Hebrews 11

Hebrews 11:1-99

1 Now faith means we are confident of what we hope for, convinced of what we do not see. 2 It was for this that the men of old won their record. 3 It is by faith we understand that the world was fashioned by the word of God, and thus the visible was made out of the invisible.

Calvin rightly protested against any division here, as an interruption to the thought: “ quisquis hic fecit initium capitis undecimi, perperam contextum abrupit.” The following argument of 11:1-40 flows directly out of 10:35-39: ὑμομονή is justified and sustained by πίστις , and we have now a λόγοςπαρακλήσεως on μιμηταὶτῶνδιὰπίστεωςκαὶμακροθυμίαςκληρονομούντωντὰςἐπαγγελίας (6:12). Hitherto the only historical characters who have been mentioned have been Abraham, Melchizedek, Moses, Aaron, and Joshua; and Abraham alone has been mentioned for his πίστις ; now a long list of heroes and heroines of πίστει is put forward, from Abel to the Maccabean martyrs. But first (vv. 1-3) a general word on faith. Ἔστινδὲπίστιςκτλ . (v. 1). It is needless to put a comma after πίστις , i.e., “ there is such a thing as faith, faith really exists.” Εἰμί at the beginning of a sentence does not necessarily carry this meaning; cp. e.g. Wis 7:1 εἰμὶμὲνκἀγὼθνητός , Luke 8:11 ἔστινδὲαὕτηἡπαραβολή (John 21:25 and 1 John 5:17 etc.). Ἔστιν here is simply the copula, πίστις being the subject, and ἐλπιζομένωνὑπόστασις the predicate. This turn of phrase is common in Philo, who puts ἔστι first in descriptions or definitions (e.g.

Leg. Allegor. iii. 75, ἔστιδὲστεναγμὸςσφοδρὰκαὶἐπιτεταμένηλύπη : quod deus immut. 19, ἔστιδὲεὐχὴμὲναἴτησιςἀγαθῶνπαρὰθεοῦκτλ .).

Needless difficulties have been raised about what follows. Ὑπόστασις is to be understood in the sense of 3:14 “ une assurance certaine” (Mé né goz); “ faith is a sure confidence of thynges which are hoped for, and a certaynetie of thynges which are not seyne” (Tyndale), the opposite of ὑποστόλη . In the parallel clause, πράγματωνἔλεγχοςοὐβλεπομένων , grammatically πράγματων might go with ἐλπιζομένων instead of with βλεπομένων , for the sake of emphasis (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius, von Soden, etc.); the sense would be unaffected, but the balance of the rhythm would be upset. Ἔλεγχος is used in a fresh sense, as the subjective “ conviction” (the English word has acquired the same double sense as the Greek); as Euthymius said, it is an equivalent for πραγμάτωνἀοράτωνπληροφορία (so syr arm eth). The writer could find no Greek term for the idea, and therefore struck out a fresh application for ἔλεγχος . As for ἐλπιζομένων … οὐβλεπομένων (ὃγὰρβλέπειτις , τίἐλπίζει ; εἰδὲὃοὐβλέπομενἐλπίζομενδι ʼ ὑπομονῆςἀπεκδεχόμεθα , Romans 8:24, Romans 8:25), the unseen realities of which faith is confident are almost entirely in the future as promised by God, though, as the sequel shows, τὰοὐβλεπόμενα (e.g. vv. 3, 7, 8, 27) are not precisely the same as τὰἐλπιζόμενα . It cannot be too emphatically pointed out that the writer did not mean to say: (a) that faith gave substance or reality to unseen hopes, though this is the interpretation of the Greek fathers (Chrysostom, for example, argues: ἐπειδὴτὰἐνἐλπίδιἀνυπόσταταεἶναιδοκεῖ , ἡπίστιςὑπόστασιναὐτοῖςχαρίζεται · μᾶλλονδὲοὐχαρίζεταιἀλλ ʼ αὐτόἐστινοὐσίααὐτῶν ). When the writer declares that it is by faith we understand that the world was created, he does not mean that faith imparts reality to the creation; nor, when he says, e.g., the patriarchs lived in the expectation of a celestial Fatherland, that they thereby made this more real to themselves.

No doubt this was true in a sense; but the author’ s point is that just because these objects of hope were real, because, e.g., God had prepared for them a City, therefore they were justified in having faith. It is faith as the reflex of eternal realities or rewards promised by God which is fundamental in this chapter, the faith by which a good man lives. (b) Similarly, faith is not the ἔλεγχος of things unseen in the sense of “ proof,” which could only mean that it tests, or rather attests, their reality.

The existence of human faith no doubt proves that there is some unseen object which calls it out, but the writer wishes to show, not the reality of these unseen ends of God— he assumes these— but the fact and force of believing in them with absolute confidence. Such erroneous interpretations arise out of the notion that the writer is giving an abstract definition of πίστις , whereas he is describing it, in view of what follows, as an active conviction which moves and moulds human conduct. The happiest description of it is, “ seeing Him who is invisible” (v. 27); and this idea is applied widely; sometimes it is belief in God as against the world and its forces, particularly the forces of human injustice or of death, sometimes belief in the spirit as against the senses, sometimes again (and this is prominent in 11:5f.) belief in the future as against the present.

In the papyri (e.g. in OP ii. pp. 153, 176, where in the plural it = “ the whole body of documents bearing on the ownership of a person’ s property … deposited in the archives, and forming the evidence of ownership” ) ὑπόστασις means occasionally the entire collection of title-deeds by which a man establishes his right to some property (cp. Moulton in Manchester Theological Essays, i. 174; Expositor, Dec. 1903, pp. 438f.); but while this might suggest the metaphor, the metaphor means “ confident assurance.” The original sense of substance or reality, as in the de Mundo, 4 , survives in Dante’ s interpretation (Paradiso, xxiv. 61 f.). He quotes the words as a definition of faith:

“ Fede è sustanzia di cose sperate,

ed argumento delle non parventi,”

adding that he understands this to be its “ quidity” or essence. But the notion that faith imparts a real existence to its object is read into the text. Faith as ὑπόστασις is “ realization” of the unseen, but “ realization” only in our popular, psychological sense of the term. The legal or logical sense of ἔλεγχος , as proof (in classical Greek and elsewhere, e.g. Jos. BJ. iv. 5. 4, ἦνδ ʼ οὔτ ʼ ἔλεγχοςτιςτῶνκατηγορουμένων , οὔτετεκμήριον ) is out of place here.

The existence of human faith is in one sense a proof that an invisible order exists, which can alone explain men acting as they do ἐνπίστει . But the writer assumes that, and declares that πίστις lives and moves in the steady light of the unseen realities. The sense of “ test,” as in Epictetus, iii. 10, 11 , is as impossible here as that of “ rebuke” ; the force of πίστις in 11:3-40 rests on its subjective sense as an inner conviction, which forms a motive for human life, and this determines the meaning of ὑπόστασις and ἔλεγχος as applied to it in the introductory description.

This connexion of faith with the future is emphasized by Philo in de Migratione Abrahami, 9, commenting on Genesis 12:1 ἥνσοιδείξω . It is δείξω , not δείκνυμι , he points out— εἰςμαρτυρίανπίστεωςἣνἐπίστευσενἡψυχὴθεῷ , οὐκἐκτῶνἀποτελεσμάτωνἐπιδεικνυμένητὸεὐχάριστον , ἀλλ ʼ ἐκπροσδοκίαςτῶνμελλόντων … νομίσασαἤδηπαρεῖναιτὰμὴπαρόνταδιὰτὴντοῦὑποσχομένουβεβαιότηταπίστιν [cp. Hebrews 10:23], ἀγαθὸντέλειον , ἆθλονεὕρηται . Faith thus relies upon God’ s promise and eagerly expects what is to come; indeed it lives for and in the future. So our writer uses πίστις , almost as Paul used ἐλπίς (psychologically the two being often indistinguishable). Nor is this πίστις a novelty in our religion (v. 2), he adds, ἐνταύτῃγὰρἐμαρτυρήθησαν (7:8) οἱπρεσβύτεροι . Ἐν = as in 4:6, 6:16, 9:22, 10:10; δι ʼ ἧςἐμαρτυρήθη (v. 4), μαρτυρηθέντεςδιὰτῆςπίστεως (v. 39). Οἱπρεσβύτεροι ( = οἱπατέρες , 1:1) never bears this exact sense elsewhere in the NT, the nearest1 parallel being Matthew 15:2 = Mark 7:3, Mark 7:5; .

Philo (de Abrahamo 46), indeed, noting that Abraham the man of faith is the first man called πρεσβύτερος in scripture (Genesis 24:1), reflects that this is significant; ὁγὰρἀληθείᾳπρεσβύτεροςοὐκἐνμήκειχρόνωνἀλλ ʼ ἐνἐπαινετῷκαὶτελείῳβίῳθεωρεῖται . Aged wordly people can only be called longlived children, τὸνδὲφρονήσεωςκαὶσοφίαςκαὶτῆςπρὸςθεὸνπίστεωςἐρασθένταλέγοιτιςἂνἐνδίκωςεἶναιπρεσβύτερον .

But our author weaves no such fancies round the word, though he probably understood the term in an honorific sense . For ἐμαρτυρήθησαν in this sense of getting a good report, cp. B. Latyschev’ s Inscript. Antiquae Orae Septent. i. 2126f. ἐμαρτυρήθητοὺςὑπὲρφιλίαςκινδύνους … παραβολευσάμενος : Syll. 366:28 (i a.d.) ἀρχιτέκτοναςμαρτυρηθένταςὑπὸτῆςσεμνοτάτης [βουλῆς ], and the instances quoted in Deissmann’ s Bible Studies (265).

Before describing the scriptural record of the πρεσβύτεροι , however, the writer pauses to point out the supreme proof of πίστις as πραγμάτωνἔλεγχοςοὐβλεπομένων . The very world within which they showed their faith and within which we are to show our faith, was the outcome of what is invisible (v. 3), and this conviction itself is an act of faith. Πίστεινοοῦμεν (cp. Romans 1:20: “ νοεῖν is in Hellenistic Greek the current word for the apprehension of the divine in nature,” A. T. Goodrick on Wis 13:4) κατηρτίσθαιτοὺςαἰῶνας (1:2) ῥήματιθεοῦ (the divine fiat here), εἰς (with consecutive infinitive) τὸμὴἐκφαινομένωντὸβλεπόμενονγεγονέναι (perfect of permanence). The μή goes with φαινομένων , but is thrown before the preposition as, e.g., in Acts 1:5 οὐμετὰπολλὰςταύταςἡμέρας (according to a familiar classical construction, Blass, § 433, 3).2 Faith always answers to revelation, and creation is the first revelation of God to man.

Creation by the fiat of God was the orthodox doctrine of Judaism, and anyone who read the OT would accept it as the one theory about the origin of the world (cp. e.g. the description of God in the Mechilta, 33b, on Exodus 14:31 etc. as “ He who spoke and the world was,” ש ׁ ֶ א ָ מ ַ ן ו ְ ח ָ י ָ ה ה ע ִ ו ֹ ל ָ ם , and Apoc. Bar. 14:17: “ when of old there was no world with its inhabitants, Thou didst devise and speak with a word, and forthwith the works of creation stood before Thee” ).

But the explicitness of this sentence about creation out of what is invisible, suggests that the writer had other views in mind, which he desired to repudiate. Possibly Greek theories like those hinted at in Wis 10:17 about the world1 being created ἐξἀμόρφουὕλης , or the statement in the de aeternitate mundi, 2, where Philo declares ἐκτοῦμὴὄντοςοὐδὲνγίνεται , quoting Empedocles to this effect, though elsewhere Philo does agree that the world was made out of nothing, as, e.g., in the de Somniis, i. 13 (ὁθεὸςτὰπάνταγεννήσαςοὐμόνονεἰςτοὐμφανὲςἤγαγενἀλλὰκαὶἃπρότερονοὐκἦνἐποίησεν , οὐδημιουργὸςμόνονἀλλὰκαὶκτίστηςαὐτὸςὤν , cp. also Apoc. Bar. 21:4: “ O Thou … that hast called from the beginning of the world that which did not yet exist,” and Slav. En. 24:2: “ I will tell thee now what things I created from the non-existent, and what visible things from the invisible” ). What the μὴφαινόμενα were, our author does not suggest. R.

Akiba is said to have applied the words of Psa 101:7 to anyone who rashly speculated on the original material of the world. Our author does not speculate; it is very doubtful if he intends (Windisch, M ’ Neill) to agree with Philo’ s idea (in the de opificio Mundi, 16, de confus. ling. 34) of the φαινόμενοςοὗτοςκόσμος being modelled on the ἀσώματοςκαὶνοητός or archetypal ideas, for the language of 8:5 is insufficient to bear the weight of this inference.

To take εἰςτὸ … γεγονέναι as final, is a forced construction. The phrase does not describe the motive of κατηρτίσθαι , and if the writer had meant, “ so that we might know the seen came from the unseen,” 2 he would have written this, instead of allowing the vital words might know to be supplied.

The roll-call of the πρεσβύτεροι (vv. 4f.) opens with Abel and Enoch, two men who showed their πίστις before the deluge (vv. 4-6). One was murdered, the other, as the story went, never died; and the writer uses both tales to illustrate his point about πίστις .

4 It was by faith (πίστει , the rhetorical anaphora repeated throughout the section) that Abel offered God a richer sacrifice than Cain did, and thus won from God the record of being “ just,” on the score of what he gave; he died, but by his faith he is speaking to us still. 5 It was by faith that Enoch was taken to heaven, so that he never died . For before he was taken to heaven, his record was that “ he had satisfied God” ; 6 and apart from faith it is impossible “ to satisfy him,” for the man who draws near to God must believe that he exists, and that he does reward those who seek him.

The faith of Abel and of Enoch is not πίστιςἐλπιζομένων , which is not introduced till v. 7. In 4 Mac 16:20f. the illustrations of steadfast faith are (a) Abraham sacrificing Isaac, (b) Daniel in the den of lions, and (c) the three men in the fiery furnace; but in 18:11f. the list of noble sufferers includes (a) Abel, (b) Isaac, (c) Joseph in prison, (d) Phinehas, (e) the three men in the fiery furnace, and (f) Daniel. Sirach’ s eulogy of famous men in Israel (44-50) has a wider sweep: Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, Joshua, Caleb, the judges, Samuel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Josiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Job, the twelve prophets, Zerubbabel, Joshua the son of Josedek, Nehemiah, and the highpriest Simon (i.e. down to the second century b.c.).

The first illustration (v. 4) is much less natural than most of those that follow. In the story of Gen 4:4-8, ἔπιδενὁθεὸςἐπὶἌβελκαὶἐπὶτοῖςδώροιςαὐτοῦ . But why God disregarded Cain’ s sacrifice and preferred Abel’ s, our author does not explain. Josephus (Ant. i. 54) thought that an offering of milk and animals was more acceptable to God as being natural than Cain’ s cereal offering, which was wrung out of the ground by a covetous man; our author simply argues that the πλείωνθυσία of Abel at the very dawn of history was prompted by faith. He does not enter into the nature of this πλείοναθυσίανπαρὰ (as in 1:4) Κάιν , offered at the first act of worship recorded in scripture. What seems to be implied is that faith must inspire any worship that is to be acceptable to God from anyone who is to be God’ s δίκαιος (10:38).

Josephus held that Abel δικαιοσύνηςἐπιμελείτο , the blood of Ἄβελτοῦδικαίου is noted in Matthew 23:35, and the Genesis-words ἔπιδενὁθεός are here expanded by our author into ἐμαρτυρήθηεἶναιδίκαιος . Note the practical equivalence of δῶρα and θυσία , as already in 5:1 etc. There is nothing in ΠρὸςἙβραίους like Philo’ s effort (Quaest. in Genesis 4:4) to distinguish between δῶρα and θυσίας as follows: ὁμὲνθύωνἐπιδιαιρεῖ , τὸμὲναἷματῷβωμῷπροχέων , τὰδὲκρέαοἴκαδεκομίζων . ὁδὲδωρούμενοςὅλονἔοικεπαραχωρεῖντῷλαμβάνοντι · ὁμὲνοὖνφίλαυτοςδιανομεὺςοἷοςὁΚάϊν , ὁδὲφιλόθεοςδώρηταιοἷονὁἌβελ .

Πλείονα : of the conjectural emendations, ΠΙΟΝΑ and ΗΔΙΟΝΑ (Cobet, Vollgraff), the latter is favoured by Justin’ s reference in Dial. 29 (εὐδόκησεγὰρκαὶεἰςτὰἔθνη , καὶτὰςθυσίαςἤδιονπαρ ʼ ἡμῖνἢπαρ ʼ ὑμῶνλαμβάνει · τίςοὖνἔτιμοὶπεριτομῆςλόγος , ὑπὸτοῦθεοῦμαρτυρηθέντι ;), and is admitted into the text by Baljon and Blass (so Maynard in Exp.7 vii. 164 f., who infers from μαρτυρηθέντι that Justin knew ΠρὸςἙβραίους , the original text of the latter being αὐτῷτοῦθεοῦ ). In Demosth. Prooem. 23, ἤδιον has been corrupted into πλεῖον .

In what follows, (a) the original text is preserved in p13 Clem. . (b) αὐτῷ then became αὐτοῦ under the influence of the LXX, and τῷθεῷ was inserted after προσήνεγκε to complete the sense (א c Dc K L P r vg syr boh arm Orig. Chrys. etc.). Finally, (c) τοῦθεοῦ became assimilated to the preceding τῷθεῷ , and μαρτυροῦντος … αὐτοῦτῷθεῷ (א * A D* 33, 104, 326, 1311, 1836, eth) became current, as though Abel witnessed to God, instead of God witnessing to Abel. Thus after προσήνεγκε the Greek originally ran: δι ʼ ἦςἐμαρτυρήθηεἶναιδίκαιος , μαρτυροῦντοςἐπὶτοῖςδώροιςαὐτῷτοῦθεοῦ . Then another application of the LXX was added. The phrase in Genesis 4:10 had already suggested to Philo that Abel was in a sense still living (quod det. potiori insid. soleat, 14: ὁἌβελ , τὸπαραδοξότατον , ἀνῄρηταίτεκαὶζῇ · ἀνῄρηταιμὲνἐκτῆςτοῦἄφρονοςδιανοίας , ζῇδὲτὴνἐνθεῷζωὴνεὐδαίμονα · μαρτυρήσειδὲτὸχρησθὲνλόγιον , ἐνᾧ “φωνῇ " χρώμενοςκαὶ “βοῶν " (Genesis 4:10) ἃπέπονθενὑπὸκακοῦσυνδέτουτηλαυγῶςεὑρίσκεται · πῶςγὰρὁμηκέτ ʼ ὢνδιαλέγεσθαιδυνατός ; ).

Our author takes a similar line here: καὶδι ʼ αὐτῆςἀποθανὼνἔτιλαλεῖ .. Even after death, Abel’ s cry is represented as reaching God, so Philo puts it (ibid. 20), ζῇμὲνγάρ , ὡςκαὶπρότερονἔφην , ὁτεθνάναιδοκῶν , εἴγεκαὶἱκέτηςὢνθεοῦκαὶφωνῇχρώμενοςεὑρίσκεται .

Only, it is not the fact that the cry was one for retribution (12:24) which is stressed here, not the fact that his blood cried to God after he died; but, as λαλεῖν is never used of speaking to God, what the writer means to suggest (as in 3:15) is that Abel’ s faith still speaks to us (λαλεῖ , not the historic present, but = in the record). Not even in 12:24 does he adopt the idea of a divine nemesis for the sufferings of the pious in past generations. He does not represent the blood of martyrs like Abel as crying from the ground for personal vengeance; he has nothing of the spirit which prompted the weird vision of the wronged souls under the altar crying out for retribution (Revelation 6:10). Ἔτιλαλεῖ means, in a general sense, that he is an eloquent, living witness to all ages (so recently Seeberg). Primasius and Chrysostom (τοῦτοκαὶτοῦζῇνσημεῖονἐστι , καὶτοῦπαρὰπάντωνἄδεσθαι , θαυμάζεσθαικαὶμακαρίζεσθαι · ὁγὰρπαραινῶντοῖςἄλλοιςδικαίοιςεἶναιλαλεῖ ) put this well. The witness is that πίστις may have to face the last extreme of death (12:4), and that it is not abandoned by God; ἀποθανών is never the last word upon a δίκαιος . Compare Tertullian’ s argument from Abel, in De Scorpiace, 8: “ a primordio enim justitia vim patitur.

Statim ut coli Deus coepit, invidiam religio sortita est: qui Deo placuerat, occiditur, et quidem a fratre; quo proclivius impietas alienum sanguinem sectaretur, a suo auspicata est. Denique non modo justorum, verum etiam et prophetarum.”

The difficulty of λαλεῖ led to the tame correction λαλεῖται in D K L d eth, etc. Λαλεῖται as passive is nearly as impossible as middle; to say that Abel, even after death, is still spoken of, is a tepid idea. The writer of Hebrews meant more than an immortal memory, more even than Epictetus when he declared that by dying ὅτεἔδεικαὶὡςἔδει one may do even more good to men than he did in life, like Socrates (iv. 1. 169, καὶνῦνΣωκράτουςἀποθανόντοςοὐθὲνἧττονἤκαὶπλεῖονὠφέλιμόςἐστινἀνθρώποιςἡμνήμηὧνἔτιζῶνἔπραξενἤεἶπεν ).

The πίστιςἘνώχ (vv. 5, 6) is conveyed in an interpretation of the LXX of Gen 5:24 καὶεὐηρέστησενἘνὼχτῷθεῷ · καὶοὐχηὑρίσκετο , διότιμετέθηκεναὐτὸνὁθεός . The writer takes the two clauses in reverse order. Enoch μετετέθητοῦ (with infinitive of result) μὴἰδεῖνθάνατον (Luke 2:26) καὶ (“ indeed,” introducing the quotation) οὐχηὑρίσκετο (on this Attic augmented form, which became rare in the κοινή , see Thackeray, 200) διότιμετέθηκεναὐτὸνὁθεός , πρὸγὰρτῆςμεταθέσεωςμεμαρτύρηται (in the scripture record; hence the perfect, which here is practically aoristic) εὐηρεστηκέναιτῷθεοῦ (εὐαρεστεῖν in its ordinary Hellenistic sense of a servant giving satisfaction to his master). For εὑρίσκεσθαι = die (be overtaken or surprised by death),1 cp. Epict. iii. 5. 5 f., οὐκοἶδαςὅτικαὶνόσοςκαὶθάνατοςκαταλαβεῖνἡμᾶςὀφείλουσίντίποτεποιοῦντας ; … ἐμοὶμὲνγὰρκαταληφθῆναιγένοιτομηδενὸςἄλλουἐπιμελουμένῳἢτῆςπροαιρέσεωςτῆςἐμῆς … ταῦταἐπιτηδεύωνθέλωεὑρεθῆναι : iv. 10. 12, ἀγαθὸςὢνἀποθανῇ , γενναίανπρᾶξινἐπιτελῶν . ἐπεὶγὰρδεῖπάντωςἀποθανεῖν , ἀνάγκητίποτεποιοῦνταεὑρεθῆναι … τίοὖνθέλειςποιῶνεὑρεθῆναιὑπὸτοῦθανάτου ; Here εὑρεθῆναι is a synonym for καταληφθῆναι or ἀποθανεῖν , as in Philippians 3:9 .

Both Clem. Rom. (9:2) and Origen, like Tertullian, appear to have read οὐχεὑρέθηαὐτοῦθάνατος in Genesis 5:24; and Blass therefore reads here οὐχηὑρίσκεταὐτοῦθάνατος , especially as it suits his scheme of rhythm. This is linguistically possible, as εὑρίσκεσθαι = be (cp. Fr. se trouver), e.g. in Luke 17:18, Philippians 2:8. Μετέθηκεν was turned into the pluperfect μετετέθηκεν by א * Dc L 5, 203, 256, 257, 326, 337, 378, 383, 491, 506, 623, 1611, etc.

Traditions varied upon Enoch (EBi 1295a), and even Alexandrian Judaism did not always canonize him in this way. (a) The author of Wis 4:10f., without mentioning his name, quotes Genesis 5:24 as if it meant that God removed Enoch from life early in order to prevent him from sharing the sin of his age ; he departed young, but his removal was a boon mercifully granted by God to his youthful piety. (b) Philo views him in de Abrahamo, 3 (cp. de praem. 3-4), as a type of μετάνοια . Quoting Genesis 5:24 he points out that μετάθεσις means a change for the better, and that οὐχηὑρίσκετο is therefore appropriate, τῷτὸνἀρχαῖονκαὶἐπίληπτονἀπαληλίφθαιβίονκαὶἠφανίσθαικαὶμηκέθ ʼ εὑρίσκεσθαι , καθάπερεἰμηδὲτὴνἀρχὴνἐγένετο . The Greek version of Sir 44:16 echoes the same tradition , viz. that μετέθηκεν implies the effacement of Enoch’ s blameable past, or at any rate that he was enrolled in better company. Our author does not share this view. His general deduction in v. 6 expands the description of πίστις in v. 1. To say that a man has satisfied God is to pronounce the highest possible eulogy upon him, says Philemon 1:1 (de Abrahamo, 6, “ τῷθεῷεὐηρέστησεν · ” οὗτίγένοιτ ʼ ἂνἐντῇψύσεικρεῖττον ; τίςκαλοκἀγαθίαςἐναργέστεροςἔλεγχος ; ), though he is referring to Noah, not to Enoch.

Our author explains that to satisfy God necessarily implies πίστις (v. 6) in the sense of 10:35. Πιστεῦσαιγὰρδεῖτὸνπροσερχόμενοντῷθεῷ (4:16 etc.) ὅτιἔστινκαὶτοῖςἐκζητοῦσιναὐτὸνμισθαποδότης (cf. v. 26, 10:35) γίνεται . As for the first element of belief, in the existence of God , the early commentators, from Chrysostom (ὅτιἔστιν · οὐτὸτίἐστιν : cp.

Tert. adv. Marc. i. 17, “ primo enim quaeritur an sit, et ita qualis sit” ) and Jerome (on Isaiah 6:1-7, in Anecdota Maredsolana, iii. 3. 110: “ cumque idem apostolus Paulus scribit in alio loco, Credere oportet accedentem ad Deum quia est, non posuit quis et qualis sit debere cognosci, sed tantum quod sit. Scimus enim esse Deum, scimusque quid non sit; quid autem et qualis sit, scire non possumus” ) onwards, emphasize the fact that it is God’ s existence, not his nature, which is the primary element of faith. Philo does declare that the two main problems of enquiry are into God’ s existence and into his essence (de Monarch. i. 4-6), but our author takes the more practical, religious line, and he does not suggest how faith in God’ s existence is to be won or kept. When objectors asked him why he believed in the existence of the gods, Marcus Aurelius used to reply: πρῶτονμὲνκαὶὄψειὁρατοίεἰσιν · ἔπειταμέντοιοὐδὲτὴνψυχὴντὴνἐμαυτοῦἑώρακακαὶὅμωςτιμῶ · οὕτωςοὖνκαὶτοὺςθεούς , ἐξὧντῆςδυνάμεωςαὐτῶνἑκάστοτεπειρῶμαι , ἐκτούτωνὅτιτεεἰσὶκαταλαμβάνωκαὶαἰδοῦμαι (xii. 28). We have no such argument against atheism here; only the reminder that faith does imply a belief in the existence of God— a reminder which would appeal specially to those of the readers who had been born outside Judaism.

Belief in the existence of God is for our author, however, one of the elementary principles of the Christian religion (6:1); the stress here falls on the second element, καὶ … μισθαποδότηςγίνεται . When the Stoics spoke about belief in the divine existence, they generally associated it with belief in providence; both Seneca (Ep. xcv. 50, “ primus est deorum cultus deos credere … scire illos esse qui praesident mundo, quia universa vi sua temperant, qui humani generis tutelam gerunt interdum curiosi singulorum” ) and Epictetus (e.g. ii. 14. 11, λέγουσινοἱφιλόσοφοιὅτιμαθεῖνδεῖπρῶτοντοῦτο , ὅτιἔστιθεὸςκαὶπρονοεῖτῶνὅλων : Enchir. xxxi. 1, τῆςπερὶτοὺςθεοὺςεὐσεβείαςἴσθωὅτιτὸκυριώτατονἐκεῖνόἐστινὀρθὰςὑπολήψειςπερὶαὐτῶνἔχεινὡςὄντωνκαὶδιοικούντωντὰὅλακαλῶςκαὶδικαίως ) are contemporary witnesses to this connexion of ideas, which, indeed, is as old as Plato .

Τοῖςἐκζῆτοῦσιναὐτόν denotes, not philosophic enquiry, but the practical religious quest, as in the OT (e.g. Acts 15:17, Romans 3:11). This is not Philo’ s view, e.g., in the Leg. Alleg. iii. 15 εἰδὲζητοῦσαεὑρήσειςθεὸνἄδηλον , πολλοῖςγὰροὐκἐφανέρωσενἑαυτὸν , ἀλλ ʼ ἀτελῆτὴνσπουδὴνἄχριπαντὸςἔσχον · ἐξαρκεῖμέντοιπρὸςμετουσίανἀγαθῶνκαὶψιλὸντὸζητεῖνμόνον , ἀεὶγὰραἱἐπὶτὰκαλὰὁρμαὶκἂντοῦτέλουςἀτυχῶσιτοὺςχρωμένουςπροευφραίνουσιν . But our author has a simpler belief; he is sure that the quest of faith is always successful. By God’ s reward he means that the faith of man reaching out to God is never left to itself, but met by a real satisfaction; God proves its rewarder. Such faith is a conviction which illustrates 11:1, for the being of God is an unseen reality and his full reward is at present to be hoped for.

A still more apt illustration of πίστις as the ἔλεγχοςπράγματωνοὐβλεπομἐνων which becomes a motive in human life, now occurs in (v. 7) the faith which Noah showed at the deluge when he believed, against all appearances to the contrary, that he must obey God’ s order and build an ark, although it is true that in this case the unseen was revealed and realized within the lifetime of the δίκαιος . Like Philo, our author passes from Enoch to Noah, although for a different reason. Philo ranks Noah as the lover of God and virtue, next to Enoch the typical penitent ; here both are grouped as examples of πίστις . Sirach (44:17.) also passes at once from Enoch to Noah the δίκαιος .

7 It was by faith that Noah, after being told by God of what was still unseen (τῶνμηδέπωβλεπομένων , i.e. the deluge), reverently (εὐλαβηθείς , cp. 5:7) constructed (κατεσκεύασεν , as 1 P 3:20) an ark to save his household; thus he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that follows faith.

The writer recalls, though he does not quote from, the story of Gen 6:13f. Πίστει goes closely with εὐλάβηθεὶςκατεσκεύασεν , and περὶτ . μ . βλεπομένων goes with χρηματισθείς , not with εὐλαβηθείς , which is not a synonym for φοβηθείς — the writer is at pains always to exclude fear or dread from faith (cp. vv. 23, 27). Εἰςσωτηρίαν is to be taken as = “ to save alive” (Acts 27:20 πᾶσαἐλπὶςτοῦσώζεσθαιἡμᾶς , 27:34 τοῦτογὰρπρὸςτῆςὑμετέραςσωτηρίαςὑπάρχει ). Δι ʼ ἧς (i.e. by the faith he thus exhibited; as both of the following clauses depend on this, it cannot refer to the ark, which would suit only the first) κατέκρινετὸνκόσμον , where κατέκρινεν corresponds to what is probably the meaning of Wis 4:16 κατακρινεῖδὲδίκαιοςκαμὼντοὺςζῶνταςἀσεβεῖς , though καμών is not the point of Hebrews, which regards Noah’ s action as shaming the world, throwing its dark scepticism into relief against his own shining faith in God (Josephus, in Ant. i. 75, puts it less pointedly: ὁδὲθεὸςτοῦτονμὲντῆςδικαιοσύνηςἠγάπησε , κατεδίκαζεδ ʼ ἐκείνους ); κόσμος here (as in v. 38) means sinful humanity, almost in the sense so common in the Johannine vocabulary, the κόσμοςἀσεβῶν of 2 P 2:5. Philo (de congressu erudit. 17) notes that Noah was the first man in the OT to be specially called (Genesis 6:9) δίκαιος ; but our author, who has already called Abel and Noah δίκαιος , does not use this fact; he contents himself with saying that τῆςκατὰπίστινδικαιοσύνηςἐγένετοκληρόνομος , i.e. he became entitled to, came into possession of, the δικαιοσύνη which is the outcome or property (κατάκτλ ., as in Hellenistic Greek, cp. Ephesians 1:15, a periphrasis for the possessive genitive) of such faith as he showed. Δικαιοσύνη here is the state of one who is God’ s δίκαιος (ὁδίκαιοςμου , 10:38). A vivid description of Noah’ s faith is given in Mark Rutherford’ s novel, The Deliverance, pp. 162, 163.

The faith of Abraham, as might be expected, receives more attention than that of any other (cp. Acts 7:2f.). It is described in three phases (8, 9-10, 17-19); the faith of his wife Sara is attached to his (11-12), and a general statement about his immediate descendants is interpolated (13-16) before the writer passes from the second to the third phase. As in Sirach and Philo, Abraham follows Noah. “ Ten generations were there from Noah to Abraham, to show how great was His longsuffering; for all the generations were provoking Him, till Abraham our father came and received the reward of them all” (Pirke Aboth 5:3).

8 It was by faith that Abraham obeyed his call to go forth to a place which he would receive as an inheritance; he went forth, although he did not know where he was to go. 9 It was by faith that he “ sojourned” in the promised land, as in a foreign country, residing in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were co-heirs with him of the same promise; 10 he was waiting for the City with its fixed foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

The first phase (v. 8) is the call to leave Mesopotamia and travel West, which is described in Genesis 12:1f.. The writer does not dwell, like Philo (de Abrahamo, 14), on the wrench of tearing oneself from one’ s home. But, as Philo says that Abraham started ἅματῷκελευσθῆναι , our author begins with καλούμενος . When the call came, he obeyed it— ὑπήκουσενἐξελθεῖν (epexegetic infinitive), a reminiscence of Gen 12:1, Genesis 12:4 καὶεἶπενκύριοςτῷἈβρὰμ , Ἔξελθε … καὶἐπορεύθηἈβρὰμκαθάπερἐλάλησεναὐτῷκύριος . He went out from Mesopotamia, μὴἐπιστάμενοςποῦἔρχεται , his faith being tested by this uncertainty. So Philo (de Migr. Abrah. 9) notes the point of the future δείξω in Genesis 12:1; it is εἰςμαρτυρίανπίστεωςἣνἐπίστευσενἡψυχὴθεῷ .

The insertion of ὁ before καλούμενος (A D 33. 256. 467. 1739. 2127 sah boh arm Thdt.) turns the phrase into an allusion to Abraham’ s change of name in Genesis 17:5, which is irrelevant to his earlier call to leave the far East.

The second phase (vv. 9, 10) is the trial of patience. He did not lose heart or hope, even when he did reach the country appointed to him, although he had to wander up and down it as a mere foreigner, εἰς ( = ἐν , Mark 13:16, Acts 8:40) … ἀλλοτρίαν . He found the land he had been promised still in the hands of aliens, and yet he lived there, lived as an alien in his own country! Παρῴκησεν is the opposite of κατῴκησεν (as in Genesis 37:1), and with a fine touch of paradox the writer therefore goes on to describe Abraham as ἐνσκηναῖςκατοικήσας , contented patiently to lead a wandering, unsettled life. Such was all the “ residence” he ever had! What sustained him was his πίστις (v. 10), his eager outlook for the City, ἧςτεχνίτηςκαὶδημιουργὸςὁθεός . Compare the scholion on Lucian’ s Jou.

Trag. 38: ὃνδὴθεὸνκαὶδημιουργὸνὁεὐσεβὴςἀνευρηκὼςλογισμὸςἔφορονκαὶτεχνίτηντοῦπαντὸςπροευτρέπισεν . Τεχνίτης is not a LXX term, and only began to be used of God in Alexandrian Judaism (e.g. in Wis 13:1). This is the one place in the NT where it is applied to God; afterwards (e.g.

Did. 12:3; Diognetus, 7:2) it became more common. Δημιουργός is equally unique as a NT term for God, but it occurs in 2 Mal 4:1, and was used in classical literature frequently for a subordinate deity (cp. Schermann, Texte u. Untersuchungen, xxxiv. 2b. 23). In Apoc. Esdrae (ed. Tisch. 32) the phrase occurs, ὁπάσηςτῆςκτίσεωςδημιουργός .

Our author simply writes τεχνίτηςκαὶδημιουργός as a rhetorical expression for maker or creator (8:2), without differentiating the one term from the other, as “ designer” and “ constructor” (cp. Philo, quis rer. div. 27, ὁτεχνίτης … ἡνίκατὸνκόσμονἐδημιούργει : de mut. nom. 4, ἔθηκετὰπάνταὁγεννήσαςκαὶτεχνιτεύσαςπατήρ , ὥστετὸ “ἐγώεἰμιθεὸςσὸς " ἴσονἐστὶτῷ “ἐγώεἰμιποιητὴςκαὶδημιουργός “).

In 9b the writer adds a new touch in μετὰἸσαὰκκαὶἸακώβ 1— who shared the same outlook— τῶνσυγκληρονόμων (a κοινή , though not a LXX, term for co-heir) τῆςἐπαγγελίαςτῆςαὐτῆς . Their individual faith is noted later (vv. 20, 21). In sketching his fine mystical interpretation of Abraham’ s hope, the author ignores the fact that Jacob, according to Genesis 33:17 , did erect a permanent settlement for himself at Sukkoth. His immediate interest is not in Isaac and Jacob but in Abraham, and in the contrast of the tent-life with the stable, settled existence in a city— the idea which recurs in 12:22, 13:14. It is a Philonic thought in germ, for Philo (Leg. Alleg. 3:27) declares that the land promised by God to Abraham is a πόλιςἀγαθὴκαὶπολλὴκαὶσφόδραεὐδαίμων , typifying the higher contemplation of divine truth in which alone the soul is at home, or that the soul lives for a while in the body as in a foreign land (de Somniis, 1:31), till God in pity conducts it safe to μητρόπολις or immortality.

The historical Abraham never dreamed of a πόλις , but our author imaginatively allegorizes the promised land once more (cp. 4:3f.), this time as (12:22) a celestial πόλις or Jerusalem, like Paul and the apocalyptists. According to later tradition in Judaism, the celestial Jerusalem was shown in a vision to Abraham at the scene of Gen 15:9-21 (Apoc.

Bar. 4:4), or to Jacob at Bethel (Beresh. rabba on Genesis 28:17). Ἐξεδέχετογὰρ — and this showed the steady patience (10:36) and inward expectation (11:1) of his faith— τὴντοὺςθεμελίους (τούς , because it was such foundations that the tents lacked) ἔχουσανπόλιν . No doubt there was something promised by God which Abraham expected and did get, in this life; the writer admits that (6:13-15). But, in a deeper sense, Abraham had yearnings for a higher, spiritual bliss, for heaven as his true home. The fulfilment of the promise about his family was not everything; indeed, his real faith was in an unseen future order of being (11:1). However, the realization of the one promise about Isaac (6:13-15) suggests a passing word upon the faith of Sara (vv. 11, 12).

11 It was by faith that even Sara got strength to conceive, bearing a son when she was past the age for it— because she considered she could rely on Him who gave the promise. 12 Thus a single man, though he was physically impotent, had issue in number “ like the stars in heaven, countless as the sand on the seashore.”

This is the first instance of a woman’ s faith recorded, and she is a married woman. Paul (Romans 4:19f.) ignores any faith on her part. Philo again praises Sarah, but not for her faith; it is her loyalty and affection for her husband which he singles out for commendation, particularly her magnanimity in the incident of Gen 16:2 (de Abrahamo, 42-44). Our author declares that even in spite of her physical condition , she believed God when he promised her a child. The allusion is to the tale of Gen 17:15-7, which the readers are assumed to know, with its stress on the renewal of sexual functions in a woman of her age. This is the point of καὶαὐτή , not “ mere woman that she was” (Chrysostom, Oec., Bengel), nor “ in spite of her incredulity” (Bleek), nor “ Sara likewise,” i.e. as well as Abraham (Delitzsch, Hofmann, von Soden, Vaughan), owing to her close connexion with Abraham (Westcott, Seeberg), though the notion of “ like-wise” is not excluded from the author’ s meaning, since the husband also was an old man.

A gloss was soon inserted by D* P, nearly all the versions, and Origen. This is superfluous, however, and probably arose from dittography .

The general idea is plain, though there is a difficulty in δύναμινἔλαβεν (i.e. from God) εἰςκαταβολὴνσπέρματος = εἰςτὸκαταβάλλεσθαισπέρμα , i.e. for Abraham the male to do the work of generation upon her. This is how the text was understood in the versions, e.g. the Latin . Probably it was what the writer meant, though the expression is rather awkward, for καταβολὴσπέρματος means the act of the male; εἰςὑποδοχὴνσπέρματος would have been the correct words. This has been overcome (a) by omitting καὶαὐτὴΣάρρα as a gloss, or (b) by reading αὐτῇΣάρρᾳ . (a) certainly clears up the verse, leaving Abraham as the subject of both verses (so Field in Notes on Transl. of NT, p. 232, and Windisch); (b) is read by Michaelis, Storr, Rendall, Hort, and Riggenbach, the latter interpreting it not as “ dativus commodi,” but = “ along with.” If the ordinary text is retained, the idea suggested in καὶαὐτὴΣάρρα is made explicit in παρὰκαιρὸνἡλικίας . What rendered such faith hard for her was her physical condition. Philo (de Abrah. 22) applies this to both parents (ἤδηγὰρὑπερήλικεςγεγονότεςδιὰμακρὸνγῆραςἀπέγνωσανπαιδὸςσποράν ,) and a woman in the period of life described in Genesis 18:11, Genesis 18:12 is called by Josephus γύναιοντὴνἡλικίανἤδηπροβεβληκός (Ant. vii. 8. 4).

Εἰςτὸτεκνῶσαι (D* P 69 436. 462. 1245. 1288. 2005 syrhkl) after ἔλαβεν is a harmless gloss. The addition of ἔτεκεν (א c K L P lat arm) after ἡλικίας was made when the force of καί ( = even) before παρὰκαιρόν was missed.

Πιστὸνἡγήσατοτὸνἐπαγγειλάμενον (10:23) is an assertion which shows that the author ignores her sceptical laughter in Genesis 18:12; he does not hesitate (cp. v. 27) to deal freely with the ancient story in order to make his point, and indeed ignores the equally sceptical attitude of Abraham himself (Genesis 17:17). To be πιστός in this connexion is to be true to one’ s word, as Cicero observes in the de Officiis (i. 7: “ fundamentum autem justitiae fides, id est dictorum conventorumque constantia et veritas” ). The promise was fulfilled in this life, so that Sara’ s faith resembles that of Noah (v. 7). The fulfilment is described in v. 12, where, after διὸκαὶἀφ ʼ ἑνὸς (i.e. Abraham),1 ἐγεννήθησαν (p13 א L Ψ 1739, etc.) is read by some authorities for ἐγενήθησαν (A D K P etc.), though the latter suits the ἀπό in ἀφ ʼ ἑνός rather better. In either case something like τέκνα must be understood. Ἀφ ʼ ἑνός is resumed in καὶταῦτανενεκρωμένου (in the sense of Rom 4:19).

Gen. r. on Genesis 25:1 applies Job 14:7-9 to Abraham, but the plain sense is given in Augustine’ s comment (Civit. Dei, 16:28): “ sicut aiunt, qui scripserunt interpretationes nominum Hebraeorum, quae his sacris literis continentur, Sara interpretatur princeps mea, Sarra autem uirtus.

Unde scriptum est in epistula ad Hebraeos: Fide et ipsa Sarra uirtutem accepit ad emissionem seminis. Ambo enim seniores erant, sicut scriptura testatur; sed illa etiam sterilis et cruore menstruo iam destituta, propter quod iam parere non posset, etiam si sterilis non fuisset. Porro si femina sit prouectioris aetatis, ut ei solita mulierum adhuc fluant, de iuuene parere potest, de seniore non potest; quamuis adhuc possit ille senior, sed de adulescentula gignere, sicut Abraham post mortem Sarrae de Cettura potuit [Genesis 25:1], quia uiuidam eius inuenit aetatem. Hoc ergo est, quod mirum commendat apostolus, et ad hoc dicit Abrahae iam fuisse corpus emortuum, quoniam non ex omni femina, cui adhuc esset aliquod pariendi tempus extremum, generare ipse in illa aetate adhuc posset.” This elucidates Hebrews 11:11, Hebrews 11:12a. In what follows, the author is quoting from the divine promise in Genesis 22:17, a passage much used in later Jewish literature,2 though this is the only full allusion to it in the NT (cf. Romans 9:27).

Before passing to the third phase of Abraham’ s faith, the writer adds (vv. 13-16) a general reflection on the faith of the patriarchs, an application of vv. 9, 10. There were promises which could not be fulfilled in the present life, and this aspect of faith is now presented.

13 (These all died in faith without obtaining the promises; they only saw them far away and hailed them, owning they were “ strangers and exiles” upon earth. 14 Now people who speak in this way plainly show they are in search of a fatherland. 15 If they thought of the land they have left behind, they would have time to go back, 16 but they really aspire to the better land in heaven. That is why God is not ashamed to be called their God; he has prepared a City for them.)

οὗτοιπάντες (those first mentioned in 9-12, particularly the three patriarchs) died as well as lived κατὰπίστιν , which is substituted here for πίστει either as a literary variety of expression, or in order to suggest πίστις as the sphere and standard of their characters. The writer argues that the patriarchs already possessed a πίστις in eternal life beyond the grave; their very language proves that. Μὴκομισάμενοι explains the πίστις in which they died; this is the force of μή . All they had was a far-off vision of what had been promised them, but a vision which produced in them a glad belief— ἰδόντεςκαὶἀσπασάμενοι , the latter ptc. meaning that they hailed the prospect with delight, sure that it was no mirage. The verb here is less metaphorical than, e.g., in Musonius (ed. Hense), vi.: τὴνδὲζωὴνὡςτῶνἀγαθῶνμέγιστονἀσπαζόμεθα , or Philo (ἀγάπησονοὖνἀρετὰςκαὶἄσπασαιψυχῇτῇσεαυτοῦ , quis rer. div. heres, 8). Two interesting classical parallels may be cited, from Euripides (Ion, 585-587:

οὐταὐτὸνεἶδοςφαίνεταιτῶνπραγμάτων

πρόσωθενὄντωνἔγγύθενθ ʼ ὁρωμένων .

ἐγὼδὲτὴνμὲνσυμφορὰνἀσπάζομαι )

and Vergil . Chrysostom prettily but needlessly urges that the whole metaphor is nautical (τῶνπλεόντωνκαὶπόρῥωθενὁρώντωντὰςπόλειςτὰςποθουμένας , ἃςπρὶνἢεἰσελθεῖνεἰςαὐτὰςτῇπροσρήσειλαβόντεςαὐτὰςοἰκειοῦνται ).

Κομισάμενοι (p13 א * P W 33, etc.) is more likely to be original than a conformation to 10:36, 11:39; the sense is unaffected if we read the more common λαβόντες (א c D K L Ψ 6. 104. 1739, Orig.). The reading of A arm makes no sense.

Καὶὁμολογήσαντες , for to reside abroad carried with it a certain stigma, according to ancient opinion (cp. e.g. Ep. Aristeae, 249, καλὸνἐνἰδίᾳκαὶζῇνκαὶτελευτᾷν . ἡδὲξενίατοῖςμὲνπένησικαταφρόνησινἐργάζεται , τοῖςδὲπλουσίοιςὄνειδος , ὡςδιὰκακίανἐκπεπτωκόσιν : Sir 29:22-28 etc.). The admission, ὅτιξένοικαὶπαρεπίδημοίεἰσινἐπὶγῆς , is a generalization from the Oriental deprecation of Jacob in Genesis 47:9 (εἶπενἸακὼβτῷΦαραώ , αἱἡμέραιτῶνἔτωντῆςζωῆςμουἃςπαροικῶκτλ .), and the similar confession of Abraham in Genesis 23:4 to the sons of Heth, πάροικοςκαὶπαρεπίδημοςἐγώεἰμιμεθ ʼ ὑμῶν . The ἐπὶγῆς is a homiletic touch, as in Psalms 119:19 . In both cases this ὁμολογίατῆςἐλπίδος (10:23) is made before outsiders, and the words ἐπὶτῆςγῆς start the inference (vv. 14-16a) that the true home of these confessors was in heaven.

Such a mystical significance of ξένοικαὶπαρεπίδημοι , which had already been voiced in the psalter, is richly and romantically developed by Philo, but it never became prominent in primitive Christianity. Paul’ s nearest approach to it is worded differently (Philippians 3:20, where τὸπολίτευμα corresponds to πατρίς here).

In Ephesians 2:12-19, indeed, Christians are no longer ξένοικαὶπάροικοι , for these terms are applied literally to pagans out of connexion with the chosen People of God. The only parallel to the thought of Hebrews is in 1 P, where Christians are παρεπιδήμοι (1:1) and παροίκοικαὶπαρεπιδήμοι (2:11). The term ξένοι is used here as a synonym for πάροικοι , which (cp. Ephesians 2:12, Ephesians 2:19) would be specially intelligible to Gentile Christians. Παρεπίδημος only occurs in the LXX in Genesis 23:4, Psalms 39:13; in the Egyptian papyri παρεπιδημοῦντες (consistentes) denotes foreigners who settled and acquired a domicile in townships or cities like Alexandria (GCP i. 40, 55; cp. A. Peyron’ s Papyri graeci R.

Taur. Musei Aegyptii, 8:13 τῶνπαρεπιδημοῦντωνκαὶ [κα ]τοικούντωνἐ [ν ] [τ ]αύται [ς ] ξένων ), and for ξένοι =peregrini, Ep.

Arist. 109 f. The use of such metaphorical terms became fairly common in the moral vocabulary of the age, quite apart from the OT, e.g. Marcus Aurelius, 2:17 . A similar symbolism recurs in the argument of Epictetus (ii. 23, 36 f.) against the prevalent idea that logic, style, and eloquence are the end of philosophy: οἷονεἴτιςἀπιὼνεἰςτὴνπατρίδατὴνἑαυτοῦκαὶδιοδεύωνπανδοκεῖονκαλὸνἀρέσαντοςαὐτῷτοῦπανδοκείουκαταμένοιἐντῷπανδοκείῳ . ἄνθρωπε , ἐπελάθουσουτῆςπροθέσεως · οὐκεἰςτοῦτοὥδευες , ἀλλὰδιὰτούτου … τὸδὲπροκείμενονἐκεῖνο · εἰςτὴνπατρίδαἐπανελθεῖν . In a more specifically religious sense, it is expressed in the saying of Anaxagoras quoted by Diogenes Laertius (2:3, 7, πρὸςτὸνεἰπόντα , “οὐδένσοιμέλειτῆςπατρίδος ,” “εὐφήμει " ἔφη , “ἔμοιγὰρκαὶσφόδραμέλειτῆςπατρίδος ,” δείξαςτὸνοὐρανόν ). According to Philo, the confession that they were strangers and pilgrims meant that the soul in this world longed to return to its pre-existent state in the eternal order, and could never feel at home among things material.

So, e.g., de confus. ling. 17, διὰτοῦτοοἱκατὰΜωυσῆνσοφοὶπάντεςεἰσάγονται “παροικοῦντες · " αἱγὰρτούτωνψυχαὶστέλλονταιμὲνἀποικίανοὐδέποτετὴνἐξοὐρανοῦ , εἰώθασιδὲἕνεκατοῦφιλοθεάμονοςκαὶφιλομαθοῦςεἰςτὴνπερίγειονφύσινἀποδημεῖν … ἐπανέρχονταιἐκεῖσεπάλιν , ὅθενὡρμήθησαντὸπρῶτον , πατρίδαμὲντὸνοὐράνιονχῶρονἐνᾧπολιτεύονται , ξένηνδὲτὸνπερίγειονἐνᾧπαρῴκησαννομίζουσαικτλ . In Cherub. 33, 34, commenting on πάροικοι in Leviticus 25:23, he argues that this is the real position of all wise souls towards God, since each of us is a stranger and sojourner in the foreign city of the world where God has for a time placed us till we return to Him.

The metaphor had been applied, in a derogatory sense, by Sallust to the lazy and sensual men who never know what real life means, but who pass through it heedlessly: “ many human beings, given over to sensuality and sloth , uneducated, and uncultured, have gone through life like travellers” (“ vitam sicuti peregrinantes transiere,” Son_2).

Such a confession proves (v. 14) that the men in question are not satisfied with the present outward order of things; ἐμφανίζουσιν (Esther 2:22 καὶαὐτὴἐνεφάνισεντῷβασιλεῖτὰτῆςἐπιβουλῆς : Acts 23:15, OGIS (3 a.d.) 42:9, Syll. 226:85 τήντεπαρουσίανἐμφανίσαντωντοῦβασίλεως ), they thus avow or affirm, ὃτιπατρίδαἐπιζητοῦσιν (Valckenaer’ s conjecture, ἔτιζητοῦσι , is ingenious but needless, cp. 13:14). For πάτρις in a mystical sense, compare Philo, de Agric. 14, commenting on Genesis 47:4): τῷγὰρὄντιπᾶσαψυχὴσοφοῦπατρίδαμὲνοὐρανόν , ξένηνδὲγῆνἔλαχε , καὶνομίζειτὸνμὲνσοφίαςοἶκονἴδιον , τὸνδὲσώματοςὀθνεῖον , ᾧκαὶπαρεπιδημεῖνοἴεται . Here it is “ heaven, the heart’ s true home.” The creditable feature in this kind of life was that these men had deliberately chosen it.1 Had they liked, they might have taken another and a less exacting line (v. 15). Εἰμὲν (as in 8:4) ἐμνημόνευον (referring to the continuous past) κτλ . The μνημονεύουσιν of א * D* was due to the influence of the preceding presents, just as ἐμνημόνευσαν (33. 104, 216 Cosm) to the influence of ἐξέβησαν , which in turn was smoothed out into the usual NT term ἐξῆλθον (א c D K L Ψ 436 919. 1288. 1739). Μνημόνευειν here has the sense of “ giving a thought to,” as in Jos. Ant. vi. 37, οὔτετροφῆςἐμνημόνευσενοὔθ ʼ ὕπνου , and below in v. 22. Time (as Acts 24:25), as elsewhere in Hebrews, rather than opportunity , is the idea of εἴχονἂνκαιρὸν , καιρός taking an infinitive ἀνακάμψαι (so Codex A in Judges 11:39 καὶἀνεκάμψενπρὸςτὸνπατέρααὐτῆς , for the ἀπέστρεψεν of B), as in Eurip. Rhesus, 10 .

Philo remarks of Abraham: τίςδ ʼ οὐκἂνμετατραπόμενοςπαλινδρόμησενοἴκαδε , βραχέαμὲνφροντίσαςτῶνμελλουσῶνἐλπίδων , τὴνδὲπαροῦσανἀπορίανσπεύδωνἐκφυγεῖν (de Abrahamo, 18).

“ Sometimes he wished his aims had been

To gather gain like other men;

Then thanked his God he’ d traced his track

Too far for wish to drag him back.”

(Thomas Hardy, The Two Men.)

On the contrary (v. 16), so far from that, they held on, the writer adds; νῦνδέ (logical, as in 8:6, not temporal) κρείττονοςὀρέγονται , τοῦτ ʼ ἔστινἐπουρανίου . Διὸοὐκἐπαισχύνεται (compare 2:11) αὐτοὺςὁθεὸς “θεὸς " ἐπικαλεῖσθαι (epexegetic infinitive) “ αὐτῶν ,” referring to Exodus 3:6, Ἐγώεἰμι … θεὸςἈβραὰμκαὶθεὸςἸσαὰκκαὶθεὸςἸακώβ , which the writer1 interprets (cp. Mark 12:26, Mark 12:27) as an assurance of immortality. Their hope of a πατρίς or heavenly home was no illusion; it was because God had such a πόλις (v. 10) all ready for them that he could call himself their God. He might have been ashamed to call himself such, had he not made this provision for their needs and prepared this reward for their faith (ἡτοίμασεν , cp. Matthew 23:34).

The third phase of the faith of Abraham (vv. 17-19) is now chronicled, followed by three instances of faith at the end of life, in Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph (vv. 20-22).

17 It was by faith , “ when Abraham was put to the test, that he sacrificed Isaac” ; he was ready to sacrifice “ his only son,” although he had received the promises, 18 and had been told (πρὸςὅν , as 5:5) that (ὅτι recitative) “ it is through Isaac (not Ishmael) that your offspring shall be reckoned” — 19 for he considered God was able even to raise men from the dead. Hence (ὅθεν , causal) he did get him back, by what was a parable of the resurrection. 20 It was by faith that Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in connection with the future. 21 It was by faith that, when Jacob was dying , he blessed each of the sons of Joseph, “ bending in prayer over the head of his staff.” 22 It was by faith that Joseph at his end (τελευτῶν only here) thought about the exodus of the sons of Israel, and gave orders about his own bones.

The supreme test of Abraham’ s πίστις is found in the story of Gen 22:1-18, which Jewish tradition always reckoned as the last and sorest of his ten trials (Pirke Aboth 5:4). It is cited in 4 Mac 16:18-20 as a classical example of ὑπομονή (ὀφείλετεπάνταπόνονὑπομένεινδιὰτὸνθεόν , δι ʼ ὃνκαὶὁπατὴρἡμῶνἈβραὰμἔσπευδεντὸνἐθνοπάτοραυἱὸνσφαγιάσαιἸσαάκκτλ .). In v. 17 the perfect tense προσενήνοχεν may mean “ the ideally accomplished sacrifice, as permanently recorded in scripture” (Moulton, so Diat 2751); but it is more likely to be aoristic (cp. Simcox, Lang. of NT., pp. 104, 126). Πειραζόμενος echoes Genesis 22:1 . Καὶ (epexegetic) τὸνμονογενῆ (a Lucan use of the term in the NT)2 προσέφερεν (conative imperfect of interrupted action, like ἐκάλουν in Luke 1:59) ὁτὰςἐπαγγελίαςἀναδεξάμενος , i.e. the promises of a son, of a numerous line of descendants (v. 12), and of a blessing thus coming to all nations. This is made explicit in v. 18, with its quotation from Genesis 21:12. For ἀναδέχομαι in the sense of “ secure,” see the line from Sophocles’ “ Ichneutae,” in Oxyrh. Papyri, vii. 25 .

In v. 19 λογισάμενος (as Romans 8:18 etc.) explains why he had the courage to sacrifice Isaac, although the action seemed certain to wreek the fulfilment of what God had promised him. He held ὅτικαὶἐκνεκρῶνἐγείρειν (weakened into ἐγεῖραι by A P, etc.) δυνατός (Daniel 3:17 ὅςἐστιδυνατὸςἐξελέσθαιἡμᾶςκτλ ., and Romans 4:21) sc. ἔστινὁθεός . Abraham, says Philo (de Abrahamo, 22), πάνταᾔδειθεῷδυνατὰσχεδὸνἐξἔτισπαργάνωντουτὶτὸδόγμαπρομαθοῦσα . Later (32) he speaks of this sacrifice as the most outstanding action in Abraham’ s life— ὀλίγουγὰρδέωφάναιπάσαςὅσαιθεοφιλεῖςὑπερβάλλει . It was “ a complicated and brilliant act of faith” (A. B.

Davidson), for God seemed to contradict God, and the command ran counter to the highest human affection . As Chrysostom put it, this was the special trial, τὰγὰρτοῦθεοῦἐδόκειτοῖςτοῦθεοῦμάχεσθαι , καὶπίστιςἐμάχετοπίστει , καὶπρόσταγμαἐπαγγελίᾳ .

Hence (ὅθεν , in return for this superb faith) ἐκομίσατο , he did recover him (κομίζεσθαι , as in Genesis 38:20) etc., of getting back what belongs to you),1 in a way that prefigured the resurrection (κρείττονοςἀναστάσεως , v. 35). Such is the meaning of ἐνπαραβολῇ (cp. 9:9). Isaac’ s restoration was to Abraham a sort2 of resurrection (v. 35a “ quaedam resurrectionis fuit species, quod subito liberatus fuit ex media morte,” Calvin). Ἐνπαραβολῇ has been taken sometimes in two other ways. (a) = παραβολῶς , i.e. beyond all expectation, almost παραδόξως , παρ ʼ ἐλπίδα , or in a desperate peril, as Polybius says of Hannibal . This is at any rate less far-fetched than— (b) “ whence he had originally got him, figuratively-speaking,” as if the allusion was to νενεκρωμένου (in v. 12)! Against (a) is the fact that παραβολή never occurs in this sense.

Augustine’ s comment is (Civit. Dei, xvi.32): “ non haesitauit, quod sibi reddi poterat immolatus, qui dari potuit non speratus. Sic intellectum est et in epistula ad Hebraeos, et sic expositum [Hebrews 11:17-19] … cuius similitudinem, nisi illius unde dicit apostolus: Qui proprio filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum?” He makes Isaac carrying the wood a type of Christ carrying his cross, and the ram caught in the thicket typical of Christ crowned with thorns. According to the later Jewish tradition (Pirqe R. Eliezer, 31), Isaac’ s soul, which had left his body as his father’ s sword was falling, returned at the words, “ Lay not thy hand on the lad” ; thus Abraham and Isaac “ learned that God would raise the dead.”

The next three instances are of πίστις as ὑπόστασιςἐλπιζομένων , the hope being one to be realized in the destiny of the race (vv. 20-22).

The solitary instance of πίστις in Isaac (v. 20) is that mentioned in Genesis 27:28, Genesis 27:29, Genesis 27:39, Genesis 27:40, a faith which (11:1) anticipated a future for his two sons. Εὐλόγησεν , of one man blessing another, as in 7:1f. In καὶπερὶμελλόντων , where μέλλειν refers to a future in this world, the καί simply1 emphasizes περὶμελλόντωνεὐλόγησεν , and the whole phrase goes with εὐλόγησεν , not with πίστει . The very fact that he blessed his two sons proved that he believed the divine promises to them would be realized in the future. The next two instances of faith are taken from death-beds; it is faith, not in personal immortality, but in the continuance of the chosen race. In v. 21 the writer quotes from Genesis 47:31 καὶπροσεκύνησενἸσραὴλἐπὶτὸἄκροντῆςῥάβδουαὐτοῦ , where the LXX by mistake has read ה ַ מ ּ ַ ט ּ ֶ ה (staff) instead of ה ַ מ ּ ִ ט ּ ָ ה (bed), and the incident is loosely transferred to the later situation (Genesis 48:9f.), when Jacob blessed the two sons of Joseph. Supporting himself on2 his staff, he bowed reverently before God, as he blessed the lads. (In the Ep.

Barnabas 13:4-6, the writer interprets Jacob’ s preference for the younger son as a proof that Christians, not Jews, were the real heirs of God’ s blessing!) In v. 22 the argument draws upon Genesis 50:24, Genesis 50:25 (Exodus 13:19, Joshua 24:32), where Joseph makes the Israelites swear to remove his remains from Egypt to the promised land, so confident was he that God’ s promise to the people would one day be fulfilled. Τελευτῶνπερὶτῆςἐξόδου (only here in this sense in NT) τῶνυἱῶνἸσραὴλἐμνημόνευσε (called to mind, as v. 15) καὶπερὶτῶνὀστέων (uncontracted form as in LXX and Matthew 23:27, Luke 24:39; cp. Crö nert, Mem. Graeca Hercul. 166:4) αὐτοῦἐνετείλατο . Joseph’ s faith also was shown in his conviction of the future promised by God to Israel, but it found a practical expression in the instructions about conveying his mummy out of Egypt .

The ninth example of πίστις is Moses, of whom almost as much is made as of Abraham. Five instances of faith are mentioned in connexion with his career (vv. 23-29).

23 It was by faith that Moses was “ hidden for three months” after birth by his parents, because “ they saw” the child was “ beautiful” (Acts 7:20), and had no fear of the royal decree. 24 It was by faith that Moses refused, “ when he had grown up,” to be called the son of Pharaoh’ s daughter; 25 ill-treatment with God’ s people he preferred to the passing pleasures of sin, 26 considering obloquy with the messiah to be richer wealth than all Egypt’ s treasures— for he had an eye to the Reward. 27 It was by faith that he left Egypt, not from any fear of the king’ s wrath; like one who saw the King Invisible, he never flinched. 28 It was by faith that he celebrated “ the passover” and performed the sprinkling by blood, so that “ the destroying angel” (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:10) might not touch Israel’ s firstborn. 29 It was by faith that they crossed the Red Sea (Acts 7:36) like dry land— and when the Egyptians attempted it, they were drowned.

Moses (v. 23) owed the preservation of his life as an infant to the courageous πίστις of his parents (πατέρων = γονεις , parentes, like patres in Ovid’ s Metam. 4:61, and Plato’ s Leges, vi. 772 E, ἀγαθῶνπατέρωνφύντι ). The writer quotes from Exodus 2:2, Exodus 2:3, adding that, as the result of their faith, they had no fear of the royal edict (διάταγμα as in Jos. Ant. xvi. 16, 5; Wis 11:7 etc.). This is the main point of their πίστις . On ἀστεῖον see Philo’ s vit. Mos. i. 3: γεννηθεὶςοὖνὁπαῖςεὐθὺςὄψινἐνέφαινενἀστειοτέρανἢκατ ʼ ἰδιώτην , ὡςκαὶτῶντοῦτυράννουκηρυγμάτων , ἐφ ʼ ὅσονοἷόντεἦν , τοὺςγονεῖςἀλογῆσαι ). The Hebrew text makes the mother act alone, but the LXX gives the credit to both parents; and this tradition is followed by Philo and Josephus (Ant. ii. 9, 4), as by our author.

The parents of Moses are the first anonymous people in the roll-call of faith’ s representatives. Calvin rather severely ranks their faith on a lower level, because the parents of Moses were moved by the external appearance of their child, and because they ought to have brought him up themselves (“ notandum est fidem quae hî c̣ laudatur ualde fuisse imbecillam. Nam quum posthabito mortis suae metu Mosen deberent educare, eum exponunt. Patet igitur illorum fidem breui non tantum uacillasse sed fuisse collapsam” ). Still, he reflects that this is after all an encouragement, since it proves that even weak faith is not despised by God. Chrysostom’ s comment is kinder; the writer, he thinks, means to afford additional encouragement to his readers by adducing not only heroes, but commonplace people as examples of faith .

Another (7:2) gloss has been inserted here, after v. 23, by D* 1827 and nearly all the MSS of the Latin versions, viz. πίστειμέγαςγενόμενοςΜωυσῆςἀνεῖλεντὸνΑἰγύπτιονκατανοῶντὴνταπείνωσιντῶνἀδελφῶναὐτοῦ , a homiletical application of Exo 2:11, Exodus 2:12 (used in Acts 7:23f.).

The second item of faith (v. 24) is the first individual proof by Moses himself. Josephus (Ant. ii. 9, 7) makes Moses refuse the Pharaoh’ s crown when a baby. The Pharaoh’ s daughter placed the child in her father’ s arms; he took it, pressed it to his bosom, and to please his daughter graciously put the crown upon its head. But the child threw it to the ground and stamped on it. Which seemed ominous to the king! The writer of Hebrews avoids such fancies, and simply summarizes Exodus 2:11f, where Moses μέγαςγενόμενος (from Exodus 2:11; i.e., as Calvin points out, when his refusal could not be set down to childish ignorance of the world, nor to youthful impetuousness) ἠρνήσατο (with infinitive as in Wis 12:27, 16:16, 17:10) λέγεσθαιυἱὸςθυγατρὸςφαραώ .

His religious motive in declining the title and position of son to an Egyptian princess (Jub 47:9) is now given (v. 25); μᾶλλονἑ̔λόμενος (for the construction and idea, cp. OGIS 669:15 μᾶλλοντὴντῶνπροτέρωνἐπάρχωναἰώνιονσυνήθειανφυλάσσωνἢ ‹ ι › τὴνπρόσκαιρόντινοςἀδικίανμειμησάμενος ) συγκακουχεῖσθαι (a new compound, unknown to the LXX;) τῷλαῷτοῦθεοῦἢπρόσκαιρον (a non-LXX term1 which first occurs in 4 Mac 15:2, 8, 23, and passed into the early Christian vocabulary as an antithesis to αἰώνιος ) ἔχεινἁμαρτίαςἀπόλαυσιν . The ἁμαρτία is the sin which he would have committed in proving disloyal to the People of God; that might have been pleasant for the time being, but πίστις looks to higher and lasting issues (10:34, 11:1). It would have been “ sin” for him to choose a high political career at court, the “ sin” of apostasy; he did what others in their own way had done afterwards (10:35, cp. 13:3).

For ἀπόλαυσις see Antipater of Tarsus (Stob. Florileg. lxvii. 25): τὸνδ ʼ ᾔθεον ‹ βίον › , ἐξουσίανδιδόνταπρὸςἀκολασίανκαὶποικίλωνἡδονῶνἀπόλαυσινἀγεννῶνκαὶμικροχαρῶν , ἰσόθεοννομίζουσι , and 4 Mac 5:8, where the tyrant taunts the conscientious Jews, καὶγὰρἀνόητοντοῦτοτὸμὴἀπολαύειντῶνχωρὶςὀνείδουςἡδέων . Philo (vit. Mos. i. 6: γενόμενόςτεδιαφερόντωςἀσκητὴςὀλιγοδεείαςκαὶτὸνἁβροδίαιτονβίονὡςοὐδεὶςἒτεροςχλευάσας — ψυχῇγὰρἐπόθειμόνῃζῆν , οὐσώματι ) praises the asceticism of Moses in the palace of the Pharaoh, but gives an interpretation of his reward which is lower than that of our author; he declares (i. 27) that as Moses renounced the high position of authority which he might have enjoyed in Egypt , because he disapproved of the local injustice, God rewarded him with authority over a greater nation.

In v. 26 the reason for this renunciation of the world is explained. Μείζοναπλοῦτονἡγησάμενος (cp. v. 11 and λογισάμενος in v. 19) τῶνΑἰγύπτουθησαυρῶντὸνὀνειδισμὸντοῦΧριστοῦ . This is one of the writer’ s dinting phrases. There is a special obloquy in being connected with Christ. It is one of the things which Christians have to face to-day (13:13), and, the writer argues, it has always been so; Moses himself, the leader of God’ s people at the first, showed his πίστις by deliberately meeting it. The obloquy was part of the human experience of Jesus himself (12:2, 13:12), but the point here in τὸνὀνειδισμὸντοῦΧριστοῦ is that, by identifying himself with God’ s people in Egypt, Moses encountered the same ὀνειδισμός as their very messiah afterwards was to endure. He thus faced what the writer, from his own standpoint, does not hesitate to call τὸνὀνειδισμὸντοῦΧριστοῦ .

Whether he had in mind anything further, e.g. the idea that ὁΧριστός here means the pre-incarnate Logos, as though a mystical sense like that of 1 Corinthians 10:4 underlay the words, is uncertain and rather unlikely, though the idea that Christ was suffering in the person of the Israelites, or that they represented him, might be regarded as justified by the language, e.g., of Psalms 89:51 . The experiences of ingratitude and insulting treatment which Moses suffered at the hands of Israel illustrate Chrysostom’ s definition of τὸνὀνειδισμὸντοῦΧριστοῦ : τὸμέχριτέλουςκαὶἐσχάτηςἀναπνοῆςπάσχεινκακῶς … τοῦτοἐστινὀνειδισμὸςτοῦΧριστοῦ , ὅταντιςπαρ ʼ ὧνεὐεργετεῖὀνειδίζηται (citing Matthew 27:40).

The basis of this estimate of life is now given: ἀπέβλεπενγὰρεἰςτὴνμισθαποδοσίαν , as the writer desired his readers to do (10:35, 11:6). Ἀποβλέπεινεἰς is a common phrase for keeping one’ s eye upon, having regard to, e.g. Theophrastus, ii. 10, καὶεἰςἐκεῖνονἀποβλέπων : Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 15, 1, ὁμὲν … εἰςμόνοντὸλυσιτελὲςτὸἐκτῶνἁρπαγῶνἀποβλέπων , παρήκουσεν . Mr. Starkie, in his note on Arist. Acharn. 32, suggests that ἀποβλέπειν , which is common in the comic poets and is also a philosophical term (e.g. Plato’ s Phaedo, 115 C; Phaedrus, 234 D), “ was used like ‘ to prescind’ in English,” i.e. to fix one’ s gaze on a single object by withdrawing it from everything else.

The third act of faith in his life (v. 27) is his withdrawal from Egypt to Midian (Exodus 2:14f. = Acts 7:29). In μὴφοβηθεὶςτὸνθυμὸντοῦβασιλέως the author ignores the statement of the OT that Moses did fly from Egypt, in terror of being punished by the king for having murdered the Egyptian (ὄργηνἀμείλικτονβασιλέωςἀποδιδράσκων , Philo, de vit. Mos. i. 9). Josephus in his own way also (Ant. ii. 10, 1) eliminates the motive of fear. Our author declares that if Moses did retreat from Egypt, it was from no fear of Pharaoh, but in the faith that God had a future and a mission for him still; he had as little fear of Pharaoh as his parents had had, τὸνγὰρἀόρατονὡςὁρῶνἐκαρτέρησεν . “ The courage to abandon work on which one’ s heart is set, and accept inaction cheerfully as the will of God, is of the rarest and highest kind, and can be created and sustained only by the clearest spiritual vision” (Peake).

The language and thought are illustrated by Epict. ii.16, 45-46: ἐκτῆςδιανοίαςἔκβαλε … λύπην , φόβον , ἐπιθυμίαν , φθόνον , ἐπιχαιρεκακίαν , φιλαργυρίαν , μαλακίαν , ἀκρασίαν . Ταῦταδ ʼ οὐκἔστινἄλλωςἐκβαλεῖν , εἰμὴπρὸςμόνοντὸνθεὸνἀποβλέποντα , ἐκείνῳμόνῳπροσπεπονθότα , τοῖςἐκείνουπροστάγμασικαθωσιωμένον . The phrase ὡςὁρῶν means the inward vision where, as Marcus Aurelius observes (10:26), ὁρῶμεν , οὐχὶτοῖςὀφθαλμοῖς , ἀλλ ʼ οὔχἧττονἐναργῶς . In the de Mundo, 399a, God is described as ἄορατοςὢνἄλλῳπλὴνλογισμῷ . Philo had already singled out this trait in Moses, e.g. de mutat. nomin. 2: Μωυσῆςὁτῆςἀειδοῦςφύσεωςθεατὴςκαὶθεόπτης — εἰςγὰρτὸνγνόφονφασὶναὐτὸνοἱθεῖοιχρησμοὶεἰσελθεῖν (Exodus 20:21), τὴνἀόρατονκαὶἀσώματονοὐσίαναἰνιττόμενοι . In vit. Mos. i. 15 he declares that the Pharaoh had no notion of any invisible God , and later on, commenting on Exodus 20:21 (i. 28), he adds that Moses entered the darkness, τουτέστινεἰςτὴνἀειδῆκαὶἀόρατονκαὶἀσώματοντῶνὄντωνπαραδειγματικὴνοὐσίαν , τὰἀθέαταφύσειθνητῇκατανοῶν .

On μὴφοβηθεὶςτὸνθυμὸντοῦβασιλέως , it may be noted that the Stoics took the prudential line of arguing that one ought not needlessly to provoke a tyrant: “ sapiens nunquam potentium iras provocabit, immo declinabit, non aliter quam in navigando procellam” (Seneca, Ep. xiv. 7). Various attempts have been made to explain away the contradiction between this statement and that of Exo 2:14. (a) Some think they are not irreconcilable; “ so far as his life was concerned, he feared, but in a higher region he had no fear” (A. B. Davidson), i.e. he was certain God would ultimately intervene to thwart Pharaoh, and so took precautions to save his own life in the interest of the cause. This is rather artificial, however, though maintained by some good critics like Lü nemann. (b) Or, the θυμός may be not anger at the murder of the Egyptian, but the resentment of Moses’ action in refusing a court position and withdrawing from Egypt (Vaughan, Dods, Delitzsch, etc.). (c) A more favourite method is to deny that the writer is alluding to Exodus 2:14, Exodus 2:15 at all, and to refer the passage to the real Exodus later (so Calvin, Bleek, Westcott, Seeberg, and many other edd.); but this is to anticipate v. 28, and the Israelites were ordered out of Egypt by Pharaoh, not exposed to any anger of his.

The fourth act of faith (v. 28) is his obedience to the divine orders of Exo 12:12-48 (cp. Wis 18:5-9), which proved that he believed, in spite of appearances, that God had protection and a future for the People. Πεποίηκεν is another aoristic perfect; πρόσχυσις is not a LXX term, and θίγγανω only occurs in LXX in Exodus 19:13 ( = Hebrews 12:20). As θίγγανω may take a genitive (12:20) as well as an accusative, ὀλοθρεύων might go with πρωτότοκα (i.e. of the Egyptians) and θίγῃ with αὐτῶν (the Israelites). Note the alliteration in πίστειπεπ . πάσχα … πρόσχυσιν . The ἵναμή clause explains τὴνπρόσχυσιντοῦαἵματος .

By one Old Latin, or at any rate a non-Vulgate, text of this passage, in Codex Harleianus (ed. E. S. Buchanan, Sacred Latin Texts, i., 1912), a gloss is inserted at this point: “ fide praedaverunt Aegyptios exeuntes” (Exodus 12:35, Exodus 12:36), which was evidently known to Sedulius Scotus (Migne, ciii.268 C), who quotes it as “ fide praedaverunt Aegyptios, quia crediderunt se iterum in Aegyptum non reversuros.”

The fifth act of faith (v. 29) is the crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:16f.). Strictly speaking, this is an act of faith on the part of the Israelites; the διέβησαν depends on, for its subject, the αὐτῶν of v. 28. But those who crossed were οἱἐξελθόντεςἐξΑἰγύπτουδιὰΜωϋσέως (3:16), and the action is the direct sequel to that of v. 28, though Moses is now included in the People. διὰξηρᾶςγῆς is from Exodus 14:29; διαβαίνειν goes with the genitive as well as with the accusative. The Israelites took a risk, in obedience to God’ s order, and so proved their πίστις . But there are some things which are possible only to faith. ῟ΗςπεῖρανλαβόντεςοἱΑἰγύπτιοικατεπόθησαν (from Exodus 15:4 κατεπόθησανἐνἐρυθρᾷθαλάσσῃ , B), i.e. the Egyptians tried it and were swallowed up in the sea. Here πεῖρανλαμβάνειν is a classical phrase for (a) making an attempt, almost in the sense of testing or risking.

They “ ventured on” , or tried it (cp. Jos. Ant. 8, 6, 5, σοφίαςβουλομένηλαβεῖνπεῖραν , etc.). The other meaning is that (b) of getting experience (so in v. 36), which is often the sad result of (a); so, e.g., Demosth. in Aristocratem, 131, λαβὼνἔργῳτῆςἐκείνουφιλίαςπεῖραν . The writer ignores the legendary embroidery of Philo (vit.

Mos. iii. 34, ὡςἐπὶξηρᾶςἀτραποῦκαὶλιθώδουςἐδάφους — ἐκραυρώθηγὰρἡψάμμοςκαὶᾐσπορὰςαὐτῆςοὐσίασυμφῦσαἡνώθη ).

Two more instances of faith are specially cited, both in connexion with the fall of Jericho (vv. 30, 31). During the interval between the Exodus and the entrance into Canaan the writer, we are not surprised to find (3:16f.), notes not a single example of πίστις , but it is remarkable that neither here nor below (v. 32f.) is there any allusion to Joshua.

30 It was by faith that the walls of Jericho collapsed, after being surrounded for only seven days. 31 It was by faith that Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, as she had welcomed the scouts peaceably.

The faith that had enabled Israel to cross the Red Sea in safety enabled them years later to bring the walls of a city crashing to the ground (v. 30). There was no siege of Jericho; Israel simply marched round it for a week, and that act of faith in God’ s promise, against all probabilities, brought about the marvel. So the writer summarizes Joshua 6:1-20. Judas Maccabaeus and his men also appealed, in besieging a town, to τὸνμέγαντοῦκόσμουδυνάστην , τὸνἄτερκριῶνκαὶμηχανῶνὀργανικῶνκατακρημνίσαντατὴνἸεριχὼκατὰτοὺςἸησοῦχρόνους (2 Mac 12:15), and one Egyptian fanatic (for whom Paul was once mistaken, Acts 21:38) promised his adherents, in rebelling against the Romans, that the walls of Jerusalem would collapse at his word of command (Josephus, Ant. xx. 8, 6).

The faith of a community is now followed by the faith of an individual. The last name on the special list is that of a foreigner, an unmarried woman, and a woman of loose morals (v. 31), in striking contrast to Sara and the mother of Moses. The story is told in Joshua 2:1-21, Joshua 6:25. For ἡπόρνη (“ Ratio haec cur R. solita sit peregrinos excipere,” Bengel) see below on 13:2. A tendency to whitewash her character appears in the addition of ἐπιλεγομένη (א syrhkl Ephr.), which is also inserted by some codices in the text of Clem. Romans 12:1.

Her practical faith , shown by her friendly welcome to the spies, which sprang from her conviction that the God of Israel was to be feared, saved (συναπώλετο , cp. Sir 8:15) her from the fate of her fellow-citizens who declined to submit to the claims of Israel’ s God. They are described by the same word as are the recalcitrant Israelites themselves (3:18). Even Jewish priests were proud to trace their descent from Rahab; her reputation stood high in later tradition, owing to the life which followed this initial act of faith (cp. Matthew 1:5).

For lack of space and time the writer now passes to a mere summary of subsequent examples of faith (vv. 32f.). Roughly speaking, we may say that vv. 33, 34 describe what the folk of old did by faith, vv. 35f. what they did for faith.

32 And what more shall I say? Time would fail me to tell of Gideon, of Barak and Samson and Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— 33 men who by faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, obtained promises, shut the mouth of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness won to strength, proved valiant in warfare, and routed hosts of foreigners.

Καὶτίἔτι (om. D*) λέγω (deliberative conjunctive) does not necessarily imply that ΠρὸςἙβραίους was originally a sermon or address; it was a literary as well as an oratorical phrase. Thus Josephus uses a similar phrase in Ant. xx. 11, 1 (καὶτὶδεῖπλείωλέγειν ;). Faith did not die out, at the entry into Palestine. On the contrary, the proofs of faith are so rich in the later story of the People that the writer has no time for anything except a glowing abstract. Ἐπιλείψειγάρμεδιηγούμενονὁχρόνος is one form of a common rhetorical phrase, though ἡἡμέρα is generally used instead of ὁχρόνος . Three instances may be cited: Dion.

Hal. De Compositione Verb. 4 (after running over the names of a number of authors) καὶἄλλουςμυρίους , ὧνἁπάντωντὰὀνόματαεἰβουλοίμηνλέγειν , ἐπιλείψειμεὁτῆςἡμέραςχρόνος : Demosth. de Corona, 324, ἐπιλείψειμελέγονθ ʼ ἡἡμέρατὰτῶνπροδότωνὀνόματα , and (out of several instances) Philo, de Sacrif.

Abelis et Caini, 5, ἐπιλείψειμὲἡἡμέραλέγοντατὰτῶνκατ ʼ εἶδοςἀρετῶνὀνόματα . Διηγούμενον … περί , as, e.g., in Plato’ s Euth. 6 C, πολλὰπερὶτῶνθείωνδιηγήσομαι , and Philo’ s de Abrah. 44, ὧνὀλίγῳπρότερονἔνιαδιεξῆλθον . For μεγάρ (א A D* 33 547), γάρμε is rightly read by p13 Dc K L P W Clem. Chrys. etc. (cp. Blass, § 475, 2), though γάρ is omitted altogether by Ψ 216*. Six names are specially mentioned, to begin with. Gideon’ s crushing victory over the Ammonites echoes down later history (e.g.

Isaiah 9:3, Isaiah 10:26, Psalms 83:11). The singling out of Barak is in line with the later Jewish tradition, which declined to think of him as a mere ally of Deborah; he was the real hero of the exploit.

For example, some rabbis (cp. Targ. on Judges 5:23, Yalkut on Judges 42) gave him the high name of Michael, and praised this brave leader for his modesty in allowing Deborah to occupy so prominent a place. Later tradition also magnified Samson’ s piety and divine characteristics (e.g. Sotah 9b, 10a). Of all the four “ judges” selected, Jephthah has the poorest reputation in Jewish tradition; he is censured for rashness, and his rank is comparatively insignificant. Augustine, however (Quaest. vii. xlix.), points out that the “ spirit” came both on Jephthah (Judges 11:29, Judges 11:30) and on Gideon (8:27).

Why these four names are put in this unchronological order (instead of Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson), it is impossible to guess; in 1 S 12:11 it is Gideon, Barak, Jephthah, and Samson, followed by Samuel. David here belongs to the foregoing group, the only one of Israel’ s kings mentioned in the list.

In Jewish tradition (e.g. Josephus, Ant. vi. 2, 2-3) Samuel’ s career was interpreted with quite martial fervour; he was credited with several victories over the Philistines. Hence he forms a transition between the previous heroes and the prophets, of which he was commonly regarded as the great leader (cp. Acts 3:24). Ἄλλων (+ τῶν) is superfluously inserted before προφητῶν by syrhkl pesh arm eth sah boh 69, 1288 Theod. Dam. In οἳδιὰπίστεως (v. 33) the οἵ covers vv. 33, 34, but διὰπίστεως includes vv. 35-38 as well, and is reiterated in v. 39.

The following nine terse clauses, devoid of a single καί , begin by noting military and civil achievements. In κατηγωνίσαντοβασιλείας , καταγωνίζομαι (not a LXX term) is the verb applied by Josephus to David’ s conquests ; its later metaphorical use may be illustrated from Mart.

Pol. 19:2 . Ἠργάσαντοδικαιοσύνην in the sense of 2 S 8:15 (καὶἐβασίλευσενΔαυεὶδἐπὶἸσραήλ · καὶἦνποιῶνκρίμακαὶδικαιοσύνηνἐπὶπάντατὸνλαὸναὐτοῦ ) etc., the writer applying to this specific activity, for which πίστις was essential, a phrase elsewhere (cp. Acts 10:35) used for a general moral life. Such was their faith, too, that they had promises of God’ s help realized in their experience; this (cp. 6:15) is the force of ἐπέτυχονἐπαγγελιῶν . Furthermore, ἔφραξανστόματαλεόντων , as in the case of Daniel (Daniel 6:18, Daniel 6:23 ὁθεόςμουἐνέφραξεντὰστόματατῶνλεόντων , Theod.), ἔσβεσανδύναμινπυρός , as in the case of Daniel’ s three friends (Daniel 3:19-28, Daniel 3:1 Mac 2:59, Malachi 2:3 Mac 6:6). In ἔφυγονστόματαμαχαίρης , the unusual plural of στόμα may be due to the preceding στόματα rhetorically; it means repeated cases of escape from imminent peril of murder rather than double-edged swords (4:12), escapes, e.g., like those of Elijah (1 K 19:1f.) and Elisha (2 K 6:14f, 31f.).

In ἐδυναμώθησαν (p13 א * A D 1831; the v.l. ἐνεδυναμώθησαν was probably due to the influence of Rom 4:20) ἀπὸἀσθενείας , the reference is quite general; Hezekiah’ s recovery from illness is too narrow an instance.1 The last three clauses are best illustrated by the story of the Maccabean struggle, where ἀλλότριοι is the term used for the persecutors (1 Mal 2:7 etc.), and παρεμβολή for their hosts (1 Mal 3:15 etc.). In παρεμβολὰςἔκλινανἀλλοτρίων , παρεμβολή , a word which Phrynichus calls δεινῶςΜακεδονικόν , means a host in array (so often in 1 Mac and Polybius); κλίνω is never used in this sense in the LXX.

What the heroes and heroines of πίστις had to endure is now summarized (vv. 35-38): the passive rather than the active aspect of faith is emphasized.

35 Some were given back to their womankind, raised from the very dead; others were broken on the wheel, refusing to accept release, that they might obtain a better resurrection; 36 others, again, had to experience scoffs and scourging, aye, chains and imprisonment— 37 they were stoned … sawn in two, and cut to pieces; they had to roam about in sheepskins and goatskins, forlorn, oppressed, ill-treated 38 (men of whom the world was not worthy), wanderers in the desert and among hills, in caves and gullies.

Ἔλαβονγυναῖκες 2 κτλ . (35) recalls such stories as 1 K 17:17f. and 2 K 4:8-37 ; it was a real ἀνάστασις , though not the real one, for some other male beings became literally and finally νεκροί , relying by faith on a κρείσσωνἀνάστασις .Ἄλλοιδέ (like Sokrates in Athens: cp. Epict. iv. 1. 164-165, Σωκράτηςδ ʼ αἰσχρῶςοὐσῴζεται … τοῦτονοὐκἔστισῶσαιαἰσχρῶς , ἀλλ ʼ ἀποθνήσκωνσῴζεται ) could only have saved their lives by dishonourably giving up their convictions, and therefore chose to suffer. This is a plain reference to the Maccabean martyrs. Ἐτυμπανίσθησαν , a punishment probably corresponding to the mediaeval penalty of being broken on the wheel. “ This dreadful punishment consists,” says Scott in a note to the thirtieth chapter of The Betrothed, “ in the executioner, with a bar of iron, breaking the shoulder-bones, arms, thigh-bones and legs of the criminal, taking his alternate sides. The punishment is concluded by a blow across the breast, called the coup de grâ ce, because it removes the sufferer from his agony.” The victim was first stretched on a frame or block, the τύμπανον 1 (so schol. on Aristoph. Plut. 476, τύμπαναξύλαἐφ ʼ οἷςἐτυμπάνιζον · ἐχρῶντογὰρταύτῃτῇτιμωρία ), and beaten to death, for which the verb was ἀποτυμπανίζεσθαι (e.g. Josephus, c.

Apionem, i. 148, quoting Berossus, Λαβοροσοάρχοδος … ὑπὸτῶνφίλωνἀπετυμπανίσθη : Arist. Rhet. ii. 5, 14, ὥσπεροἱἀποτυμπανιζόμενοι , etc.). So Eleazar was put to death, because he refused to save his life by eating swine’ s flesh (2 Mac 6:19 ὁδὲτὸνμετ ʼ εὐκλείαςθάνατονμᾶλλονἢτὸνμετὰμύσουςβίονἀναδεξάμενοςαὐθαιρέτωςἐπὶτὸτύμπανονπροσῆγεν ). It is this punishment of the Maccabean martyrs which the writer has in mind, as Theodoret already saw. The sufferers were “ distracti quemadmodum corium in tympano distenditur” (Calvin); but the essence of the punishment was beating to death, as both Hesychius and Suidas recognize in their definition of τυμπανίζεται . The hope of the resurrection, which sustained such martyrs οὐπροσδεξάμενοι (cp. 10:34) τὴνἀπολύτρωσιν , is illustrated by the tales of Maccabean martyrs, e.g. of Eleazar the scribe (2 Mac 6:21f.) urged to eat some pork ἵνατοῦτοπράξαςἀπολυθῇτοῦθανάτου , and declining in a fine stubbornness; but specially of the heroic mother and her seven sons (ibid. 7:1f.), who perished confessing αἱρετὸνμεταλλάσσονταςἀπὸἀνθρώπωντὰςὑπὸτοῦθεοῦπροσδοκᾷνἐλπίδαςπάλινἀναστήσεσθαιὑπ ʼ αὐτοῦ … οἱμὲνγὰρνῦνἡμέτεροιἀδελφοὶβραχὺνἐπενέγκαντεςπόνονἀενάουζωῆςὑπὸδιαθήκηνθεοῦπεπτώκασιν .

In v. 36 ἕτεροιδὲ (after of οἱμέν … ἄλλοιδέ in Matthew 16:14) πεῖρανἔλαβον (see on v. 29) ἐμπαιγμῶνκαὶμαστίγων — a hendiadys; the writer has in mind shameful tortures like those inflicted on the seven Maccabean brothers, as described in 2 Mac 7:1 , although in this case the beating is not at once fatal, as the next words prove . The passage would be more clear and consecutive, however, if ἕτεροιδέ preceded περιῆλθον (in v. 37), introducing the case of those who had not to suffer the martyrs’ death. This would leave ἐμπαιγμῶνκτλ . as a reiteration or expansion of ἐτυμπανίσθησαν . Before δεσμῶνκαὶφυλακῆς , ἔτιδέ probably (cp. Luke 14:26) heightens the tone— not merely passing blows, but long durance vile: though the sense might be simply, “ and further.” In v. 37 ἐλιθάσθησαν (as in the case of Zechariah, 2 Chronicles 24:20-22, Matthew 23:35) was the traditional punishment which ended Jeremiah’ s life in Egypt (Tertull.

Scorp. 8); possibly the writer also had in mind the fate of Stephen (Acts 7:58). Ἐπρίσθησαν (Amos 1:3 ἔπριζονπρίοσινσιδηροῖςκτλ .) alludes to the tradition of Isaiah having being sawn in two with a wooden saw during the reign of Manasseh, a tradition echoed in the contemporary Ascensio Isaiae 5:1-14 (Justin’ s Dial. cxx.; Tertull. de Patientia, xiv. etc.); cp. R. H. Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah (1900), pp. xlv-xlix.

After ἐλιθάσθησαν there is a primitive corruption in the text. Four readings are to be noted.

ἐπειράσθησαν , ἐπρίσθησαν : א L P 33, 326 syrhkl.

ἐπρίσθησαν , ἐπειράσθησαν : p13 A D Ψ 6, 104, 1611, 1739 lat boh arm.

ἐπειράσθησαν : fuld. Clem. Thdt.

ἐπρίσθησαν : 2, 327 syrvg Eus. etc.

Origen apparently did not read ἐπειράσθησαν , if we were to judge from Hom. Jerem. xv. 2 (ἄλλονἐλιθοβόλησαν , ἄλλονἔπρισαν , ἄλλονἀπέκτεινανμεταξὺτοῦναοῦκαὶτοῦθυσιαστηρίου ), but shortly before (xiv. 12) he quotes the passage verbally as follows: ἐλιθάσθησαν , ἐπρίσθησαν , ἐπειράσθησαν , ἐνφόνῳμαχαίραςἀπέθανον , though ἐπειράσθησαν is omitted here by H. In c. Cels. vii. 7 it is doubtful whether ἐπειράθησαν or ἐπειράσθησαν was the original reading. Eusebius omits the word in Prœ p. Evang. xii. 10 (583d), reading ἐλιθασθησαν , ἐπρίσθησαν , ἐνφόνῳκτλ ., and sah reads “ they were sawn, they were stoned, they died under the sword.” It is evident that ἐπειράσθησαν (written in some MSS as ἐπιρ .) as “ were tempted” is impossible here; the word either was due to dittography with ἐπρίσθησαν or represents a corruption of some term for torture.

Various suggestions have been made, e.g. ἐπηρώθησαν (mutilated) by Tanaquil Faber, ἐπράθησαν (sold for slaves) by D. Heinsius, ἐσπειράσθησαν (strangled) by J. Alberti, or ἐπέρθησαν (impaled) by Knatchbull. But some word like ἐπυρώθησαν (Beza, F. Junius, etc.) or ἐπρήσθησαν (Gataker)1 is more likely, since one of the seven Maccabean brothers was fried to death (2 Mac 7:4), and burning was a punishment otherwise for the Maccabeans (2 Mac 6:11). It is at any rate probable that the writer put three aorists ending in -σθησαν together.

Death ἐνφόνῳμαχαίρης (a LXX phrase) was not an uncommon fate for unpopular prophets (1 K 19:10, Jeremiah 26:23); but the writer now passes, in περιῆλθονκτλ . (37b, 38), to the sufferings of the living, harried and hunted over the country. Not all the loyal were killed, yet the survivors had a miserable life of it, like Mattathias and his sons , or Judas Maccabaeus and his men, who had to take to the hills (2 Mac 5:27 ἐντοῖςὄρεσινθηρίωντρόπονδιέζησὺντοῖςμετ ʼ αὐτοῦ , καὶτὴνχορτώδητροφὴνσιτούμενοιδιετέλουν ), or others during the persecution . When the storm blew over, the Maccabeans recollected ὡςτὴντῶνσκηνῶνἑορτὴνἐντοῖςὄρεσινκαὶἐντοῖςσπηλαίοιςθηρίωντρόπονἦσαννεμόμενοι (2 Mac 10:6). They roamed, the writer adds, dressed ἐνμηλωταῖς (the rough garb of prophets, like Elijah, 1 K 19:13, 19), ἐναἰγείοιςδέρμασιν (still rougher pelts). According to the Ascensio Isaiae (2:7 f.) the pious Jews who adhered to Isaiah when he withdrew from Manasseh’ s idolatry in Jerusalem and sought the hills, were “ all clothed in garments of hair, and were all prophets.” Clement (17:1) extends the reference too widely: οἵτινεςἐνδέρμασιναἰγείοιςκαὶμηλωταῖςπεριπάτησανκηρύσσοντεςτὴνἔλευσιντοῦΧριστοῦ · λέγομενδὲἨλείανκαὶἙλισαιέ , ἔτιδὲκαὶἸεζεκιήλ , τοὺςπροφήτας · πρὸςτοῦτοιςκαὶτοὺςμεμαρτυρημένους .

A vivid modern description of people clad in goatskins occurs in Balzac’ s Les Chouans (ch. 1.): “ Ayant pour tout vê tement une grande peau de chè vre qui les couvrait depuis le col jusqu’ aux genoux … Les mé ches plates de leurs longs cheveux s’ unissaients, sihabituellement aux poils de la peau de chè vre et cachaient si complé tement leurs visages baissé s vers la terre, qu’ on pouvait facilement prendre cette peau pour la leur, et confondre, à la premiè re vue, les malheureux avec ces animaux dont les dé pouilles leur servaient devê tement. Mais à travers les cheveux l’ on voyait bientô t briller les yeux comme des gouttes de rosé e dans une é paisse verdure; et leurs regards, tout en annonç ant l’ intelligence humaine, causaient certainement plus de terreur que de plaisir.”

Their general plight is described in three participles, ὑστερούμενοι , θλιβόμενοι (2 Corinthians 4:8), κακουχούμενοι (cp. 13:3, and Plut. Consol. ad Apoll. 26, ὥστεπρὶνἀπώσασθαιτὰπένθηκακουχουμένουςτελευτῆσαιτὸνβίον ). Κακοῦχειν only occurs twice in the LXX (1 K 2:26, 11:39 A), but is common in the papyri (e.g. Tebt. Pap. 104:22, b.c. 92). This ill-treatment at the hands of men, as if they were not considered fit to live (cp. Acts 22:22), elicits a splendid aside— ὧνοὐκἦνἄξιοςὁκόσμος .

Compare Mechilta, 5a (on Exodus 12:6): “ Israel possessed four commandments, of which the whole world was not worthy,” and the story of the bath qol in Sanhedr. 11. 1, which said, “ One is here present who is worthy to have the Shekinah dwelling in him, but the world is not worthy of such.” Κόσμος as in v. 7; Philo’ s list of the various meanings of κόσμος (in de aetern. mundi, 2) does not include this semi-religious sense. Of the righteous, Wis 3:5 remarks: ὁθεὸςἐπείρασεναὐτοὺςκαὶεὗρεναὐτοὺςἀξίουςἑαυτοῦ .

“ There is a class of whom the world is always worthy and more than worthy: it is worthy of those who watch for, reproduce, exaggerate its foibles, who make themselves the very embodiment of its ruling passions, who shriek its catchwords, encourage its illusions, and flatter its fanaticisms. But it is a poor rô le to play, and it never has been played by the men whose names stand for epochs in the march of history” (H. L. Stewart, Questions of the Day in Philosophy and Psychology, 1912, p. 133).

In 38b it was the not infrequent (cf. Mark 1:45) confusion of εΝ and εΠΙ in ancient texts which probably accounted for ἐν being replaced by ἐπί in p13 א A P 33. 88, etc.; ἐπί does not suit σπηλαίοις … ὀπαῖς , and the writer would have avoided the hiatus in ἐπὶἐρημίαις . Still, πλανώμενοι suits only ἐρημίαιςκαὶὅρεσιν , and ἐπί may have been the original word, used loosely like πλανώμενοι with σπηλαίοιςκτλ . In Ps.-Sol 17:19 the pious ἐπλανῶντοἐνἐρήμοις , σωθῆναιψυχὰςαὐτῶνἀπὸκακοῦ . For ὀπαῖς , cp. Obadiah 1:3 ἐνταῖςὀπαῖςτῶνπετρῶν . Σπηλαῖον , like the Latin spelunca or specus, eventually became equivalent to a “ temple,” perhaps on account of the prominence of caves or grottoes in the worship of some cults.

Now for an estimate of this πίστις and its heroic representatives (vv. 39, 40)! The epilogue seems to justify God by arguing that the apparent denial of any adequate reward to them is part of a larger divine purpose, which could only satisfy them after death.

39 They all won their record (μαρτυρηθέντες = ἐμαρτυρἡθησαν in v. 2) for faith, but the Promise they did not obtain, 40 God had something better in store for us (ἡμῶν emphatic); he would not have them perfected apart from us.

Some of these heroes and heroines of faith had had God’ s special promises fulfilled even in this life (e.g. vv. 11, 33), but the Promise, in the sense of the messianic bliss with its eternal life (10:36, 37, cf. 6:17f.), they could not win. Why? Not owing to any defect in their faith, nor to any fault in God, but on account of his far-reaching purpose in history; οὗτοιπάντες (again as in v. 13, but this time summing up the whole list, vv. 4-38) οὐκἐκομίσαντο (in the sense of v. 13 μὴκομισάμενοι ; not a voluntary renunciation, as Wetstein proposes to interpret it ld;non acceperunt felicitatem promissam huius vitae, imo deliberato consilio huic beneficio renunciaverunt et maluerunt affligi morique propter deum” ) τὴνἐπαγγελίαν (in v. 13 the Promise was loosely called αἱἐπαγγελίαι , and the plural τὰςἐπαγγελίας is therefore read here by A W 436, 1611). The reason for this is now given (v. 40) in a genitive absolute clause, τοῦθεοῦπερὶἡμῶνκρεῖττόντιπροβλεψαμένου (the middle for the active). Προβλέπειν only occurs once in the LXX , and only here in the NT, where the religious idea makes it practically a Greek equivalent for providere. Κρεῖττόντι is explained by ἵναμὴχωρὶςχωρὶςἡμῶντελειωθῶσιν , which does not mean that “ our experience was necessary to complete their reward,” but that God in his good providence reserved the messianic τελείωσις of Jesus Christ until we could share it. This τελείωσις is now theirs (9:15, 12:23), as it is ours— if only we will show a like strenuous faith during the brief interval before the end. This is the thought of 12:1f., catching up that of 10:36f.

God deferred the coming of Christ, in order to let us share it (cp. 1 P 1:10, 20), his plan being to make room for us as well. The τελείωσις has been realized in Jesus; till he reappears (9:28, 10:12, 37) to complete the purpose of God for us, we must hold on in faith, heartened by the example of these earlier saints.

Their faith was only granted a far-off vision of the hoped-for end. We have seen that end realized in Jesus; therefore, with so many more resources and with so short a time of strain, we ought to be nerved for our endurance by the sense of our noble predecessors. It is not that we experience κρεῖττόντι by our immediate experience of Christ (10:14), who fulfils to us what these former folk could not receive before his coming. This is true, but it is not exactly the point here. The κρεῖττόντι is our inclusion in this People of God for whom the τελείωσις of Christ was destined, the privilege of the κρείττωνδιαθήκη . The writer does not go the length of saying that Christ suffered in the persons of these saints and heroes (as, e.g., Paulinus of Nola, Epist. xxxviii. 3: “ ab initio saeculorum Christus in omnibus suis patitur … in Abel occisus a fratre, in Noe irrisus a filio, in Abraham peregrinatus, in Isaac oblatus, in Jacob famulatus, in Joseph venditus, in Moyse expositus et fugatus, in prophetis lapidatus et sectus, in apostolis terra marique iactatus, et multis ac uariis beatorum martyrum crucibus frequenter occisus” ), and this consideration tells against the theory of a “ mystical” sense in v. 26.

The conclusion of the whole matter rather is (vv. 39, 40) that the reward of their faith had to be deferred till Christ arrived in our day. The τελείωσις is entirely wrought out through Christ, and wrought out for all.

It covers all God’ s People (cp. 12:23), for now the Promise has been fulfilled to these earlier saints. But the writer significantly ignores any idea of their co-operation in our faith; we neither pray to them, nor they for us. Josephus interpreted the sacrifice of Isaac, as if Abraham reconciled himself to it by reflecting that his son would be a heavenly support to him (Ant. i. 13. 3, ἐκείνου , i.e. τοῦθεοῦ , τὴνψυχὴντὴνσὴνπροσδεχομένουκαὶπαρ ʼ αὐτῷκαθέξοντος · ἔσειτεμοιεἰςκηδεμόνακαὶγηροκόμον … τὸνθεὸνἀντὶσαυτοῦπαρεσχημένος ). Such ideas lie outside the range of our epistle, and there is significance in the fact that the writer never touches them.

In Clement of Alexandria’ s comment (Strom. iv. 16) on this passage, he quotes 10:32-39 , then hurries on to 11:36-12:2 (reading ἐλιθάσθησαν , ἐπειράσθησαν , ἐνφόνῳμ . ἀπέθανον : ἐνἐρημίαις : τὴνἐπαγγελίαντοῦθεοῦ ), and adds: ἀπολείπεταινοεῖντὸκατὰπαρασιώπησινεἰρημένονμόνοι . ἐπιφέρειγοῦν · περὶἡμῶνκρεῖττόντιπροειδομένουτοῦθεοῦ , ἵναμηχωρὶςἡμῶντελειωθῶσι . The collocation of τὴνἐπαγγελίαν with τοῦθεοῦ is a mistake.

Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland).

OP The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. Hunt).

Moulton J. H. Moulton’ s Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906).

Expositor The Expositor. Small superior numbers indicate the series.

1 W. Brandt (Jü dische Reinheitslehre und ihre Beschreibung in den Evangelien, 1910, Philippians 2:3) thinks that this expression might apply to the more recent teachers as well as to the ancient authorites.

Syll. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum2 (ed. W. Dittenberger).

Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, vö llig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebrä er, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903).

2 In 2 Mac 7:26 οὐκἐξὄντωνἐποιήσεναὐτὰὁθεός (A), the οὐκ goes with the verb.

1 LXX of Gen 1:2 ἡδὲγῆἦνἀόρατοςκαὶἀκατασκεύαστος .

M [0121: α 1031] cont. 1:1-4:3 12:20-13:25.

2 At an early period τὸβλεπόμενον was altered into τὰβλεπόμενα (D K L Ψ 6 104, 218, 326, 1288, 1 vg syr arm), to conform with the previous plurals βλεπομένων and φαινομένων .

c (Codex Colbertinus: saec. xii.)

Josephus Flavii Josephi Opera Omnia post Immanuelem Bekkerum, recognovit S. A. Naber.

LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete).

א Ԡ [01: δ 2).

D [06: α 1026] cont. 1:1-13:20. Codex Claromontanus is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is poorly * reproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of the latter (1:1-12:8) is therefore of no independent value (cp. Hort in WH, § § 335-337); for its Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of ΠρὸςἘβραίους has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix.

K [018:1:1].

L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10.

P [025: α 3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25.

r (codex Frisingensis: saec. vi., cont. 6:6-7:5 7:8-8:1 9:27-11:7)

vg vg Vulgate, saec. iv.

boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555.

A [02: δ 4].

33 [δ 48] Hort’ s 17

104 [α 103]

326 [α 257]

1311 [α 170]

1836 [α 65]

d (Latin version of D)

Thackeray H. St J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (1909).

1 In Sifre Deut. 304, the angel of death sought Moses, but found him not )ז ְ ל ֹ א מ ְ צ ָ א ו ֹ (.

5 [δ 453]

203 [α 203]

256 [α 216]

257 [α 466]

337 [α 205]

378 [α 258]

383 [α 353] cont. 1:1-13:7

491 [δ 152]

506 [δ 101]

623 [α 173]

1611 [α 208]

EBi The Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899-1903, ed. J. S. Black and T. K. Cheyne).

1 Philo fancifully allegorizes the phrase in the de mutat. nomin. 4: φθείρεταιοὖνεἰκότωςτὸγεῶδεςκαὶκαταλύεται , ὅτανὅλοςδι ʼ ὅλωνὁνοῦςεὐαρεστεῖνπροέληταιθεῷ · σπάνιονδὲκαὶτὸγένοςκαὶμόλιςεὑρισκόμενον , πλὴνοὐκἀδύνατονγενέσθαι · δηλοῖδὲτὸχρησθὲνἐπὶτοῦἘνὼχλόγιοντόδε · εὐηρέστησεδὲἘνὼχτῷθεῷκαὶοὐχεὑρισκετο · ποῦγὰρ ‹ ἂν › σκεψάμενόςτιςεὕροιτὰγαθὸντοῦτο ; … οὐχεὑρίσκετοὁεὐαρηστήσαστρόποςτῷθεῷ , ὡςἂνδήπουὑπαρκτὸςμὲνὤν , ἀποκρυπτόμενοςδὲκαὶτὴνεἰςταὐτὸσύνοδονἡμῶνἀποδιδράσκων , ἐπειδὴκαὶμετατεθῆναιλέγεται .

p [α 1034] cont. 2:14-5:6 10:8-11:13 11:28-12:17: Oxyrhynchus Papyri, iv. (1904) 36-48. The tendency, in 2:14-5:5, to agree with B “ in the omission of unessential words and phrases … gives the papyrus peculiar value in the later chapters, where B is deficient” ; thus p 13 partially makes up for the loss of B after 9:14. Otherwise the text of the papyrus is closest to that of D.

1739 [α 78]

2127 [δ 202]

sah The Coptic Version of the NT in the Southern Dialect (Oxford, 1920), vol. v. pp. 1-131.

Thdt. Theodoret

1 According to Jubilees 19:16f. Abraham lived to see Jacob’ s manhood.

69 [δ 505]

436 [α 172]

462 [α 502]

1245 [α 158]

1288 [α 162]

2005 [α 1436] cont. 1:1-7:2

1 Isa 51:2 ἐμβλέψατεεἰςἈβραὰμτὸνπατέραὑμῶν … ὅτιεἶςἦν .

Ψ̠ [044: δ 6] cont. 1:1-8:11 9:19-13:25.

2 The comparison of a vast number to stars and sands is common in Greek and Latin literature; cp. e.g. Pindar’ s Olymp. 2:98, and Catullus, 61:202f..

W [I] cont. 1:1-3, 9-12. 2:4-7, 12-14. 3:4-6, 14-16 4:3-6, 12-14 5:5-7 6:1-3, 10-13, 20 7:1-2, 7-11, 18-20, 27-28 8:1, 7-9 9:1-4, 9-11, 16-19, 25-27 10:5-8, 16-18, 26-29, 35-38 11:6-7, 12-15, 22-24, 31-33, 38-40 12:1, 7-9, 16-18, 25-27 13:7-9, 16-18, 23-25: NT MSS in Freer Collection, The Washington MS of the Epp. of Paul (1918), pp. 294-306. Supports Alexandrian text, and is “ quite free from Western readings.”

6 [δ 356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25

GCP Grundzü ge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, von L. Mitteis und U. Wilcken (1912), I. Band.

OGIS Dittenberger’ s Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (1903-1905).

1 Cp. Test. Job xxxiii. (οὔτωκἀγώἡγησάμηντὰἐμὰ , ἀντ ʼ οὐδένοςπρὸςἐκείνηντὴνπόλινπερὶἧςλελάληκένμοιὁἄγγελος ).

216 [α 469]

Cosm Cosmas Indicopleustes (ed. E. O. Winstedt, CAmbridge, 1909)

919 [α 113]

B [03: δ 1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293.

1 Origen (Joh. ii. 17): μεγάληγὰρδωρεὰτοῖςπατριάρχαιςτὸτὸνθεὸνἀντὶὀνόματοςπροσάψαιτὴνἐκείνωνὀνομασίαντῇ › θεὸσ ‹ ἱδίᾳαὐτοῦπροσηγορίᾳ .

2 The LXX of Gen 22:2 reads τὸνἀγαπητόν , but perhaps the writer of ΠρὸςἙβραίους read a text like that underlying Aquila , Josephus (τὸνμονογενῆ , Ant. i. 3. 1), and Symmachus . Μονογενής and ἀγαπητός , as applied to a son, tended to shade into one another. Philo reads ἀγαπητὸςκαὶμόνος (quod deus immut 4, etc.).

1 Josephus (Ant. i. 13. 4) describes the father and son as παρ ʼ ἐλπίδαςἑαυτοὺςκεκομισμένοι . Philo has the same usage.

2 Aelian (Var. Hist. iii. 33) speaks of Satyrus the flautist, τρόποντινὰτὴντέχνηνἐκφαυλίζωνπαραβολῇτῇπρὸςφιλοσοφίαν .

1 To suggest that it means “ even” is flat for a blessing, ex hypothesi, referred to the future. Its omission (by א K L P, the eastern versions, etc.) is more easily explained than its insertion.

2 1 K 1:47 προσεκύνησενὁβασιλεύςἐπὶτὴνκοίτην , ἐπί has the same local sense.

1827 [α 367]

1 It recurs in an edict of Caracalla (215 a.d.), quoted by Mitteis-Wilcken, i. 2, 39.

C [04: δ 3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25.

547 [δ 157]

Theod. Theodore of Mospsuestia

1831 [α 472]

1 A more apt example is the nerving of Judith for her act of religious patriotism (cp. Rendel Harris, Sidelights on NT Research, 170 f.), though there is a verbal parallel in the case of Samson .

2 The odd v.l. γυναικᾶς (p13 א * A D* 33, 1912) may be another case (cp. Thackeray, 149, for LXX parallels) of -ας for -ες as a nominative form; as an accusative, it could only have the senseless meaning of “ marrying” . Strong, early groups of textual authorities now and then preserve errors.

1 Another word for the frame was τροχός , as in 4 Mac 9:20, where the eldest of the seven famous Jewish brothers is beaten to death. Hence the verb used by Philo (in Flaccum, 10) to describe the punishment inflicted on the Alexandrian Jews .

2 [α 253]

327 [O 36]

1 Or ἐνεπρήσθησαν , which is used by Philo in describing the woes of the Alexandrian Jews .

88 [α 200]