Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 11:19 - 11:19
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_11:19 contains in its first half the motive ground of Abraham for such believing action. Abraham trusted in the omnipotence of God, by virtue of which he is able, even in presence of the actual sacrifice of Isaac, to realize the promises given to him.
λογισάμενος ὅτι κ . τ . λ .] since he judged that God is able to raise even from the dead. The proposition introduced with ὅτι contains a universal truth. It is erroneous to supplement αὐτόν to ἐγείρειν (Jac. Cappellus, Huët, Kuinoel, Stein, Bloomfield, al.), yet more erroneous to supplement σπέρμα (Schulz, Stengel).
ὅθεν κ . τ . λ .] Declaration of the divine reward for such believing action and such believing confidence. ὅθεν means, as everywhere else in our epistle (Heb_2:17, Heb_3:1, Heb_7:25, Heb_8:3, Heb_9:18): on which account, wherefore; παραβολή , however, denotes, conformably to the well-known use of παραβάλλεσθαι (Hom. Il. ix. 322; Thuc. ii. 44, al. See the lexicons), the imperilling, and forms with the ἐκομίσατο an oxymoron. The sense is: on which account he bore him away, even on the ground of (or: by means of) the giving up. Abraham obtained Isaac as a reward, received him back again as a possession, by the very act of setting his life at stake, giving up to the death of a sacrifice. This is the simple and only correct sense of the variously explained words.
With this exposition earlier interpretations agree in part, though by no means entirely, so far as ὅθεν and ἐκομίσατο are concerned, but all different in regard to ἐν παραβολῇ . Instead of the causal signification, “on which account,” Calvin, Castellio, Beza, Schlichting, Grotius, Lamb. Bos, Alberti, Wolf, Michaelis, Schulz, Huët, Böhme, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Kluge, Moll, Ewald, Hofmann, and others have asserted for ὅθεν the local signification “whence, sc. from the dead.” In connection with this, L. Bos, Alberti, Schulz, and Stengel [as also Whitby] understand ἐκομίσατο of the birth of Isaac; while Calvin, Bleek, and the majority rightly understand it of the deliverance of Isaac’s life in consequence of the prevention of the sacrifice. The former explain: whence he indeed had received him, inasmuch as Isaac’s parents at the time of his conception and birth were virtually dead. The latter: as he accordingly also received him from the dead. But against the first acceptation decides the fact that in such case, because an event conceived of as possible in the future is placed in definite parallel with a past event, the pluperfect must necessarily have been used in place of the aorist ἐκομίσατο ; and then, even apart from this, since all the emphasis would fall upon ἐκομίσατο , the order of the words must have been otherwise, namely as follows: ὅθεν ἐν παραβολῆ καὶ ἐκομίσατο αὐτόν . But also the last-named interpretation is forbidden by the order of the words. For καί must, in connection therewith, be referred, as is also expressly required by Schlichting, Böhme, and others, to the whole clause, whereas from its position it can only form a gradation of ἐν παραβολῇ ; thus ὅθεν καὶ αὐτὸν ἐν παραβολῇ ἐκομίσατο must have been written.
Finally, as regards ἐν παραβολῇ , the signification “in similitudine,” or “in a resemblance,” is attached thereto by Theodore of Mopsuestia,[108] Calvin, Castellio, Beza, Schlichting, Grotius, Jac. Cappellus (figurate), Scaliger, Er. Schmid, Wittich, Limborch, Zachariae, Dindorf, Koppe (in Heinrichs), Huët, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Maier, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M‘Caul, Hofmann, Woerner, and others. The sense is, according to Bleek: “as accordingly he received him from thence in a resemblance; so that Isaac was indeed not really delivered out of death, but yet his deliverance was a kind of restoration from the dead, since Abraham already regarded him as the prey of death.” But this “in a resemblance” is, strictly taken, nothing else than “in a manner,” with which it is also exactly identified by Stengel and others; for the expression, however, of the notion “in a manner,” the author would hardly have chosen the altogether unusual, and therefore unintelligible, formula ἐν παραβολῇ ; much more natural would it have been for him to employ instead thereof, as at Heb_7:9, the familiar ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν . Moreover, since that addition could only be designed to exert a softening effect upon the ὅθεν , (SC. ἐκ νεκρῶν ), it must also have followed immediately after this word. The author would thus have written ὅθεν , ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν , αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκομίσατο .
Yet more untenable is the exposition akin to that just mentioned: as a type (Luther: zum Vorbilde), sc. in regard to the resurrection in general (Hunnius, Balduin, Michaelis, Böhme, al.), or specially in regard to the sacrificed and risen Christ (Primasius, Erasmus, Clarius, Vatablus, Zeger, Calov, Carpzov, Cramer, Ebrard, Bisping, Reuss), or in regard to both alike (Theodoret: τουτέστιν ὡς ἐν συμβόλῳ καὶ τύπῳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως .
ἐν αὐτῷ δὲ προεγράφη καὶ τοῦ σωτηρίου πάθους ὁ τύπος ). For the express indication of that which was typically represented by this event could not have been wanting.
Equally far wrong, because far-fetched and unnatural, is the supplementing of ὤν to ἐν παραβολῇ on the part of Bengel (“Abraham … ipse factus est parabola.… Omnis enim posteritas celebrat fidem Abrahae, offerentis unigenitum”), and the explanation of Paulus: “against an equalization,” i.e. in return for the ram presented as a substitute (comp. already Chrysostom: τουτέστιν ἐν ὑποδείγματι · ἐν τῷ κριῷ φησιν … ὡς ἐμ αἰνίγματι · ὥσπερ γὰρ παραβολὴ ἦν ὁ κριὸς τοῦ Ἰσαάκ ).
To the interpretation of ἐν παραβολῇ , above regarded as correct, several expositors approach, to the extent of likewise thinking that we must make the usage with regard to the verb παραβάλλεσθαι our guide in determining the signification of παραβολή . They deviate, however, essentially from the above interpretation, in that they take ἐν παραβολῇ adverbially, in the sense of παραβόλως ; consequently refer the expression, which above was equally referred to subject and object, to the subject, and that without any advantage to the peculiarity of thought. So Camerarius, who, besides other possibilities of apprehension, suggests also this: in that he exposed himself to danger, namely, that of losing his son; Loesner, Krebs, Heinrichs: in summo discrimine, παρʼ ἐλπίδα , παραδόξως ; Raphel: praeter spem praeterque opinionem; Tholuck: in bold venture.
[108] Τοῦτο λέγει , ὅτι ἀκολούθως ἔτυχεν τῇ ἑσυτοῦ πίστει · τῇ γὰρ ἀναστάσει πιστεύσας , διὰ συμβόλων τινῶν ἀποθανόντα αὐτὸν ἑκομίσατο . Τὸ γὰρ ἐν πολλῇ τοῦ θανάτου προσδοκίᾳ γενόμενον μηδὲν παθκῖν , τοῦ ἀληθῶς ἀναστησομένου σύμβολον ἦν , ὅσον τοῦ θανάτου πρὸς βραχὺ γευσάμενος , ἀνέστη μηδὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ θανάτου παθών · τὸ γοῦν ἐν χκραβολῇ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐν συμβόλοις .