Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER 11

Hebrews 11:3. μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων] Instead thereof there is read in the Peshito: ex illis, quae non cernuntur; in the Vulgate: ex invisibilibus; in Lat. D E: ex non apparentibus. These translations, however, are a mere interpretative gloss, from which the actual existence of an early reading: ἐκ μὴ φαινομένων, cannot at all be inferred.

The preference to the Recepta: τὰ βλεπόμενα, is merited by the reading τὸ βλεπόμενον, commended to attention by Griesbach, adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford, approved also by de Wette, Tholuck, Delitzsch, and others. To be preferred partly on account of the better attestation by means of A D* E* א, 17, It. Copt. Clem. Didym. Ath. Cyr. al., partly because a mutation from the singular into the plural was more naturally suggested than the opposite.

Hebrews 11:4. Elz.: μαρτυροῦντος ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. Instead of this, A D* א* 17 have: μαρτυροῦντος ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ τῷ θεῷ. Adopted by Lachm. But the thought: “in that Abel, in regard to his offerings, gave testimony to God,” would be unintelligible, and, moreover, incorrectly and unhappily expressed. Besides, since μαρτυροῦντος κ.τ.λ. is the unmistakable nearer definition to ἐμαρτυρήθη, the context naturally points to God as the subject in μαρτυροῦντος. Beyond doubt, therefore, τῷ θεῷ arose only from the eye of the copyist wandering to the τῷ θεῷ at the beginning of the verse.

In place of the Recepta λαλεῖται, Griesbach (who, however, attaches equal value to the Recepta), Bleek, Scholz, Tisch. Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche rightly read λαλεῖ. In favour of this is decisive, on the one hand, the important authority of A א, 17, 23, 31, 39, al. mult., Syr. utr. Arabb. Copt. Armen. Slav. rec. Vulg. Clem. Orig. Athan. Nyss. Chrys. (in comment.) Epiphan. Austerius Damasc. Chron. alex. Theodoret (in textu), Photius ms. Oecum. Theophyl., on the other hand, the usus loquendi. For neither in taking λαλεῖται in the middle sense, with Beza, Er. Schmid, Wolf, Carpzov, Baumgarten, nor yet in the passive: praedicatur, laudatur, in omnium ore est, with Jos. Scaliger, Lud. de Dieu, Wetstein, Heinrichs, Stengel, should we be warranted on linguistic grounds; quite apart from the fact that, in the latter acceptation, the statement would be a very trivial one.

Hebrews 11:5. Elz.: εὑρίσκετο. Better attested, however (by A D E א, 109, Epiphan.), is the form ηὑρίσκετο, which is found likewise in the LXX. Genesis 5:24, in the Cod. Alex. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford.

In place of the Recepta: τῆς μεταθέσεως αὐτοῦ, we have to write, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, and others, after A D* א* 17, 67** 80, Vulg. It. Copt., merely: τῆς μεταθέσεως, and in place of the received form εὐηρεστηκέναι, with Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, and 7, Delitzsch, and Alford, the form better attested (by A K L, 46, 71, 73, al., Theophyl.): εὐαρεστηκέναι.

Hebrews 11:8. Elz.: καλούμενος. But A D (E?) Vulg. It. Arm. Theodoret, Jer. Bed. Have ὁ καλούμενος. Approved by Mill. Rightly placed in the text by Lachm. and Tisch. 1.

The article τόν, inserted in the Recepta before τόπον, we have, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, and Alford, after A D* א*, to delete; and, after A D* K, many min. Chrys. Damasc. Theophyl., with Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, and 7, and Alford, to write ἔμελλεν in place of the Recepta ἤμελλε.

Hebrews 11:9. καὶ παρῷκησεν, which D* E, together with their Latin translation, furnish in place of the Recepta: πίστει παρῷκησεν, is a later corruption, inasmuch as in Hebrews 11:9 a fresh evidence is given of the πίστις of Abraham.

εἰς γῆν] Elz.: εἰς τὴν γῆν. But the article is wanting in A D** K L א, very many cursives, with Damasc. and Oecum. It is suspected by Griesbach, rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford.

Hebrews 11:11. καὶ παρὰ καιρὸν ἠλικίας] Elz.: καὶ παρὰ καιρὸν ἡλικίας ἔτεκεν. But ἔτεκεν is a later gloss, which is condemned by A D* א* 17, Vulg. It. Copt. Sah. Aeth. utr. Chrys. (codd.). It was already regarded as spurious by Beza, Grotius, Mill (Prolegg. 1355), Bengel; and is rightly deleted by Griesbach, Knapp, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others.

Hebrews 11:12. In place of the Recepta ἐγεννήθησαν, Lachm. Bleek, Delitzsch, and Alford read ἐγενήθησαν, which, on account of the stronger attestation by A D* K, 109, 219* al. (Vulg. It.: orti sunt), is to be preferred.

ὡς ἡ ἄμμος] So already the Editt. Complut. and Steph. 2, then Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, and others. Elz.: ὡσεὶ ἄμμος. Against A D (* and ** and ***)[104] E K L א, 23, 37, 46, 47, al. mult., Chrys. (codd.) Damasc. Oecum. Theophyl.

Ἡ ΠΑΡᾺ ΤῸ ΧΕῖΛΟς] is wanting in D* E, in their Latin translation, and in Aeth. utr. The origin of the omission is to be traced back to a mere error in writing, to which the resemblance of sound of the closing letters in ἌΜΜΟς and ΧΕῖΛΟς gave occasion.

Hebrews 11:13. In place of the Recepta μὴ λαβόντες, Lachm. reads μὴ προσδεξάμενοι. But the Recepta is supported by the considerable authority of D E K L א*** almost all the cursives, Theodoret, and others; while the reading of Lachm., probably arising from Hebrews 11:35, has only the testimony of A in its favour, and is devoid of meaning. For ΠΡΟΣΔΕΞΆΜΕΝΟΙ could, in accordance with the usage prevailing elsewhere, only signify either the subjective having expected (having awaited), or the subjective having admitted. But neither of these, meanings would be compatible with the statement of Hebrews 11:13, which would be suitably expressed only if ΠΡΟΣΔΕΞΆΜΕΝΟΙ could be explained of the objective having received, what is never denoted by this verb. The reading μὴ κομισάμενοι in א* some cursives (17, 23* 39, al.), and, with Chrys. (in comment.) Damasc. Theophyl. (adopted by Tisch. 8), was only called forth by the similar turn Hebrews 10:36, Hebrews 11:39.

ἸΔΌΝΤΕς] Elz.: ἸΔΌΝΤΕς ΚΑῚ ΠΕΙΣΘΈΝΤΕς. But the addition ΚΑῚ ΠΕΙΣΘΈΝΤΕς has almost all the witnesses (also א) against it. It is found in only two or three cursives, and is an explanatory gloss to ἈΣΠΑΣΆΜΕΝΟΙ. Comp. Chrysostom: ΟὝΤΩ ΠΕΠΕΙΣΜΈΝΟΙ ἮΣΑΝ ΠΕΡῚ ΑὐΤῶΝ Ὡς ΚΑῚ ἈΣΠΆΣΑΣΘΑΙ ΑὐΤΆς; Oecumenius: ΚΑῚ ἈΣΠΑΣΆΜΕΝΟΙ· ΠΕΙΣΘΈΝΤΕς.

Hebrews 11:15. ἘΞΈΒΗΣΑΝ] Elz. Griesbach (who, however, has placed ἘΞΈΒΗΣΑΝ on the inner margin), Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Bloomfield: ἘΞῆΛΘΟΝ. Against A D* E* א* 17, 73, 80, Athan. (ed. Bened.; edd. al.: ἐξεβλήθησαν) Chron. alex. Damasc.

Hebrews 11:16. νῦν δέ] Elz. Matt. Bloomfield: νυνὶ δέ. Against decisive witnesses (A D E א, 44, 48, al. perm., Athan. Chrys. Theodoret, Oecum.).

Hebrews 11:19. The Recepta ἐγείρειν has the support of D E K L א, almost all min. Orig. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. al.; Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read, after A (ΕΓΕΙΡΕ), 17, 71, Cyr. Chron. alex.: ἘΓΕῖΡΑΙ.

Elz.: ΔΥΝΑΤΌς; A D**: ΔΎΝΑΤΑΙ. Adopted by Lachm. into the text.

Hebrews 11:20. In place of the Recepta πίστει, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, 7, Alford have adopted πίστει καί, after A D* 17, 23, 37, al., Vulg. It. Chrys. (but not in all MSS. and editt.) Theodoret, Damasc. Sedul. Bede. Rightly. ΚΑΊ might appear superfluous, and on that account was more likely to be omitted than added.

Hebrews 11:23. Instead of the Recepta διάταγμα, Lachm. reads δόγμα. But this reading is founded only in a conjectural manner upon A, inasmuch as all the letters of the word except the δ have been torn away from the Codex. Apart from this, δόγμα is found only in one cursive MS. of the twelfth century (Cod. 34). It is probably a gloss from Luke 2:1.

At the close of Hebrews 11:23, D* E (as also their Latin translation, as well as three codd. of the Vulgate) further add the Words: πιστι μεγας γενομενος μωυσης ανιλεν τον αιγυπτιον κατανοων την ταπινωσιν των αδελφων αυτου, as to the spuriousness of which, although Zeger and Mill (Prolegg. 496) held them to be genuine, no doubt can exist, even on account of the ΜΈΓΑς ΓΕΝΌΜΕΝΟς, Hebrews 11:24. They are a complementary addition in conformity to Acts 7:23 ff.

Hebrews 11:26. ΤῶΝ ΑἸΓΎΠΤΟΥ] Elz.: ΤῶΝ ἘΝ ΑἸΓΎΠΤῼ. Against D E K L א (also against the later supplementer of B), 31, 44, 46, al. plur., Syr. utr. Copt, al., Clem. Euseb. al. Rejected by Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, al. The ΤῶΝ ἘΝ ΑἸΓΎΠΤΟΥ, adopted by Lachm., after A and some cursives (3, 71), owes its origin to an uncompleted correction.

Hebrews 11:28. Instead of the Recepta ὀλοθρεύων, A D E, Damasc. have the more correct (ὄλεθρος) form ὀλεθρεύων, which is rightly preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, 7, and Alford.

Hebrews 11:29. Elz. has merely ὡς διὰ ξηρᾶς. But, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, and Alford, we have to add γῆς, after A D* E א, 17, 31, 47, al., Chrys. Theodoret (cod.), and probably all the versions. Since Γῆς was no necessary addition, it could easily get omitted.

Hebrews 11:30. Recepta: ἔπεσε. But, after A D* א, 17, 23, 31, al., Chrys. ms., ἜΠΕΣΑΝ (in favour of which, also, ἜΠΕΣΟΝ in 37, and Chrys. ms., testifies) is to be looked upon as the original reading. Adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford. Approved by Delitzsch.

Hebrews 11:32. Elz.: ἘΠΙΛΕΊΨΕΙ ΓΆΡ ΜΕ. With Lachm. Tisch. 7 and 8, and Alford, after A D* א, we have to transpose into: ἘΠΙΛΕΊΨΕΙ ΜΕ ΓΆΡ.

In that which follows, the Recepta reads: περὶ Γεδεών, Βαράκ τε καὶ Σαμψὼν καὶ Ἰεφθάε, Δαυΐδ τε καί Σαμουήλ.

Instead thereof, Lachm. reads (and so also Tisch. 1 and 8), as it also stands in the Codex Sinaiticus: ΠΕΡῚ ΓΕΔΕῺΝ ΒΑΡᾺΚ ΣΑΜΨῺΝ ἸΕΦΘΆΕ, ΔΑΥΊΔ ΤΕ ΚΑΊ ΣΑΜΟΥΉΛ. On internal grounds neither of these forms of the text commends itself. For, in the case of both, the persons here further mentioned would have been enumerated, in contradiction with the mode of proceeding hitherto observed, without regard to the chronology; inasmuch as, historically, Barak was to have been mentioned before Gideon, Jephthah before Samson, Samuel before David. And yet the regularity with which each time the second name designates a person earlier in a chronological respect, points to an order of succession chosen with design. Observe, further, that in the last member, ΔΑΥΐΔ ΤΕ ΚΑῚ ΣΑΜΟΥΉΛ, there is nowhere found a variation with regard to the particles. There can thus hardly be room for doubt that the foregoing names also were originally arranged in groups of two. It appears, accordingly, the better course to retain the Recepta, with the two modifications,—that, with D*, καὶ Βαράκ is read in place of the mere Βαράκ; and then, with A, 17, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Clem. Cyr. Al. Epiphan. Ambr. Bede, the mere Σαμψών is read instead of τε καὶ Σαμψών. (The καί before Ἰεφθάε is supported by D E K L, almost all cursives, Syr. al., Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. al.) Thus arises the text: περὶ Γεδεὼν καὶ Βαράκ, Σαμψὼν καὶ Ιεφθάε, Δαυΐδ τε καὶ Σαμουήλ, and the sense is: “of Gideon as well as of Barak, of Samson not less than of Jephthah, of David even as of Samuel.” In connection with this form of the text, the otherwise very strange breach in the chronological order disappears, since the discourse advances historically with the addition of each new double member; while, in the double members themselves, the mention of the later person before the earlier is justified by the mention on each occasion of those who are in point of time contemporaries, as also from the consideration of rhetorical effect.

Hebrews 11:34. After A D* א, Lachm. has adopted μαχαίρης (and so also Tisch. 7 and 8) instead of the Recepta ΜΑΧΑΊΡΑς, and, after A D* א*: ἘΔΥΝΑΜΏΘΗΣΑΝ (so also Tisch. 8), in place of the Recepta: ἑνεδυναμώθησαν.

Hebrews 11:35. γυναῖκες] Lachm. has, after A D* א*: γυναῖκας, what, however, rests upon a mere error in transcribing, and is to be rejected as meaningless.

Hebrews 11:37. μαχαίρας] D* א, Lachm. Tisch. 7 and Hebrews 8 : μαχαίρης.

Hebrews 11:38. The Recepta ἘΝ ἘΡΗΜΊΑΙς is attested by D E K L, min. Clem. Orig. (twice) Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. al. Lachm. and Tisch. 7 and 8 read, with A א, 71, 73, 118, Orig. (once) Socrat.: ἐπὶ ἐρημίαις, which, however, can have arisen only from an error of the copyist.

Hebrews 11:39. Elz.: τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. A, 80, Arab. Polygl. Lachm.: τὰς ἐπαγγελίας.

[104] D* Hebrews 31: καθὼς ἡ.

Hebrews 11:1. The definition. This is no scholastic, exhaustive one, but brings out only that element as the essence of the πίστις, with which the author was here alone concerned; inasmuch as, according to Hebrews 10:35 ff., just the inner certainty of conviction with regard to the Christian hope, and the stedfast continuance in the same dependent thereon, was that which was lacking to the readers. The words: ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, are to be taken together as a single statement, and πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων forms an apposition to ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις: “faith, however, is a firm confidence in regard to that which is hoped for, a being convinced of things which are invisible.” Πίστις is accordingly subject; ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, as well as πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων, predicate; and ἔστιν (which, standing at the beginning, is to be accentuated as the verbum substantivum, see Kühner, I. p. 72) emphatically preposed copula, with the design of attaching to the presupposition, expressed Hebrews 10:39, of πίστις as a quality present in the readers, the statement as to the nature and essence of this πίστις. Quite similar is the use of ἔστιν in the beginning of the proposition, 1 Timothy 6:6 : ἔστιν δὲ πορισμὸς μέγας ἡ εὐσέβεια μετὰ αὐταρκείας, and Luke 8:11 : ἔστιν δὲ αὕτη ἡ παραβολή. Grammatically admissible indeed, but to be rejected—because in that case a thought would be expressed which is not suggested by the connection, and, moreover, a truth in regard to which no contradiction whatever was to be expected on the part of the readers—is it when Böhme (as formerly also Winer, Gramm., 3 and 4 Aufl.; otherwise 5 Aufl. p. 70, 6 Aufl. p. 56, 7 Aufl. p. 58 f.) will have ἔστιν taken as a verb substantive, and ὑπόστασις, as likewise ἔλεγχος, taken as apposition to πίστις: “there is, however, a faith, a confidence,” etc.

πίστις] without an article, since the author will define the notion of πίστις in general, not exclusively the notion of specifically Christian faith.

ὑπόστασις] is by many explained as “reality” (entity, Wesenheit), and placed on a par with οὐσία, substantia, essentia, and the like, which, however, is already proved to be inadmissible from the fact that the notion of “reality” cannot be immediately applied, but, in order to become fitting, must first be changed into that of an “endowing with reality,” in such wise that one can then make out the sense: faith clothes things which are not yet at all present with a substance or real existence, as though they were already present. This mode of interpretation was followed by Chrysostom (ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τὰ ἐν ἐλπίδι ἀνυπόστατα εἶναι δοκεῖ, ἡ πίστις ὑπόστασιν αὐτοῖς χαρίζεται· μᾶλλον δέ, οὐ χαρίζεται ἀλλʼ αὐτό ἐστιν οὐσία αὐτῶν· οἷον ἡ ἀνάστασις οὐ παραγέγονεν οὐδέ ἐστιν ἐν ὑποστάσει, ἀλλʼ ἡ ἐλπὶς ὑφίστησιν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ψυχῇ), Theodoret (δείκνυσιν ὡς ὑφεστῶτα τὰ μηδὲπω γεγενημένα), Oecumenius (πίστις ἐστὶν αὐτὴ ἡ ὑπόστασις καὶ οὐσία τῶν ἐλπιζομένων πραγμάτων· ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τὰ ἐν ἐλπίσιν ἀνυπόστατά ἐστιν ὡς τέως μὴ παρόντα, ἡ πίστις οὐσία τις αὐτῶν καὶ ἡ ὑπόστασις γίνεται, εἶναι αὐτὰ καὶ παρεῖναι τρόπον τινὰ παρασκευάζουσα διὰ τοῦ πιστεύειν εἶναι), Theophylact (οὐσίωσις τῶν μήπω ὄντων καὶ ὑπόστασις τὠν μὴ ὑφεστώτων), by the Vulgate (substantia), by Ambrose, Augustine, Vatablus (rerum, quae sperantur, essentia), H. Stephanus (illud, quod facit, ut jam exstent, quae sperantur), Schlichting, Bengel, Heinrichs, Bisping, and others.

But likewise ὑπόστασις is not to be interpreted either by “fundamentum,” with Faber Stapulensis, Clarius, Schulz, Stein, Stengel, Woerner, and others, nor by “placing before one,” with Castellio (dicitur eorum, quae sperantur, subjectio, quod absentia nobis subjiciat ac proponat, efficiatque ut praesentia esse videantur, nec secus eis assentiamur, quam si cerneremus) and Paulus. for neither of the two affords in itself, without further amplification, a satisfactory, precise notion, quite apart from the fact that the last-mentioned signification can hardly be supported by the testimony of linguistic usage.

The alone correct course is consequently, with Luther, Cameron, Grotius, Wolf, Huët, Böhme, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 702, Alford, Maier, Moll, and others, to take ὑπόστασις, as at Hebrews 3:14 (vid. ad loc.), as inner confidence,

ἐλπιζομένων] gen. objecti: of that (or: with regard to that) which is still hoped for, has not yet appeared in an actual form. The main emphasis in the predicate rests upon ἐλπιζομένων, as also upon the concluding words, corresponding in apposition thereto, οὐ βλεπομένων.

πραγμάτων] belongs to οὐ βλεπομένων. The conjoining with ἐλπιζομένων (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Estius, Böhme, Woerner, and others) deprives the two halves of the proposition of their rhythmical symmetry.

πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων] a being convinced (in mind or heart) of things which are invisible, i.e. a firm inner persuasion of the existence of unseen things, even as though they were manifest to one’s eyes. ἔλεγχος here expresses not the active notion of the convincing or assuring (Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 703; Moll, Hofmann), but, corresponding to the notion of the forementioned ὑπόστασις, indicates the result of the ἐλίγχειν (comp. 1 Corinthians 14:24), as λόγος that produced by the λέγειν, τύπος that effected by the τύπτειν, etc. To be rejected as unsuitable are the explanations: Proof, argumentum (Vulgate, Ambrose, Schlichting, Wolf, Heinrichs, and others); indicium (Erasmus); demonstratio (Calvin, H. Stephanus, Jac. Cappellus, Bengel, Alford, al.); apprehensio (Clarius); “a certain assurance, guarantee” (Stein), and many others. οὐ βλεπόμενα, however, on account of the objective negation, combines together into the unity of notion “invisible,” and is a more general characterization than ἐλπιζόμενα. While the latter is restricted to that which is purely future, the former comprehends at the same time that which is already present, and denotes in general the supra-sensuous and heavenly.

Calvin: Nobis vita aeterna promittitur, sed mortuis; nobis sermo fit de beata resurrectione, interea putredine sumus obvoluti; justi pronuntiamur, et habitat in nobis peccatum; audimus nos esse beatos, interea obruimur infinitis miseriis; promittitur bonorum omnium affluentia, prolixe vero esurimus et sitimus; clamat Deus statim se nobis adfuturum, sed videtur surdus esse ad clamores nostros. Quid fieret, nisi spei inniteremur, ac mens nostra praelucente Dei verbo ac Spiritu per medias tenebras supra mundum emergeret?

Hebrews 11:1-40.[105] The author defines the nature of the πίστις which he requires of the readers, and then presents to them in chronological succession examples thereof from the days of old.

[105] P. J. L. Huët, De antiquissimorum Dei cultorum, qui in epistolae ad Hebraeos capite xi. memorantur, fide diversa eademque una. Lugd. Batav. 1824, 8, pp. 27–82.

Hebrews 11:2. Justification of the characteristics mentioned, Hebrews 11:1, as those that are essential to the faith. Just this quality of faith was it by which the Old Testament saints were distinguished, and on that account became objects of the divine satisfaction and the divine favour.

ἐν ταύτῃ] not equivalent to διὰ ταύτης (Luther, Vatablus, Calvin, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Bengel, Böhme, and the majority; comp. Hebrews 11:4; Hebrews 11:39), or: ob eam (Wolf and others), or: touching faith, in point of faith (de Wette, Tholuck, Moll); but: in possession of a faith so constituted (Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 362, Obs.; Bleek, Bloomfield, Kurtz).

μαρτυρεῖσθαι] to obtain a testimony, and that according to the connection, a good, commendatory testimony, whether by words or deeds. Oecumenius: ἐμαρτυρήθησαν ὑπὸ θεοῦ εὐηρεστηκέναι αὐτῷ.

οἱ πρεσβύτεροι] the ancients (Schulz: the early ancestors), i.e. the forefathers under the Old Covenant; with the accessory idea of venerableness. A like name of honour, as elsewhere (Hebrews 1:1, al.) οἱ πατέρες.

Hebrews 11:3. The author is on the point of proving out the truth of Hebrews 11:2, in a series of historic instances from the Holy Scriptures of the O. T., when the thought forces itself upon him that the very first section of that sacred book of Scripture relates a fact of which the reality can only be recognised by means of faith. He first of all, therefore, calls attention to this fact, before proceeding, in Hebrews 11:4, to the designed enumeration of those historic examples. Certainly not very aptly, since Hebrews 11:3 cannot, as Hebrews 11:4 ff., serve in proof of the assertion, Hebrews 11:2, but, on the contrary, introduces into the examination something heterogeneous in relation to Hebrews 11:4 ff. For Hebrews 11:3 shows only the necessity for πίστις on our part in regard to a fact belonging to the past and recorded in Scripture; Hebrews 11:4 ff. there are placed before our eyes as models historic persons in whom the virtue of πίστις, so constituted as the author demands it of his readers, was livingly present. This judgment, that Hebrews 11:3 forms a heterogeneous insertion, is pronounced, indeed, by Delitzsch, to whom Kluge and Moll have acceded, an “unfair one.” But the counter observation of Delitzsch: “the author had already at Hebrews 11:2, in connection with οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, and particularly in connection with ἐμαρτυρήθησαν, the O. T. Scripture before his mind; so that the statement, although sounding thus personal, is equivalent to the proposition that the O. T. Scripture concedes no recognition to any mode of life which lies not within the province of faith,” labours under the defect of logical deliquescence; it is a mere rationalizing of the words of Hebrews 11:2, simply and clearly preposed as the theme for that which follows.

πίστει] Dat. instrumentalis: by virtue of faith.

νοοῦμεν] we discern. νοεῖν is the inner perception, accomplished by means of the νοῦς. Comp. Romans 1:20.

κατηρτίσθαι] has been prepared (comp. LXX. Psalm 73:16. Ps. 88:38). More expressive than if πεποιῆσθαι had been written. It represents the having been created at the same time as a having been placed in a completed or perfect condition [Hebrews 13:21].

τοὺς αἰῶνας] the world; see at Hebrews 1:2.

ῥήματι θεοῦ] by the word (or authoritative command) of God. Reference to the repeated: “And God said,” Genesis 1 Comp. 2 Peter 3:5; LXX. Psalm 38:6; Psalm 148:5. Philo, de sacrif. Abel, et Cain. p. 140 D (with Mangey, I. p. 175): Ὁ γὰρ θεὸς λέγων ἅμα ἐποίει, μηδὲν μεταξὺ ἀμφοῖν τιθείς. The supposition of Bleek (comp. also Ewald, p. 123), that the author here too thought of the word of God as a personified property, has nothing in its favour, since the expression is sufficiently explained without it. Nor does the διʼ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας, Hebrews 1:2, compel us to adopt this supposition. For above the special mode of mediately effecting the creation of the world there indicated, stands the higher authorship of God, to which the writer here points in general by the expression ῥήματι θεοῦ.

εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων τὸ βλεπόμενον γεγονέναι] not: so that, etc. (so still Böhme, Stuart, Bleek, de Wette, Alford, Conybeare, Kurtz, Ewald, M‘Caul, Woerner, and the majority of recent expositors), εἰς τό with the infinitive preserves here, too, its ordinary telic signification, in that it introduces the purpose of God with regard to the ῥήματι καταρτίζειν τοὺς αἰῶνας. The sense is: that in accordance with the decree of God, the fact should he averted, that from φαινόμενα the βλεπόμενον should have sprung; consequently that the human race should from the beginning be directed to the necessity for πίστις.

μή] belongs to the whole object-clause. So rightly Beza, Piscator, Seb. Schmidt, Er. Schmid, Bengel, Storr, Schulz, Huët, Böhme, Stuart, Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Bloomfield, Bisping, Riehm [Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 58), Alford, Maier, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, M‘Caul, and Hofmann; while the Peshito, Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and almost all later expositors, including also Stengel and Ebrard (Delitzsch is undecided), comprehend μή with ἐκ φαινομένων, and then interpret this in the sense of ἐκ μὴ φαινομένων.[106] The latter, in favour of which the supposed parallels which have been adduced prove nothing, is by reason of the position of the words (to say nothing of the fact that οὐ must have been written in place of μή; for neither 2 Corinthians 4:18, as Delitzsch supposes, nor Romans 4:17, as Maier supposes, decides against this rule. See Meyer ad loc.) a grammatical impossibility.

τὸ βλεπόμενον] that which is seen, or the outward, visible world. The singular represents the same as one complex whole, τὸ βλεπόμενον resumes under another form only the foregoing τοὺς αἰῶνας, whereas the emphasis in the negative final clause rests upon the ἐκ φαινομένων, which is on that account preposed.

φαινόμενα] are things which appear in outward manifestation, and are perceived by the senses. The expression indicates the domain of the corporal, the material, and there underlies it the conception that the universe did not spring forth by the power of nature from earthly germs or substances, but was created by the mere word of God’s omnipotence. In this is contained, it is true, the conception of the creating of the world from nothing. [Cf. 2Ma 7:28.] The opinion of Estius, Schlichting, Limborch, Michaelis, Baumgarten, and others, that the author, with a reference to Genesis 1:2 (specially after the translation of the LXX.: ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος), thought of a visible arising of the worlds out of the invisible chaos already existing, has for its presupposition the erroneous transposal of the μὴ ἐκ into ἐκ μή, and fails to maintain itself in presence of the fact that the γεγονέναι ἐκ φαινομένων, as antithesis to the foregoing κατηρτίσθαι ῥήματι θεοῦ, must receive from this latter its nearer defining of signification. Quite untenable is consequently also the opinion of Delitzsch, who, with the assent of Kluge and Kurtz, supplements ἀλλʼ ἐκ νοητῶν as opposition to μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων, and in connection with the μὴ φαινόμενα—or if μή is combined with the verb, in connection with the tacitly assumed opposite of the φαινόμενα—imagines the author to have thought, in harmony with the Philonian doctrine, of the divine ideas, out of which the world is supposed to have sprung, in that they were called forth by means of the divine word from their seclusion within the Godhead into the outer phenomenal reality. See against this also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 59, Obs.

[106] Calvin alone forms an exception, who would have ἐκ blended together with φαινομένων into a single word, and finds the sense: “ut non apparentium fierent visa h. e. spectacula,” in such wise that the “doctrina” harmonizing with that of Romans 1:20 should result: “quod in hoc mundo conspicuam haheamus Dei imaginem.”

Hebrews 11:4. The example of Abel. Comp. Genesis 4:3 ff.

Πίστει] belongs to the whole statement: πλείονα … θεῷ. The conjoining of the same merely with πλείονα (Bisping) has against it the analogy of the following instances, and would weaken the force of the emphatically preposed πίστει. The dative, however, indicates, as Romans 11:20 and frequently, the cause or occasion. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 202 f. By reason of his faith (or because he had faith) Abel offered to God a greater sacrifice than Cain; i.e. the faith of Abel, which was wanting to Cain, was the cause that in the estimation of God Abel’s sacrifice had greater value than that of Cain.

πλείονα θυσίαν] a greater sacrifice, namely, in a qualitative respect, thus a better, more excellent one. Comp. Hebrews 3:3; Matthew 6:25; Matthew 12:41-42, al. The quantitative acceptation (Valla: plus hostiarum; Erasmus, Clarius: copiosiorem hostiam; Zeger: abundantiorem) finds no point of support in the narrative of Genesis, and would unsuitably accentuate a purely external feature.

παρὰ Κάϊν] is by Grotius and others made equivalent to παρὰ τὴν τοῦ Κάϊν, which is admissible, it is true, but not at all necessary. On παρά after the comparative, see at Hebrews 1:4.

διʼ ἧς ἐμαρτυρήθη εἶναι δίκαιος] By it he obtained the testimony that he was righteous.

διʼ ἧς] sc. πίστεως, not θυσίας (Cramer). For the πίστις is the main idea in the whole description, and διʼ ἧς ἐμαρτυρήθη manifestly glances back at ἐνταύτῃ ἐμαρτυρήθησαν, Hebrews 11:2.

ἐμαρτυρήθη] Of whom? Not of Christ, by virtue of the declaration Matthew 23:35 (Primasius, Faber Stapulensis, Justinian), but of God; as, accordingly, the author himself adds, more nearly defining the ἐμαρτυρήθη: μαρτυροῦντος ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ] in that, namely, God gave testimony in respect of his offerings. What is meant is the testimony given in the fact that God looked with satisfaction upon Abel and his sacrifice (comp. LXX. Genesis 4:4 : καὶ ἐπεῖδεν ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ Ἄβελ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ), thus, in point of fact, recognised him as a δίκαιος (comp. Matthew 23:35 : Ἄβελ τοῦ δικαίου, and 1 John 3:12).

καὶ διʼ αὐτῆς ἀποθανὼν ἔτι λαλεῖ] and by virtue of the same (namely: his faith, not: his sacrifice) he yet speaks after his death.

ἀποθανών] is a purely parenthetic member: although he has died, and forms with ἔτι λαλεῖ an oxymoron. Hardly is it in accordance with the intention of the author to comprehend in one ἀποθανών and διʼ αὐτῆς. In addition to the ordinary one, this explanation also is proposed by Oecumenius, in referring the pronoun back to the θυσία by which the violent death of Abel was occasioned; it is followed by Bengel, with the difference that he supplements διʼ αὐτῆς by πίστεως, and will have διά taken in the sense of κατά or ἐν.

ἔτι] is not the temporal: still, adhuc (Theodoret: μέχρι τοῦ παρόντος), so that λαλεῖ would signify: he speaks to us of himself and his faith or piety (Theodoret: τὸ δὲ ἔτι λαλεῖ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀοίδιμός ἐστι μέχρι τοῦ παρόντος καὶ πολυθρύλλητος καὶ παρὰ πάντων εὐφημεῖται τῶν εὐσεβῶν; Heinsius, Bengel: loquitur de se et sui similibus contra Cainos, al.), or: he summons posterity to the imitation of his faith (Chrysostom: ὁ γὰρ παραινῶν τοῖς ἄλλοις δικαίοις εἶναι, λαλεῖ; Cornelius a Lapide, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, Paulus, Klee, Bloomfield, and others). Rather is ἔτι employed, as Romans 3:7 and frequently, in the logical sense, and serves for the emphasizing of the contrast: “even being dead,” or: “notwithstanding he is dead, he nevertheless speaks,” while λαλεῖ is to be regarded as the more vividly descriptive pracsens historicum (Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 250), and is to be referred to the thought that the shed blood of Abel called to God for vengeance, and God, listening to this cry, was concerned about the slain Abel, as though he were still living. For manifestly, as appears also from the parallel Hebrews 12:24, there is an allusion in λαλεῖ to the words, Genesis 4:10 : φωνὴ αἵματος τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου βοᾷ πρός με ἐκ τῆς γῆς.

Hebrews 11:5-6. The example of Enoch. Comp. Genesis 5:21-24.

Πρίστει Ἐνὼχ μετετέθη] By reason of his faith Enoch was caught away; i.e. even during his lifetime was, like Elijah (2 Kings 2.), caught up to God in heaven. Comp. Sir 44:16 : Ἐνὼχ εὐηρέστησε κυρίῳ καὶ μετετέθη ὑπόδειγμα μετανοίας ταῖς γενεαῖς; ibid. Sir 49:14 : οὐδὲ εἷς ἐκτίσθη οἷος Ἐνὼς τοιοῦτος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἀνελήφθη ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς; Joseph. Antiq. i. 3.Hebrews 4 : ἀνεχώρησε πρὸς τὸ θεῖον.

τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον] not consecutively [so that], de Wette, Bisping, al., but indication of the design of God: that he should not see or undergo death (comp. Luke 2:26).

καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο, διότι μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός] derived verbally from the LXX. of Genesis 5:24, as given in the text of the Cod. Alex.

πρὸ γὰρ … γίνεται, Hebrews 11:6] It is related in the Scripture concerning Enoch that he was acceptable to God. But this presupposes that he had faith. For to obtain God’s approbation without the possession of faith is impossible. Chrysostom: πῶς δὲ πίστει μετετέθη ὁ Ἐνώχ; ὅτι τῆς μεταθέσεως ἡ εὐαρέστησις αἰτία, τῆς δὲ εὐαρεστήσεως ἡ πίστις.

πρὸ τῆς μεταθέσεως] may be equally well conjoined with μεμαρτύρηται (Piscator, Owen, Huët, Bleek, de Wette, Conybeare, Delitzsch, Kurtz, Hofmann, al.), or with εὐαρεστηκέναι (Schlichting, Bengel, Maier, and others). In the former case the sense is: before mention is made in the Scripture of his rapture, the testimony is borne to him in the same, that he pleased God.

εὐαρεστηκέναι] By εὐηρέστησεν the LXX. translate the Hebrew וַיִתְהַלֵּךְ אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים: and he walked with God, i.e. in communion with God, as His most devout worshipper.

Hebrews 11:6 is a truth of wholly universal application, so that only ἐστίν is to be supplemented to ἀδύνατον. With Er. Schmid, Limborch, Wetstein, and Schulz, to regard the first hemistich of the verse: χωρὶς δὲ πίστεως ἀδύνατον εὐαρεστῆσαι, as a special statement respecting Enoch, is grammatically inadmissible, since in that case χωρὶς δὲ πίστεως ἀδύνατον ἦν αὐτὸν εὐαρεστῆσαι or χωρὶς δὲ πίστεως ἀδύνατον αὐτὸν εὐαρεστηκέναι must have been written.

εὐαρεστῆσαι] sc. τῷ θεῷ, naturally understood from that which precedes and follows. The infin. aorist expresses, as in the case of the immediately succeeding πιστεῦσαι, the pure verbal notion, without regard to the relation of time. See Kühner, II. p. 80.

ὁ προσερχόμενος τῷ θεῷ] is he who approaches God, sc. to worship Him; comp. Hebrews 7:25, Hebrews 10:1. Wrongly; Luther, Calov, Wittich, Rambach, Schulz, Ebrard (transl.): he who (as Enoch) will come (or is to come) to God.

ὅτι ἔστιν] that he is, or exists. Arbitrarily importing, Jac. Cappellus: “Series sermonis suadet, ut suppleamus ὅτι ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ θεός, i. e. qui accedit ad Deum, credere debet eum esse suum Deum.” But also the complementing the verb by: “that He exists as one to whom man can draw near with confidence, as the truly living, personal, almighty, all-wise, all-beneficent One” (Bleek), is an unjustifiable act of reading into the text. The expression contains only the idea of existence.

καί] still dependent upon ὅτι.

μισθαποδότης] recompenser, sc. for the piety manifested in the ἐκζητεῖν αὐτόν (Romans 3:11; Acts 15:17).

Hebrews 11:7. The example of Noah. Comp. Genesis 6:8 ff.

Πίστει] is conjoined by Schulz, Stengel, and others with χρηματισθείς. But χρηματισθείς forms only a subsidiary element for the making up of the historic situation, whereas that by which Noah proved himself a model of faith is specified by εὐλαβηθεὶς κακεσκεύασεν. πίστει is therefore, as is also done by most, to be combined with this last.

χρηματισθεὶς περὶ τῶν μηδέπω βλεπομένων] belongs together (against Grotius and Hofmann, who unnaturally construe περὶ τῶν μηδέπω βλεπ. with εὐλαβηθείς): instructed by an utterance of God concerning that which was as yet invisible. The choice of the expression was conditioned by the definition of πίστις, laid down Hebrews 11:1, and the subjective negation μηδέπω means: concerning the well-known (τῶν) events, before these were yet to be seen, or their occurrence was to be conjectured. By τὰ μηδὲπω βλεπόμενα, however, is meant not only the impending flood, but also, from the use of the plural, the determined destruction of the whole corrupt race of men. With strange inversion of the sense, even “ipsa κιβωτός construenda” is reckoned by Böhme as belonging to that “qualem ante nunquam vidisse Noachum facile credi potest.” For the ark was surely something which was made by Noah himself at the command of God, whereas by τὰ μηδέπω βλεπόμενα can be only meant that which, independent of human activity, rested in the hands of divine omnipotence alone.

εὐλαβηθείς] in devout precaution, in that he reposed unconditional belief in the word of God, and on that very account took the enjoined measure of preparation in order to remain in safety under the impending destruction. Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Schulz, and others explain: in the fear of God. But the τὸν θεόν therein to be supplemented (comp. Sir 7:29; Proverbs 2:8; Proverbs 30:5; Nahum 1:7) could hardly have been omitted.

διʼ ἧς] refers not to σωτηρίαν (Hunnius, Balduin, Pareus), nor yet to κιβωτόν (Chrysostom: ἔδειξεν αὐτοὺς ἀξίους ὄντας κολάσεως, οἵ γε οὐδὲ διὰ τῆς κατασκευῆς ἐσωφρονίζοντο; Oecumenius, Theophylact, Faber Stapulensis, Calvin, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Carpzov, Cramer, Michaelis, Bisping, al.), but to πίστει (Primasius, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Cajetan, Wolf, Bengel, and almost all modern expositors), as the foregoing main idea; and καὶ τῆς … κληρονόμος is the second member of the relative clause, not, however, as Bisping and Delitzsch think, parallel to the κατεσκεύασεν.

ὁ κόσμος] denotes the unbelieving sinful world of men. This Noah condemned (too weak the rendering of Heinrichs: put to shame) by his faith, namely, by the act, in that he set forth the culpability of its conduct by the contrast of his own conduct. Comp. κατακρίνειν, Matthew 12:41-42, Luke 11:31-32, and κρίνειν, Romans 2:27.

καὶ τῆς κατὰ πίστιν δικαιοσύνης ἐγένετο κληρονόμος] Allusion to the fact that Noah is the first who in the O. T. is expressly called צַדִּיק or δίκαιος (Genesis 6:9). Comp. Ezekiel 14:14; Ezekiel 14:20; Sir 44:17; 2 Peter 2:5. Philo also, de congressu quaerendae eruditionis gratia, p. 437 B (with Mangey, I. p. 532), lays special stress upon this particular: πρῶτος δʼ οὖτος δίκαιος ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς ἀνεῤῥήθη γραφαῖς.

ἡ κατὰ πίστιν δικαιοσύνη] is the righteousness obtained in accordance with faith, or by the way of faith. Since the notion of πίστις is different with the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews from that of Paul, the righteousness of faith here spoken of cannot, as is still done by Böhme, Bleek, Delitzsch, Afford, and others, be regarded as identical with the righteousness of faith in the Pauline sense. Yet Bleek is perfectly right in saying that the notion: righteousness of faith, “here appears as one already formed, and is presupposed as one well known, a fact very easy to be explained from the relation in which the author of the epistle stood to Paul.”

κληρονόμον γίνεσθαι] denotes no more than to obtain as a possession. We have not, with Justinian, Bengel, Huët, and many, to press the form of expression; as though the δικαιοσύνη were thought of as an actual inheritance, which Noah had received as coming down from the fathers, Abel, who in Hebrews 11:4 had been called δίκαιος, and Enoch.

Hebrews 11:8. A proof of believing confidence in God it was that Abraham at God’s command wandered forth without knowing whither. Comp. Genesis 12:1; Genesis 12:4; also Acts 7:2-3.

ὁ καλούμενος] is not: “he who is called Abraham, whereas, namely, he formerly bore the name of Abram” (Theodoret, Clarius, Zeger, Bisping, Ewald, al.), which would be a very tame addition. It signifies: “Abraham, who was thereto (sc. to the ἑξελθεῖν) called or summoned by God.” That this sense could have been expressed only by καλούμενος without the article (Bleek, Delitzsch, Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 108; Maier, Moll, Kurtz), can hardly be maintained. The only difference between the two modes of expression is, that with the article the καλεῖσθαι is merely stated as an historic fact; without the article, on the other hand, is at the same time represented as a cause of the ὑπακούειν. The participle present, moreover (not κληθεἰς), is chosen in order to accentuate the immediate sequence of the καλεῖσθαι and the ὑπακούειν.

εἰς τὁπον ὃν κ.τ.λ.] namely, to Canaan.

ποῦ] inexactly used, instead of ποῖ. Comp. Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 439.

On the indicative ἔρχεται, see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 279 f.; Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 218.

Hebrews 11:8-10. The example of Abraham.