Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 11:19
Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
19. from whence ] The only place in this Epistle where has its local sense.
in a figure ] Lit. “in a parable.” For the use of the word see Heb 9:9. The exact meaning is much disputed. It has been rendered “as a type” (comp. Vulg. in parabolam), or “in a bold venture.” or “unexpectedly.” These views are hardly tenable. But how could Abraham have received Isaac back “ in a figure ” when he received him back “ in reality ”? The answer is that he received him back, figuratively, from the dead, because Isaac was typically, or figuratively, dead potentially sacrificed when he received him back. Josephus in narrating the event uses the same word ( Antt. i. 13. 4). But in this instance again it is possible that the key to the expression might be found in some Jewish legend. In one Jewish writer it is said (of course untruly) that Isaac really was killed, and raised again. The restoration of Isaac was undoubtedly a type of the resurrection of Christ, but it is hardly probable that the writer would have expressed so deep a truth in a passing and ambiguous expression.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Accounting that God was able to raise him up even from the dead – And that he would do it; for so Abraham evidently believed, and this idea is plainly implied in the whole narrative. There was no other way in which the promise could be fulfilled; and Abraham reasoned justly in the case. He had received the promise of a numerous posterity. He had been told expressly that it was to be through this favorite child. He was now commanded to put him to death as a sacrifice, and he prepared to do it. To fulfil these promises, therefore, there was no other way possible but for him to be raised up from the dead, and Abraham fully believed that it would be done. The child had been given to him at first in a supernatural manner, and he was prepared, therefore, to believe that he would be restored to him again by miracle. He did not doubt that be who had given him to him in a manner at first so contrary to all human probability, could restore him again in a method as extraordinary. He, therefore, anticipated that he would raise him up immediately from the dead. That this was the expectation of Abraham is apparent from the narrative in Gen 22:5, And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you; in the plural – wanaashuwbaah ‘aleykem – and we will return; that is, I and Isaac will return, for no other persons went with them, Heb 11:6. As Abraham went with the full expectation of sacrificing Isaac, and as he expected Isaac to return with him, it follows that he believed that God would raise him up immediately from the dead.
From whence also he received him in a figure – There has been great difference of opinion as to the sense of this passage, but it seems to me to be plain. The obvious interpretation is that he then received him by his being raised up from the altar as if from the dead. He was to Abraham dead. He had given him up. He had prepared to offer him as a sacrifice. He lay there before him as one who was dead From that altar he was raised up by direct divine interposition, as if he was raised from the grave, and this was to Abraham a figure or a representation of the resurrection. Other interpretations may be seen in Stuart in loc. – The following circumstances will illustrate the strength of Abrahams faith in this remarkable transaction.
(1) The strong persuasion on his mind that God had commanded this. In a case of this nature – where such a sacrifice was required – how natural would it have been for a more feeble faith to have doubted whether the command came from God! It might have been suggested to such a mind that this must be a delusion, or a temptation of Satan; that God could not require such a thing; and that whatever might be the appearance of a divine command in the case, there must be some deception about it. Yet Abraham does not appear to have reasoned about it at all, or to have allowed the strong feelings of a father to come in to modify his conviction that God had commanded him to give up his son. What an example is this to us! And how ready should we be to yield up a son – an only son – when God comes himself and removes him from us.
(2) The strength of his faith was seen in the fact that in obedience to the simple command of God, all the strong feelings of a father were overcome. On the one hand there were his warm affections for an only son; and on the other there was the simple command of God. They came in collision – but Abraham did not hesitate a moment. The strong paternal feeling was sacrificed at once. What an example this too for us! When the command of God and our own attachments come into collision, we should not hesitate a moment. God is to be obeyed. His command and arrangements are to be yielded to, though most tender ties are rent asunder, and though the heart bleeds.
(3) The strength of his faith was seen in the fact, that, in obedience to the command of God, he resolved to do what in the eyes of the world would be regarded as a most awful crime. There is no crime of a higher grade than the murder of a son by the hand of a father. So it is now estimated by the world, and so it would have been in the time of Abraham. All the laws of God and of society appeared to be against the act which Abraham was about to commit, and he went forth not ignorant of the estimate which the world would put on this deed if it were known. How natural in such circumstances would it have been to argue that God could not possibly give such a command; that it was against all the laws of heaven and earth; that there was required in this what God and man alike must and would pronounce to be wrong and abominable! Yet Abraham did not hesitate. The command of God in the case was to his mind a sufficient proof that this was right – and it should teach us that whatever our Maker commands us should be done – no matter what may be the estimate affixed to it by human laws, and no matter how it may be regarded by the world.
(4) The strength of his faith was seen in the fact that there was a positive promise of God to himself which would seem to be frustrated by what he was about to do. God had expressly promised to him a numerous posterity, and had said that it was to be through this son. How could this be if he was put to death as a sacrifice? And how could God command such a thing when his promise was thus positive? Yet Abraham did not hesitate. It was not for him to reconcile these things; it was his to obey. He did not doubt that somehow all that God had said would prove to be true; and as he saw but one way in which it could be done – by his being immediately restored to life – he concluded that that was to be the way. So when God utters his will to us, it is ours simply to obey. It is not to inquire in what way his commands or revealed truth can be reconciled with other things. He will himself take care of that. It is ours at once to yield to what he commands, and to believe that somehow all that he has required and said will be consistent with everything else which he has uttered.
(5) The strength of the faith of Abraham was seen in his belief that God would raise his son from the dead. Of that he had no doubt. But what evidence had he of that? It had not been promised. No case of the kind had ever occurred; and the subject was attended with all the difficulties which attend it now. But Abraham believed it; for, first, there was no other way in which the promise of God could be fulfilled; and second, such a thing would be no more remarkable than what had already occurred. It was as easy for God to raise him from the dead as it was to give him at first contrary to all the probabilities of the case, and he did not, therefore, doubt that it would be so. Is it less easy for us to believe the doctrine of the resurrection than it was for Abraham? Is the subject attended with more difficulties now than it was then? The faith of Abraham in this remarkable instance shows us that the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, not withstanding the limited revelations then enjoyed, and all the obvious difficulties of the case, was early believed in the world; and as those difficulties are no greater now, and as new light has been shed upon it by subsequent revelations, and especially as in more than one instance the dead have been actually raised, those difficulties should not be allowed to make us doubt it now.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 19. To raise him up, even from the dead] Abraham staggered not at the promise through unbelief, but was strong in faith, giving glory to God. The resurrection of the dead must have been a doctrine of the patriarchs; they expected a heavenly inheritance, they saw they died as did other men, and they must have known that they could not enjoy it but in consequence of a resurrection from the dead.
He received him in a figure.] . In my discourse on parabolical writing at the end of “Mt 13:58, I have shown (signification #9) that sometimes means a daring exploit, a jeoparding of the life; and have referred to this place. I think it should be so understood here, as pointing out the very imminent danger he was in of losing his life. The clause may therefore be thus translated: “Accounting that God was able to raise him up from the dead, from whence he had received him, he being in the most imminent danger of losing his life.” It is not, therefore, the natural deadness of Abraham and Sarah to which the apostle alludes, but the death to which Isaac on this occasion was exposed, and which he escaped by the immediate interference of God.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead: faith put this into Abrahams thoughts in his reasonings about this trial between the temptation and Gods power, and influenced him to conclude and determine under it. That since God could raise him from the dead to perform his promises, he would sacrifice him to obey Gods command. This faith grew from what God had done, in giving him Isaac from his own dead body, and Sarahs dead womb, Rom 4:17-22. Gods almighty power to raise from the dead answered all the difficulties in the trial. If God command it, who can raise from the dead, this can be no murder; for he can either prevent or recover. Promises should not fail, though Isaac was sacrificed; for God would raise him up and accomplish them. As to arguments from natural affection: Shall a child be dearer to me than a God, who quickens me, and can raise him from the dead? Since God can do this, what difficulties can he not overcome? Hence is this principle so often revealed and repeated to be a sure prop to a Christians faith throughout the gospel.
From whence also he received him in a figure: his generation was a kind of resurrection from the dead, and so was his restitution to Abraham, for in Abrahams account he was dead, his hand being lifted up to kill him, when the angel stops the execution, Gen 22:11,12. From the altar he carrieth him back as a trophy and reward of the victory of his faith, in such a manner as one risen from the dead, and an eminent signal of his victory over this temptation. Abraham had a figure of the resurrection in his son, and an earnest of a far more glorious resurrection in Christ.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
19. Faith answered theobjections which reason brought against God’s command to Abraham tooffer Isaac, by suggesting that what God had promised He both couldand would perform, however impossible the performance might seem(Rom 4:20; Rom 4:21).
able to raise himrather, in general, “able to raise from the dead.”Compare Ro 4:17, “God whoquickeneth the dead.” The quickening of Sarah’s dead wombsuggested the thought of God’s power to raise even the dead, thoughno instance of it had as yet occurred.
he received him“receivedhim back” [ALFORD].
in a figureGreek,“in a parable.” ALFORDexplains, “Received him back, risen from that death which he hadundergone in, under, the figure of the ram.” I preferwith BISHOP PEARSON,ESTIUS, and GREGORYOF NYSSA,understanding the figure to be the representation which thewhole scene gave to Abraham of Christ in His death (typified byIsaac’s offering in intention, and the ram’s actual substitutionanswering to Christ’s vicarious death), and in His resurrection(typified by Abraham’s receiving him back alive from the jaws ofdeath, compare 2Co 1:9; 2Co 1:10);just as on the day of atonement the slain goat and the scapegoattogether formed one joint rite representing Christ’s death andresurrection. It was then that Abraham saw Christ’s day (Joh8:56): accounting God was able to raise even from the dead: fromwhich state of the dead he received him back as a type of theresurrection in Christ.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead,…. Abraham did not go about this affair without thought; and yet he did not consult with flesh and blood; his reasoning was the reasoning of faith; and the conclusion of it was, not that he believed that God would raise his son from the dead, but that he was able to do it. He knew that he had received him at first, as it were, from the dead; he sprung from his own dead body, and out of Sarah’s dead womb; and though his faith did not prescribe to God, yet as he believed the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, he might believe that God would raise his son from the dead, rather than that his promise should fail; and this conclusion proceeded upon the power and faithfulness of God:
from whence also he received him in a figure; or for an “example” of faith and obedience; or for a “parable or proverb”, that such a proverbial expression might be made use of, for the comfort and encouragement of saints in distressed and difficult circumstances, as is in Ge 22:14 or as a type of the death and resurrection of Christ, whose type he was in other things, as well as in this; as in his birth, and the circumstances of it; he was long promised and expected, as Christ, was; his birth was beyond the ordinary course of nature, and attended with great joy; he was circumcised the eighth day; at his weaning a great feast was made, typical of the Gospel feast; and as he was persecuted by Ishmael, so was Christ by Herod, in his infancy: and he was a figure of him in his oblation; they were both sons of Abraham; both only begotten and beloved sons; both heirs; both carried the wood on which they were offered; both were offered on a Mount, and by their father, by whom neither of them were spared; and both by the command of God, and alone, none were with them: and Isaac prefigured him in his deliverance; Abraham stretched out his hand, but was restrained, and not a bone of Christ must be broken; not Isaac, but the ram was slain, not the divine, but the human nature suffered; both were delivered on the third day, the one as from death, the other really from death; and both returned to their father’s house. Moreover, Abraham received his son in the similitude of a resurrection; it was as life from the dead; it was like the return of the prodigal, Lu 15:32. Abraham, looked upon him as dead to him, and Isaac thought himself a dead man; so that he that was accounted as one dead, was received alive. The Jews speak of this matter agreeably to the apostle; they say, a man has two breaths or souls, one in this world, and another in the world to come; and of Isaac they say d, that
“in the time that he was offered upon the altar, his soul (or “breath”), which he had in this world, “went out”; and when it was said to Abraham (or by him) blessed be he that quickeneth the dead, his soul (or breath), which he had in the world to come, returned to him–for , “he was accounted as dead”.”
They speak of him as if he was just dead; they say e,
“when he saw the sword over his neck, his breath fled from him, and came to the place of the soul, , “as if he was at the point of giving up the ghost”.”
So that a Jew cannot find fault with the apostle for expressing himself in this manner.
d Tosaphta in Zohar in Gen. fol. 46. 21. e Tzeror Hammor, fol. 58. 2. Pirke Eliezer, c. 31.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Accounting (). First aorist middle participle of . Abraham had God’s clear command that contravened God’s previous promise. This was his solution of his difficult situation.
God is able ( ). God had given him Isaac in his old age. God can raise him from the dead. It was Abraham’s duty to obey God.
In a parable ( ). See already 9:9 for . Because of (, whence) Abraham’s superb faith Isaac was spared and so he received him back () as almost from the dead. This is the test that Abraham stood of which James speaks (Jas 2:23).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “Accounting that God was able,” (logisamenos hoti dunatos ho theos) “Reckoning, computing, or calculating that God was able (powerful enough); This calculation was not merely by human reasoning so much as faith in the word of seed-promise from God, Gen 21:12; Isa 55:8-9.
2) “To raise him up, even from the dead; (kai ek nekron egeirein) “Even to raise him up out of (from among) dead bodies or corpses; Yes, true people of God have always believed in the resurrection from the dead, Job 14:14-15; Job 19:25-27; Psa 17:15; Rom 8:11; Joh 5:28-29; Belief in the resurrection or life after death is almost universal, Joh 5:21.
3) “From whence also he received him in a figure,” (othen auton kai en parabole ekomisato) “From whence he even obtained or begat him, in a parabolic manner or speaking.”
Some hold that this alludes only to Abraham’s receiving him back from the dead or death, to which, in his heart, he had given him up. It seems plausible, however, that this also alludes to his receiving him by promise, by Divine intervention, when Abraham, from the natural reproductive standpoint was as good as dead.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
19. From whence also, etc. As though he said, “Nor did hope disappoint Abraham, for it was a sort of resurrection, when his son was so suddenly delivered from the midst of death. The word figure, which is here used, is variously explained. I take it simply as meaning likeness; for though Isaac did not really rise from the dead, yet he seemed to have in a manner risen, when he was suddenly and wonderfully rescued through the unexpected favor of God. (226) However, I do not dislike what some say, who think that our flesh, which is subject to death, is set forth in the ram which was substituted for Isaac. I also allow that to be true which some have taught, that this sacrifice was a representation of Christ. But I have now to state what the Apostle meant, not what may in truth be said; and the real meaning here, as I think, is, that Abraham did not receive his Son otherwise than if he had been restored from death to new life.
(226) The meaning given by Stuart and some others is very far fetched, though said to be natural, that “Abraham believed that God could raise Isaac from the dead, because he had, as it were, obtained him from the dead, i.e., he was born of those who were dead as to these things.” Hence the rendering given is “comparatively.” Abraham had, as to his purpose, sacrificed him, so that he considered him as dead; and he received him back from the dead, not really, but in a way bearing a likeness to such a miracle. This sense is alone compatible with the former clause, which mentions Abraham’s faith in God’s power to raise his son from the dead; he believed that God was able to do this; and then it is added that Abraham had received back his son as though he had sacrificed him, and as though God had raised him from the dead. What actually took place bore a likeness to the way which he had anticipated. Costallio gives the meaning, “it was the same as though he had sacrificed him, and received him also in a manner he received him.” — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(19) That God was able.These words are better taken as the expression of a general truthAccounting that God is able to raise up even from the dead. The faith which tests and brings conviction of the things not seen made this reasoning possible, and gave power to act upon it even when Isaac must be slain.
From whence also.Better, from whence he did in a figure (literally, a parable) receive him. As in a figure the offering was completely carried out (Heb. 11:17), so also in figure he received his son back from the dead.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
19. Accounting What, it may be asked, was the real excellence of Abraham’s celebrated faith? Was it that he accepted a sensible phenomenon claiming to be Jehovah as a real theophany, a God made manifest? That might be the same credulity in supernatural appearances as we at the present day contemn. Or was it, that being firmly sure that it was God who commanded, he unflinchingly obeyed? But then who would not, if he was sure that the true Infinite commanded, obey? We may reply: 1. That Abraham first had turned away from an idolatrous world in Chaldea, and then had sought for the true and holy God, as he is in truth. In so doing he obeyed the highest aspirations of the human spirit. He was, therefore, eminently right, and his righteousness was a seeking, aspiring, and holy faith. 2. To that holy faith, in the midst of a faithless world, God did supernaturally respond. Not merely, though clearly, by the visible phenomenon, but also by the witness of his Spirit. That Spirit produced in Abraham that faith which is demonstration (see our note on Heb 11:1) of the holy truth. Abraham, then, had that knowing of God possessed by the spiritual intuitions, which is clear and sure as a geometrical demonstration is to the pure intellect. If any enthusiast at the present day, sane or insane, mistakenly assumes to be similarly authorized by God, and proceeds to slaughter his son, he must bear the consequences of his own mistake. He can no more hold the Abrahamic example responsible for his act than a man who, fancying himself a public executioner, hangs his son, could hold the law of capital punishment responsible. He can no more plead Abraham’s example than a modern assailant of our national existence can plead Washington’s example for being “a rebel.” 3. With the Holy One, and with his righteousness, truth, and holiness, the heart of Abraham rose in sympathy. Between the Holy and the holy there were communion and oneness. That was high and holy faith. 4. When God’s severe command came, though it cut the father’s sensibilities, and seemed to cut asunder God’s promises, and to cut off the holy seed, he said that God was true and right, and that all these evil seemings were but seemings. The glow of faith rose above even the shrinkings of nature. Hence was this narrative recorded for our ensample. There is a faithful and there is a faithless people. May our soul be with God, and all the human followers of God, the faithful of whom Abel was first instance, and Abraham the great exemplar.
God was able And, therefore, the right result was secure.
In a figure So divine a rescue from virtual death was a figure of a literal resurrection. So that, as Christ’s incarnation was typified in Isaac’s birth, his resurrection was typified in Isaac’s rescue from death.
There is good reason to believe that a resurrection in its debased form, as held in Chaldea, was known to Abraham. So mingled was the idea with idolatrous conceptions as to be cautiously left in the background in the Abrahamic creed, rather shadowed by earthly types and implications than boldly expressed. The doctrine of the only true God came to the front, and a reliant trust in him was cherished that his favour was assurance of all good, present and future, reflected in the present. The fact that God was Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’s God, insured by gracious implication their future existence.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Heb 11:19. Accounting that God, &c. Reasoning, that God, &c. Doddridge. Archbishop Tillotson observes, that Abraham’s faith was in this respect the more admirable, as, so far as we can learn, there never had been one single instance of a resurrection from the dead in or before the days of Abraham; “whose will,” says Heylin, “made a full oblation of his son: his obedience was consummate, and his heart, if we may so speak, was at all the expence of sacrifice.” The word , rendered figure, is literally a parable, a mode of information either by words or actions, which consists in putting one thing for another. Now in a writer who regarded this commanded action as a representative information of the redemption of mankind, nothing could be more fine or easy than this expression. For though Abraham did not indeed receive Isaac restored to life after a real dissolution, yet the son being in this action to represent Christ suffering death for the sins of the world, when the father brought him safe from mount Moriah after three days, (during which the son was in a state of condemnation to death,) the father plainly received him under the character of Christ’s representative, as restored from the dead. For as his being brought to the mount, his being bound, and laid on the altar, figured the sufferings and death of Christ; so his being taken from thence alive, as properly figured Christ’s resurrection from the dead. With the highest propriety therefore and elegance of speech, might Abraham be said to receive Isaac from the dead in a parable or representation. See Parkhurst on the word .
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
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.
. . .] since he judged that God is able to raise even from the dead . The proposition introduced with contains a universal truth. It is erroneous to supplement to (Jac. Cappellus, Hut, Kuinoel, Stein, Bloomfield, al .), yet more erroneous to supplement (Schulz, Stengel).
. . .] Declaration of the divine reward for such believing action and such believing confidence. 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 ; , however, denotes, conformably to the well-known use of (Hom. Il . ix. 322; Thuc. ii. 44, al . See the lexicons), the imperilling , and forms with the 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 and are concerned, but all different in regard to . Instead of the causal signification, “on which account,” Calvin, Castellio, Beza, Schlichting, Grotius, Lamb. Bos, Alberti, Wolf, Michaelis, Schulz, Hut, Bhme, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Kluge, Moll, Ewald, Hofmann, and others have asserted for the local signification “whence, sc . from the dead.” In connection with this, L. Bos, Alberti, Schulz, and Stengel [as also Whitby] understand 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 ; and then, even apart from this, since all the emphasis would fall upon , the order of the words must have been otherwise, namely as follows: . But also the last-named interpretation is forbidden by the order of the words. For must, in connection therewith, be referred, as is also expressly required by Schlichting, Bhme, and others, to the whole clause, whereas from its position it can only form a gradation of ; thus must have been written.
Finally, as regards , 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), Hut, 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 ; much more natural would it have been for him to employ instead thereof, as at Heb 7:9 , the familiar . Moreover, since that addition could only be designed to exert a softening effect upon the , (SC. ), it must also have followed immediately after this word. The author would thus have written , , .
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, Bhme, 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: .
). 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 to 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: ).
To the interpretation of , above regarded as correct, several expositors approach, to the extent of likewise thinking that we must make the usage with regard to the verb our guide in determining the signification of . They deviate, however, essentially from the above interpretation, in that they take adverbially , in the sense of ; 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, , ; Raphel: praeter spem praeterque opinionem; Tholuck: in bold venture.
[108] , , . , , , .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
Ver. 19. That God was able ] He founded his faith upon God’s fidelity and omnipotency. These are the Jachin and the Boaz, the two main pillars whereupon faith resteth.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
19 .] (reason of this paradoxical conduct: because Abraham’s faith was able, in anticipation, to clear the suspicion of God’s faithfulness by the suggestion of His power. He could and would make a way to the keeping of His own promise) reckoning that God is (not, was , see below) able to raise (no supply of “ him ” is admissible, as mistakenly inserted by many Commentators and even by the E. V. It was not God’s power to raise Isaac , but God’s power, generally, to raise from the dead, that Abraham believed. This, which is so plain from the form of the sentence, is made plainer still by the use of the present , not the aor. which would more probably be used if a single case had been in view: see Mat 16:21 ; Mar 14:28 ; Luk 3:8 ; Luk 9:22 . The aor. here (see digest) has probably been a correction arising from the application to Isaac) even from (among) the dead (St. Matt. commonly uses, with , : St. Luke, John, Paul, ), from whence (i. e. from the dead: so Thdr.-mops., Castellio, Beza, Schlichting, Grot., Lamb. Bos, Michaelis, Schulz, Bhme, Bleek, De Wette, Tholuck, Stier, Hofmann, Delitzsch. But most Commentators regard as the illative particle, “whence,” “unde,” as in the other five places where it occurs in this Epistle, ch. Heb 2:17 ; Heb 3:1 ; Heb 7:25 ; Heb 8:3 ; Heb 9:18 . The whole meaning is discussed below) he also ( ; besides the . It belongs, not to alone, but to the whole fact, to the verb with its qualifying adverb) received him back (so often: e. g. Polyb. i. 83. 8; iii. 51. 12, of captives: i. 59. 7, of money expended: iii. 40. 10, of hostages: x. 34. 3, 8, 10, of wife and children ( ): of a fortress or city, ii. 51. 6 al. fr. So Philo de Joseph. 35, vol. ii. p. 71, : 38, p. 74, (Joseph) ; And Josephus, Antt. i. 13. 4, uses the word of Abraham and Isaac on the very occasion here in question: . See also reff. and 1Ma 13:37 ; 2Ma 7:29 ; 2Ma 10:1 . In the face of these examples, Sykes and Schulz assert that the word never has this meaning) in a parable (figuratively: in what sense, see below). This clause has been very variously interpreted. The prevalent understanding of it, since Camerarius and Raphel, has been, “whence (= wherefore) also he received him by means of ( in , instrumental) his surrender of him.” And this Lnemann, who has adopted it, calls the simple and only right sense of the words. According to this view signifies a giving up to danger, a ( ), which latter is an expression often found, e. g. Hom. Il. . 322: Thuc. ii. 44. But though there is abundant example of the verb in this sense, there is none of the substantive, nor any thing approaching to one (in Passow indeed we have as a sense of , das Dransessen, aufs Spiel sessen, Wagen, Wagniss, Wagstuct : and in Liddell and Scott, “the making a venture;” but it is entirely unsupported by example, either in classic or Hellenistic Greek, and therefore very properly excluded by Palm and Rost). This rendering then must fall to the ground, unless it can be shewn that no other will serve, and thus we are justified in supposing it the only case in which occurs in this sense. Near akin to this is the view of Raphel (and Krebs), who says, “Quemadmodum pro , pro , aliaque hujusmodi dicuntur: ita etiam pro puto accipi posse: quo verbo spius utitur Polybius: cujus interpres Casaubonus, licet verterit audacter , et Camerarius in comment. utriusque lingu periculose , certum tamen est, aliquibus locis etiam insperato verti posse:” cf. in Josephus, above. Then he attempts to prove this from Polybius and from Pliny, Ep. ix. 26. 4, “Sunt enim maxime mirabilia qu maxime insperata, maxime periculosa, utque Grci magis exprimunt, .” But neither this nor any of the passages from Polyb. proves his point; every one of them having the meaning boldly , not unexpectedly . It seems then that we must abandon all idea of this class of interpretations, and fall back on the usual one, found in our ch. Heb 9:9 , and every where else in the N. T., of a likeness or figure. In favour of this meaning it may also be asked, Is it in the least probable that our Writer would have put before his readers so common an expression in so uncommon a sense? But, when we have taken the more ordinary meaning, we are by no means set at rest. For, . Hammond, Lamb. Bos, Alberti, Mill, Sykes, Schulz, Stuart, refer the words to the birth of Isaac, “from whence,” i. e. , “he had at first received him.” But, 1. this would certainly require the more definite pluperfect, not the quasi-pluperfect of an aorist reaching back beyond ; and, 2. it would be harsh and unnatural that the should refer to the person himself who . . Corn. a-Lapide regards Isaac himself as the , interpreting by the Latin “in parabolam ( ); id est, ut Isaac esset parabola, fabula, proverbium, exemplum memorabile &c. ut cum Deus per se aut suos nobis aliquid jusserit licet arduum et difficile, exemplum Isaac ob oculos habentes, fidenter et generose nos offeramus,” &c. . Bengel, on the other hand, regards Abraham as the , “omnis enim posteritas celebrat fidem Abrah, offerentis unigenitum.” . Others take to mean, as a type ; either of the Resurrection generally (so Thdrt., , but afterwards he refers the figure to the passion of Christ: al.), or of our Lord’s sufferings (so Chrys., , , . ; , . : c., among many interpretations, Primas., Carpzov, al.). But, undeniable as is the typical reference of the whole occurrence to Christ, His sufferings and Resurrection, it seems exceedingly improbable that our Writer should have intended so much for his readers by . We come then, approaching what I believe to be the true meaning, to, . that given by Theodore of Mopsuestia: , , . , , , . So Calvin, “Tametsi vere non resurrexerit Isaac, quodammodo tamen videtur resurrexisse, quum repente et mirabiliter inexspectata Dei gratia eripitur:” Castellio, Beza, Schlichting, Grot., Jac. Cappell., Scaliger, Heinsius, and many others, Bleek, De W., Stier, Hofmann, Delitzsch. The objection to this seems to be that which Del. himself brings against some of its supporters, that it does not go far enough for , but by its “ quodammodo ,” and “ similitudine quadam ,” weakens it too much. We may with reason ask, What was the ? if it is meant merely, that though not actually, yet in some sense, Abraham received Isaac from the dead, would not be the more obvious way of expressing this? The true identification of the is I am persuaded to be found in the figure under which Isaac was sacrificed, viz. the ram, as already hinted by Chrysostom. Abraham virtually sacrificed his son: God designated Isaac for the burnt-offering, but provided a ram in his stead. Under the figure of that ram, Isaac was slain, being received back by his father in his proper person, risen from that death which he had undergone , in, under, the figure of the ram. Chrys. himself afterwards, in recapitulating, gives this very interpretation as an alternative: , , .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Accountings = Reckoning. Greek. logizomai. See Rom 4:4.
raise up. Greek. egeiro. App-178.
from the dead. Greek. ek nekron. App-139.
also, &c. = he did even in a figure receive (Greek. komizo, RS Mat 25:27) him back.
figure. Greek. parabole. See Heb 9:9. Isaac was, as far as Abraham was concerned, to all intents and purposes, dead, and so became a type of Christ in resurrection.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
19.] (reason of this paradoxical conduct: because Abrahams faith was able, in anticipation, to clear the suspicion of Gods faithfulness by the suggestion of His power. He could and would make a way to the keeping of His own promise) reckoning that God is (not, was, see below) able to raise (no supply of him is admissible, as mistakenly inserted by many Commentators and even by the E. V. It was not Gods power to raise Isaac, but Gods power, generally, to raise from the dead, that Abraham believed. This, which is so plain from the form of the sentence, is made plainer still by the use of the present , not the aor. which would more probably be used if a single case had been in view: see Mat 16:21; Mar 14:28; Luk 3:8; Luk 9:22. The aor. here (see digest) has probably been a correction arising from the application to Isaac) even from (among) the dead (St. Matt. commonly uses, with , : St. Luke, John, Paul, ), from whence (i. e. from the dead: so Thdr.-mops., Castellio, Beza, Schlichting, Grot., Lamb. Bos, Michaelis, Schulz, Bhme, Bleek, De Wette, Tholuck, Stier, Hofmann, Delitzsch. But most Commentators regard as the illative particle, whence, unde, as in the other five places where it occurs in this Epistle, ch. Heb 2:17; Heb 3:1; Heb 7:25; Heb 8:3; Heb 9:18. The whole meaning is discussed below) he also (; besides the . It belongs, not to alone, but to the whole fact, -to the verb with its qualifying adverb) received him back (so often: e. g. Polyb. i. 83. 8; iii. 51. 12, of captives: i. 59. 7, of money expended: iii. 40. 10, of hostages: x. 34. 3, 8, 10, of wife and children ( ): of a fortress or city, ii. 51. 6 al. fr. So Philo de Joseph. 35, vol. ii. p. 71, : 38, p. 74, (Joseph) ; And Josephus, Antt. i. 13. 4, uses the word of Abraham and Isaac on the very occasion here in question: . See also reff. and 1Ma 13:37; 2Ma 7:29; 2Ma 10:1. In the face of these examples, Sykes and Schulz assert that the word never has this meaning) in a parable (figuratively: in what sense, see below). This clause has been very variously interpreted. The prevalent understanding of it, since Camerarius and Raphel, has been, whence (= wherefore) also he received him by means of (in, instrumental) his surrender of him. And this Lnemann, who has adopted it, calls the simple and only right sense of the words. According to this view signifies a giving up to danger, a ( ), which latter is an expression often found, e. g. Hom. Il. . 322: Thuc. ii. 44. But though there is abundant example of the verb in this sense, there is none of the substantive, nor any thing approaching to one (in Passow indeed we have as a sense of , das Dransessen, aufs Spiel sessen, Wagen, Wagniss, Wagstuct: and in Liddell and Scott, the making a venture; but it is entirely unsupported by example, either in classic or Hellenistic Greek, and therefore very properly excluded by Palm and Rost). This rendering then must fall to the ground, unless it can be shewn that no other will serve, and thus we are justified in supposing it the only case in which occurs in this sense. Near akin to this is the view of Raphel (and Krebs), who says, Quemadmodum pro , pro , aliaque hujusmodi dicuntur: ita etiam pro puto accipi posse: quo verbo spius utitur Polybius: cujus interpres Casaubonus, licet verterit audacter, et Camerarius in comment. utriusque lingu periculose, certum tamen est, aliquibus locis etiam insperato verti posse: cf. in Josephus, above. Then he attempts to prove this from Polybius and from Pliny, Ep. ix. 26. 4, Sunt enim maxime mirabilia qu maxime insperata, maxime periculosa, utque Grci magis exprimunt, . But neither this nor any of the passages from Polyb. proves his point; every one of them having the meaning boldly, not unexpectedly. It seems then that we must abandon all idea of this class of interpretations, and fall back on the usual one, found in our ch. Heb 9:9, and every where else in the N. T., of a likeness or figure. In favour of this meaning it may also be asked, Is it in the least probable that our Writer would have put before his readers so common an expression in so uncommon a sense? But, when we have taken the more ordinary meaning, we are by no means set at rest. For, . Hammond, Lamb. Bos, Alberti, Mill, Sykes, Schulz, Stuart, refer the words to the birth of Isaac,-from whence, i. e. , he had at first received him. But, 1. this would certainly require the more definite pluperfect, not the quasi-pluperfect of an aorist reaching back beyond ; and, 2. it would be harsh and unnatural that the should refer to the person himself who . . Corn. a-Lapide regards Isaac himself as the , interpreting by the Latin in parabolam ( ); id est, ut Isaac esset parabola, fabula, proverbium, exemplum memorabile &c. ut cum Deus per se aut suos nobis aliquid jusserit licet arduum et difficile, exemplum Isaac ob oculos habentes, fidenter et generose nos offeramus, &c. . Bengel, on the other hand, regards Abraham as the , omnis enim posteritas celebrat fidem Abrah, offerentis unigenitum. . Others take to mean, as a type; either of the Resurrection generally (so Thdrt., , -but afterwards he refers the figure to the passion of Christ: al.),-or of our Lords sufferings (so Chrys., , , . ; , . : c., among many interpretations, Primas., Carpzov, al.). But, undeniable as is the typical reference of the whole occurrence to Christ, His sufferings and Resurrection, it seems exceedingly improbable that our Writer should have intended so much for his readers by . We come then, approaching what I believe to be the true meaning, to, . that given by Theodore of Mopsuestia: , , . , , , . So Calvin, Tametsi vere non resurrexerit Isaac, quodammodo tamen videtur resurrexisse, quum repente et mirabiliter inexspectata Dei gratia eripitur: Castellio, Beza, Schlichting, Grot., Jac. Cappell., Scaliger, Heinsius, and many others, Bleek, De W., Stier, Hofmann, Delitzsch. The objection to this seems to be that which Del. himself brings against some of its supporters, that it does not go far enough for , but by its quodammodo, and similitudine quadam, weakens it too much. We may with reason ask, What was the ? if it is meant merely, that though not actually, yet in some sense, Abraham received Isaac from the dead, would not be the more obvious way of expressing this? The true identification of the is I am persuaded to be found in the figure under which Isaac was sacrificed, viz. the ram, as already hinted by Chrysostom. Abraham virtually sacrificed his son: God designated Isaac for the burnt-offering, but provided a ram in his stead. Under the figure of that ram, Isaac was slain, being received back by his father in his proper person, risen from that death which he had undergone , in, under, the figure of the ram. Chrys. himself afterwards, in recapitulating, gives this very interpretation as an alternative: , , .
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Heb 11:19. , was able to raise him even from the dead) although no example had hitherto occurred of the dead being raised. In like manner Paul commends the faith of Abraham, Rom 4:17; Rom 4:21. He reckoned (was firmly assured) that, if Isaac had been sacrificed, who had not yet wife nor children, he could notwithstanding be raised from the dead, and thus the promises would be fulfilled in him.-, whence) [wherefore.] An illative particle [not, from which state, i.e. from the dead].- , also he in a parable [or figure] bore[70] [tulit] him) , namely, . There is an expression very like this in Num 26:10, , they became a sign. Abraham not only bore [received] his son, as he had previously conducted him to the mountain, but he also himself became a parable [figure], and so obtained a good report, Heb 11:2. For all posterity celebrates the faith of Abraham, who offered his only-begotten son: so , Hab 2:6, and elsewhere often.
[70] Wahl explains the middle: He received his son recovered from death as a reward of his faith.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
God: Gen 22:5,*Heb: Mat 9:28, Rom 4:17-21, Eph 3:20
from the: Heb 11:11, Heb 11:12, Heb 9:24, Gen 22:4, Gen 22:13, Rom 5:14
Reciprocal: Gen 18:11 – old Gen 18:14 – Is Gen 22:12 – Lay 1Ki 17:21 – O Lord my God Eze 37:3 – O Lord God Mar 10:27 – for Joh 4:50 – Go Rom 4:21 – he was able 2Co 1:9 – in God Gal 4:24 – an allegory Heb 9:9 – a figure 1Pe 3:21 – like
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Heb 11:19. Abraham never doubted God’s ability and faithfulness in fulfilling the promise, even though his only son should die. The reason for that faith is explained in this verse in that he expected God to bring his son back to life. Received him in a figure; this may be regarded in two senses. The performance came so near to actual death for Isaac that the change in God’s order was virtually the same to Abraham’s mind as if the son had died. It was in the nature of a case where it is said that one “is snatched from the jaws of death.” Another phase is the truth that it all was a figure or type of the restoration of the Son of God from death after having been slain and made an offering at the cross.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Heb 11:19. And the reason was that he reckoned the faithfulness of God to be safe in the keeping of His almightiness; he believed that God would keep His word, even if it was necessary for Him to effect a resurrection from the dead. The statement is quite general; and, though applied to Isaac by implication, it is a universal truth.
Whenceand from the dead he did receive him back (used of captives deliveredof hostages sent home), not in a literal resurrection indeed, but in what was an equivalent; the fathers heart was as resigned, and the bitterness of the separation was as complete. Whether this is all has been much disputed. Perhaps in a figure has a further reference to the ram which was offered in his steadthe victim of Gods providing, while the son was set free; or possibly the whole transaction may be a figure of the death and resurrection of our Lord.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Heb 11:19. Accounting , reasoning, or concluding, after weighing all circumstances; that, notwithstanding the apparent contradiction in the divine revelations; God was able to raise him up
Although he should be burned to ashes; and would raise him even from the dead Though, so far as we can learn, there never had been one single instance of a resurrection from the dead in the world. From whence also he received him in a figure That is, Figuratively speaking, or in a figure or resemblance of the resurrection from the dead, as being hindered from slaying him. For Abraham having fully purposed to sacrifice him, and his intention and action being considered by God as a real offering of him up, he might with propriety be said to receive him from the dead when he was stopped from slaying him. This is a much more natural interpretation of the clause than to understand it, as many do, of his receiving him at his birth by a kind of miracle, as it were, from the dead bodies of those who, in a course of nature, had no hope of children; for this could with no propriety be termed a resurrection, or a receiving him from the dead, as he had had no prior existence. To this may be added, that the miraculous birth of Isaac was not so proper a type of a resurrection as his deliverance from death was; being rather an image of a creation than of a resurrection. It may not be improper to observe here, that the phrase , which we render in a figure, and which is literally, in, or for a parable, is understood by Warburton to signify, that this whole transaction was parabolical, or typical, of the method God would take for the salvation of mankind, namely, in giving up his only-begotten Son to be a sacrifice for the expiation of human guilt. And certainly, when all the circumstances of this extraordinary fact are considered, Abrahams offering up Isaac will appear to be a most apt emblem of the sacrifice of the Son of God. Isaac was Abrahams only-begotten. This only-begotten son he voluntarily gave unto death at the commandment of God: Isaac bare the wood on which he was to be burned as a sacrifice, and consented to be offered up; for he made no resistance when his father bound him, which shows that Abraham had made known to him the divine command. Three days having passed between Gods order to sacrifice Isaac, and the revoking of that order, Isaac may be said to have been dead three days. Lastly, his deliverance, when on the point of being slain, was, as the apostle observes, equal to a resurrection. In all these respects, this transaction was a fit emblem of the death of the Son of God as a sacrifice, and of his resurrection on the third day. And it is probable that after Isaac was offered, when God confirmed his promises to Abraham by an oath, he showed him that his seed, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, was to die as a sacrifice for the sin of the world; and that he had commanded him to offer up Isaac to prefigure that great event, and to raise in mankind an expectation of it. How, otherwise, can we understand our Lords words to the Jews, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad? For Christs day denotes the things done by Christ in his day, and especially his dying as a sacrifice for sin. Macknight.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 19
From whence also, &c.; that is, he did in fact receive him as from the dead. Whether the apostle here refers to the circumstances of his birth, as referred to in Hebrews 11:12, or to the extraordinary interposition by which he was rescued from the sacrificial pile, is not certain.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
11:19 Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up, even from the dead; from {m} whence also he received him in {n} a figure.
(m) From which death.
(n) For there was not the true and very death of Isaac, but as it were the death, by means of which he seemed also to have risen again.