Translated by Qwen
Brief Biography of Gaspar Sanchez, S.J.
Gaspar Sanchez (a.k.a. Casper Sanctius, 1553 – 1628) was a Spanish Jesuit priest and one of the most prolific biblical commentators of the Counter-Reformation era . Born in Cazorla (Jaén, Spain), he entered the Society of Jesus in 1571 at the age of eighteen. He pursued studies in philosophy and theology at the University of Alcalá and later taught theology at various Jesuit colleges, including Valladolid and Madrid .
Sanchez is best known for his monumental Commentaria in Universam Sacram Scripturam (Commentaries on the Entire Holy Scripture), published in Lyon between 1617 and 1622, shortly before his death . His work covers nearly every book of the Bible and was highly regarded for its clarity, orthodoxy, and synthesis of patristic and contemporary interpretations. Alongside contemporaries like Cornelius a Lapide and Juan de Mariana, Sanchez represents the height of Jesuit biblical scholarship in the early 17th century, emphasizing both the literal sense and the typological significance of the Old Testament . He died in Madrid in 1628.
Father Sanchez's Commentary on Jeremiah 11:18-20
Jer 11:18: "But you, O Lord, have shown me..."
Verse 18. "But you, O Lord, have shown me, and I knew. You have shown me their plots."
These are the words of Jeremiah, by which he speaks historically of himself, yet in such a way that they are to be understood typically of Christ. So thinks Jerome at the end of the chapter, and many others agree with him. Moreover, that these words are to be understood of Christ is taught, according to Jerome's testimony, by the consensus of the Churches.
The Prophet shows what the Jews are plotting against his head, inflamed in a hostile manner because of this severe denunciation. He confesses that their plots are not unknown to him, since God reveals them. That this can also be understood of Christ, from whom the secret counsels of the Jews were not hidden, I believe no one doubts. Moreover, those whose plots the Prophet reproves seem to be the men of Anathoth, as verse 28 at the end of the chapter teaches not obscurely.
Jer 11:19: "But I was like a gentle lamb..."
"But I was like a gentle lamb that is led to the sacrifice."
Jeremiah speaks historically of himself, as I said, against whom the princes of the Jews had devised a plan of slaughter, as he shows in many places. Where the Vulgate has "gentle" (mansuetus), the Hebrew is אַלּוּף (alluph), which signifies an ox; and so some interpret it: "Like a lamb and an ox that are led to the sacrifices"; or with the sign of comparison repeated: "Like a lamb, and like an ox."
However, because the same word alluph also signifies a leader, and a leader in the flock is gentle by pastoral discipline, therefore our Translator [the Vulgate] rendered it "gentle," which fits the character of Jeremiah most excellently. Though he was harmful to none of his fellow tribesmen, he was nevertheless dragged by them like a lamb to the slaughterhouse and butchery. But these things apply much more to Christ, who, on account of His most mild nature and incredible patience, is called a Lamb both by Isaiah in the Old Testament and by John in the New Testament.
"And I did not know, because they devised counsels against me."
Verse 21. These words persuaded Jerome that this passage could not be understood of Christ. For Christ could not be ignorant of what the Jews were plotting for His destruction, as He shows in many places when now near death, and most clearly in Matthew 20: "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be betrayed," etc. But surely this does not press too hard, for from the Hebrew idiom the sign of comparison is understood here in this sense: "I was led to death as silent and willing as if I did not know I was being dragged to the altar or the axe," just as a lamb, because it does not know it is being led to the slaughter, neither struggles nor shows any sign of a resisting spirit.
"Let us put wood in his bread."
We approach a difficult passage, variously explained by authors. Some think it is a figurative expression. Among these, some believe that in "bread" is meant Christ, and in "wood" the Cross, as if these architects of crimes were saying: "Let us drive Him to the Cross." So [holds] Jerome, and with him Theodoret, and Saint Thomas, and many others of the Fathers: Tertullian (Against the Jews, Ch. 12), Cyprian (Book 2, likewise Against the Jews, Ch. 15), Lactantius (Book 4 of Divine Institutes, Ch. 18), Gregory (Book 3 of Morals, Ch. 12). Surely this is a pious thought and suitable for an accommodated sense.
Others understand "bread" as Christ's doctrine, and think the Jews were intent on this: to obscure it, or bring it into suspicion and odium. Therefore, they devised a plan for a most shameful death, so that with the Author condemned, the doctrine itself might also be condemned. Therefore, wood is put into the bread, that is, scandal into the doctrine. So [holds] Jerome, Rabanus, and Saint Thomas. Jerome adds that Christ's doctrine was not bitter to men despite the wood put into it; and he brings in that passage from Exodus 15 concerning the wood which, mixed into bitter waters, removed all bitterness from them.
Others frequently believe the wood is a tree which has the power of most present poison, namely the yew (taxus), from which they suppose the word toxicum (poison) is derived. I affirm nothing about the etymology of the name; nevertheless, authors on natural or rustic matters report that the yew is most harmful to human life, and not only its leaves and berries but even its shadow has the power to harm. See Pliny, Book 16, Chapter 10. In that case, the sense is: "Let us put poison in his bread," that is, in his food. For it is known among the Hebrews that every kind of food is signified by "bread."
Others read "let us corrupt" instead of "let us put/send," and indeed the Hebrew word נַשְׁחִיתָה (nashchithah) means this also, according to the opinion of the Vulgate, which in Genesis 6 rendered: "For all flesh had corrupted its way." And thus Pagninus and the Tigurina translate it here. According to this reading, the sense may be multiple:
First, that those plotters say the bread must be corrupted by poison introduced; then indeed a certain hypallage [transposition] occurs, as Vatablus wishes, so that the preposition "in" is transferred to the bread, in this manner: "Let us corrupt his bread in [with] the wood."
Second, that by this manner of speaking they contemplate every kind of death, so that not only loss of life but also of honor is signified. "Let us corrupt the tree with its fruits." This opinion is very much approved by me. For these counsels of the Jews correspond to that commination by which the Prophet had said a short while before that the fruitful and beautiful olive tree was to be burned with its branches. Now the Jews, on the contrary, object that Jeremiah seems to be called a fruitful tree or wood that must be destroyed with its "bread" (which, as we said, signifies any food, whether natural or from the culinary or baking art). The word "in" (Hebrew eth), which here stands for "with," makes what follows under the same metaphor: "Let us root him out of the land of the living," namely, him whom we understand as the tree.
Third exposition is that the wood be corrupted into the bread, that is, into the food, so that that pestilential wood be crushed and reduced to powder like wheat flour and kneaded into it, and from it poison be made, which be offered as food to him whom the Jews wish to be removed. This seems [to refer to] Jeremiah when he was cast into the pit without water.
Another exposition could be or is feigned, in which something deadly is signified in another way. "Wood" signifies the Cross from the frequent usage of Holy Scripture, which by synecdoche can be employed for all kinds of punishment and death. Therefore, it may seem to be signified by this manner of speaking that death too was to be mixed with food, or certainly that such food was to be offered to the Prophet which was like death, or such as is accustomed to be served to those dragged to the gibbet or at the funerals of the dead. Such food was given when he led a miserable and sickly life. There indeed he seems to have eaten that deadly wood, that is, what had the likeness of death, about which perhaps is that passage in Lamentations 3, where when he had spoken of the dark prison, he said, I think, of himself: "He has filled me with bitterness, He has made me drunk with wormwood, He has broken my teeth with gravel, He has fed me with ashes."
Moreover, that food which is served sparingly and harshly to those who remain in punishment is called "bread of tribulation and water of anguish" (4 Kings [2 Kings] 22:27). Therefore, "to put wood in the bread" may seem to be the same as to cast someone into a place where life is like death, and food which does not so much sustain life as prolong death. I have wished to bring forward so many views in a matter so doubtful and varied, so that from these the reader may choose what he prefers. That interpretation concerning the yew tree pleases me less [Note: OCR says "minùs displicet" which means "pleases me less" or "displeases me less" depending on emphasis, but context suggests he favors the poison/yew view earlier. However, strictly translating "minùs displicet" = "displeases me less" = "pleases me more". I will translate literally: "That interpretation concerning the yew displeases me less"], both because it is not difficult to derive from the letter, but especially because the opinion of more of the Fathers agrees with it. Moreover, how these things which are said historically of Jeremiah can be mystically transferred to Christ, no one fails to see.
Jer 11:20: "But you, O Lord of Hosts..."
Verse 20. "But you, O Lord of Hosts, who judges justly and tests the reins and hearts, let me see Your vengeance upon them."
It is known that those [words] which in Holy Scripture seem to have the form of imprecations are rather predictions of future things, as Jerome observed on that passage of Psalm 11: "May He destroy." "For to You I have revealed my cause."
The Prophet shows that he need not labor concerning vengeance, even if he were most thirsty for it, because it is enough for him that all deceitful lips are known to the Lord. And Augustine on that passage of Psalm 68: "Pour out Your wrath upon the nations that have not known You." Therefore, Jeremiah imprecates no evil upon his enemies, but predicts what is future. That "reins" (renes) are used for desires, affections, and secret counsels is well known, and frequent in usage in Holy Scripture, because they are considered the subject of all these. Examples occur not infrequently in the Psalms.
"For to You I have revealed my cause." The Prophet shows that he need not labor concerning vengeance, even if he were most thirsty for it, because it is enough for him, provided all things are known to God, who is the father and vindicator of the poor, to whom he commits himself and his cause entirely. Moreover, Jeremiah had heard that God is the avenger, and notes that He said in Deuteronomy 31: "Vengeance is Mine, and I will repay," so that He might fully satisfy Himself and His wrath (if indeed there was any wrath); he wished to have no other vindicator than the Lord of Hosts, that is, the Powerful One, whose avenging right hand no guilty person could evade.
Key Exegetical Features in Sanchez's Commentary
Multiplex Sense: Sanchez diligently lists multiple interpretations (Patristic, Literal, Rabbinic) before offering his own judgment, characteristic of Jesuit scholasticism.
Christological Typology: Like Calmet and Mariana, he affirms the consensus that Jeremiah is a type of Christ, especially regarding the "gentle lamb" and the plots against him.
Linguistic Analysis: He engages with the Hebrew (alluph, nashchithah) and Greek/Latin variants, citing authorities like Vatablus, Pagninus, and Kimhi (implicitly via Hebrew meanings).
The "Wood in Bread" Crux: He provides the most extensive list of interpretations for this difficult phrase among the three commentators (Calmet, Mariana, Sanchez), ranging from the Cross to Poison (Yew) to Bread of Affliction.
Pastoral Theology: On the imprecation (v. 20), he clarifies the prophetic role: not personal vengeance, but a commitment to Divine Justice and a prediction of inevitable judgment.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment