Hebrews 11:19

Heb 11:19. Accounting — Λογισαμενος, 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 εν παραβολη, 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, Abraham’s offering up Isaac will appear to be a most apt emblem of the sacrifice of the Son of God. “Isaac was Abraham’s 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 God’s 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 Lord’s words to the Jews, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad? For Christ’s day denotes the things done by Christ in his day, and especially his dying as a sacrifice for sin.” — Macknight.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11:19 Abraham reasoned: The resurrection of Isaac was the only answer to Abraham’s dilemma. In Gen 22:5, Abraham expressed confidence that Isaac would return with him.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Heb 11:19. Καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγείρειν δυνατὸς, 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.—ὅθεν, whence) [wherefore.] An illative particle [not, from which state, i.e. from the dead].—καὶ ἐν παραβολῇ ἐκομίσατο, also he in a parable [or figure] bore[70] [‘tulit’] him) ἐν παραβολῇ, namely, ὬΝ. There is an expression very like this in Num 26:10, ἘΓΕΝΉΘΗΣΑΝ ἘΝ ΣΗΜΕΊῼ, 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 παραβολὴ, Hab 2:6, and elsewhere often.

[70] Wahl explains ἐκομίσατο the middle: He received his son recovered from death as a reward of his faith.—ED.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Isaacs life in consequence of the prevention of the sacrifice. The former explain: whence he indeed had received him, inasmuch as Isaacs 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, MCaul, 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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

From which death.

For there was not the true and very death of Isaac, but as it were the death, by means whereof he seemed also as it were to have risen again.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Faith answered the objections which reason brought against God's command to Abraham to offer Isaac, by suggesting that what God had promised He both could and would perform, however impossible the performance might seem (Rom 4:20-21).

able to raise him--rather, in general, "able to raise from the dead." Compare Rom 4:17, "God who quickeneth the dead." The quickening of Sarah's dead womb suggested the thought of God's power to raise even the dead, though no instance of it had as yet occurred.

he received him--"received him back" [ALFORD].

in a figure--Greek, "in a parable." ALFORD explains, "Received him back, risen from that death which he had undergone in, under, the figure of the ram." I prefer with BISHOP PEARSON, ESTIUS, and GREGORY OF NYSSA, understanding the figure to be the representation which the whole scene gave to Abraham of Christ in His death (typified by Isaac's offering in intention, and the ram's actual substitution answering to Christ's vicarious death), and in His resurrection (typified by Abraham's receiving him back alive from the jaws of death, compare Co2 1:9-10); just as on the day of atonement the slain goat and the scapegoat together formed one joint rite representing Christ's death and resurrection. It was then that Abraham saw Christ's day (Joh 8:56): accounting God was able to raise even from the dead: from which state of the dead he received him back as a type of the resurrection in Christ.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.] εν παραβολη. In my discourse on parabolical writing at the end of "Mt 13:58, I have shown (signification #9) that παραβολη 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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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. 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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(19) That God was able.—These words are better taken as the expression of a general truth—“Accounting 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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

19. from whence] The only place in this Epistle where ὅθεν 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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau,.... The history of this is in Gen 27:33. The former of these was a good man, and, though the youngest son, he is set before, and was blessed before the eldest; and the latter was a wicked man, and yet had a blessing; for temporal blessings are enjoyed in common: and this blessing was prophetic, it was concerning things to come. Jacob's blessing was plenty of temporal things, and under which may be signified the dews of divine grace, the fatness of God's house, the bread of life, and wine of divine love, which true Israelites partake of; also dominion over his brother, and government over nations, which had their accomplishment in his posterity; and may be expressive of the spiritual reign of the saints, and their dominion, by grace; and of the kingdom that shall hereafter be put to their hands; and of the extensiveness of Christ's kingdom in the latter day, who was to spring front him. Esau's blessings were merely temporal ones, and respected things future, which were fulfilled in his posterity; and these several blessings Isaac pronounced upon them by faith, believing they would be bestowed upon them; and so his faith answered to the account of faith in Heb 11:1. It may be asked, how Isaac can be said to have blessed Jacob by faith, when he was deceived by him? It is certain he took him to be Esau, when he blessed him, wherefore it was not the design of Isaac, though it was the will of God that he should bless him, Gen 27:18, but yet notwithstanding this, Isaac might do it in faith, believing that the person he blessed would be blessed, though he was mistaken in him; and which he confirmed when he did know him, Gen 27:33 to which the apostle may have respect; and besides, he blessed him after this, Gen 28:1.

.

Hebrews 11:21

heb 11:21

heb 11:21

heb 11:21By faith Jacob, when he was a dying,.... Which was the usual time of blessing with the patriarchs; and the reason of it was, that what was said might be more attended to and regarded, and more strongly impressed upon the mind; and this is a proof that it was done in faith by Jacob, when there was no appearance of the fulfilment of these things, and it was not likely that he should see them; and this shows the truth of what the apostle says in Heb 11:1, blessed both the sons of Joseph; whose names were Ephraim and Manasseh; the form of blessing them is recorded in Gen 48:15 and which was done in faith, and under the direction and inspiration of the Spirit of God, as appears by his setting Ephraim before Manasseh, Gen 48:13 and when he delivered the blessing he firmly believed it would be fulfilled, though they were then in a strange land:

and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff; not that he "worshipped the top of his staff", as the Vulgate Latin version renders it, either his own, or Joseph's, or any little image upon the top of it; which would be an instance of idolatry, and not faith, contrary to the scope of the apostle; nor is there any need to interpret this of civil worship and respect paid to Joseph, as a fulfilment of his dream, and with a peculiar regard to Christ, of whom Joseph was a type; whereas, on the contrary, Joseph at this time bowed to his father, as was most natural and proper, Gen 48:12 nor is there any necessity of supposing a different punctuation of Gen 47:31 and that the true reading is not "mittah", a bed, but "matteh"; a staff, contrary to all the Targums (f), and the Talmud (g), which read "mittah", a bed, seeing it is not that place the apostle cites or refers to; for that was before the blessing of the sons of Joseph, but this was at the same time; and the apostle relates what is nowhere recorded in Genesis, but what he had either from tradition, or immediate revelation; or else he concludes it from the general account in Gen 48:1 and the sense is, that Jacob, having blessed the two sons of Joseph, being sat upon his bed, and weak, he leaned upon the top of his staff, and worshipped God, and gave praise and glory to him, that he had lived to see not only his son Joseph, but his seed also, see Gen 48:2.

(f) Onkelos, Jonathan & Jerusalem in Gen. xlvii. 31. (g) T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 16. 2.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 - ונּשׁובּה אליכם wanaashuwbaah 'alēykem - “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 Abraham’s 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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Whence also he received him for a parable.[7] Some understand by this, that both Abraham and his son became hereby an example of a perfect obedience to God, which all nations should admire. St. John Chrysostom, says, that Abraham received again his son safe in a figure, by being ordered to sacrifice for him a ram, which was a figure of Isaac. Others, that Abraham received again his son Isaac, who was a figure of Christ sacrificed on the cross, and risen again. Christ carried the cross on which he was to suffer, as Isaac carried the wood up to the mountain where he was to have been offered. (Witham) --- Parable; that is, as a figure of Christ slain and coming to life again. (Challoner)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Eum in parabolam accepit, Greek: en parabole, in typo, in similitudine. St. John Chrysostom says, Greek: toutestin en upodeigmati.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead: faith put this into Abraham’s thoughts in his reasonings about this trial between the temptation and God’s 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 God’s command. This faith grew from what God had done, in giving him Isaac from his own dead body, and Sarah’s dead womb, Rom 4:17-22. God’s 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 Christian’s 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 Abraham’s 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Accounting that God was able even to raise him from the dead - Though there had not been any instance of this in the world. From whence also - To speak in a figurative way. He did receive him - Afterwards, snatched from the jaws of death.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

19. Received him in a figure. As one who in his mind had been sacrificed. It was from the altar of sacrifice that he received him back.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

19. ὅθεν. The only place in this Epistle where ὅθεν has its local sense.

ἐν παραβολῇ. 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.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 ἐγείρειν, not the aor. ἐγεῖραι 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 ἐγεῖρειν, ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν: St. Luke, John, Paul, ἐκ νεκρῶν), from whence (i. e. from the dead: so Thdr.-mops., Castellio, Beza, Schlichting, Grot., Lamb. Bos, Michaelis, Schulz, Böhme, Bleek, De Wette, Tholuck, Stier, Hofmann, Delitzsch. But most Commentators regard ὅθεν as the illative particle, “whence,” “unde,” as in the other five places where it occurs in this Epistle, ch. 2:17; 3:1; 7:25; 8:3; 9:18. The whole meaning is discussed below) he also (καί; besides the λογίσασθαι. It belongs, not to ἐν παραβολῇ alone, but to the whole fact, ἐν παραβολῇ ἐκομίσατο—to the verb with its qualifying adverb) received him back (so κομίζεσθαι 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 (μάλιστα πεπεισμένος οὕτως τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ τὰ τέκνα κομιεῖσθαι): of a fortress or city, ii. 51. 6 al. fr. So Philo de Joseph. § 35, vol. ii. p. 71, κομίσασθαι τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἀνύβριστον: § 38, p. 74, τίς γὰρ ἂν γένοιτο πατρὶ δωρεὰ μείζων ἢ τὸν ἀπογνωσθέντα (Joseph) κομίσασθαι; And Josephus, Antt. i. 13. 4, uses the word of Abraham and Isaac on the very occasion here in question: οἱ δὲ παρʼ ἐλπίδας ἑαυτοὺς κεκομισμένοι. See also reff. and 1 Macc. 13:37: 2 Macc. 7:29; 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 Lünemann, who has adopted it, calls the simple and only right sense of the words. According to this view παραβολή signifies a giving up to danger, a παραβάλλεσθαι (τὴν ψυχήν), which latter is an expression often found, e. g. Hom. Il. ι. 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 παραβολή, 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 παραβολή occurs in this sense. Near akin to this is the view of Raphel (and Krebs), who says, “Quemadmodum ἐν ἀληθείᾳ pro ἀληθῶς, ἐν τάχει pro ταχέως, aliaque hujusmodi dicuntur: ita etiam ἐν παραβολῇ pro παραβόλως puto accipi posse: quo verbo sæpius utitur Polybius: cujus interpres Casaubonus, licet verterit audacter, et Camerarius in comment. utriusque linguæ periculose, certum tamen est, aliquibus locis etiam insperato verti posse:” cf. παρʼ ἐλπίδας in Josephus, above. Then he attempts to prove this from Polybius and from Pliny, Ep. ix. 26. 4, “Sunt enim maxime mirabilia quæ maxime insperata, maxime periculosa, utque Græci magis exprimunt, παράβολα.” 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. 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, α. Hammond, Lamb. Bos, Alberti, Mill, Sykes, Schulz, Stuart, refer the words to the birth of Isaac,—“from whence,” i. e. ἐκ νενεκρωμένου σώματος, “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 λογισάμενος; and, 2. it would be harsh and unnatural that the ἐκ νεκρῶν should refer to the person himself who ἐκομίσατο αὐτόν. β. Corn. a-Lapide regards Isaac himself as the παραβολή, interpreting by the Latin “in parabolam (εἰς παραβολήν); 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. γ. Bengel, on the other hand, regards Abraham as the παραβολή, “omnis enim posteritas celebrat fidem Abrahæ, offerentis unigenitum.” δ. Others take ἐν παραβολῇ to mean, as a type; either of the Resurrection generally (so Thdrt., ὡς ἐν συμβόλῳ καὶ τύπῳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως· τῇ γὰρ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀναιρεθεὶς προθυμίᾳ, τῇ τοῦ κεκωλυκότος τὴν σφαγὴν ἀνεβίω φωνῇ—but afterwards he refers the figure to the passion of Christ: al.),—or of our Lord’s sufferings (so Chrys., τουτέστιν, ἐν ὑποδείγματι· ἐν τῷ κριῷ, φησί. πῶς; τοῦ γὰρ κριοῦ σφαγισθέντος οὗτος ἐσώθη· ὥστε διὰ τοῦ κριοῦ αὐτὸν ἔλαβεν, ἀντὶ τούτου σφάξας ἐκεῖνον. ταῦτα δὲ τύποι τινὲς ἦσαν· ἐνταῦθα γὰρ ὁ υἱός ἐστι τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ σφαγιαζόμενος: Œc., 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 ἐν παραβολῇ. We come then, approaching what I believe to be the true meaning, to, ε. that given by Theodore of Mopsuestia: τοῦτο λέγει, ὅτι ἀκολούθως ἔτυχεν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ πίστει· τῇ γὰρ ἀναστάσει πιστεύσας, διὰ συμβόλων τινῶν ἀποθανόντα αὐτὸν ἐκομίσατο. τὸ γὰρ ἐν πολλῇ τοῦ θανάτου προσδοκίᾳ γενόμενον μηδὲν παθεῖν, τοῦ ἀληθῶς ἀναστησομένου σύμβολον ἦν, ὅσον τοῦ θανάτου πρὸς βραχὺ γευσάμενος, ἀνέστη μηδὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ θανάτου παθών· τὸ γοῦν ἐν παραβολῇ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐν συμβόλοις. 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 ἐν παραβολῇ, but by its “quodammodo,” and “similitudine quadam,” weakens it too much. We may with reason ask, What was the παραβολή? if it is meant merely, that though not actually, yet in some sense, Abraham received Isaac from the dead, would not ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν be the more obvious way of expressing this? The true identification of the παραβολή 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 ἐν παραβολῇ, in, under, the figure of the ram. Chrys. himself afterwards, in recapitulating, gives this very interpretation as an alternative: ὅθεν αὐτὸν φησί, καὶ ἐν παραβολῇ ἐκομίσατο· τουτέστιν, ἐν αἰνίγματι· ὥσπερ γὰρ παραβολὴ ἦν ὁ κριὸς τοῦ Ἰσαάκ.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.