Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Hebrews 11:1 - 11:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1 Now faith means we are confident of what we hope for, convinced of what we do not see. 2 It was for this that the men of old won their record. 3 It is by faith we understand that the world was fashioned by the word of God, and thus the visible was made out of the invisible.
Calvin rightly protested against any division here, as an interruption to the thought: “quisquis hic fecit initium capitis undecimi, perperam contextum abrupit.” The following argument of 11:1-40 flows directly out of 10:35-39: ὑοοήis justified and sustained by πσι, and we have now a λγςπρκήεςon μμτὶτνδὰπσεςκὶμκουίςκηοοονω τςἐαγλα (6:12). Hitherto the only historical characters who have been mentioned have been Abraham, Melchizedek, Moses, Aaron, and Joshua; and Abraham alone has been mentioned for his πσι; now a long list of heroes and heroines of πσε is put forward, from Abel to the Maccabean martyrs. But first (vv. 1-3) a general word on faith. Ἔτνδ πσι κλ (v. 1). It is needless to put a comma after πσι, i.e., “there is such a thing as faith, faith really exists.” Εμ at the beginning of a sentence does not necessarily carry this meaning; cp. e.g. Wis 7:1 εμ μνκγ θηό, Luk_8:11 ἔτνδ ατ ἡπρβλ (Joh_21:25 and 1Jn_5:17 etc.). Ἔτνhere is simply the copula, πσι being the subject, and ἐπζμννὑότσςthe predicate. This turn of phrase is common in Philo, who puts ἔτ first in descriptions or definitions (e.g. Leg. Allegor. iii. 75, ἔτ δ σεαμςσορ κὶἐιεαέηλπ: quod deus immut. 19, ἔτ δ εχ μνατσςἀαῶ πρ θο κλ Needless difficulties have been raised about what follows. Ὑότσςis to be understood in the sense of 3:14 “une assurance certaine” (Méé “faith is a sure confidence of thynges which are hoped for, and a certaynetie of thynges which are not seyne” (Tyndale), the opposite of ὑοτλ. In the parallel clause, πάμτνἔεχςο βεοέω (which in Attic Greek would have been ὧ ἄ τςμ ὁᾷ grammatically πάμτνmight go with ἐπζμννinstead of with βεοέω, for the sake of emphasis (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius, von Soden, etc.); the sense would be unaffected, but the balance of the rhythm would be upset. Ἔεχςis used in a fresh sense, as the subjective “conviction” (the English word has acquired the same double sense as the Greek); as Euthymius said, it is an equivalent for παμτνἀρτνπηοοί (so syr arm eth). The writer could find no Greek term for the idea, and therefore struck out a fresh application for ἔεχς As for ἐπζμνν…ο βεοέω (ὃγρβέε τς τ ἐπζι ε δ ὃο βέοε ἐπζμνδʼὑοοῆ ἀεδχμθ, Rom_8:24, Rom_8:25), the unseen realities of which faith is confident are almost entirely in the future as promised by God, though, as the sequel shows, τ ο βεόεα(e.g. vv. 3, 7, 8, 27) are not precisely the same as τ ἐπζμν. It cannot be too emphatically pointed out that the writer did not mean to say: (a) that faith gave substance or reality to unseen hopes, though this is the interpretation of the Greek fathers (Chrysostom, for example, argues: ἐεδ τ ἐ ἐπδ ἀυόττ ενιδκῖ ἡπσι ὑότσνατῖ χρζτι μλο δ ο χρζτιἀλ ατ ἐτνοσαατν When the writer declares that it is by faith we understand that the world was created, he does not mean that faith imparts reality to the creation; nor, when he says, e.g., the patriarchs lived in the expectation of a celestial Fatherland, that they thereby made this more real to themselves. No doubt this was true in a sense; but the author’s point is that just because these objects of hope were real, because, e.g., God had prepared for them a City, therefore they were justified in having faith. It is faith as the reflex of eternal realities or rewards promised by God which is fundamental in this chapter, the faith by which a good man lives. (b) Similarly, faith is not the ἔεχςof things unseen in the sense of “proof,” which could only mean that it tests, or rather attests, their reality. The existence of human faith no doubt proves that there is some unseen object which calls it out, but the writer wishes to show, not the reality of these unseen ends of God—he assumes these—but the fact and force of believing in them with absolute confidence. Such erroneous interpretations arise out of the notion that the writer is giving an abstract definition of πσι, whereas he is describing it, in view of what follows, as an active conviction which moves and moulds human conduct. The happiest description of it is, “seeing Him who is invisible” (v. 27); and this idea is applied widely; sometimes it is belief in God as against the world and its forces, particularly the forces of human injustice or of death, sometimes belief in the spirit as against the senses, sometimes again (and this is prominent in 11:5f.) belief in the future as against the present.
In the papyri (e.g. in OP ii. pp. 153, 176, where in the plural it = “the whole body of documents bearing on the ownership of a person’s property …deposited in the archives, and forming the evidence of ownership”) ὑότσςmeans occasionally the entire collection of title-deeds by which a man establishes his right to some property (cp. Moulton in Manchester Theological Essays, i. 174; Expositor, Dec. 1903, pp. 438f.); but while this might suggest the metaphor, the metaphor means “confident assurance.” The original sense of substance or reality, as in the de Mundo, 4 (σλήδνδ τνἐ ἀρ φναμτντ μνἐτ κτ ἔφσντ δ κθ ὑότσν survives in Dante’s interpretation (Paradiso, xxiv. 61 f.). He quotes the words as a definition of faith:
“Fede èsustanzia di cose sperate,
ed argumento delle non parventi,”
adding that he understands this to be its “quidity” or essence. But the notion that faith imparts a real existence to its object is read into the text. Faith as ὑότσςis “realization” of the unseen, but “realization” only in our popular, psychological sense of the term. The legal or logical sense of ἔεχς as proof (in classical Greek and elsewhere, e.g. Jos. BJ. iv. 5. 4, ἦ δ οτ ἔεχςτςτνκτγρυέω, οτ τκήιν is out of place here. The existence of human faith is in one sense a proof that an invisible order exists, which can alone explain men acting as they do ἐ πσε. But the writer assumes that, and declares that πσι lives and moves in the steady light of the unseen realities. The sense of “test,” as in Epictetus, iii. 10, 11 (ἐθδ ὁἔεχςτῦπάμτς ἡδκμσατῦφλσφῦτς is as impossible here as that of “rebuke”; the force of πσι in 11:3-40 rests on its subjective sense as an inner conviction, which forms a motive for human life, and this determines the meaning of ὑότσςand ἔεχςas applied to it in the introductory description.
This connexion of faith with the future is emphasized by Philo in de Migratione Abrahami, 9, commenting on Gen_12:1 ἥ σιδίω It is δίω not δίνμ, he points out—εςμρυίνπσεςἣ ἐίτυε ἡψχ θῷ οκἐ τνἀοεεμτνἐιεκυέητ εχρσο, ἀλ ἐ ποδκα τνμλότν…νμσσ ἤηπρῖα τ μ πρναδὰτντῦὑοχμνυββιττ πσι [cp. Heb_10:23], ἀαὸ τλιν ἆλνερτι Faith thus relies upon God’s promise and eagerly expects what is to come; indeed it lives for and in the future. So our writer uses πσι, almost as Paul used ἐπς(psychologically the two being often indistinguishable). Nor is this πσι a novelty in our religion (v. 2), he adds, ἐ τύῃγρἐατρθσν(7:8) ο πεβτρι Ἐ = (δὰ(τύη) as in 4:6, 6:16, 9:22, 10:10; δʼἧ ἐατρθ (v. 4), μρυηέτςδὰτςπσες(v. 39). Ο πεβτρι( = ο πτρς 1:1) never bears this exact sense elsewhere in the NT, the nearest1 parallel being Mat_15:2 = Mar_7:3, Mar_7:5; (τνπρδσντνπεβτρν Philo (de Abrahamo 46), indeed, noting that Abraham the man of faith is the first man called πεβτρςin scripture (Gen_24:1), reflects that this is significant; ὁγρἀηεᾳπεβτρςοκἐ μκιχόω ἀλ ἐ ἐαντ κὶτλί βῳθωετι Aged wordly people can only be called longlived children, τνδ φοήεςκὶσφα κὶτςπὸ θὸ πσεςἐαθναλγιτςἂ ἐδκςενιπεβτρν But our author weaves no such fancies round the word, though he probably understood the term in an honorific sense (cp. Philo, de Sobrietate, 4, πεβτρν…τνγρςκὶτμςἄινὀοάε). For ἐατρθσνin this sense of getting a good report, cp. B. Latyschev’s Inscript. Antiquae Orae Septent. i. 2126f. ἐατρθ τὺ ὑὲ φλα κνύος…πρβλυάεο: Syll. 366:28 (i a.d.) ἀχτκοα μρυηέτςὑὸτςσμοάη [βυῆ], and the instances quoted in Deissmann’s Bible Studies (265).
Before describing the scriptural record of the πεβτρι however, the writer pauses to point out the supreme proof of πσι as παμτνἔεχςο βεοέω. The very world within which they showed their faith and within which we are to show our faith, was the outcome of what is invisible (v. 3), and this conviction itself is an act of faith. Πσε νομν(cp. Rom_1:20: “νενis in Hellenistic Greek the current word for the apprehension of the divine in nature,” A. T. Goodrick on Wis 13:4) κτρίθι(of creation, Psa_73:16 σ κτρίωἥινκὶσλνν τὺ αῶα (1:2) ῥμτ θο (the divine fiat here), ες(with consecutive infinitive) τ μ ἐ φιοέω τ βεόεο γγννι(perfect of permanence). The μ goes with φιοέω, but is thrown before the preposition as, e.g., in Act_1:5 ο μτ πλὰ τύα ἡέα (according to a familiar classical construction, Blass, §433, 3).2 Faith always answers to revelation, and creation is the first revelation of God to man. Creation by the fiat of God was the orthodox doctrine of Judaism, and anyone who read the OT would accept it as the one theory about the origin of the world (cp. e.g. the description of God in the Mechilta, 33b, on Exo_14:31 etc. as “He who spoke and the world was,” שֶַָ וחיההִָֹ, and Apoc. Bar. 14:17: “when of old there was no world with its inhabitants, Thou didst devise and speak with a word, and forthwith the works of creation stood before Thee”). But the explicitness of this sentence about creation out of what is invisible, suggests that the writer had other views in mind, which he desired to repudiate. Possibly Greek theories like those hinted at in Wis 10:17 about the world1 being created ἐ ἀόφυὕη, or the statement in the de aeternitate mundi, 2, where Philo declares ἐ τῦμ ὄτςοδνγντι quoting Empedocles to this effect, though elsewhere Philo does agree that the world was made out of nothing, as, e.g., in the de Somniis, i. 13 (ὁθὸ τ πναγνήα ο μννεςτὐφνςἤαε ἀλ κὶἃπόεο οκἦ ἐοηε, ο δμορὸ μννἀλ κὶκίτςατςὤ, cp. also Apoc. Bar. 21:4: “O Thou …that hast called from the beginning of the world that which did not yet exist,” and Slav. En. 24:2: “I will tell thee now what things I created from the non-existent, and what visible things from the invisible”). What the μ φιόεαwere, our author does not suggest. R. Akiba is said to have applied the words of Psa_101:7 to anyone who rashly speculated on the original material of the world. Our author does not speculate; it is very doubtful if he intends (Windisch, M ’Neill) to agree with Philo’s idea (in the de opificio Mundi, 16, de confus. ling. 34) of the φιόεο οτςκσο being modelled on the ἀώαο κὶνηό or archetypal ideas, for the language of 8:5 is insufficient to bear the weight of this inference.
To take εςτ …γγννιas final, is a forced construction. The phrase does not describe the motive of κτρίθι and if the writer had meant, “so that we might know the seen came from the unseen,”2 he would have written this, instead of allowing the vital words might know to be supplied.
The roll-call of the πεβτρι(vv. 4f.) opens with Abel and Enoch, two men who showed their πσι before the deluge (vv. 4-6). One was murdered, the other, as the story went, never died; and the writer uses both tales to illustrate his point about πσι.
4 It was by faith (πσε, the rhetorical anaphora repeated throughout the section) that Abel offered God a richer sacrifice than Cain did, and thus (δʼἧ, sc. πσες won from God the record of being “just,” on the score of what he gave; he died, but by his faith he is speaking to us still. 5 It was by faith that Enoch was taken to heaven, so that he never died (“he was not overtaken by death, for God had taken him away”). For before he was taken to heaven, his record was that “he had satisfied God”; 6 and apart from faith it is impossible (ἀύαο, sc. ἔτ) “to satisfy him,” for the man who draws near to God must believe that he exists, and that he does reward those who seek him.
The faith of Abel and of Enoch is not πσι ἐπζμνν which is not introduced till v. 7. In 4 Mac 16:20f. the illustrations of steadfast faith are (a) Abraham sacrificing Isaac, (b) Daniel in the den of lions, and (c) the three men in the fiery furnace; but in 18:11f. the list of noble sufferers includes (a) Abel, (b) Isaac, (c) Joseph in prison, (d) Phinehas, (e) the three men in the fiery furnace, and (f) Daniel. Sirach’s eulogy of famous men in Israel (44-50) has a wider sweep: Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, Joshua, Caleb, the judges, Samuel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Josiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Job, the twelve prophets, Zerubbabel, Joshua the son of Josedek, Nehemiah, and the highpriest Simon (i.e. down to the second century b.c.).
The first illustration (v. 4) is much less natural than most of those that follow. In the story of Gen_4:4-8, ἔιε ὁθὸ ἐὶἌε κὶἐὶτῖ δρι ατῦ But why God disregarded Cain’s sacrifice and preferred Abel’s, our author does not explain. Josephus (Ant. i. 54) thought that an offering of milk and animals was more acceptable to God as being natural (τῖ ατμτι κὶκτ φσνγγνσ) than Cain’s cereal offering, which was wrung out of the ground by a covetous man; our author simply argues that the πεω θσαof Abel at the very dawn of history was prompted by faith. He does not enter into the nature of this πεοα(in sense of Mar_6:25 or Mar_12:43 ἡχρ ατ ἡπωὴπεο πνω ββηε) θσα πρ (as in 1:4) Κι, offered at the first act of worship recorded in scripture. What seems to be implied is that faith must inspire any worship that is to be acceptable to God from anyone who is to be God’s δκις(10:38). Josephus held that Abel δκισνςἐιεετ, the blood of Ἄε τῦδκίυis noted in Mat_23:35, and the Genesis-words ἔιε ὁθό are here expanded by our author into ἐατρθ ενιδκις Note the practical equivalence of δρ and θσα as already in 5:1 etc. There is nothing in Πὸ Ἑρίυ like Philo’s effort (Quaest. in Gen_4:4) to distinguish between δρ and θσα as follows: ὁμνθω ἐιιιε, τ μναμ τ βμ ποέν τ δ κέ οκδ κμζν ὁδ δρύεο ὅο ἔιεπρχρῖ τ λμάοτ·ὁμνονφλυο δαοεςοο ὁΚϊ, ὁδ φλθο δρτιοο ὁἌε.
Πεοα of the conjectural emendations, ΠΟΑand ΗΙΝ (Cobet, Vollgraff), the latter is favoured by Justin’s reference in Dial. 29 (εδκσ γρκὶεςτ ἔν, κὶτςθσα ἤινπρ ἡῖ ἢπρ ὑῶ λμάε·τςονἔιμὶπρτμςλγς ὑὸτῦθο μρυηέτ;), and is admitted into the text by Baljon and Blass (so Maynard in Exp.7 vii. 164 f., who infers from μρυηέτ that Justin knew Πὸ Ἑρίυ, the original text of the latter being ατ τῦθο). In Demosth. Prooem. 23, ἤινhas been corrupted into πεο.
In what follows, (a) the original text (μρυονο …ατ τῦθο) is preserved in p13 Clem. (om. τ θῷ (b) ατ then became ατῦunder the influence of the LXX, and τ θῷwas inserted after ποήεκ to complete the sense (א Dc K L P r vg syr boh arm Orig. Chrys. etc.). Finally, (c) τῦθο became assimilated to the preceding τ θῷ and μρυονο …ατῦτ θῷ(א A D* 33, 104, 326, 1311, 1836, eth) became current, as though Abel witnessed to God, instead of God witnessing to Abel. Thus after ποήεκ the Greek originally ran: δʼἦ ἐατρθ ενιδκις μρυονο ἐὶτῖ δρι ατ τῦθο. Then another application of the LXX was added. The phrase in Gen_4:10 (φν αμτςτῦἀεφῦσυβᾷπό μ) had already suggested to Philo that Abel was in a sense still living (quod det. potiori insid. soleat, 14: ὁἌε, τ πρδξττν ἀῄηα τ κὶζ·ἀῄηα μνἐ τςτῦἄρνςδαοα, ζ δ τνἐ θῷζὴ εδίοα μρυήε δ τ χηθνλγο, ἐ ᾧ"φν" χώεο κὶ"βῶ" (Gen_4:10) ἃππνε ὑὸκκῦσνέο τλυῶ ερσεα·πςγρὁμκτ ὢ δαέεθιδντς ). Our author takes a similar line here: κὶδʼατς(i.e. πσες ἀοαὼ ἔιλλῖ Even after death, Abel’s cry is represented as reaching God, so Philo puts it (ibid. 20), ζ μνγρ ὡ κὶπόεο ἔη, ὁτθάα δκν ε γ κὶἱέη ὢ θο κὶφν χώεο ερσεα. Only, it is not the fact that the cry was one for retribution (12:24) which is stressed here, not the fact that his blood cried to God after he died; but, as λλῖ is never used of speaking to God, what the writer means to suggest (as in 3:15) is that Abel’s faith still speaks to us (λλῖ not the historic present, but = in the record). Not even in 12:24 does he adopt the idea of a divine nemesis for the sufferings of the pious in past generations. He does not represent the blood of martyrs like Abel as crying from the ground for personal vengeance; he has nothing of the spirit which prompted the weird vision of the wronged souls under the altar crying out for retribution (Rev_6:10). Ἔιλλῖmeans, in a general sense, that he is an eloquent, living witness to all ages (so recently Seeberg). Primasius (“qui enim alios suo exemplo admonet ut justi sint, quomodo non loquitur?”) and Chrysostom (τῦοκὶτῦζνσμῖνἐτ, κὶτῦπρ πνω ἄεθι θυάεθικὶμκρζσα·ὁγρπριῶ τῖ ἄλι δκίι ενιλλῖ put this well. The witness is that πσι may have to face the last extreme of death (12:4), and that it is not abandoned by God; ἀοαώ is never the last word upon a δκις Compare Tertullian’s argument from Abel, in De Scorpiace, 8: “a primordio enim justitia vim patitur. Statim ut coli Deus coepit, invidiam religio sortita est: qui Deo placuerat, occiditur, et quidem a fratre; quo proclivius impietas alienum sanguinem sectaretur, a suo auspicata est. Denique non modo justorum, verum etiam et prophetarum.”
The difficulty of λλῖled to the tame correction λλῖα in D K L d eth, etc. Λλῖα as passive (=λγτι is nearly as impossible as middle; to say that Abel, even after death, is still spoken of, is a tepid idea. The writer of Hebrews meant more than an immortal memory, more even than Epictetus when he declared that by dying ὅεἔε κὶὡ ἔε one may do even more good to men than he did in life, like Socrates (iv. 1. 169, κὶννΣκάοςἀοαότςοθνἧτνἤκὶπεο ὠέιό ἐτνἀθώοςἡμήηὧ ἔιζνἔρξνἤεπν
The πσι Ἐώ (vv. 5, 6) is conveyed in an interpretation of the LXX of Gen_5:24 κὶεηέτσνἘὼ τ θῷ κὶοχηρσεο δόιμτθκνατνὁθό. The writer takes the two clauses in reverse order. Enoch μττθ τῦ(with infinitive of result) μ ἰενθντν(Luk_2:26) κὶ(“indeed,” introducing the quotation) οχηρσεο(on this Attic augmented form, which became rare in the κιή see Thackeray, 200) δόιμτθκνατνὁθό, πὸγρ(resuming πσε μττθ) τςμτθσω μμρύηα (in the scripture record; hence the perfect, which here is practically aoristic) εηετκνιτ θο (εαετῖ in its ordinary Hellenistic sense of a servant giving satisfaction to his master). For ερσεθι= die (be overtaken or surprised by death),1 cp. Epict. iii. 5. 5 f., οκοδςὅικὶνσςκὶθντςκτλβῖ ἡᾶ ὀελυί τ πτ πιῦτς …ἐο μνγρκτλφῆα γνιομδνςἄλυἐιεομν ἢτςποιέεςτςἐῆ …τῦαἐιηεω θλ ερθνι iv. 10. 12, ἀαὸ ὢ ἀοαῇ γναα πᾶι ἐιεῶ. ἐε γρδῖπνω ἀοαεν ἀάκ τ πτ πιῦτ ερθνι…τ ονθλι πινερθνιὑὸτῦθντυ Here ερθνι(with or without τῦθντυ is a synonym for κτλφῆα or ἀοαεν as in Php_3:9 (ερθ ἐ ατ).
Both Clem. Rom. (9:2) and Origen, like Tertullian, appear to have read οχερθ ατῦθντςin Gen_5:24; and Blass therefore reads here οχηρσε(ο ατῦθντς especially as it suits his scheme of rhythm. This is linguistically possible, as ερσεθι= be (cp. Fr. se trouver), e.g. in Luk_17:18, Php_2:8. Μτθκνwas turned into the pluperfect μττθκνby א Dc L 5, 203, 256, 257, 326, 337, 378, 383, 491, 506, 623, 1611, etc.
Traditions varied upon Enoch (EBi 1295a), and even Alexandrian Judaism did not always canonize him in this way. (a) The author of Wis 4:10f., without mentioning his name, quotes Gen_5:24 as if it meant that God removed Enoch from life early (κὶζνμτξ ἁατλνμττθ) in order to prevent him from sharing the sin of his age (ἡπγ, μ κκαἀλξ σνσνατῦ ἢδλςἀαήῃψχνατῦ he departed young, but his removal was a boon mercifully granted by God to his youthful piety. (b) Philo views him in de Abrahamo, 3 (cp. de praem. 3-4), as a type of μτνι. Quoting Gen_5:24 he points out that μτθσςmeans a change for the better, and that οχηρσεοis therefore appropriate, τ τνἀχῖνκὶἐίητνἀαηίθιβο κὶἠαίθικὶμκθ ερσεθι κθπρε μδ τνἀχνἐέεο The Greek version of Sir 44:16 echoes the same tradition (Ἔω εηέτσνΚρῳκὶμττθ, ῦόεγαμτνίςτῖ γνας viz. that μτθκνimplies the effacement of Enoch’s blameable past, or at any rate that he was enrolled in better company. Our author does not share this view. His general deduction in v. 6 expands the description of πσι in v. 1. To say that a man has satisfied God is to pronounce the highest possible eulogy upon him, says Phm_1:1 (de Abrahamo, 6, “τ θῷεηέτσν” ο τ γνιʼἂ ἐ τ ψσικετο; τςκλκγθα ἐαγσεο ἔεχς ), though he is referring to Noah, not to Enoch. Our author explains that to satisfy God necessarily implies πσι (v. 6) in the sense of 10:35. Πσεσιγρδῖτνποεχμνντ θῷ(4:16 etc.) ὅιἔτν(so Epict. iii. 26. 15, ὅικὶἔτ κὶκλςδοκῖτ ὅα κὶτῖ ἐζτῦι ατνμσαοόη (cf. v. 26, 10:35) γντι As for the first element of belief, in the existence of God (ὅιἔτν the early commentators, from Chrysostom (ὅιἔτν ο τ τ ἐτν cp. Tert. adv. Marc. i. 17, “primo enim quaeritur an sit, et ita qualis sit”) and Jerome (on Isa_6:1-7, in Anecdota Maredsolana, iii. 3. 110: “cumque idem apostolus Paulus scribit in alio loco, Credere oportet accedentem ad Deum quia est, non posuit quis et qualis sit debere cognosci, sed tantum quod sit. Scimus enim esse Deum, scimusque quid non sit; quid autem et qualis sit, scire non possumus”) onwards, emphasize the fact that it is God’s existence, not his nature, which is the primary element of faith. Philo does declare that the two main problems of enquiry are into God’s existence and into his essence (de Monarch. i. 4-6), but our author takes the more practical, religious line, and he does not suggest how faith in God’s existence is to be won or kept. When objectors asked him why he believed in the existence of the gods, Marcus Aurelius used to reply: πῶο μνκὶὄε ὁαο εσν ἔετ μνο οδ τνψχντνἐατῦἑρκ κὶὅω τμ·οτςονκὶτὺ θος ἐ ὧ τςδνμω ατνἑάττ πιῶα, ἐ τύω ὅιτ εσ κτλμάωκὶαδῦα (xii. 28). We have no such argument against atheism here; only the reminder that faith does imply a belief in the existence of God—a reminder which would appeal specially to those of the readers who had been born outside Judaism. Belief in the existence of God is for our author, however, one of the elementary principles of the Christian religion (6:1); the stress here falls on the second element, κὶ…μσαοόη γντι When the Stoics spoke about belief in the divine existence, they generally associated it with belief in providence; both Seneca (Ep. xcv. 50, “primus est deorum cultus deos credere …scire illos esse qui praesident mundo, quia universa vi sua temperant, qui humani generis tutelam gerunt interdum curiosi singulorum”) and Epictetus (e.g. ii. 14. 11, λγυι ο φλσφιὅιμθῖ δῖπῶο τῦο ὅιἔτ θὸ κὶποοῖτνὅω: Enchir. xxxi. 1, τςπρ τὺ θοςεσβίςἴθ ὅιτ κρώαο ἐεν ἐτνὀθςὑοήεςπρ ατνἔενὡ ὄτνκὶδοκύτντ ὅακλςκὶδκίς are contemporary witnesses to this connexion of ideas, which, indeed, is as old as Plato (Leges, 905d, ὅιμνγρθο τ εσνκὶἀθώω ἐιεονα).
Τῖ ἐζτῦι ατν(for which p13 P read the simple ζτῦι) denotes, not philosophic enquiry, but the practical religious quest, as in the OT (e.g. Act_15:17, Rom_3:11). This is not Philo’s view, e.g., in the Leg. Alleg. iii. 15 ε δ ζτῦαερσι θὸ ἄηο, πλοςγροκἐαέωε ἑυὸ, ἀλ ἀεῆτνσοδνἄρ πνὸ ἔχν ἐακῖμνο πὸ μτυίνἀαῶ κὶψλντ ζτῖ μνν ἀὶγρα ἐὶτ κλ ὁμὶκντῦτλυ ἀυῶιτὺ χωέοςπουρίοσν But our author has a simpler belief; he is sure that the quest of faith is always successful. By God’s reward he means that the faith of man reaching out to God is never left to itself, but met by a real satisfaction; God proves its rewarder. Such faith is a conviction which illustrates 11:1, for the being of God is an unseen reality and his full reward is at present to be hoped for.
A still more apt illustration of πσι as the ἔεχςπάμτνο βεοἐω which becomes a motive in human life, now occurs in (v. 7) the faith which Noah showed at the deluge when he believed, against all appearances to the contrary, that he must obey God’s order and build an ark, although it is true that in this case the unseen was revealed and realized within the lifetime of the δκις Like Philo, our author passes from Enoch to Noah, although for a different reason. Philo ranks Noah as the lover of God and virtue, next to Enoch the typical penitent (de Abrah. 3, 5, εκτςτ μτννηόιττε κτ τ ἑῆ τνθοιῆκὶφλρτν here both are grouped as examples of πσι. Sirach (44:17.) also passes at once from Enoch to Noah the δκις
7 It was by faith (πσε) that Noah, after being told by God (χηαιθί, 8:5, sc. πρ τῦθο) of what was still unseen (τνμδπ βεοέω, i.e. the deluge), reverently (ελβθί, cp. 5:7) constructed (κτσεαε, as 1 P 3:20) an ark to save his household; thus he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that follows faith.
The writer recalls, though he does not quote from, the story of Gen_6:13f. Πσε goes closely with ελβθὶ κτσεαε, and πρ τ μ βεοέω goes with χηαιθί (as Jos. Ant. iv. 102, ἐρμτζτ πρ ὧ ἐετ), not with ελβθί, which is not a synonym for φβθί—the writer is at pains always to exclude fear or dread from faith (cp. vv. 23, 27). Εςστρα is to be taken as = “to save alive” (Act_27:20 πσ ἐπςτῦσζσα ἡᾶ, 27:34 τῦογρπὸ τςὑεέα στρα ὑάχι Δʼἧ (i.e. by the faith he thus exhibited; as both of the following clauses depend on this, it cannot refer to the ark, which would suit only the first) κτκιετνκσο, where κτκιε corresponds to what is probably the meaning of Wis 4:16 κτκιε δ δκιςκμντὺ ζνα ἀεες though κμν( = θνν is not the point of Hebrews, which regards Noah’s action as shaming the world, throwing its dark scepticism into relief against his own shining faith in God (Josephus, in Ant. i. 75, puts it less pointedly: ὁδ θὸ τῦο μντςδκισνςἠάηε κτδκζ δ ἐενυ); κσο here (as in v. 38) means sinful humanity, almost in the sense so common in the Johannine vocabulary, the κσο ἀεῶ of 2 P 2:5. Philo (de congressu erudit. 17) notes that Noah was the first man in the OT to be specially called (Gen_6:9) δκις but our author, who has already called Abel and Noah δκις does not use this fact; he contents himself with saying that τςκτ πσι δκισνςἐέεοκηόοο, i.e. he became entitled to, came into possession of, the δκισν which is the outcome or property (κτ κλ as in Hellenistic Greek, cp. Eph_1:15, a periphrasis for the possessive genitive) of such faith as he showed. Δκισν here is the state of one who is God’s δκις(ὁδκιςμυ 10:38). A vivid description of Noah’s faith is given in Mark Rutherford’s novel, The Deliverance, pp. 162, 163.
The faith of Abraham, as might be expected, receives more attention than that of any other (cp. Act_7:2f.). It is described in three phases (8, 9-10, 17-19); the faith of his wife Sara is attached to his (11-12), and a general statement about his immediate descendants is interpolated (13-16) before the writer passes from the second to the third phase. As in Sirach and Philo, Abraham follows Noah. “Ten generations were there from Noah to Abraham, to show how great was His longsuffering; for all the generations were provoking Him, till Abraham our father came and received the reward of them all” (Pirke Aboth 5:3).
8 It was by faith that Abraham obeyed his call to go forth to a place which he would receive as an inheritance; he went forth, although he did not know where he was to go. 9 It was by faith that he “sojourned” in the promised land, as in a foreign country, residing in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were co-heirs with him of the same promise; 10 he was waiting for the City with its fixed foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
The first phase (v. 8) is the call to leave Mesopotamia and travel West, which is described in Gen_12:1f.. The writer does not dwell, like Philo (de Abrahamo, 14), on the wrench of tearing oneself from one’s home. But, as Philo says that Abraham started ἅατ κλυθνι our author begins with κλύεο. When the call came, he obeyed it—ὑήοσνἐεθῖ (epexegetic infinitive), a reminiscence of Gen_12:1, Gen_12:4 κὶεπνκρο τ Ἀρμ Ἔεθ …κὶἐοεθ Ἀρμκθπρἐάηε ατ κρο. He went out from Mesopotamia, μ ἐιτμνςπῦἔχτι his faith being tested by this uncertainty. So Philo (de Migr. Abrah. 9) notes the point of the future δίωin Gen_12:1; it is εςμρυίνπσεςἣ ἐίτυε ἡψχ θῷ
The insertion of ὁbefore κλύεο (A D 33. 256. 467. 1739. 2127 sah boh arm Thdt.) turns the phrase into an allusion to Abraham’s change of name in Gen_17:5, which is irrelevant to his earlier call to leave the far East.
The second phase (vv. 9, 10) is the trial of patience. He did not lose heart or hope, even when he did reach the country appointed to him, although he had to wander up and down it as a mere foreigner, ες( = ἐ, Mar_13:16, Act_8:40) …ἀλτίν He found the land he had been promised still in the hands of aliens, and yet he lived there, lived as an alien in his own country! Πρκσνis the opposite of κτκσν(as in Gen_37:1), and with a fine touch of paradox the writer therefore goes on to describe Abraham as ἐ σηαςκτιήα, contented patiently to lead a wandering, unsettled life. Such was all the “residence” he ever had! What sustained him was his πσι (v. 10), his eager outlook for the City, ἧ τχίη κὶδμορὸ ὁθό. Compare the scholion on Lucian’s Jou. Trag. 38: ὃ δ θὸ κὶδμορὸ ὁεσβςἀερκςλγσὸ ἔοο κὶτχίη τῦπνὸ πουρπσν Τχίη is not a LXX term, and only began to be used of God in Alexandrian Judaism (e.g. in Wis 13:1). This is the one place in the NT where it is applied to God; afterwards (e.g. Did. 12:3; Diognetus, 7:2) it became more common. Δμορό is equally unique as a NT term for God, but it occurs in 2 Mal_4:1, and was used in classical literature frequently for a subordinate deity (cp. Schermann, Texte u. Untersuchungen, xxxiv. 2b. 23). In Apoc. Esdrae (ed. Tisch. 32) the phrase occurs, ὁπσςτςκίεςδμορό. Our author simply writes τχίη κὶδμορό as a rhetorical expression for maker or creator (8:2), without differentiating the one term from the other, as “designer” and “constructor” (cp. Philo, quis rer. div. 27, ὁτχίη …ἡίατνκσο ἐηιύγι de mut. nom. 4, ἔηετ πναὁγνήα κὶτχιεσςπτρ ὥτ τ "ἐώεμ θὸ σς ἴο ἐτ τ "ἐώεμ πιτςκὶδμορό").
In 9b the writer adds a new touch (as if to suggest that Abraham propagated his πσι) in μτ ἸακκὶἸκβ—who shared the same outlook—τνσγλρνμν(a κιή though not a LXX, term for co-heir) τςἐαγλα τςατς Their individual faith is noted later (vv. 20, 21). In sketching his fine mystical interpretation of Abraham’s hope, the author ignores the fact that Jacob, according to Gen_33:17 (ἐοηε ατ ἐε οκα), did erect a permanent settlement for himself at Sukkoth. His immediate interest is not in Isaac and Jacob but in Abraham, and in the contrast of the tent-life with the stable, settled existence in a city—the idea which recurs in 12:22, 13:14. It is a Philonic thought in germ, for Philo (Leg. Alleg. 3:27) declares that the land promised by God to Abraham is a πλςἀαὴκὶπλὴκὶσόρ εδίω, typifying the higher contemplation of divine truth in which alone the soul is at home, or that the soul lives for a while in the body as in a foreign land (de Somniis, 1:31), till God in pity conducts it safe to μτόοι or immortality. The historical Abraham never dreamed of a πλς but our author imaginatively allegorizes the promised land once more (cp. 4:3f.), this time as (12:22) a celestial πλςor Jerusalem, like Paul and the apocalyptists. According to later tradition in Judaism, the celestial Jerusalem was shown in a vision to Abraham at the scene of Gen_15:9-21 (Apoc. Bar. 4:4), or to Jacob at Bethel (Beresh. rabba on Gen_28:17). Ἐεέεογρand this showed the steady patience (10:36) and inward expectation (11:1) of his faith—τντὺ θμλος(τύ, because it was such foundations that the tents lacked) ἔοσνπλν No doubt there was something promised by God which Abraham expected and did get, in this life; the writer admits that (6:13-15). But, in a deeper sense, Abraham had yearnings for a higher, spiritual bliss, for heaven as his true home. The fulfilment of the promise about his family was not everything; indeed, his real faith was in an unseen future order of being (11:1). However, the realization of the one promise about Isaac (6:13-15) suggests a passing word upon the faith of Sara (vv. 11, 12).
11 It was by faith that even (κί Sara got strength to conceive, bearing a son when she was past the age for it—because she considered she could rely on Him who gave the promise. 12 Thus a single man, though (κὶτῦα he was physically impotent, had issue in number “like the stars in heaven, countless as the sand on the seashore.”
This is the first instance of a woman’s faith recorded, and she is a married woman. Paul (Rom_4:19f.) ignores any faith on her part. Philo again praises Sarah, but not for her faith; it is her loyalty and affection for her husband which he singles out for commendation, particularly her magnanimity in the incident of Gen_16:2 (de Abrahamo, 42-44). Our author declares that even in spite of her physical condition (κὶατ Σρα she believed God when he promised her a child. The allusion is to the tale of Gen_17:15-7, which the readers are assumed to know, with its stress on the renewal of sexual functions in a woman of her age. This is the point of κὶατ, not “mere woman that she was” (Chrysostom, Oec., Bengel), nor “in spite of her incredulity” (Bleek), nor “Sara likewise,” i.e. as well as Abraham (Delitzsch, Hofmann, von Soden, Vaughan), owing to her close connexion with Abraham (Westcott, Seeberg), though the notion of “like-wise” is not excluded from the author’s meaning, since the husband also was an old man. A gloss (σερ, ἡσερ, ἡσερ οσ) was soon inserted by D* P, nearly all the versions, and Origen. This is superfluous, however, and probably arose from dittography (ΣΡΑΤΙΑ The general idea is plain, though there is a difficulty in δνμνἔαε (i.e. from God) εςκτβλνσέμτς= εςτ κτβλεθισέμ, i.e. for Abraham the male to do the work of generation upon her. This is how the text was understood in the versions, e.g. the Latin (“in conceptionem seminis”). Probably it was what the writer meant, though the expression is rather awkward, for κτβλ σέμτςmeans the act of the male; εςὑοοὴ σέμτςwould have been the correct words. This has been overcome (a) by omitting κὶατ Σραas a gloss, or (b) by reading ατ Σρᾳ (a) certainly clears up the verse, leaving Abraham as the subject of both verses (so Field in Notes on Transl. of NT, p. 232, and Windisch); (b) is read by Michaelis, Storr, Rendall, Hort, and Riggenbach, the latter interpreting it not as “dativus commodi,” but = “along with.” If the ordinary text is retained, the idea suggested in κὶατ Σραis made explicit in πρ κιὸ ἡιίς What rendered such faith hard for her was her physical condition. Philo (de Abrah. 22) applies this to both parents (ἤηγρὑεήιε γγντςδὰμκὸ γρςἀένσνπιὸ σοά,) and a woman in the period of life described in Gen_18:11, Gen_18:12 is called by Josephus γνιντνἡιίνἤηποελκς(Ant. vii. 8. 4).
Εςτ τκῶα (D* P 69 436. 462. 1245. 1288. 2005 syrhkl) after ἔαε is a harmless gloss. The addition of ἔεε (א K L P lat arm) after ἡιίςwas made when the force of κί( = even) before πρ κιό was missed.
Πσὸ ἡήαοτνἐαγιάεο (10:23) is an assertion which shows that the author ignores her sceptical laughter in Gen_18:12; he does not hesitate (cp. v. 27) to deal freely with the ancient story in order to make his point, and indeed ignores the equally sceptical attitude of Abraham himself (Gen_17:17). To be πσό in this connexion is to be true to one’s word, as Cicero observes in the de Officiis (i. 7: “fundamentum a