Heb_11:27 is referred either to the flight of Moses to Midian (Exo_2:15), or to the departure of the whole people out of Egypt. The former supposition is favoured by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Heinsius, Calmet, Bengel, Michaelis, Schulz, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Bouman (Chartae theolog. lib. II. Traj. ad Rhen. 1857, p. 157 sq.), Delitzsch, Nickel (in Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, März, p. 207), Conybeare, Alford, Maier, Kluge, Moll, Ewald; the latter by Nicholas de Lyra, Calvin, Piscator, Schlichting, Grotius, Owen, Calov, Braun, Baumgarten, Carpzov, Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, Huët, Böhme, Stuart, Kuinoel, Paulus, Klee, Bleek, Stein, Bloomfield, Ebraid, Bisping, Kurtz, Hofmann, Woerner, and others. Only the opinion first mentioned is the correct one. Against it, indeed, the objection appears to be not without weight, that Exo_2:14 a
φοβηθῆναι
of Moses is spoken of, whereas here, by means of
μὴ
φοβηθεὶς
κ
.
τ
.
λ
., the opposite is asserted. But the contradiction is only an apparent one. For in the account of Exodus a fear on the part of Moses is mentioned only in the objective relation, whereas the fearlessness, which the author of our epistle intends, belongs purely to the subjective domain. Moses was alarmed that, contrary to his expectation, the slaying of the Egyptian had already become known, and apprehended as a consequence being exposed to the vengeance of the king, if the latter should obtain possession of him. On this very account also he took steps for the saving of his life, in that he withdrew by flight from the territory of Pharaoh. With this fact, however, it was perfectly reconcilable that in the consciousness of being chosen to be the deliverer of his people, and in the confidence in God, in whose hand alone he stood, he felt himself inwardly, or in his frame of mind, raised above all fear at the wrath of an earthly king. There is therefore no need of the concession (de Wette), that the author of the epistle, when he wrote down his
μὴ
φοβηθείς
, did not remember the words
ἐφοβήθη
δὲ
Μωϋσῆς
, Exo_2:14. But just as little is it permissible, with Delitzsch, to press the expression
κατέλιπεν
, chosen by the author, and to assert that
καταλιπεῖν
expresses the repairing hence without fear, whereas
φυγεῖν
would denote the repairing hence from fear. The author might also have written without difference of signification—what is denied by Delitzsch
The referring, on the other hand, of the statement, Heb_11:27, to the leading forth of the whole people, is shown to be entirely inadmissible—(1) from the consideration that, in the chronological order which the author pursues in the enumeration of his models of faith, the departure of Israel from Egypt could not have been mentioned before the fact on which he dwells in Heb_11:28, but only after the same; (2) that to the departure of the people out of Egypt the expression
κατέλιπεν
(sc.
Μωϊσῆς
)
Αἴγυπτον
is unsuitable; (3) finally, that according to Exo_12:31 that departure was commanded by Pharaoh himself; in connection with the departure, therefore, any fear whatever at the wrath of the king could not arise.
τὸν
γὰρ
ἀόρατον
ὡς
ὁρῶν
ἐκαρτέρησεν
] for having the invisible (God) as it were before his eyes, he was strong and courageous.
τὸν
ἀόρατον
ὡς
ὁρῶν
belongs together, and
τὸν
ἀόρατον
stands absolutely, without, what is thought most probable by Böhme, as also Delitzsch and Hofmann, our having to supplement
βασιλία
to the same. Contrary to linguistic usage, Luther, Bengel, Schulz, Paulus, Stengel (wavering), Ebrard combine
τὸν
ἀόρατον
with
ἐκαρτέρησεν
: he held firmly to the invisible one as though seeing Him; according to Ebrard,
καρτερεῖν
τινα
signifies: “to comport oneself stedfastly in regard to some one” (!), and the expression of our passage is supposed to acquire a pregnancy in the sense of
τὸν
ἀόρατον
τιμῶν
ἐκαρτέρησεν
(!).
καρτερεῖν
τι
can only denote: stedfastly to bear or undergo something;
καρτερεῖν
τινα
, however, cannot be used in Greek.