinite; its logical terminus is not perdition but recognition under the last chastisement. The prophecy is “in part fulfilled now” — the present dispersion and subjection serving as the preliminary ignominia — but its absolute fulfilment awaits the final judgment.
Psalm LXXXIII (Quam dilecta tabernacula tua)
(Opera Omnia XI, pp. 55–60)
Psalm LXXXIII — Hebrew Psalm 84, Quam dilecta tabernacula tua Domine virtutum — is the great Psalm of longing for the tabernacle of God. For Bellarmine, its adversus Judaeos significance is carried entirely in the argumentum: the Psalm speaks of the heavenly tabernacles, not the Jerusalem Temple, and this is proved by the simple fact that the Church continues to sing it after the Temple was burned and Jerusalem was destroyed. The persistence of the Psalm in Christian liturgy is itself an argument about the nature of what it always signified.
Argumentum (Opera Omnia XI, p. 55)
Latin:
Nos cum Patribus existimamus tam ardens desiderium, quale in hoc Psalmo legimus, etiam ad litteram, ad cœlestia tabernacula pertinere, et nihil humanum, nihil corporale Spiritum Sanctum his suis vocibus exprimere voluisse: et ideo ab Ecclesia Catholica peregrinante cantica ista frequentari, etiamsi tabernaculum, quod erat in Jerusalem, jamdudum conflagraverit, et ipsa Jerusalem funditus eversa fuerit.
Translation:
We, with the Fathers, judge that the ardent longing which we read in this Psalm pertains even literally to the heavenly tabernacles, and that the Holy Spirit wished to express nothing human, nothing corporeal by these his words: and for this reason the Pilgrim Catholic Church continues to sing these canticles frequently — even though the tabernacle that was in Jerusalem has long since burned to the ground and Jerusalem itself has been overturned to the foundations.
On verse 9: Respice in faciem Christi tui — the pre-incarnate merits of Christ (Opera Omnia XI, p. 58)
Latin:
«Respice in faciem Christi tui,» id est, respice verum principem populi tui, Messiam videlicet, agnum sine macula, qui tollit peccata mundi, ac propter eum protege nos.
Neque obstat quod tempore Davidis nondum esset Verbum incarnatum, neque «mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus interpellare cœpisset pro nobis,» I Timoth. II. Merita enim Christi ab æternitate fuerunt in conspectu Dei, unde dicitur in Apoc. XII: «Agnus occisus ab origine mundi,» quoniam ab origine mundi Deus propter merita passionis Christi prævisa, multa beneficia, præsertim spiritualia servis suis concessit.
Translation:
Look upon the face of thy Christ — that is, look upon the true Prince of thy people, namely the Messiah, the lamb without blemish who takes away the sins of the world, and for his sake protect us.
Nor does it obstruct [this reading] that in David’s time the Word had not yet been incarnate, nor had the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, begun to intercede for us, I Timothy 2. For the merits of Christ were from eternity in the sight of God; hence it is said in Apocalypse 12: the lamb slain from the foundation of the world — since from the foundation of the world God, on account of the foreseen merits of Christ’s passion, granted many benefits, especially spiritual ones, to his servants.
On verse 11: Elegi abjectus esse in domo Dei — the celestial tabernacle vs. the dwellings of sinners (Opera Omnia XI, p. 59)
Latin:
Tanta est dignitas domus æternæ in cœlis, ut malim ibi sedere ad januam cum ultimis, quam «habitare in tabernaculis peccatorum.» Vox enim hebraica, quam noster Interpres vertit, abjectus esse, est הסתופף quæ proprie significat, sedere ad januam more janitoris: nam סף limen significat.
Recte autem vocat Propheta palatia hujus mundi, tabernacula peccatorum: tum quia in domo cœlesti nulla invenitur iniquitas; tum quia respectu domus cœlestis, sunt veluti tentoria quædam, quæ facile mutantur et fundamento carent.
Translation:
So great is the dignity of the eternal house in heaven that I would prefer to sit there at the door among the last, rather than to dwell in the tabernacles of sinners. For the Hebrew word which our Interpreter renders to be abject is histopheph, which properly signifies to sit at the door in the manner of a doorkeeper — for saph signifies a threshold.
And the Prophet rightly calls the palaces of this world tabernacles of sinners: both because in the heavenly house no iniquity is found; and because in comparison with the heavenly house they are like certain tents, easily moved and lacking foundation.
De Antichristo (Controversiarum de Christo, Liber III)
(Opera Omnia II, pp. 33–35)
The most concentrated instance of Bellarmine’s adversus Judaeos argument outside the Psalm Commentary occurs in De Antichristo, in the course of refuting the Protestant identification of the Pope with Antichrist. The argument turns on the structural interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 — who sits in the temple of God — and requires Bellarmine to specify why the Jewish Temple cannot be what Paul meant. The logic is decisive: the Temple of the Jews had already ceased to be the temple of God before Paul wrote, because its three constitutive elements — temple, sacrifice, and priesthood — had already dissolved together. The Daniel IX citation (IX:27) then confirms that this dissolution is not contingent but prophetically permanent: until the consummation and the end the desolation shall persist.
The triple nexus: Temple, Sacrifice, Priesthood (Opera Omnia II, p. 34)
Latin:
Templum autem Judæorum erat quidem Dei, sed jam desierat esse templum, cum desiisset sacrificium et sacerdotium Judaicum. Hæc enim tria ita sunt conjuncta, ut unum sine alio esse non possit. Præterea templum illud Judæorum paulo post erat desolandum, et nunquam in æternum reædificandum, dicente Daniele cap. IX: Et usque ad consummationem et finem perseverabit desolatio; ergo non potest Apostolus de eo loqui.
Translation:
The Temple of the Jews was indeed the Temple of God, but it had already ceased to be a temple, when the Jewish sacrifice and Jewish priesthood had ceased. For these three are so conjoined that one cannot exist without the others. Moreover, that Temple of the Jews was shortly to be made desolate, and never to be rebuilt in eternity — as Daniel says in chapter 9: And unto the consummation and the end the desolation shall persist — and therefore the Apostle cannot be speaking of it.
Note: This passage makes explicit the structural argument that underlies the whole of the Psalm Commentary. The Jewish Temple’s claim to be the house of God was never independent of sacrifice and priesthood; it was constituted by all three together or by none. Since both the Aaronic priesthood and its sacrifices had already been superseded by Christ’s eternal priesthood (argued at length from Psalm CIX in Installment VIII), the physical building in Jerusalem had already ceased to be a temple in any theologically meaningful sense before Titus destroyed it. The physical destruction of 70 AD was therefore not the cause but merely the visible confirmation of a spiritual dissolution that had already occurred at the Crucifixion. Daniel IX — usque ad consummationem et finem perseverabit desolatio — is invoked not as a prediction of temporal punishment but as a revelation of permanent ontological change: the Aaronic system was not interrupted but concluded. The desolation is eternal not because no stone has ever been laid but because the spiritual substance that made the structure a temple — the priesthood and sacrifice that God ordained — has been definitively superseded and will never return.
Summary of the Complete Adversus Judaeos Argument
The ten installments of this translation project have extracted and assembled Bellarmine’s sustained adversus Judaeos argument from across the Opera Omnia, principally from the Commentaria in Psalmos (Vol. XI) and the De Christo and De Antichristo controversies (Vol. I–II). The argument has the following architecture.
I. The Providential Status of the Jewish People
The Jews function within a divine economy as bearers of sacred texts hostile to their own interests. They preserve the prophecies whose fulfilment they deny; they attest in their own scriptures, and in the rabbinic tradition, things that damage their position far more thoroughly than any Christian interpolation could. Rabbi Solomon acknowledges the Messianic reference of Psalm II; the Masoretic text of Psalm XXI reads dug through rather than like a lion — a detail that makes the crucifixion narrative more explicit, not less. The Jews are, in Augustine’s formulation cited approvingly throughout, the library-bearers (capsarii) of Christianity: they carry the books whose content convicts them, and carry them in a condition of perpetual dispersal that is itself part of the testimony.
II. The Temporal Signs That the Messiah Has Already Come
The argument that Christ is the Messiah is grounded not primarily in abstract prophecy but in the observable present condition of the Jewish people. Three structural facts are invoked repeatedly:
- The Davidic dynasty has ceased: the throne of Israel has not existed since before the time of Christ, fulfilling the non auferetur sceptrum prophecy of Genesis 49 a contrario — it was removed precisely at the moment when the one to whom it belonged appeared.
- The Aaronic priesthood has ceased: there are today no pontiffs of the Jews, and the fire on the altar has been out for nearly two millennia. If Aaron’s priesthood were still the divinely appointed sacerdotal order, it would still be operating; its cessation is the clearest possible proof that it was superseded.
- Jerusalem and the Temple are destroyed: Psalm CIX’s priesthood secundum ordinem Melchisedech did not need a temple; Psalm CIX’s priesthood secundum ordinem Aaron did. The destruction of 70 AD was not accident but logical consequence: a priesthood constitutively dependent on a single structure ceased when that structure was removed. Daniel IX — usque ad consummationem perseverabit desolatio — confirms the permanence.
III. The Transfer of Spiritual Goods to the Gentiles
The Psalms chronicle a continuous movement of sacred realities from the particular to the universal: from the fleece of Gideon to the rain-soaked earth, from the vine transplanted from Egypt to the vineyard given to other cultivators, from Aaron’s particular national priesthood to Melchisedech’s universal one, from Mount Sion to in omni loco sacrificatur, from the Davidic dynasty to the eternal kingdom that has neither a king of flesh nor borders on a map. At each stage the Jewish inheritance is not destroyed but sublated: the primitive Church was ex Judæis, the Apostles were Hebrews, the Gentiles are grafted into a stock that is by origin Israelite. What is refused to the Synagogue is not annihilation but universalization.
IV. The Synagogue Destroyed to Build the Church
The clearest single formulation: elegit Judam propter Davidem, et Davidem propter Christum, et Synagogam destruxit, ut Ecclesiam ædificaret — he elected Judah on account of David, David on account of Christ, and destroyed the Synagogue in order to build the Church. Joseph was morally superior to Judah; Ephraim was more numerous and powerful than Judah. The election had nothing to do with the merits of the recipients. It was an act of divine construction: a provisional structure cleared to make room for a permanent one. The argument is anti-triumphalist in a precise sense: the Church’s superiority over the Synagogue is not a function of the Church’s virtue but of the divine economy, which would have proceeded identically regardless of the respective moral standing of those elected and those passed over.
V. The Eschatological Future of the Jews
The adversus Judaeos argument is not a verdict of eternal reprobation. Psalm LXXXII ends with Bellarmine specifying that the many Jews will, under the ultimate ignominia of Antichrist‘s persecution, at last acknowledge their error and convert. The present dispersion and dishonor are the partial and preliminary fulfilment of a prophecy whose absolute fulfilment awaits the final judgment. Jewish unbelief is understood throughout as obstinate but not ultimate; the nation that once carried the books will at last read them.
Source. Roger Pearce – Robert Bellarmine, Opera Omnia volumes at Google Books. Translated by Claude.AI.