<- Previous   First   Next ->

For logivzomai o{ti compare John 11:50; 2 Cor. 10:11; Rom. 2:3; 8:18. kai; ejk nekrw'n ejg. ...] The belief is expressed quite generally that God
‘is able even from the dead to raise’ (Vulg.
quia et a mortuis suscitare potens est Deus ). The order of the sentence is telling in every word, as also is its absolute form (not ejg. aujtovn ); and the choice of dunatov" in place of duvnatai extends the idea of the power of God beyond this particular act which would reveal it. Comp. 2 Tim. 1:12. Dunatov" is practically equivalent to dunatei' (Rom. 14:4; 2 Cor. 9:8: opposed to ajsqenei' ) as contrasted with duvnatai . o{qen ... ejkomivsato ] whence (i.e. from the dead) he also in a figure received him. Elsewhere in the Epistle (see Heb. 2:17 n.) the word has the sense of ‘wherefore’; but such a connexion of the clauses here ( pro hoc etiam Aug.), whether the words which follow are supposed to express the reward or the circumstances of his Faith, is altogether unnatural, and the local sense is common (Luke 11:24, & c.).

But it is doubted whether the reference is to the birth of Isaac or to his deliverance from the altar. The latter explanation, which is adopted by the great majority of commentators from early times, and is perfectly justified by the original words, adds nothing to the thought of the passage. It seems to be pointless to complete the description of Abraham's faith by saying that something really came to pass far less than he was able to look forward to. On the other hand there is great meaning in the clause if it reveals the grounds of the patriarch's expectation. The circumstances of Isaac's birth (Heb. 11:12 nenekrwmevnou ) were such as to lead him to look beyond the mere fact. It evidently contained a divine lesson and had a spiritual meaning. That giving of a son beyond nature included a larger hope. Comp. Aug. Serm. ii. § 1 Cogitavit Abraham Deum qui dedit ut ille de senibus nasceretur qui non erat posse etiam de morte reparare.

If this sense be adopted then the interpretation of ejn parabolh'/ follows from it. Abraham received the gift of his son not literally from the dead but figuratively, in such a way that the gift suggested a further lesson. This appears to be the force of the order of the phrase ( kai; ejn par. ejkomivsato ) in which the kai; goes with the compound verb ‘ ejn par. ejkomivsato .’ Thus the exact sense is not ‘whence in figure he also received him’ ( ejn par. kai; ejkom. ), but ‘whence he also received him in figure.’ The manner in which the birth took place was, so to speak, part of the divine gift. It constrained the father to see in it a type of other quickening.

If, however, ejkomivsato be referred to the deliverance of Isaac, then ejn parabolh'/ will mark the significance of the sacrifice and restoration of Isaac as typical of the death and resurrection of Christ. His restoration was not only such that it might be called figuratively a resurrection, but it pointed forward.

In either case we seem to have here the explanation of St John 8:56. The patristic interpretations of ejn parabolh'/ are various and wavering. Chrysostom is singularly obscure, if the text is correct: ejn parabolh'/ toutevstin wJ" ejn aijnivgmati : w{sper ga;r parabolh; h\n oJ krio;" tou' jIsaavk : h] wJ" ejn tw'/ tuvpw/ : ejpeidh; ga;r ajphvrtisto hJ qusiva kai; e[sfakto oJ jIsaavk th'/ proairevsei, dia; tou'to aujto;n carivzetai tw'/ patriavrch/ .

Theodoret is at least more definite: ejn parabolh'/ toutevstin wJ" ejn sumbovlw/ kai; tuvpw/ th'" ajnastavsew" ... ejn aujtw'/ de; proegravfh kai; tou' swthrivou pavqou" oJ tuvpo" (John 8:56).


<- Previous   First   Next ->