Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 11:11 - 11:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_11:11. Καὶ αὐτὴ Σάῤῥα ] even Sarah herself, sc. although she had before been unbelieving. At first, namely, when she had received the divine promise that she should yet bear a son, she had, in consideration of her great age, laughed thereat, and thus manifested unbelief; presently afterwards, however, she was afraid, and denied her laughter, had thus passed over from unbelief to belief. Comp. Gen_18:12; Gen_18:15. Erroneously is the enhancing καὶ αὐτή interpreted by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Bengel, Böhme, Stein, Tholuck (the last-named, however, undecided): even Sarah also, the wife, or: although she was only a woman; Kurtz: “Sarah herself and no other,” namely, not Hagar. Just as false the interpretation of Schlichting, Schulz, and others: even Sarah herself, although she was barren. To the last mode of supplementing points also the gloss στεῖρα , or στεῖρα οὖσα , or ἡ στεῖρα , which is found, with Theophylact, in some cursives, translations (including Vulg.), and early editions. Quite wrongly will Delitzsch, followed therein by Alford and Hofmann, have no gradation whatever recognised in καὶ αὐτὴ Σάῤῥα , in that he supposes καὶ αὑτή to serve only for extending a like statement to a second subject, and consequently placing the first mother of the chosen race side by side with the first father thereof. If the author had wished to express nothing more, he would have written merely καὶ Σάῤῥα . For αὐτός or αὐτή is in the N. T. never used in the nominative for the unaccented he or she. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 141, Obs.
εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος ] for the founding of a posterity. καταβολή is employed, therefore, in the same sense as in the expression καταβολὴ κόσμου , Heb_4:3, Heb_9:26, and σπέρμα , as Heb_11:18; Heb_2:16, and frequently. The words cannot denote: she received power to conceive seed, as is interpreted by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact (who, however, is undecided), the Peshito, Vulgate, Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Er. Schmid, Grotius, L. Bos, Wolf, Bengel, Carpzov, Schulz, Heinrichs, Huët, Stengel, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Kurtz, and others. For this must have been expressed by εἰς ὑποδοχὴν ( σύλληψιν ) σπέρματος .[107] Constrained and unnatural, however, is also the explanation, first mentioned by Theophylact, and subsequently adopted by Drusius, Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, Heinsius, Wittich, Rambach, and others: she received power for the bringing forth of seed.
καὶ παρὰ καιρὸν ἠλικίας ] and that contrary to the favourable period of life, i.e. since the δύναμιν λαμβάνειν , on account of the youthful freshness being already lost, was opposed to all probability. Incorrect, because in that case the full signification of καιρός (opportunitas) is not brought out, Delitzsch: “in contradiction with the time of life, namely, the ninetieth year, in which she was.”
ἐπεὶ πιστὸν ἡγήσατο τὸν ἐπαγγειλάμενον ] comp. Heb_10:23.
[107] Michaelis and Storr would therefore, in writing καὶ αὐτῇ Σάῤῥᾳ , refer the statement, ver. 11, still to Abraham, in connection with which, however, more meaning must be put into εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος than can lie in the expression, and which has in other respects much in the context against it. See Bleek, II. 2, p. 767 f.