Hebrews 11

CHAPTER XI

The Galaxy of the Men and the Women of Faith in Inspiring Array, chapter 11

Hebrews 11:1

1 This is one of the grand chapters of the Bible, a gallery of notable portraits of ancient great believers, each drawn with a master hand. They all believed the unseen, they all trusted a promise, things for which they had to wait and hope. One grand characteristic makes them all kin—faith. Things adverse, matters contradictory, painful, long, they refused to permit to quench their faith. Their names are here inscribed on an immortal scroll. So great is their number that all cannot be named, the full list is recorded in heaven.

This is a list the readers should contemplate. They are growing faint and cowardly, are thinking of shrinking back, of returning to Judaism. Let them consider that all these heroes of faith are named in the Old Testament. If they desert they do not desert to but from these men and these women and thereby place their names on that horrible list marked “Perdition” (10:39). Their names are still on the golden list; they surely aim to keep them there.

The opening statement defines what “faith” really is, this great term that was used by the writer in 10:38, 39 as well as by Habakkuk. Why quibble about the question as to whether this verse is a definition of faith or not? Why deny it even the character of a description (C.-K. 420)? We certainly agree with Delitzsch: “It seems to us that a more complete and accurate definition of faith and one that is more generally applicable could not be devised than that which is given here.” “At the commencement of such a historical summary a comprehensive and general definition of what faith is in itself … was the only definition suitable and possible.” If this is not a definition of faith, pray, what is it? Delitzsch calls it generic and not specific; it is more exact to say that we have the essence of true religious faith, the heart of what the Scriptures call saving faith. Because one can define faith in other ways (for instance as knowledge, assent, and confidence) is not a reason for saying that this is not a definition.

Δέ is transitional. Now faith is firm confidence in things hoped for, conviction regarding things not seen. Although it is placed first, ἔστι is still only the copula. There is not the least reason for translating: “There is (exists) such a thing as faith, namely a firm confidence,” etc. By placing πίστις after the copula it is brought next to its predicate, which is just what the writer wants.

Our versions and their margins suffice to show how translators and commentators and even dictionaries have wrestled with the meaning of ὑπόστασις in this passage, which is due in part to the various ways in which this word is used in Greek literature. M.-M. and R., W. P., propose “title-deed,” but the word used in the papyrus which they cite means only something like “inventory.” The word has the same meaning here that it has in 3:14 and clearly not the same as in 1:3. It signifies “firm, solid confidence” with the objective genitive “confidence in things hoped for.” All the terms used in this verse are anarthrous and thus qualitative.

The A. V.’s “the substance of things hoped for” goes back to Aquinas and to others who rendered it substantia and to the idea of Chrysostom: faith, for instance, takes the resurrection, which is not yet a reality, and “substantiates” it in our soul. The A. V.’s margin “ground” is due to the older idea that ὑπόστασις means fundamentum (Calvin, Stier, and others): each in his way connects the things hoped for with faith as a foundation. The R. V.’s “giving substance to” tries to improve the A. V.’s “substance.” It is not necessary for our purpose to take account of the various commentators and to discuss their various views.

The reason the writer makes “things hoped for” the object of the confidence in which faith consists is found in 10:35–39 where he deals with the future reward, the promise, the second coming of Christ, all of which are “things hoped for” and as such require persevering confidence and firm, solid trust that they will come to pass in due time. This is not confusing “faith” and “hope” or defining “faith” as “hope.” The two are, indeed, closely related, hope being the resultant of faith. The definition is perfectly correct: “Faith is sure and firm confidence (ὑπόστασις) in things hoped for,” the confidence that underlies these things as being certainly expected and awaited by us.

Because of 10:35–39 speaking of these things makes necessary an apposition that goes farther and includes not only future things for which we hope but also present, yea, past things. Note that this is an apposition, a wider circle that is drawn completely around the narrower one, and not an addition with καί. “Conviction regarding things not seen” is faith in its essence. The genitive is again objective: we have the conviction in regard to the unseen things that they exist in spite of our not seeing them. Riggenbach calls it eine unwiderlegliche Ueberzeugung von unsichtbaren Dingen, “an irrefutable conviction,” etc. Ὑπόστασις and ἔλεγχος are synonymous, and each has its objective genitive, these genitives being neuter plural participles.

Both “confidence” and “conviction” are subjective, necessarily subjective because they define “faith,” which is subjective. But all three imply something objective; they invariably do this. Confidence is inspired in us; conviction is wrought in us; faith (trust) is produced in us. Religious, Biblical, Christian faith is not different from faith in secular life in this respect; nor is true faith different from false faith in this respect. Satan produced faith in Eve by his lies which he dressed up as truth. Always, always someone or something impresses us as being genuine, true, right, reliable, in a word, as being trustworthy and so produces confidence, conviction; these are the essence of faith.

Any so-called synergism is never a fact but only a fiction in regard to how faith—any kind of faith—is wrought in us. All synergistic notions regarding the origin of faith are specimens of shallow, false thinking, which is dangerous on that account.

Because ἔλεγχος is used also in the sense of “proof” some prefer this meaning in the present connection. Thus the A. V. translates “evidence of things unseen,” which the R. V. seeks to improve by translating the word as a term expressing an action: “the proving of things not seen.” The A. V. perpetuates the idea of the Vulgate which has rendered the word argumentum, Calvin translates it evidentia, others demonstratio. But we cannot conceive of faith as proof, evidence, an action of proving something unseen or as an argument for unseen things.

Delitzsch supports this idea by saying: “Faith is its own certification, its own proof or evidence of divine realities.” My faith is nothing of this kind. Faith is never its own basis. “Faith,” “confidence,” “conviction” are correlative terms; faith rests on somebody or on something outside of itself and not on itself. Somebody, something outside of me inspires faith or trust in me, otherwise I have no faith. It is this outside ground that shows whether faith is true, i.e., justified, or false, i.e., unjustified. Truth alone justifies me for believing or trusting; no lie ever does that; a lie succeeds in producing faith only when it masks itself as truth.

Only the essence of faith is defined in this passage and not the way in which it originates although any adequate definition of its essence naturally leads us to think also of the way in which faith is produced in us. As to the latter, true faith is produced by God, Christ, the Spirit, who come to us in and by the Word of Truth. Not to trust them and the Word is the crime of unbelief, the height of abnormality, of unreason. “Evidence,” “proof,” etc., is the objective contents of the Word, the ground, basis, productive power of faith. We note that ἔλεγχος never means “test,” R. V. margin. B.-P. 387 has “proof for things that one does not see.”

Schlatter, Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, 3, defends the active sense of ἔλεγχος‚ Ueberfuehrung, by making the genitive subjective: “The unseen things convince a man of their existence and of their saving power and make him certain concerning them.” Schlatter’s view is correct enough that faith is ein Erlebnis, an experience, “that one does not produce but experience faith as a gift of God and not as a human act.” True as the latter is, and glad as we are to note the fact, the genitive cannot be subjective, nor need it be in order to regard faith as an Erlebnis. The two genitives are not diverse: “of things hoped for,” objective, “of things not seen,” subjective. If agency were intended by the second genitive it would be expressed in the form of a phrase in order to put this beyond question, and that the more because an objective genitive precedes. But a subjective genitive of agency is untenable because “the things not seen,” by not being seen, do not convince us of their existence, are not the agent producing the experience of faith; this agent is the Word, the means of grace. This reveals the things not seen, all their reality, greatness, blessedness. As already stated, the writer presents only what faith is and not how, by what agent, or by what means it comes into existence.

Faith is confidence in regard to all the glorious “things hoped for,” which, as far as we and our experience of them are concerned, lie in the future. These are, however, only a part of a far wider mass of things, the mark of all of which is the fact that they are “not seen” by us. Faith is a sure and certain conviction regarding all of them. All the past events recorded in the Old Testament, beginning with the creation of the world, are in this list; the life, death, resurrection, ascension, heavenly sessio of Christ, as these were at the writer’s time recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke and preached everywhere by the Twelve and by Paul; all the future events such as our resurrection, the final judgment, the new heaven and the new earth. “Not seen, not seen,” all of them; οὐ with the participle make the negation the more clear-cut and decisive (R. 1138); yet we are as certain of these unseen things as if we saw them, even more so, for here on earth our eyes often deceive us.

Do you ask whether this faith, confidence, conviction may not be mistaken as is the faith of so many in earthly affairs, as is the faith of so many also in religious things? Strenuous though their faith is, they after all find themselves—mistaken. The answer is easy although the writer does not deal with it. If our faith were its own basis it would, indeed, hang in the air. Our faith rests on the Word of God. Matt. 5:18; Luke 16:17; 1 Pet. 1:25. Only if this Word is false is our faith in all the unseen things of this Word mistaken. They whose faith rests on something else, they are indeed lost. Let us add that the best translation to date is Luther’s eine gewisse Zuversicht dess, das man hoffet und nicht zweifelt an dem, das man nicht siehet.

Hebrews 11:2

2 That this definition of faith as confidence in things hoped for, as conviction in regard to things unseen, is, indeed, the true definition is established by (“for”) a fact that is known to all the readers: For in connection with this (faith) the ancients were approved (of God), i. e., received God’s approving testimony which is recorded throughout the Old Testament. The writer will now unroll the list of these ancients, will show that “this” was the faith they had, confidence and conviction in regard to the unseen, the hoped-for, and will note the divine approval they received. Do the readers want to be found in this glorious company with God’s approval resting on them? Let them then heed 10:39!

Πρεσβύτεροι is not used as a title but in the ordinary sense and should not be translated “elders”; it is our “ancients,” people who lived in olden times no matter how many years old each of them may have been. Ἐν is not auf Grund but “in connection with this (faith),” the context indicates the connection referred to, which is obvious here: when God saw this faith he openly gave it his testimonial of approval. Blessed the ancients who received this testimonial; blessed the readers and we today when we receive it!

Hebrews 11:3

3 Πίστει—Πίστει—Πίστει marches through the rest of this great chapter: “By means of faith—By means of faith—By means of faith.” These datives are like flying banners that are borne in a great parade. On one golden cord all these names are strung together with the deeds that proved the faith in which they lived and died, the faith that God approved, his testimony being immortalized in Scripture. Always, always it was “this” faith as defined by the writer.

At the head of the galaxy of believers, ushering in the series of statements that begin with πίστει, the writer places one that is drawn from the first page of the Bible: By means of faith we understand that the eons have been framed by means of God’s uttered word so that what is seen has come to be not (as derived) out of things that appear.

The criticism that, after mentioning “the ancients” in v. 2, the writer should continue with Abel in v. 4 and not insert this statement about what “by means of faith, we understand,” is not well taken. The reply that the writer naturally thinks of the first page of the Bible when he starts as far back as possible, is well enough; for he surely does this. But the reply should be made stronger. All that these heroes of faith are, and all that God’s Word reports concerning them, is intended for us so that we may see the essential thing in their faith (v. 1). It is thus that the writer starts with “we” and, when he introduces this long history of faith in all these other persons, notes, first of all, that the first page of the Bible is simply believed by us. “By means of faith,” the essence of which is confidence and assurance in regard to unseen things, by this means alone we understand how the world came to be.

We read that first page and believe it; we have nothing else to go by. The writer is, of course, addressing readers who join him in this faith regarding the creation of the world; he is not speaking to the pagans of his day, nor to the skeptics of our day. He says to his readers: “In this our faith about the creation of the world we ourselves illustrate what faith really is.” It is a telling thing for the writer to begin this way. To have at once continued with v. 4 would have been a loss.

Moreover, he is taking his readers into the pages of the Bible in order to review what the Bible says about all these historical characters. He and they believe what the Bible says about these men and these women and the testimony God gives them in the Bible (v. 2) although neither he nor his readers have seen one of these illustrious persons. It would be of no use to name a single one of them if the readers do not believe what God testifies regarding them. That is why faith in what God says about creation on the very first page of the Bible is so pertinent here. It constitutes a grand sample of confidence in things unseen, a sample in the very readers themselves who believe also all else that is now to be presented to them from the same Bible about all these other believers, none of whom they have ever seen.

“By means of faith (and in no other way) we understand that the eons have been framed by means of God’s uttered word.” We were not there to see even the least thing, i.e., to hear God speak and then to see what happened. We take it all on trust. All else is excluded. He who refuses to have faith is left at sea; he cannot “understand,” have in his νοῦς or mind, a single true thing about the whole matter. How can he know, when he is left to his own guessing in a matter so stupendous, that all guessing (hypotheses, theories, speculations) is utterly vain? He can fill his mind with rubbish, which is worse than nothing, and the mind is surely not intended for that.

The mind simply has to have faith. Oh, no, not faith in what other men may please to say, who themselves were not there to see; but faith in him who was there, faith in what he is pleased to tell us about it, namely that he framed the whole world and set it on its course “by means of his ῥῆμα, his uttered word.” He called all things into being.

In 1:2 we have “he made the eons”; καταρτίζω is a choicer term. Also ῥῆμα is most exact, “the word uttered,” vayomer, “and God said.” The idea is not that we now understand all about it, that all the questions of our finite minds are answered. Creation is beyond human comprehension. But we do understand the main thing, namely that God called the world into being. On τοὺςαἰῶνας see 1:2; it includes the cosmos in its extent of time and all that fills and forms one eon after another; heaven and earth and all that has its being in them. God created the light ever to shine, the firmament, land, and sea ever to stand, the heavenly bodies to move in their orbits, etc., etc.—eons, ages and ages thus filled, which is a grander concept than τὰπάντα or πάντα (John 1:2), which views all the objects only as objects.

The view that εἰςτό with the infinitive always denotes purpose is untenable; it often denotes contemplated and also actual result. Here there is “a clear example of result” (R. 1003): “so that what is seen has come to be not (as derived) out of things that appear,” so that this is the result, one that we by faith understand as being the result. The singular τόβλεπόμενον is collective and sums up as a unit all that we constantly see. It has come to be, come into existence, “not from things that appear,” plural, taking in every last one of them that has in any way the quality of appearing.

Note the difference: “what is seen” by us with our eyes; “things that appear,” show themselves to us, to our eyes and our senses. We do the seeing, such things do the appearing. What men see has not come into existence from prior things that might in some way make an appearance to our senses; what men see has come to be “by means of God’s spoken word,” it has received its existence in this way alone. Those are right who say that this means creation ex nihilo. Ps. 33:6, 9. But the writer’s point is that we understand this fact as a fact only “by means of faith.”

To regard the εἰςτό clause as expressing a purpose is untenable because of the tense of γεγονέναι. To translate: “in order that … has come to be,” makes no sense; hence those who regard this as a purpose clause generally tell us what they think the purpose is, namely that God created the world by means of his uttered word “in order that” none of us should think that anything has come into existence from what already existed. This is substitution, not translation, not paraphrase.

There is some dispute about μή. It modifies the phrase; we translate “not out of things that appear.” It negatives the phrase (R. 423). B.-D. 433, 3 applies the rule that participles and adjectives that occur after a preposition have the negative particle before the preposition so that here μὴἐκ = ἐκμή: “have come to be out of things that do not appear.” This rule is to be applied only when the participle or the adjective is to be negatived. This rule cannot be applied here despite the fact that the Greek commentators did apply it. Those commentators understood “things not appearing” as equal to “nothing.” They had the correct thought. Yet “things not appearing” might be equal to “invisible things,” “things that do not show.” The writer does not intend to say that the visible things have been derived from invisible things.

Whence were these invisible, nonapparent things derived? The writer does not leave us with such a question. Nor with the question as to what these “nonappearing things” may signify. Those who negative the participle feel obliged to say what “nonappearing things” means. Some refer to tohu vabohu, chaos, as if this had no appearance; some to “images or architypes in the mind of God” (Delitzsch) akin to Plato’s and Philo’s “ideas,” this is philosophic speculation; some, like Riggenbach, to ῥῆμαΘεοῦ, “God’s utterance,” as if this could be called “things (plural) nonappearing.” If we leave the negative where the writer has written it, all is in order. Still other constructions are advocated such as construing μή with the infinitive or with the whole clause in a general way.

Abel, Enoch, Noah

Hebrews 11:4

4 By means of faith Abel offered to God a superior sacrifice than Cain, by means of which testimony was given to him that he was righteous, God giving him testimony on the basis of his gifts; and by means of it, though having died, he still continues to speak.

The writer starts with Abel and not with Adam because Genesis offers an example of God’s approving testimony in the case of Abel and not in the case of Adam or of Eve. What made Abel’s sacrifice to God πλείων, “more” in the sense of “superior,” than the sacrifice of Cain? Abel’s faith. That is stressed and not the fact that Abel offered a bloody and Cain a vegetable sacrifice, or that Abel offered firstlings and Cain not first fruits, on which some have laid stress by emphasizing these differences. The writer centers everything on Abel’s faith in contrast with Cain’s lack of faith.

Since the emphasis is placed on πίστει, “by means of which” has “faith” and not “sacrifice” as its antecedent. Abel’s faith gained for him the approving testimony of God that is recorded in Gen. 4:4: “And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering” while he had no respect unto Cain and his offering (v. 5). Abel is thus the first of “the ancients” who were given God’s approving testimony in Scripture (v. 2). The matter is emphasized by the repetition of ἐμαρτυρήθη in the participle μαρτυροῦντος: “Abel was given testimony … God testifying.” The writer sums up the testimony stated in Gen. 4:4 with εἶναιδίκαιος: “him to be righteous.” This is indirect discourse, in our idiom it would be “that he was righteous” (direct discourse: “Thou art righteous”).

The meaning of δίκαιος should not be reduced. To be sure, this is not the first verdict God pronounced on Abel’s faith, but it is the one recorded in Gen. 4:4 in connection with his sacrifice shortly before his brother murdered him; but that fact does not change the forensic meaning of “righteous” nor the connection of faith with the verdict of God regarding Abel. Only by reason of God’s verdict did Abel have the quality and the standing of being “righteous” in God’s sight. The reason the writer sums up Gen. 4:4 in the statement “that he was righteous” appears in 10:38: “The righteous, as the result of faith shall he live.” The two decisive words “faith” and “righteous” are thus repeated. The LXX render Gen. 4:4: ΚαὶἐπεῖδενὁΘεὸςἐπὶἌβελκαὶἐπὶτοῖςδώροιςαὐτοῦ (the Hebrew has “his offering”). The writer retains the LXX’s phrase ἐπὶτοῖςδώροιςαὐτοῦ just as he generally adheres to the LXX.

Abel’s sacrificial “gifts” were the marked evidence of his faith that called out a renewed verdict from God which declared him righteous, not in words that God spoke to Abel, but by an act of God’s regarding Abel. That act is here called “testifying.”

God never looks only at our “gifts,” he looks at what is back of them in the heart, whether there is faith, the confidence in things hoped for from him and his promises of grace, the conviction in regard to things unseen (v. 1). But when God pronounces his verdicts in public, testifies in public to men about any person who has faith, he stresses that person’s works, in this case Abel’s gifts. Jesus will do the same in the final, public judgment (Matt. 25:34, etc.).

“By means of it (i.e., faith), though having died (aorist to express the simple fact), he still continues to speak.” The current idea is that the writer refers to Gen. 4:10, Abel’s blood crying to God from the ground (compare 12:24), that from the fact that it cried thus after death we see the high value faith lent to Abel, God being still concerned about him after his death. Ps. 116:15 is adduced to prove this view: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints”; also Ps. 9:12.

We confess that we are unable to find this in out passage. The writer says that, although he had been dead for millenniums, Abel (not his blood) speaks (not cries) to us (not to God), speaks in the Scripture record by means of his faith as to how in the Scriptures God gave him approving testimony on the basis of his sacrificial gifts as evidence of his faith. So far, even down to us, the voice of Abel’s faith reaches despite his death. Chrysostom and others have Abel’s voice urge us to like faith, a thought that is in line with the text.

Hebrews 11:5

5 By means of faith Enoch was translated so as not to see death and was not being found because God translated him, for he has received the testimony to have been before his translation well-pleasing to God. Now without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing, for it is necessary that he who comes to God believe that he exists and becomes a giver of due pay to those seeking after him.

But for his faith Enoch would not have been taken to heaven without dying. The verb means “to transfer”; by using it twice and by adding the noun the author emphasizes Enoch’s miraculous removal to heaven. As far as one is able to judge, this was instantaneous; Elijah was taken up visibly. Glorified in body and in soul like Elijah, Enoch is now in Paradise.

These two men did not undergo death; the infinitive with τοῦ denotes result, and “to see death” = to undergo or experience it (“to see” is similarly used in John 3:3). The transformation of Enoch resembles that promised in 1 Cor. 15:52 and in 1 Thess. 4:17. Delitzsch thinks that Enoch’s translation occurred in the year 987 after Adam’s creation. Adam had died, but Seth, Enos, Kenan, Mahalaleel, and Jared were still living, and Methuselah and Lamech were also living, but Noah had not yet been born. Being only sixty-five years old at the time of his translation, Enoch was young according to the ages which men reached at that time of the world’s history when God so signally distinguished his faith. “He was not being found (imperfect) because God translated him” repeats the LXX’s rendering of Gen. 5:24.

We construe the πρό phrase with the infinitive: “to have been before his translation well-pleasing to God,” and the phrase is placed forward for the sake of emphasis. The Hebrew, “he walked with God,” the LXX rendered “he was well-pleasing to God,” which our writer retains. Some construe the πρό phrase with the main verb and then regard the phrase as local rather than as temporal and say that it indicates the order of the statements of Scripture: the saying that Enoch was well-pleasing to God (Hebrew, walked with God) is placed before the statement that he was translated to heaven. But look at Gen. 5:22–24 and see that in v. 24 everything is compressed into one very brief verse. It is a rather unimportant remark to point out that in Gen. 5:24 Enoch’s being well-pleasing to God is recorded “before” his translation is recorded.

Furthermore, this idea does not agree with the perfect tense “he has received the testimony” (the significant verb being repeated from v. 2 and v. 4), the tense signifying that this testimony stands to this day and continues indefinitely. The πρό phrase is added so that we are not to think that God’s testimony consisted in his miraculously translating Enoch and thereby testifying what he thought of Enoch. If this were intended, we should have the aorist. What the writer says is that the permanent testimony Enoch has received from God consists of what the Scriptures permanently record about his having lived for a long time in a way that was well-pleasing to God prior to his translation. The author therefore also uses the perfect infinitive which expresses past duration. The graph for μεμαρτύρηται is →; that for εὐαρεστηκέναι >—∙

Hebrews 11:6

6 Since Gen. 5:22–24 does not employ the word “faith” but only the expression “to be well-pleasing” (LXX), the writer expounds: “Now without faith (it is) impossible to be well-pleasing” (actually well-pleasing, effective aorist). In other words, what makes any man well-pleasing to God is faith; without it there is no possibility of pleasing God.

Even this is elucidated (“for”). The man who comes to God in order to be well-pleasing to him must believe two things: first, that God “is,” i.e., exists; secondly, that he becomes a giver of due pay to those seeking after him; the two statements after one ὅτι ever constitute a unit. Verse 1 underlies this statement; God and his heavenly reward of grace to believers are “not seen,” yet faith is confident and convinced that God exists, that he is what he says he is, and that the heavenly reward promised by him and hoped for by the believer is a certainty although it is now unseen.

Δεῖ may express any kind of necessity; it is here the necessity that is involved in any actual pleasing of God. Μισθαποδότης, which is found only in one papyrus and in later ecclesiastical Greek, continues the expression that was used in 10:35 (see 11:26; also 2:2, where, however, the pay is punishment). Enoch is, indeed, a glorious example of how God approves faith, the faith that genuinely trusts the unseen, the unseen God, his unseen reward of grace, the faith that the readers must not throw away (10:35).

Hebrews 11:7

7 By means of faith Noah, having received divine communication concerning things not yet seen, filled with godly fear, constructed an ark for saving his family; by means of which (faith) he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness of faith.

We need not translate “warned,” which does not fit 8:5; “received a divine communication” is more exact. We connect this first participle with the περί phrase because the reader would do this. The divine communication certainly also concerned things that were not yet seen, namely the rain, the flood, the devastation of the world, about which the readers also know (hence the article). The second participle, “filled with godly fear,” needs no modifier because it states the subjective effect of the objective reception of a divine communication concerning the things not yet seen; in fact, this relation of the participles, which is so immediately obvious, precludes any idea of separating the phrase from the first participle. We decline to make εὐλαβηθείς mean only “having become cautious or careful”; this reduced meaning is certainly not in place where a divine communication immediately precedes.

The older idea that when οὐ is used with a participle it is objective (v. 1) while μή is subjective must be discarded as well as all deductions that are based on this distinction. The common negation used with participles is μή (here μηδέπω, “not yet”); οὐ is infrequent and is used only to make the negation more clear-cut. Beyond this there is no difference between v. 1 and v. 7. The negation used in v. 7 indicates in no way that the phrase is to be construed with the second participle. “The things not yet seen” takes up “things not seen” which occurs in v. 1. Noah believed what God told him, his “conviction” (ἔλεγχος) was complete although he as yet saw nothing.

Let us not lose the force of what this means in the case of Noah. The idea that the world should perish in a flood that was mountain high seems preposterous, fantastic, impossible. When God told Noah that he would send such a flood, Noah believed God without question. He had absolutely nothing visible to go by yet trusted God’s word with full conviction. His is, indeed, a perfect example of faith as it is defined in v. 1. The great evidence of his faith is the fact that “he constructed an ark for saving his family” as God had told him (οἶκος is used in the sense of “family”).

As it did in v. 4, διʼ ἧς refers to faith: “by which faith he condemned the world.” The view that Noah did not condemn the world of men because of their unbelief is untenable. The statement that the writer never uses κόσμος to designate the world of men is answered by 11:8. The brevity of the expression is misunderstood when this is said to exclude the fact of Noah’s preaching to men (“preacher of righteousness,” 2 Pet. 2:5), and that God demanded no such act of faith as Noah’s from the rest of men. God delayed the flood for 120 years for the very purpose of giving the world of men time to repent and to believe Noah’s preaching. The thought was not that they, too, might build arks, but that God might withhold the flood. This sketch of what Noah did intends to recall to the readers the whole story of Noah and not a mere fragment of this story.

Noah’s condemnation of the world is not so much Noah’s as it is God’s through Noah and his faith. So the Ninevites, so the Queen of Sheba shall condemn the Jews of Jesus’ generation for their unbelief.

The fact that Noah was saved in the flood is implied; what the writer says is far greater, namely that by means of his faith he condemned the unbelieving world (a negative act) and (a positive act) “became heir of the righteousness of faith.” The attributive phrase κατὰπίστιν is a substitute for the genitive “of faith” (B.-P. 637); which fact should settle the discussion as to just what κατά means, whether “according to faith” or something else. We do not regard καί as introducing an independent sentence although it would still contain the word “faith.” Everything is made dependent on πίστει at the head of the sentence, the relative διʼ ἧς resumes the dative and governs to the end. As faith was the means for Noah’s condemning the world that refused faith, so it was the means for his becoming heir of the faith-righteousness.

But “became heir” is not to be referred to his being designated as an heir whose inheritance was still in the far future but should be referred to his entrance upon the inheritance; we say “fell heir to.” The genitive states what Noah fell heir to: “the righteousness of faith,” the quality that is produced by God’s verdict which pronounces a man righteous in his judgment. The κατά phrase adds the thought that this quality belongs, always goes “along with” faith; hence also Noah obtained it “by means of faith” (διʼ ἧς). Thus faith—faith—is again emphasized, the faith that is defined in verse 1.

It has been noted that these expressions are Pauline; they are indeed. The readers were even converts of Paul’s; if, as we take it, the writer was Apollos, he was an associate of Paul (1 Cor. 16:12; Titus 3:13). The sense, too, is Pauline. There is only one righteousness of faith all efforts to find another to the contrary notwithstanding. Noah’s case is similar to Abraham’s: both were righteous the moment they believed, yet after signal tests of their faith they are just as signally declared to be in possession of the great quality of righteousness which ever belongs to faith. The fact that righteousness ever goes with faith lies in the attributive phrase: τῆςκατὰπίστινδικαιοσύνης.

Abraham and Sarah

Hebrews 11:8

8 By means of faith, being called, Abraham became obedient to go out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance, and he went out, not knowing where he was going. By means of faith he lived as an outsider in the land of the promise as not his own together with Isaac and Jacob, the fellow heirs of the same promise.

The first great evidence of Abraham’s faith is his obedience. Being called to do so, he went out to a place which he was eventually to receive as an inheritance, and this he did, not knowing where he was going. The two points that belong to the essence of faith (v. 1) are apparent: Abraham believed God’s promise about the land he was to have as his heritage (Gen. 12:1, etc.), which = “things hoped for”; Abraham did not know the land to which he was going, which = “things not seen.” He went wholly and completely on trust.

In ἤμελλελαμβάνειν we have the compound imperfect, which is descriptive of what in Abraham’s life is past for us but was at the time future to him: “which he was about to be receiving.” Κληρονομία = what falls to one’s lot, thus “allotment” from God, or, taking God’s promise as a testament, “inheritance.” The Greek retains the present tense of the direct discourse when this is restated in the indirect: “where he is going”; the English changes to “where he was going.”

Hebrews 11:9

9 Much more must be said about Abraham’s faith as a pure trust in things hoped for and not seen (v. 1). He maintained this trust throughout his life. All his life long “by means of faith he dwelt as an outsider in the land of the promise (static εἰς R. 593) as (a land) ἀλλοτρίαν,” belonging to others and not to him; he never owned it. He remained a πάροικος, a foreigner, who was permitted to remain in the land as an alien by those who as citizens owned and controlled it. Thus he lived only “in tents” and not in a city and its permanent houses. How long this continued we see from the ματά phrase: “together with Isaac and Jacob, the fellow heirs of the same promise.” Even these never received the land as their own. They died, having nothing but faith in the promise—a grand exhibition of faith as it is described in v. 1.

Hebrews 11:10

10 “For” explains by telling us that this faith looked far beyond all earthly things: For he kept awaiting the city which has the foundations, of which God is architect and erecter.

The earthly land of promise is only the earthly type and symbol of the heavenly Canaan. The type is advanced from the idea of a land or country to the antitype of the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem. This brings out the idea of permanency, which is made still stronger by saying that this city of God “has the foundations,” the foundations that Abraham’s tents never had or could have even as a “city” is more than “tents.” Rev. 21:10–27 describes John’s vision of this city, v. 19, etc., dwells on its “foundations.” The relative clause augments the idea of permanency. Cities that are built by men are strong and last long; but the technician (τεχνίτης) and public worker (δήμιος+ἔργον), the architect and erecter, of this city is God (ὁΘεός is marked as the subject by means of the article, the anarthrous nouns are predicates). Built by God, this city stands forever.

Abraham understood the whole promise that was made to him by God. It was by no means the truth that his descendants would possess Palestine as their national home at some future time; this earthly possession foreshadowed the Eternal City which Abraham and his spiritual descendants would possess as their inheritance forever. The imperfect tense states that Abraham’s expectation ever went out toward this city; so also, we may add, did Isaac’s and Jacob’s. This was Abraham’s faith in things hoped for and not seen. In this faith he lived and died. In this faith it made little difference to him when the promise regarding the earthly Canaan was fulfilled. What if he himself never lived to see this fulfillment? He expected a far greater, an eternal fulfillment.

Hebrews 11:11

11 There is a crux in v. 11. The reading καὶαὐτὴΣάρρα makes Sarah the subject, but the predicate does not fit her. Despite this disagreement many retain Sarah as the subject and make the predicate agree. There is something wrong with the text; this is also shown by the variant readings which copyists introduced in order to help out the idea that Sarah is the subject. No Greek text and no ancient version assist us in locating the trouble. Verses 8–12 deal with Abraham; Isaac and Jacob are only associated with him (μετά), and this must also be the case with regard to Sarah.

The word αυτη was most likely originally intended as a dative, not as the nominative αὐτή but as αὐτῇ, and indeclinable Σάρρα was thus also a dative. This is Riggenbach’s solution, who regards αὐτῇ as the Greek idiom that expresses close connection (Kuehner—Gerth 425, 4). We thus translate: By means of faith also with Sarah he received ability for projecting seed even contrary to (his) age-period since he considered him faithful who made the promise; wherefore also from one, and that— (one) that had become dead, there were begotten (as many) even as the stars of the heaven in multitude and as the sand of the shore of the sea unnumbered.

Καταβολὴσπέρματος, the standard and technical term for the projection or deposition of the semen virile into the womb by the male organ, is even combined with δύναμις: “ability” for such an action. This makes it impossible to say that Sarah received such ability, καὶαὐτή, “even herself.” Only by putting a different meaning into the expression, a meaning that is not found anywhere, can a female be made the subject. C.-K. 190 takes the expression to mean: “Even Sarah herself received ability for Begruendung der Nachkommenschaft,” Thayer 330, “to found a posterity.” But this meaning is incongruous. Since Abraham is so markedly the subject, why should not he but Sarah be made the founder of a posterity?

“Received strength (power) to conceive seed,” in our versions, is a mistranslation. The A. V. adopts also the supplement, which a few texts add to the original: “and was delivered of a child” (εἰςτὸτεκνῶσαι: so as to give birth), which does not, however, aid matters. Some note that καταβολὴσπέρματος undoubtedly refers to the act of the male; so, in order to retain Sarah as the subject, they let εἰς mean “in respect to”: she received ability “in respect to” Abraham’s injection of semen into her womb, and then add the argument that “even she” had to be miraculously enabled for the sexual act and not only Abraham. This effort breaks down on the meaning of καταβολὴ, which ought to be the reverse, not Abraham’s injection of σπέρμα, but her reception.

All these interpretations have trouble also with καὶαὐτή as the renderings show: “Sarah herself also”—why “herself” when no one is compared with her? “Sarah in her place”—yet the word does not mean “in her place.” Sarah “the sterile,” στεῖρα—a textual addition that would help to make Sarah the subject. Sarah as vas infirmius—an interpretative rendering that is unsatisfactory. Sarah “likewise”—which needs no refutation. Sarah, “though at first unbelieving,” yet “by faith” received ability to conceive. All these efforts try to solve the crux, which refuses to yield as long as Sarah is retained as the subject.

The great point is Abraham, and Sarah is only an adjunct (dative of association, R. 528–530) as being naturally required for the sexual act. The greatness of Abraham’s faith in God’s promise about inheriting Canaan, inheriting it as the type of the heavenly city, lies in trusting this promise despite the fact that he had no son by Sarah while the promise of God depended on such a son and heir. He actually believed what seemed to be an utter impossibility: “even contrary to (παρά, completely gegen, wider, B.-P. 975) his period of life,” aged as he was. Yet the miracle happened: he received the necessary ability “since he considered him faithful who did make (English: has made) the promise.” His faith secured what he hoped for (v. 1). So all else that God promised him would come to pass in due time.

Hebrews 11:12

12 The writer dwells on the result: “Wherefore also from one (masculine, Abraham) there were begotten (our versions: sprang from one) as many even as the stars,” etc. This adopts the comparison used in Gen. 22:17 and adds “unnumbered” at the end. The articles bid us note each item separately: “as the sand—that by the shore of the sea—that (which is) unnumbered” (without number). The doubling stars—sand intensifies the simile immensely. The texts vary between ἐγεννήθησαν and ἐγενήθησαν (“there came to be”); they do this also in other passages since both generally fit the context. Yet one should not say that γεννάω properly fits only a woman; Thayer: “properly of men begetting children.” The object is implied in the verb itself and hence needs none in the Greek.

In order to bring out the miracle for which Abraham’s faith was the means the writer inserts: καὶταῦτα‚ κτλ., (a classical concessive idiom in the Greek), “and that—(one) that has become dead,” i.e., “him as good as dead” (our versions), and the perfect indicates a permanent condition that had set in.

The Patriarchs and the Heavenly City

Hebrews 11:13

13 In v. 10 the writer says that Abraham kept awaiting a city that has foundations, a city whose builder is God, and in v. 9 that Isaac and Jacob were in Abraham’s company, all of them being tent-dwellers. This statement about “a city” is not the language used in Genesis as the readers will most likely note. Thus the writer inserts the little paragraph (v. 13–16) in which he explains about the heavenly “fatherland” and the “city” and sets forth more fully the faith of these “ancients” (v. 2) as trusting in things hoped for and not seen (v. 1).

In keeping with faith they all died, not having carried off the promises but (only) having seen them afar off and having saluted them and having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

It was entirely in keeping or in accord and harmony with faith, κατὰπίστιν as this is defined in v. 1 that these patriarchs died without having brought away the promises (i.e., the things promised them) in this life; the expression is the same as that used in 10:36 and 11:39. To reject this meaning on the score of μή, which is then regarded as being subjective, and to suppose that οὐ would be required for this meaning is to operate with the older idea that μή is subjective whereas in the Koine it is the regular negation with participles. Since faith is confidence in things hoped for, conviction in regard to things not seen, it was altogether in line with faith that these patriarchs died as they did, having seen only afar off with the eyes of faith the great things promised them. “These all” refers only to “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” because, for one thing, Enoch did not die, and, for another, the writer has mentioned the “city” only in connection with Abraham who had Isaac and Jacob with him. In 10:36 and 11:39 we have “the promise” and in this verse the plural, but these are used in the same sense; all that lies in the plural is the thought that each of the patriarchs personally heard God’s promise, or that the one promise contained various items.

The writer says beautifully: “having seen them only from afar and having saluted them” while in this life. They were like pilgrims to the Holy City who see its towers and spires on the horizon, ecstatically point to the vision and shout their acclaim. This is all they had during their earthly lives. The aorist participles are antecedent to the main verb. “And having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth” and never anything more (see Abraham’s confession in Gen. 23:4: “a stranger and sojourner”; also 24:37; 28:4), they spoke the true confession of faith. The statement that their confessions referred only to Canaan and not to “the earth,” does not take into account the facts that Canaan was the land that had been promised to them, and that when we speak of staying “on earth” we, too, refer only to some one place and not to the whole earth. The indirect discourse retains εἰσίν whereas we change to “were” after a past tense.

Hebrews 11:14

14 With “for” the writer points out the fact that this negative confession of being nothing but strangers and pilgrims involves a great positive thought: For they saying such things keep indicating that they are earnestly seeking a fatherland, πατρίς, not just “country” (A.V.), nor “a country of their own,” but “fatherland,” where one’s native home is, where one really belongs and is entirely happy. There is much more in this word than is generally noted. Unlike children of this world, these persons cannot settle down in some earthly place as their “fatherland” and feel fully satisfied and content there. They are born of God, they are children of God, this earth is not their home, and, although they are compelled to stay here, they constantly speak only as strangers and pilgrims speak and always show by this, show even unconsciously, that they are seeking for a fatherland in which they really belong.

It should be noted that the present tenses are not historical but present the thought as such irrespective of time. This point is important in regard to v. 15, 16. In v. 16 the present tense continues exactly as it was in v. 14. Between these two verses we have a condition of unreality. Since the thought before and after is cast in present tenses, this conditional statement cannot be a past unreality, it must match what preceded and what follows and be the same present unreality.

Hebrews 11:15

15 And if they were remembering that one from which they went out they would have opportunity to return; now, however, they aspire to a better one, that is, to a heavenly one; wherefore God is not ashamed of them to be called their God, for he prepared for them a city.

One wonders why this εἰ with the imperfect (protasis) and the imperfect with ἄν (apodosis), a perfectly regular present condition of unreality, should be made a past unreality (which ought to have εἰ with the aorist and be followed by the aorist with ἄν). The grammarians apparently think that this ought to be a case of past unreality and therefore regard it as past. B.-D. 360, 3 has only the unsupported remark regarding the use of imperfects in unreal conditions: zeitlich ist das Imperfect zweideutig, and then mentions John 18:36, ἠγωνίζοντο, which is clearly present unreality; he does not consider our passage.

R. 1015 as well as W. P. state that in our passage the imperfect tenses are past unreality but intend to stress duration in the past. These imperfects certainly convey the idea of duration, but as present unreality, as they always do, duration being quite proper in such present conditions. R. 922 lists some examples of conditions of unreality in which the imperfect “might denote a past condition.” The list is unsatisfactory and contains only eight examples, including our passage which we do not regard as past unreality. Nor is Matt. 23:30; just because Matthew might have used a past condition does not make the present one he did use a past. Matt. 24:43 and Luke 12:39 are of the same nature; they are like John 4:10; all three are mixed conditions, the protases being present unreality, the apodoses past (ᾔδει is always used as an imperfect). John 11:21 and 1 John 2:19 are past unreality, the imperfect of εἶναι, as Robertson himself states elsewhere, doing duty for the seldom-used aorist.

This clears up the two variants. Some copyists changed the first imperfect into a present tense (reality), a few made it an aorist (past reality or past unreality) and thus made this condition a mixed condition. The writer generalizes the past facts regarding the patriarchs by speaking of them as though they were facts that were happening now. This is perfectly plain in v. 14 and 16 and thus ought to be equally plain in v. 15 where he uses the regular form for a present condition of reality. As though the writer has the patriarchs right before him he says that, if they were to remember the fatherland (Mesopotamia) from which they came out, they would have καιρόν, plenty of time or opportunity, to return to Mesopotamia. We see them doing nothing of the kind; they have no earthly fatherland. God’s promises to them give them a fatherland that is infinitely more glorious than any earthly one whether it be the old Mesopotamia or the new Palestine.

Hebrews 11:16

16 Μέν and δέ balance: on the one hand no thought of an earthly fatherland, on the other, aspiration only for a heavenly fatherland. “Now, however,” is logical and not temporal, for it states the reality regarding the patriarchs. As if he has them before his eyes the writer says that “they aspire to a better one, that is, to a heavenly one,” one that is as much better as a heavenly fatherland is compared with any mere earthly one.

The present tenses continue: “wherefore God is not ashamed of them to be called their God,” i.e., “the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob” (Gen. 28:13; Exod. 3:6, 15; cf., Gen. 32:9; also Matt. 22:32). What this means is explained: God “prepared for them a city.” These patriarchs God acknowledges as his children, and so he prepared a city for them, this heavenly city being their true, eternal fatherland. The final word “a city” takes us back to v. 10 where we are told that Abraham kept waiting for this wonderful city. It is now entirely clear from the explanation given in v. 13–16.

The writer could have placed all this into the simple historical past: “When they said such things they indicated, etc. And if they had remembered they would have had opportunity, etc. They, however, aspired, etc.” He places all of this into the present and ignores differences in time, which enables the readers to think of themselves in the most direct way as having these patriarchs, as it were, right in their midst to show them what to think, to say, to expect.

Yes, the readers have tasted a measure of persecution (10:32, 33), have seen the members of the old congregation in Rome and also Peter and Paul brought to martyrdom. What if such things should recur? As former Jews Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are their great examples of faith. See these patriarchs disregard everything in the way of an earthly fatherland, pass through life and die as nothing but aliens among men, aliens in fact, yea, aliens because they are ever aspiring to a better, a heavenly fatherland, the City of God, prepared for them by God. Will the readers do less?

These Old Testament men of faith are the models for all New Testament believers when it comes to what faith is and ever must be (v. 1).

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph

Hebrews 11:17

17 The examples continue after the digression (v. 13–16), but whereas those cited in v. 4–12 refer to faith in the blessed hereafter, which we all should share, this group of four are individual illustrations of a faith that is not to be duplicated in us but is intended to inspire us to show our faith in the individual situations that come to us.

By means of faith Abraham, when being tried, has offered Isaac. Even his only-begotten he was offering, he who had accepted the promises, to whom it was said: In connection with Isaac shall seed be called for thee—having drawn the conclusion that even from the dead God is able to raise up; hence he also brought him away in the way of a parable. This presents briefly the greatest act of Abraham’s faith, his trusting in the absolutely unseen, and that at a time when he was bidden to do what seemed to conflict directly with God’s own promise.

The present participle πειραζόμενος harmonizes with the perfect προσενήνοχεν. In the course of being tried Abraham “has offered” Isaac; the tense emphasizes the permanent effect of the act as the writer and the readers still feel it. Πειράζω means simply “to try,” and this word receives its sinister meaning “to tempt” only when somebody tries to make us do evil. After the great fact has been stated, καί restates it so as to bring out its inwardness. Abraham was offering no less than his “only-begotten.” The imperfect tense of the verb asks the readers to dwell on Abraham’s astonishing procedure.

R. 885 calls this “an interrupted imperfect,” but imperfects and open tenses are never “interrupted,” they hold the reader in suspense as to the outcome of an action; an aorist generally follows which states the outcome. So we here have ἐκομίσατο, “he carried him off.” In Acts 7:57, 58 the two imperfects show how they were stoning—stoning Stephen; then in v. 60 the aorist states the outcome: “he fell asleep.” “Only-begotten” = the one real heir who was born by his wife Sarah. Him Abraham was offering, “he who had accepted the promises” of God in regard to this son with such joy and such faith.

Hebrews 11:18

18 An appositional relative specifies the sum of these promises: “he to whom it was said (by God himself in Gen. 21:12): ‘In connection with Isaac shall seed be called for thee,’” i.e., shalt thou have seed that will be called seed indeed, called so and acknowledged as thy seed by me. Think of it—this son Abraham was now engaged in offering as a sacrifice! Who does not feel the tragedy that is being enacted? A father ordered by God to slay his own son, and such a son! God asking a human sacrifice, and such a victim as a sacrifice! We ourselves must feel that it is incredible; how much more did Abraham, the father, feel thus!

Yet marvel of obedient, unquestioning faith: Abraham is going forward with the offering! In Rom. 9:7 Paul, too, cites Gen. 21:12, and in this passage the full meaning of “seed” for Abraham in Isaac is the great point, namely spiritual seed through Christ, who, as far as his humanity was concerned, descended from the line of Isaac (not of Ishmael); all believers in Christ constitute this seed (see the elaboration of Rom. 9:7).

Hebrews 11:19

19 Yet Abraham’s faith was not a blind faith: “having come to conclude that even from the dead God is able to raise up.” We do not insert “him” (A. V.). Abraham concluded the full truth, not only that God is able to raise this one dead lad, his son, but is able to raise the dead. Abraham believed the doctrine of the resurrection, no less. By means of this doctrine Abraham harmonized all God’s promises as they were centered in Isaac with this command of God’s to offer Isaac in sacrificial death. To God he was offering this son (not merely killing him), and God could not cancel or deny the promises he had made with regard to this son; God’s power to raise from the dead upheld Abraham’s faith.

He had never seen this power raise a dead person; here, too, Abraham believed the unseen (v. 1). The participle is to be construed with the imperfect: having this conviction, Abraham was offering Isaac. The whole sentence, beginning with καί, is perfect in construction and in wording.

Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac has been used to illustrate the fact that our faith must believe things that are contradictory in the Word of God; for does God not say two things to Abraham that are absolutely contradictory? This is shown to be an imperfect deduction, one that is made by faulty reasoning on our part. Abraham harmonized the apparent contradiction and thus removed the contradiction; he did not do this by means of his own reason or on the basis of human ideas but by means of the doctrine of the resurrection and the infinite power of God. When we are then told not to combine one doctrine with another, not to let the light of one doctrine fall upon another in aid of faith, but to accept each separately, the example of Abraham directly upsets such derogatory ideas about the teachings of God’s Word, none of which are contradictory.

Critics assert that even Job did not as yet know anything about the resurrection, that Job 19:25–27 does not speak of the resurrection of the body, that this doctrine arose much later and was probably due to Persian influence. This contention is answered by Abraham: “God is able to raise up from the dead.” Abraham precedes Job; so does Genesis. The phrase ἐκνεκρῶν is discussed in connection with Matt. 17:10; Mark 9:9; Luke 9:7; John 2:22; Acts 3:16. It is stated that this verse is a reference to v. 12, the miraculous birth of Isaac from parents who were as good as dead; but few will think of such a thing in a connection that deals with something that is so entirely different.

Ὅθεν = “whence,” “hence,” i.e., as a result, in reward for his faith. Abraham “even bore him off in the way of (ἐν) a parable.” Κομίζω is the verb that is used in 10:36; 11:13, 39, where it refers to bringing off or carrying away for oneself the promise or the promises; so Abraham now brought away his son alive as a reward of his faith although because of absolute trust in God he was willing to offer him up to God in death.

But this is the least of it; he brought him away καὶἐνπαραβολῇ. Alford’s long note shows how this simple phrase has been thought to say a great number of things. Abraham brought Isaac away “in a parable,” in a way which, like a parable, showed the power of God to raise up from the dead. 2 Cor. 1:8–10 is analogous. B.-P. 976: als ein Sinnbild des gewaltsamen Todes und der Auferweckung Christi. Some hesitate to regard this as a parable regarding Christ, Riggenbach specifically excludes all reference to Christ’s death or to his resurrection; C.-K. 194 tone down the parabolic idea to an indication that God’s promises would be fulfilled in Isaac. But our resurrection is impossible without Christ’s resurrection; thus Job 19:25, etc., also contains both. See The Eisenach Old Testament Selections on this text from Job.

The fact that Isaac is a type of Christ should not be denied. What was nearly done in his case was actually done by God when he offered up his Son and then raised him from the dead. The parabolic features presented are too marked to be ignored; “to raise up from the dead” is too plain when it is combined with “carrying Isaac off in the way of a parable.”

Hebrews 11:20

20 By means of faith also concerning things to come did Isaac bless Jacob and Esau. Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are characterized by acts of faith that occurred near the close of their lives, faith thus summing up the life of each one; note v. 13 where we are told that the patriarchs died, not having seen the promised things. “The things to come” with which Isaac blessed his sons were to occur long after the lives of these sons had been closed; yet distant though they were, matters that were wholly unseen, matters only of hope (v. 1), Isaac “by means of faith” trusted with fullest certainty in their coming to pass and so blessed Jacob and Esau. The details of the blessing of these two as they are recorded in Gen. 27 and 28 do not matter as far as the faith of Isaac is concerned and are touched upon only by reason of the fact that Jacob’s name is mentioned before that of Esau. How far into the future the blessing reached we see in Gen. 27:40, which refers to the time of Christ when an Idumean (Herod) ruled over Jacob’s descendants.

Hebrews 11:21

21 By means of faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph and bowed in worship over the top of his staff. The writer does not mention the blessing of Jacob’s own sons or of any one of them, not even that of Joseph but only the blessing of Joseph’s two sons. Why are only Joseph’s sons mentioned? Because they were born in Egypt, and Jacob adopted them as his own sons (Gen. 48:5); it was thus that he blessed them. That blessing was, indeed, a notable act of faith. Jacob was near his death and would not see the realization of his blessing, but Manasseh and Ephraim and especially their descendants would not remain in Egypt as Egyptians but would as sons of Jacob found two tribes that would live in Canaan.

Jacob believed all that God revealed to him regarding the future, which was in line with the Messianic promise made to Abraham. This act of his so near his death attests his great faith.

The whole story is told in Gen. 48. Here the writer is again not concerned with the details although they are most interesting; he does not state how Joseph wanted the greater blessing for Manasseh, the older son, while Jacob insisted on bestowing it on Ephraim, the younger son. It is the fact itself that Jacob blessed them before dying that underlines his faith.

The clause introduced with καί intends to add only one more mark of Jacob’s faith, namely his reverent bowing in worship to God. While this is recorded in Gen. 47:31 and thus just before chapter 48 and the blessing of Joseph’s sons, it is well to remember that Gen. 47:27–49:33 belong together. In Gen. 47:29 Jacob feels that death is near; in Gen. 48:1 he becomes ill; in Gen. 49:33 he dies. So he also arranges with Joseph (Gen. 47:29–31) and with all his sons (Gen. 49:29–31) that they bury his body in Machpelah near Mamre in Canaan. This reverent bowing in worship is thus connected with Jacob as a dying man who in faith trusts all the promises of God to his very end.

The Hebrew, pointed as we have it in our Hebrew Bible, reads “upon the bed’s head” (Gen. 47:31), which the LXX translate as if it were pointed to mean “upon his staff,” and our writer follows the LXX’s rendering. Gen. 32:10 does mention the staff that Jacob had carried ever since he left Canaan in flight. Many feel certain that the Hebrew means “bed,” but does it? Horne, Introduction, II, 320 is much to the point when he says that the Hebrew must be read as “staff,” for Jacob was at that time not confined to his bed, and those who take the Hebrew to mean that Jacob “bowed himself upon his bed’s head” have difficulty in explaining just what this may mean; Delitzsch, who adopts the view of von Hofmann, offers this interpretation: “Jacob turned around on his bed with his face toward the head of it; turning his face to his pillow, he stretched himself out in the attitude of prostrate devotion.” This is a case where the LXX seem to read their unpointed Hebrew more correctly than do the Hebraists of the present day. The older view that Jacob bowed before the staff of Joseph is unsupported; neither Joseph nor his staff is mentioned in the clause.

Hebrews 11:22

22 By means of faith Joseph, when finishing his life, remembered regarding the exodus of the sons of Israel and gave orders concerning his bones.

Like his father Jacob, Joseph ordered that his body be taken to Palestine; Jacob was at once taken there for burial, Joseph at the time of the exodus. From his youth until his death Joseph lived as an Egyptian, the vice-ruler of the land. Mummified, his body would lie in some grand Egyptian tomb. What more could Joseph wish for? Ah, much more! He took an oath from the descendants of Jacob to carry his body to Canaan when God should remove them from Egypt (Gen. 50:25). His bones were taken along (Exod. 13:19) on that long, long journey and were finally buried in Shechem (Josh. 24:32).

That was faith, indeed! Joseph believed all the Abrahamitic promises, believed that they would all be fulfilled in Canaan although this would occur years and years after his death; he believed so fully and strongly that he wanted his remains to rest in the land where the promise of salvation would be fulfilled. Like his own people, he considered his body to be in exile in Egypt; he believed the exodus would follow and said, “God will surely visit you” (Exod. 13:19); he believed that all the rest would follow. His, too, in so clear a way was faith in the sense of confidence in things hoped for, conviction in regard to things not seen (verse 1).

Moses

Hebrews 11:23

23 By means of faith Moses, when born, was hid for three months by his parents because they saw the child was fair; and they feared not the mandate of the king. By means of faith Moses, having grown up, refused to be called son of Pharaoh’s daughter, rather having chosen to be basely treated together with the people of God than to have enjoyment of sin lasting for a period, having come to esteem as greater riches than the treasures of Egypt the reproach of the Christ; for he kept looking away to the due pay-gift.

From Genesis the writer proceeds to Exodus and dwells at length on Moses, not only because so much of faith appears in his life, but also because his readers esteem Moses so highly. They are thinking of forsaking Christ for Judaism because Judaism had Moses and all the ritual commandments given through Moses. Well, Moses himself is one of the greatest examples of faith in Christ. Let the readers, therefore, follow Moses, namely this faith of his. They will then cling to Christ as Moses did and have both Christ and Moses; otherwise they will lose both. John 5:45–47.

A great act of faith is connected with the babyhood of Moses when his parents (πατέρες is to be understood in this sense) hid him for three months (accusative of duration) because the child was ἀστεῖος (the same word is used by Stephen regarding Moses, Acts 7:20), really “citified” (not rustic, boorish) but constantly used as a designation for exceptional beauty. This the parents did “and feared not the mandate of the king,” i.e., did not let this fear deter them. Neither Exodus 2 nor our passage implies that the parents of Moses kept the child because in its beauty they saw an indication that God would do great things through this child. The act of faith was the fact that the parents trusted that God would preserve this baby boy despite Pharaoh’s mandate. They had no idea as to how it could be done and were not certain that hiding the child as long as they could would not be in vain in the end; they simply trusted in God for the unseen for which they hoped (v. 1); nor did they trust in vain.

Hebrews 11:24

24 Faith appeared again in a most marked way when Moses reached manhood and “refused to be spoken of as son of Pharaoh’s daughter” (all three nouns are anarthrous because they are qualitative). The verb means “to say no, to deny, thus to refuse.” What high position and honor to live at the royal court in all splendor, to be the adopted son of a royal princess, to enjoy all the exalted prerogatives of a member of Pharaoh’s family! What prospects for a man’s life!

Moses could also entertain the thought that in such a lofty position he might be able to do very much for his native people who were now sorely oppressed by the all-powerful Pharaoh. He turned his back on it all “by making the choice to be basely treated with the people of God”; ἑλόμενος (from αἱρέω) indicates action that is simultaneous with that of ἠρνήσατο. The Egyptians were not “the people of God”; these enslaved, crushed, cruelly maltreated Israelites were. Everything earthly invited Moses to refuse and to deny them; faith bade him to refuse and to deny the Egyptians and to choose to share the base treatment accorded to God’s people because they were God’s. In the infinitive there lies the idea of κακόν, a mean, base, disgraceful lot (this verb is found only here); compare the compounds with κακόν in 2 Tim. 1:8; 2:3, 9; 4:5, “suffering disgrace” and not ashamed of it.

Hebrews 11:25

25 Moses chose this lot “rather than (μᾶλλονἤ) to have enjoyment of sin lasting for a period,” the sin consisting not in sinful deeds in his court life but in disowning his people in order to enjoy the earthly grandeur at Pharaoh’s palaces and court. One feels the temptation with which Moses was confronted.

Hebrews 11:26

26 A second aorist participle, which is in simple apposition, adds the thought which determined Moses to make his choice of faith: “having come to esteem as greater riches than the treasures of Egypt (genitive after a comparative) the reproach of the Christ” (objective genitive, R. 500), the reproach suffered for the sake of the Christ. One ought not to underestimate “the treasures of Egypt” as though they amounted to nothing, for they are to be regarded as being exceedingly great; but when they were placed beside all the loss suffered in reproach for Christ’s sake, this loss, in the estimation of Moses, constituted an infinitely greater treasure. The expression is paradoxical and thus highly effective. This reproach was priceless honor for Moses.

The thought should not be reduced to a mere similarity between the reproach which Christ suffered and the reproach which Moses chose to suffer. The reproach of Christ is all the shame that was heaped on Christ, which culminated in his dying outside of the camp (13:13) as a crucified criminal; and whoever comes into contact with Christ by true faith must bear his part of that reproach or opprobrium. Whether the contact of faith is made before Christ actually died on the cross or since he died makes no difference whatever.

Because some interpreters are not satisfied with this simple connection by means of faith, deeper meanings have been sought in this “reproach of Christ.” Christ is thought to have made Israel a type of himself in regard to reproach, and Moses is thought to have esteemed this type beyond price. Or Israel suffered as the mystical body of Christ. Others say that Christ as the Logos is seen in the old Israel, and that he suffered the reproach in his people. The matter is carried to an extreme point when the whole history of Israel is viewed as a preparation for Christ’s incarnation, when Christ is regarded as being already incarnate in Israel after a fashion. These views bring Christ down to Israel whereas “faith,” all this faith the writer is speaking about, brings Israel, Moses, and all believers of every time up to Christ and the reproach he suffered.

As for Moses’ knowing about the Christ, in John 5:46 Jesus says that Moses wrote about him, and not merely in a sentence or two as in Deut. 18:15–19 (Acts 3:21–23; 7:37), but in all his writing. Even at the time when he made his decision Moses knew all about the reproach of the Christ and its heavenly value. His was the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph. Note v. 22 and what he did with Joseph’s bones.

How he came to think as he did is explained: “for he kept looking away to the μισθαποδοσίαν,” the same word that was used in 10:35: the full or due pay-gift (our versions, “recompense of reward”) that awaits all true believers in the Christ. Moses ever kept his eyes on the things not seen (v. 1). “We not keeping an eye on the things seen but on the things not seen; for the things seen are for a season (only), but the things not seen are eternal,” 1 Cor. 4:18.

Hebrews 11:27

27 Still more. By means of faith he left Egypt behind, not fearing the anger of the king; for he was steadfast as seeing the Invisible One. By means of faith he has attended to the Passover and the splashing of the blood in order that the one destroying the first-born should not touch them. By means of faith they walked through the Red Sea as through dry land; which having undertaken to try, the Egyptians were swallowed up.

Patristic exegesis thinks of the flight to Midian, and it has some following. But this was a flight; and it was due to fear; and there was no steadfastness about it. To say that Moses went to Midian in order to bide his time until Israel’s deliverance, is to controvert the facts; for Moses fled in discouragement, and when the time of deliverance came, God had to compel him to return as the deliverer. Vaughan, Delitzsch, and others who think of this flight reason away the fear recorded in Exod. 2:14, 15.

Κατέλιπεν means that Moses left Egypt behind never to return. This did not occur when he fled to Midian but when he led the children of Israel out of Egypt. “Not fearing the anger of the king” means that this time he did not fear as he did when he fled to Midian full of fear. Moses fearlessly confronted the Pharaoh again and again and demanded Israel’s release. Read about this fearlessness in Exod. 10:28, 29. When Pharaoh was at last compelled to assent, Moses knew that this assent would not endure for long, but he left without fear of anything that the anger of the king might attempt to do before the Israelites escaped, and we know what Pharaoh did attempt.

The statement that Moses alone is here referred to, that elsewhere the exodus is always ascribed to him and to the people together, is pointless since Moses is the one who inspired the people to leave with him, Moses the one who “was steadfast” when the people wavered, Moses who ever saw the Invisible One with the eyes of faith, which kept all fear away. Ἐκαρτέρησε does not mean that Moses “endured” (our versions) in the sense that he suffered but that he stood firm in his strength, steadfast and fearless “as seeing the Invisible One” who was infinitely mightier than the little visible Pharaoh. “The Invisible One” takes us back to v. 1, faith trusting “things not seen.” He who at one time fled like a coward in fear of Pharaoh returned and left as a fearless hero of faith.

Hebrews 11:28

28 Two more marks of faith are noted in connection with his leaving Egypt behind. The view that v. 27 precedes v. 28 chronologically and must thus refer to the flight to Midian, is not supportable. In v. 13 it is stated that the patriarchs “all died,” yet in v. 17–21 more acts of faith are recorded as being done by them. The aorist “he left Egypt behind” includes the whole grand act of leaving, parts of which were the Passover and the slaying of the first-born when the actual leaving started and the crossing through the Red Sea when the leaving was completed.

It was a great act of faith when, after all the plagues had failed to move Pharaoh, and when he had ordered Moses never to show his face before him again, Moses proceeded with the “Passover and the splashing of the blood (πρόσχυσις)” on the lintels and the doorposts so that the destroyer of the first-born in all of Egypt would not touch the Israelites on that fateful night, and that the Israelites would at last be able to get away. Remember how that Passover was to be eaten (Exod. 12:11); every person was to be ready to march away.

Πεποίηκε fits both τὸπάσχα and τὴνπρόσχυσιν, the latter being found here in the Greek for the first time. It is hard for us to find a good equivalent English verb, the Germans have veranstalten, vornehmen. “Kept” in our versions does not fit the second noun. Some prefer “celebrated” because it is regularly used with reference to the Passover and to other festivals; but what about the second noun? Moreover, this was the inauguration by God, in which Moses served only as God’s servant. Hence we also have the perfect tense amid plain aorists. What was done in Egypt was to be repeated in a certain way as an annual memorial.

Moses thus “has done” (Greek), i.e., attended to the Passover and the splashing of the blood. “The one destroying” (participle) has the object “the first-born” while “should not touch” has the genitive αὐτῶν as its object, wherefore also the two objects are separated. Ὁὀλοθρεύων is cited from Exod. 12:23; and this destroyer is thought to be an angel in conformity with 1 Chron. 21:12, 15, ἄγγελοςὁἐξολεθρεύων, cf. Ps. 78:49; 1 Cor. 10:10, and Jewish tradition.

Hebrews 11:29

29 This verse presents the completion of the exodus as far as leaving Egypt is concerned and the walking through the Red Sea as through dry land (not “by” as in our versions, διά, “through,” repeats the preposition that is used in the verb). Exod. 14:29 has διὰξηρᾶς, and Exod. 15:4 κατεπόθησαν. A relative clause is sufficient to describe the fate of the Egyptians: “which (genitive attracted from the accusative) having undertaken to try, the Egyptians were swallowed up” (the Greek has κατά, “down”), literally, “were drunk down,” i.e., “were drowned” (A. V.); λαμβάνω with an infinitive is a classical idiom (it is used again in v. 36). The Egyptians had no promise and hence could have no faith; Moses and Israel had both. The promise produced the faith, and God kept his promise.

Jericho, Rahab

Hebrews 11:30

30 By means of faith the walls of Jericho fell, having been circled for seven days. Marching around and around Jericho seven days, seven times on the seventh day, then blowing the trumpets and making a great shout—how could such a procedure make massive fortifications fall? Who had ever heard of such a thing? How the soldiers and the commanders on those walls must have cast jibes and derision at the silent marchers as they were going around day after day! How safe they felt if the Israelite soldiers did no more than this! Yes, it took faith to carry out this mode of attack which seemed to be no attack at all; it took faith in things not seen as v. 1 describes faith. Then suddenly there came sight. Incredible sight—all the walls fell! Josh. 6:1, etc.

Hebrews 11:31

31 By means of faith Rahab, the harlot, did not perish with the disobedient ones, having received the spies with peace. Josh. 2:1, etc.; 6:22, etc. This pagan woman who had sunk to harlotry believed the report about the God of Israel that filled the city. She alone believed and in her still pagan way obeyed that faith and received the Israelite spies “with peace,” as friends to be protected and not as enemies of war to be delivered up. She believed that the city would fall; on that belief she acted. All the rest who lived in Jericho were disobedient; the aorist ἀπειθήσαντες states the historical fact.

Unbelief is at times called disobedience because it is nothing less and is also the source of disobedient conduct. The people of Jericho laughed at the idea of surrendering their city, which was so mightily fortified, to soldiers who did not have even a ladder to scale the walls; they mocked at the very idea and perished. James 2:25 praises Rahab for her works, which were an evidence of her justification. See the exposition of James. Rahab became the wife of Booz, one of the ancestors of Jesus; see Matt. 1:5.

Still more Heroes of Faith and Their Achievements of Faith

Hebrews 11:32

32 And what shall I yet say? The time will fail me recounting about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, both David and Samuel and the prophets, who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, locked the mouths of lions, quenched power of fire, escaped sword’s mouths, were brought to power from weakness, became strong in war, turned to flight the battle lines of aliens.

The list is altogether too long for the writer to give an account of the great evidence of faith in the lives of all the great personages in the past history of Israel, all of whom would deserve to be considered, about whom all the readers know. The writer has kept down to great brevity what he has thus far said about “the ancients” (v. 2); he must now abbreviate still more. In doing so he records a few more notable names to which the readers may add more. Then he adds a list of achievements and a list of sufferings and lets his readers exercise their historical knowledge in placing these terse items.

In the rhetorical question of deliberation: “And what shall I yet say?” λέγω is the deliberative subjunctive. “The time will fail me recounting about Gideon,” etc. = it will take too much time to recount. The present participle is construed with με by a fine Greek idiom. The six names that are now added are not placed in chronological order with evident purpose. The reason for this does not seem to be an effort to list them in the order of importance. Samuel is placed last so as to be able to add “the prophets.” While the four judges precede the one king, Samuel, too, was a judge and preceded David. All six ruled Israel, but this cannot be said of the prophets.

The best we are able to say is that these names are only suggestive. The readers will be struck by this or by that name in the great history of faith; the writer indicates that the sequence of time is immaterial, that faith is the main thing.

Hebrews 11:33

33 The relative clause lists the achievements which the writer has in mind when he pens his list of notable names. Because of their contents the nine items can be divided into three groups of three. R., W. P., calls the asyndeton “sledge-hammer style.” Each item is thrown on the screen by itself. As one succeeds the other, the effect increases. Chronology does not count, only the contents do. All the tenses are aorists to express historical facts. It is left to the readers to locate the terse references at the proper place in history. Each achievement was accomplished by means of faith, διά being now used and not the dative as was done before.

“Subdued kingdoms” as an athlete wrestles down his antagonist may well apply to David and to 2 Sam. 8. “Worked righteousness” applies to 2 Sam. 8:15; 1 Chron. 18:14, and to the righteous rule of any of the judges. “Obtained promises,” as in 6:15, means the fulfillment of special promises that were given to individuals and not the supreme fulfillment of the final promise (v. 13, 39).

Hebrews 11:34

34 “Locked the mouths of lions” = Dan. 6:22 (scarcely Judges 14:6, or 1 Sam. 17:34, etc.). “Quenched power of fire” = Dan. 3:27 (cf. v. 19, 22). “Escaped sword’s mouths” may apply to any escape in battle but also to Elijah’s escape from the sword of Jezebel (1 Kings 19:1–3, 10), perhaps also to the escape of Elisha (2 Kings 6:14, etc., 31, etc.). “Were brought to power from weakness” refers, it seems, to Samson (Judges 16:28), perhaps also to the courage inspired by David’s victory over Goliath which enabled Israel to triumph (1 Sam. 17:26, etc.). “Became strong in war” as well as “turned to flight (ἔκλιναν) the battle lines of aliens” would apply also to David’s victory over Goliath and to the resultant defeat of the Philistines, yet also to other victories that were accomplished by faith. The sword has two edges (4:12) which are called “mouths” because of their devouring or biting power. Παρεμβολή = camp, fortified camp, and then also “battle line.”

Faith Triumphant in Suffering

Hebrews 11:35

35 It is less the change in construction (now a series of independent sentences) than the change of subject that marks the advance to the achievements of faith in suffering. Women received their dead as a result of resurrection; but others were tortured, not accepting the ransoming in order to obtain a better resurrection. Yet others undertook to try mockings and scourgings besides even confinement and prison. They were stoned; they were sawn asunder; they died in murder of (the) sword. They wandered about in sheep pelts, in goat skins, being destitute, being afflicted, being basely treated—of whom the world was not worthy—erring about in deserts and mountains and caves and holes of the earth.

We at once think of the widow of Sarepta (1 Kings 17:17–24) and of the Shunamite (2 Kings 4:18–37), the one having her child raised from death by Elijah, the other by Elisha. These “women” are introduced because the grief they suffered through the death of their children was already in this life turned into joy when they received their children back “as a result of resurrection” (ἐκ) while others died “in order to obtain a better resurrection” at the end of time. The two statements belong together. We do not always need to wait for the unseen (v. 1) beyond; there are cases of believers whose faith has been rewarded already in this life, and that “as a result of resurrection”: the children of these two women of the Old Testament and in the New Testament Jairus’ daughter, the widow’s son at Nain, Martha’s and Mary’s brother at Bethany.

Δέ is adversative because the writer intends to introduce a contrast. This contrast is an extreme contrast: “but others were tortured, not accepting ransoming in order to obtain a better resurrection” than one that would return them to this life. The readers who are conversant with their LXX will at once recall 2 Macc. 6:20, 29 (LXX, v. 19, 28). They will do this because of τὸτύμπανον (the drum) which is used in that passage (here ἐτυμπανίσθησαν) and because of the remark that these others did not accept the ransoming by which they might have had their lives spared. So died Eleazar, one of the most prominent scribes, who was already ninety years of age. 2 Macc. 6:18–30 recounts that he might have saved his life but refused to do so; ἀπολύτρωσις is the proper word, “ransoming,” the ransom for his life being that he eat pork to please the king Entiochus Epiphanes.

The verb means to stretch upon a wheel-like frame, the body becoming taut like a drum, which is then beaten until the victim yields or slowly dies in agony. In 4 Macc. 5:32 the instrument used for this torture is called τροχός, “wheel.” The Vulgate translates our passage distenti sunt. Our writer uses the plural “others” and thus refers to the mother and to her seven sons who are mentioned in 2 Macc. 7, who, however, were tortured in various ways. They were mutilated, flayed, roasted. According to IV Maccabees the mother perished by fire. By using the verb with regard to others besides Eleazar the writer probably uses the word in a general sense so as to apply it to different modes of torture.

Hebrews 11:36

36 Ἕτεροι refers to others who were different from the ἄλλοι spoken of in v. 35. These “undertook to make trial” (the same idiom that was used in v. 29) of mockings and scourgings and on top of that (ἔτιδέ) of confinement and of prison. They undertook tryings of this kind. They were not killed like the ἄλλοι. A number of illustrations for these types of sufferings may be found in the persecutions which the prophets had to suffer; consider 1 Kings 22:27; 2 Chron. 16:10; 36:16; Jer. 20:2; 37:15; 38:6. The common idea regarding δεσμά is that this word means “fetters” (so the dictionaries), some translate “chains”; our finding in Acts and elsewhere is that the word means holding someone prisoner whether he is bound with fetters or not; hence also ψυλακή, the actual prison house, follows here.

Hebrews 11:37

37 The subject is still the ἕτεροι used in v. 36; now, however, the author reports how some of them ended in martyrdom. “They were stoned”—thus Zechariah (2 Chron. 24:20, 21; Matt. 21:35; 23:35), according to tradition also Jeremiah while he was living in Tahpanhes, Egypt. This manner of execution is typically Jewish. “They were sawn asunder”—thus Isaiah according to Jewish tradition and also according to the apocryphal records and the Palestinian Targum on 2 Kings 21:16. This death was inflicted on captives of war, 2 Sam. 12:31; 1 Chron. 20:3.

There is much uncertainty regarding the next word ἑπειράσθησαν, even as to its place textually. The main trouble is with its meaning, “they were tempted,” which does not fit in a series of verbs that denotes death. A few retain it; others assume an early corruption for either “they were burned” or “they were mutilated,” or regard it as a mere insertion. There is nothing one can do but to pass the matter by; no acceptable solution has been discovered. “They died in sword slaughter” (an expression that is repeatedly used in the Old Testament)—examples are found in 1 Kings 19:10; Jer. 26:23.

It is by no means an anticlimax when the wretched life of fugitives is now described. Some fled from death and escaped, but what an existence they led! “They wandered around in sheep pelts (μηλωταί, found only here in the New Testament), in goat skins” (αἴγειος, adjective: “from goats”), having nothing better to clothe them. “Destitute” is a participle: in constant lack of food and drink. Another participle: “afflicted” or hard-pressed. A third: “basely treated.” The three participles are significantly durative.

Hebrews 11:38

38 What a sad, sad lot all endured because they would not give up their faith. Here, however, the point is that amid all these terrible sufferings their faith ever trusted the things not seen, held to the things hoped for (v. 1). The writer, filled with admiration, exclaims in a parenthesis: “Of whom the world was not worthy!” The world thought they were not worthy of it (Acts 22:22); the opposite was true: the world was not worthy to have such noble men and such women living in its midst.

Another participle concludes the sad spectacle: “erring about in deserts (uninhabited, wild places) and mountains and caves and holes of the earth” like wild animals. They were even worse, for these animals have their homes, but the fugitives had to keep on the move.

Summation

Hebrews 11:39

39 And these all, although having received testimony by means of their faith, did not bring off the promise since God had in view as pertaining to us something better, (namely) that not apart from us should they be brought to completeness.

The first participle is concessive and harks back to v. 2 where it is stated that the ancient believers had God’s own approving testimony in Holy Writ which expresses God’s pleasure in their faith (v. 5). Although this is undoubtedly true of all these believers who are mentioned by name or indicated by their deeds of faith, they did not, in spite of this divine approval, bring off the promise. “The promise” is properly the singular, for it designates the fulfillment of the great Messianic promise; the verb κομίζω is found also in 10:36; 11:13, 19. Verse 13 makes the same statement regarding the patriarchs, namely that they all died without having brought away the promises (the plural is used in this case since the promise was renewed to each of them). In 10:36 it is stated that we are to bring away the promise after we have done the will of God. These passages belong together.

In this life both the ancient believers and we of a later time bring or carry off some individual promises of God, i.e., we carry away the fulfillment of certain things which God has promised us: we have and enjoy the forgiveness of our sins, the gifts of his Spirit, the answers to prayer, God’s comfort, help, support, etc. All this is blessed indeed. But carrying off “the promise” is a far more exalted thing. It is the final and supreme fulfillment, the consummation at the last day, the ultimate of all that we are hoping for, of all that is not seen (v. 1). It is the final approving testimony of Christ before the whole universe (Matt. 25:34–40), when Christ shall confess us, who have confessed him before men, before his Father (Matt. 10:32) and before the angels (Rev. 3:5). It includes the resurrection and the glorification of our bodies (“a better resurrection,” v. 35), when Christ shall appear in his second epiphany to those who are expecting him for salvation.

Thrice Jesus promised: “And I will raise him up at the last day,” John 6:40, 44, 54 (Phil. 3:21). All that this promise contains = “the things hoped for, the things not seen” (v. 1), to be apprehended until they arrive only by faith pure and simple. It is the city that has foundations (v. 10), the new heaven and new earth, when the holy city, the new Jerusalem, comes down from God out of heaven (Rev. 21:1, 2), which event is described at length in Rev. 21:10–27.

Hebrews 11:40

40 The genitive absolute is causal: “since God had in view (looked forward to) as pertaining to us something better.” What this “something better” is ἵνα states by means of an object clause that is in apposition with τι: “that not apart from us should they be brought to completeness.” By letting all the Old Testament believers wait as he does despite the grand testimony with which he voiced his approval of their faith God had in view something that was far better than not letting them wait thus, than letting the consummation, Christ’s second epiphany, at once follow his first epiphany.

The phrase περὶἡμῶν has the emphasis because of its position. It does not modify the object: “something better concerning us” (R. V.). The phrase modifies the participle plus its object: God’s having in view something better for all the Old Testament believers was an act that pertained to us. As far as those Old Testament believers are concerned, the consummation could have come immediately after Christ’s redemptive work had been completed. But, then, what about us?

There would then have been no New Testament era; the completion would have been reached “without us.” The writer stops with “us,” himself and his readers, Jewish Christians, since his epistle is intended especially for them. We, however, think also of ourselves. There would have been no New Testament era, no world-wide reach of the gospel, no hosts of New Testament believers.

1 Cor. 15:6 speaks about the existence of only 500 believers when redemption was complete. Would it have been a better thing to bring in the consummation soon after this? God is still delaying its coming; faith is still spreading to millions. Not without all these will the noble Old Testament believers be brought to completeness but will share this blessing in company with us. Many are coming from the east and the west to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom, Matt. 8:11. What joy when the last day comes with its τελείωσις! We again have this term (now a verb) which was used repeatedly before, and it is now used in its most exalted meaning.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.