11. See Guthrie, Structure, 144–45.
12. This structural analysis of Heb 11:1–40 has been presented in Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35),” 215–34. This analysis also finds a large measure of support in Cosby, “The Rhetorical Composition of Hebrews 11,” 257–73; Alan D. Bulley, “Death and Rhetoric in the Hebrews ‘Hymn to Faith,’” Studies in Religion 25 (1996): 410–12; Bénétreau, 2:132; Attridge, 307; and Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 248–50. Lane, 2:320–23, and Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 183–95, affirm the same divisions except that they do not formally separate vv. 1–2 as an introduction. However, Ellingworth, 561, argues persuasively for the introductory character of these verses. Guthrie, Structure, 131, does not subdivide 11:1–40 into smaller units.
13. Notice how vv. 1–2 begin with “now faith is” (ἔστιν δὲ πίστις) and vv. 39–40 are introduced with a second “through faith” (διὰ τῆς πίστεως; cf. διὰ πίστεως in v. 33).
1. The question as to whether this verse should be called a “definition” is inconsequential (Braun, 337). The pastor highlights the essential characteristics of faith that he would emphasize for his hearers’—and our—benefit (Thompson, 229; cf. Koester, 479). Thus, Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 143, has appropriately described this statement as a “rhetorical definition” (italics original). For a survey of the use of such “definitions” in other relevant literature, see Rose, Die Volke, 93–96.
2. It is a mistake to make “things not seen” equivalent to the “things hoped for” and then to identify both with the future “promised blessings” yet to be experienced at the Judgment (pace Rose, Die Volke, 130–35; Braun, 339). It is true that the “things hoped for” already exist and are therefore an unseen reality. However, when the pastor speaks of “things not seen,” he is thinking primarily about the power of God available for the people of God in the present. “Things hoped for” is reserved for future reward. This understanding is confirmed by the subsequent examples, who both experience God’s power in the present and anticipate receiving his promised blessings in the future. It corresponds to the Christology of this sermon—Christ is at God’s right hand, administering the benefits of his sacrifice in the present (8:1–2). He will usher God’s people into final salvation at his second coming (9:28). Furthermore, it is in accord with the pastor’s two fundamental exhortations: “draw near” to receive the benefits of Christ’s work in the present (4:16; 10:22); “hold fast” in order to receive final salvation in the future (4:14; 10:23). Brawley’s position stands under the same criticism (Brawley, “Discursive Structure,” 81–98).
3. Pace Thompson, 231.
4. Thus it is surprising that Attridge, 311, identifies this “unseen” reality as God, his power and faithfulness, but still attributes it to Platonic influence. Furthermore, Hebrews substantiates belief in the unseen world on the basis of the biblical doctrine of creation (v. 3).
5. For ὑπόστασις as “reality” see Attridge, 305; Spicq, 2:337; O’Brien, 399; Helmut Köster, “ὑπόστασις,” TDNT 8:587; BDAG, 1040, 1b. Köster, however, mistakenly attributes this “reality” not to faith but to the things hoped for and thus interprets this passage in terms of Platonic dualism. Cosby, The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11, 38–40, is correct in arguing that ὑπόστασις (“reality”) should be understood in light of the author’s rhetorical purpose and the close connection between 10:39 and 11:1. He errs, however, in thinking that an objective sense of ὑπόστασις is inconsistent with these factors.
6. See Artemidorus, Onir. 3.14; Aristotle, De mundo 395A (cited in Johnson, 277).
7. See BDAG, 1041, 4. deSilva, 383, citing David A. Worley Jr., “God’s Faithfulness to Promise: The Hortatory Use of Commissive Language in Hebrews” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1981), 87–92, thinks the translation “title deed” appropriate in light of the temporal property lost by the hearers according to 10:32–34.
8. Hughes, 440.
9. See ἔλεγχος (“proof”) in BDAG, 315, 1; Lane, 2:329; cf. O’Brien, 399–400.
10. Johnson, 280.
11. K. Backhaus, “Das Land der Verheissung: Die Heimat der Glaubenden im Hebräerbrief,” NTS 47 (2001): 184–85, gives too little attention to the Christology of Hebrews when he argues that both those who lived before and those who come after Christ stand in exactly the same position in relationship to the promise—its fulfillment is future. His assertion that “Jesus does not fulfill the promise but makes it certain” is misleading. The blessings Christ bestows, as described in 4:14–16 and 10:19–25, include but are much more than mere assurance.
12. Grässer, Glaube, is able to denude the “faith” of Heb 11:1–40 from its Christological focus only by isolating this chapter from the rest of Hebrews and by failing to see how the reorientation of the OT faithful toward the heavenly homeland necessitates the work of Christ. On this reorientation see the work of Pamela Eisenbaum cited above. Hamm, “Jesus Factor,” 270–91, has clearly established the importance of Christ for the faith enjoined by Hebrews. Some of the arguments for the Christocentric nature of faith in Hebrews provided by Rhee, Faith in Hebrews, are substantial, but others are weak. His work is marred by an undue use of chiasm and by a rigid insistence that each hortatory section depends on the previous expository section. Thus he fails to note one of the strongest arguments for his case—the transitional role played by 10:19–39 (Rhee, Faith in Hebrews, 154–78). This passage establishes the Christological focus of faith by linking the teaching on faith in 11:1–12:29 with the Christology of 7:1–10:18. Only by drawing near to God through Christ, their High Priest, in reliance on his sole sufficiency (7:1–10:18), could the hearers successfully live the life of faith enjoined in 11:1–12:29. Once one realizes that the high-priestly work of Christ is the word that God has spoken and now speaks through him (see the comments on 1:1–4), every exhortation to faith in God and his word is then, for those who live after Christ, an exhortation to faith in him. For further criticism of Grässer see Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics: The Epistle to the Hebrews as a New Testament Example of Biblical Interpretation (SNTSMS 36; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 137–42; Rose, Die Volke, 77–79; and Rissi, Theologie, 105.
13. ἐν ταύτῃ is instrumental, referring to the faith described in v. 1 (Attridge, 314).
14. See Rose, Die Volke, 28.
15. ἐμαρτυρήθησαν is a cumulative aorist, affirming the final witness of God to all the faithful who will be described in the following verses. See Lane, 326g. The use of the verb μαρτυρέω in vv. 4 and 5 suggests that ἐμαρτυρήθησαν (a divine passive; cf. 7:8, 17; 10:15; 11:2, 4, 5, 39) should be translated in the normal way, they were “attested” or “approved” by God because of their faith. Baugh’s suggestion that the elders were “testified” to by God concerning “the invisible objects of hope” is less than convincing (S. M. Baugh, “The Cloud of Witnesses in Hebrews 11,” WTJ 68 [2006]: 118).
16. See Lane, 330.
17. Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 141. Yet Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 144–46, suggests that πίστει (“by faith”) is little more than a rhetorical device that gives cohesion to the great variety of examples in this chapter. This variety, however, is important. The pastor does not force all of these heroes into one mold. His understanding of faith is coherent but not simplistic or monochromatic. As we will see, he uses the various ways in which these heroes are described in the biblical text to elucidate the various facets of faith.
18. Other example lists from antiquity, such as Wisdom 10 and Sirach 43–50 (if we include chapter 43 in this list of heroes) mention the creation. See Rose, Die Volke, 85, 158.
19. Spicq, 2:340, suggests that τοὺς αἰῶνας (“the worlds,” “the ages”) refers to the different parts of the created universe—firmament, earth, heavenly bodies. κατηρτίσθαι (“to arrange,” “to order”) indicates their arrangement by God. The perfect γεγονέναι (“have come into being”) affirms their continued existence as God’s creation. “What was striking to the Israelite in regard to creation was less its existence than its harmony, its finality, and the wisdom that it revealed” (Spicq, 2:340).
20. For αἰῶν in the temporal sense, “age,” see Heb 1:8; 5:6; 6:5; 7:17, 21, 24, 28; 9:26; 13:8, 21. The spatial connotation “world” is dominant in 6:5, 20 (Johnson, 279). Rose, Die Volke, 157, is guilty of overinterpretation when he tries to make this verse a reference to the present age/visible world and to the age-to-come/invisible world.
21. εἰς with the articular infinitive (τὸ … γεγονέναι, “have come into being”) shows result (Attridge, 315).
22. See Rose, Die Volke, 158–59.
23. Does μή (“not”) go with the infinitive γεγονέναι (“have come into being”) or with the participle ἐκ φαινομένων (“from things that appear”)? The first is followed by the NASB: “so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible” (cf. NKJV, NIV, italics added); cf. Lane, 2:326–27, who calls this rendering more natural. It allows the writer to put μή early for emphasis and delay γεγονέναι until the end for the same reason. The second is represented by the NRSV: “so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible” (italics added; cf. REB). Attridge, 315; Spicq, 2:341; and Ellingworth, 568, follow this interpretation.
24. Attridge, 316, and Thompson, 232 (following Braun, Grässer, and Weiss), associate this term with Platonism. Yet Attridge, 311, is the one who affirms that God, his power, providence, fidelity, etc., constitutes the unseen reality. Koester, 474, notes insightfully that Hebrews fails to consistently posit the connectedness between heavenly patterns and earthly realities that we would expect from a document rooted in Platonic dualism.
25. Attridge, 316; cf. Koester, 474; Hughes, 452; Rose, Die Volke, 156–59; and Johnson, 280.
26. Ellingworth, 568: (A) κατηρτίσθαι (“were ordered”); (B) τοὺς αἰῶνας (“the worlds”); (C) ρήματι θεοῦ (“by the word of God”); (C1) μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων (“from things that do not appear”); (B1) τὸ βλεπόμενον (“what is visible”); (A1) γεγονέναι (“has come into being”). If μῆ (“not”) is taken with γεγονέναι (“has come into being”), then this chiastic relationship would demonstrate that ρήματι θεοῦ (“by the word of God”) is the opposite of ἐκ φαινομένων (“from things that appear”). Cf. O’Brien, 402.
27. Koester, 480. Rose, Die Volke, 158, argues that “we” includes not only author and hearers but the heroes of faith in the following verses. Faith in the creation and in the final fulfillment of God’s promised salvation unites both those who come before Christ and those who come after (cf. 11:39–40).
28. νοοῦμεν (“we understand”) is perfective present, indicating a state of understanding reached by our experience of God’s power through faith (Ellingworth, 570).
29. According to O’Brien, 403, n. 50, “these first two examples form a pair in the account of Heb. 11: explicit mention is made of the divine commendation of both (vv. 4, 5), there is a common interest in the death of each (vv. 4, 5), and the accounts describe their responses of faith in God without specific reference to the spoken word of God (as in Noah’s case) or the promise of God (as for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). Lane, 2:335.”
30. Victor Rhee’s chiastic understanding of Heb 11:1–40 is somewhat forced (see Victor Rhee, “Chiasm and the Concept of Faith in Hebrews 11,” BSac 155 [July–September 1998]: 327–45). Yet he recognizes the chiastic relationship between (A) suffering Abel (v. 4); (B) triumphant Enoch (v. 5); and (B1) the examples of triumph in vv. 33–35a; (A1) the examples of suffering in vv. 35b–38. On the chiastic structure of 11:1–31, see below and Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35),” 215–34.
31. Thus, it is not, as Spicq, 2:342–43, suggests, merely Abel (11:4) and Christ (12:1–3) that frame this section, but Abel/Enoch (11:4–5) and Christ.
32. Thus there is no need to speculate, as does Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 147–51, on why the pastor chose to use Abel and Enoch.
33. Thompson, 232. See also the chart in Rose, Die Volke, 85.
34. For speculation about the moral qualities of Cain and Abel, see Josephus, Ant. 1.52–59. No doubt the pastor believed that Abel’s sacrifice was accepted because Abel acted in accord with the conviction that God’s promise of future reward was sure and his power in the present was real. When Targum Neofiti 21–23 and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 5 comment on Gen 4:8, they describe Cain and Abel in the field arguing over a future judgment, a Judge, rewards for the righteous, and punishment for the wicked. Abel affirms all of these things. Cain denies them and then kills Abel. See Rose, Die Volke, 160–78. Yet the pastor makes no use of such speculations. He waits until the Scriptural text gives him warrant to describe the following heroes of faith as those who believe in God’s future City, etc.
35. διʼ ἧς, “through which,” probably refers to the closer feminine noun, θυσίαν (“sacrifice”), rather than to the more distant πίστει (“faith”). See Attridge, 316. There is, however, little difference in meaning since his “sacrifice” was the expression of his “faith.” I have taken the genitive absolute, μαρτυροῦντος ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, as instrumental, “by God’s bearing witness in regard to his gifts.” τοῖς δώροις (“gifts”) is equivalent to θυσίαι (“sacrifice”). See 5:1; 8:3–4; 9:9.
36. For Abel as “righteous,” see Josephus, Ant. 1.53; Ascen. Isa. 6:8; T. Iss. 5:4 (cited in Johnson, 281). Cf. Matt 23:35; 1 John 3:12.
37. διʼ αὐτῆς (“through this”) is feminine, referring not merely to his “faith” (πίστει; pace Rose, Die Volke, 162), but to his faith expressed through his “sacrifice” (θυσίαν). It is Abel himself, through Scripture, who speaks (Moffatt, 164; Lane, 2:335; cf. O’Brien, 403–4), not (pace Attridge, 317; Ellingworth, 573; Spicq, 2:343; cf. Johnson, 281) Abel’s blood. The pastor uses the same word for “speak” (λαλέω) in 12:24, where he is referring to Christ’s blood “speaking” a better word than Abel’s. However, the use of this common word is no indication that 11:3 is a reference to Abel’s blood. The LXX of Gen 4:10 uses βοάω, “cry out,” in reference to “the voice” of Abel’s blood. Pace Spicq, 2:343, and Bénétreau, 2:138, Abel’s “speaking” is no type of Christ’s intercession. Abel speaks not to God but to “us” as a witness to faith.
38. Koester, 476, comparing Hebrews with the speculations in L.A.E. 40.
39. Cf. Hughes, 457. Weiss’s statement, though cautious and very modern sounding, attests this fact: “The specially emphasized contrast between ‘dead’ and ‘yet-speaking’ thus signifies here at least that faith in the end also bears in itself a power that overcomes death” (Weiss, 577).
40. Thus, with Koester (482), Abel’s speaking means that “death is not the end of his story.” The pastor refrains from saying that Abel is the first example of one who lives beyond the grave (see Attridge, 317), though that is what he intends his exposition to suggest.
41. Compare πλείονα, here certainly to be taken as qualitative, “better” (Ellingworth, 571; Lane, 335), with κρείττοσιν θυσίαις (“better sacrifices”) in 9:23.
42. On the vast amount of speculation about Enoch, who was taken up to God without death, see Johnson, 282–83. The pastor sticks close to the Genesis text in the LXX and shows little, if any, influence from such speculations.
43. Spicq, 2:344, thinks that this should be translated “by, in exchange for, because of his translation” he pleased God. This understanding fits poorly, with both the Genesis text and the immediate context in Hebrews. Enoch’s translation is not the cause of his pleasing God but its attestation.
44. The OT text was also understood as Enoch’s bypassing death in Philo, Names 38; QG 1.86; Josephus, Ant. 1.85; and Jub. 4:23. It is true that Enoch, along with all of the other faithful who lived before Christ, was not “perfected” and thus did not enter into the presence of God before, or at least apart from, the coming of Christ (11:39–40). The pastor does not tell us where Enoch was from the time he bypassed death until the coming of Christ any more than he tells us where the other heroes of faith were between their deaths and the coming of Christ. See the comments on vv. 39–40 below. This fact, however, does not take away from the fact that Enoch bypassed, that is, overcame, death.
45. Heb 11:5b quotes Gen 5:24b (LXX) verbatim, καὶ οὐχ ηὐρίσκετο ὅτι μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός (underlining added), only substituting διότι for the synonym ὅτι (underlined above). In this context both Greek words mean “because.”
46. For Enoch as “righteous” see T. Levi 10:5; T. Dan 5:6; T. Benj. 9:1; cf. Wis 4:4, 7, 16; 1 En. 1:2; 12:1; Jub. 10:17 (cited by Koester, 476).
47. The author of Hebrews says that Enoch did not “see death” in order to show that faith transcended death. He is not combating ancient Jewish speculations that Enoch was “taken” by God in death because he became godless. Pace Rose, Die Volke, 184, 190.
48. Spicq, 2:343–44; cf. Hughes, 457.
49. Pace Rose, Die Volke, 186–89, the pastor is not concerned with the theoretical existence of God, as were the Stoics (see references in Rose).
50. Spicq, 2:345.
51. The last two words in the Greek text of v. 6 are μισθαποδότης γίνεται (“he is a rewarder”). One could translate these words “he becomes a rewarder” for those who seek him. He is not such a rewarder for those who do not.
52. The participle τοὺς ἐκζητοῦσιν, “those who diligently seek [him],” describes “a singular determination to devote oneself to the service of God. It implies the recognition that human action has to demonstrate its integrity before God.” Lane, 2:338.
53. See also Ezek 14:14, 20. Jewish tradition often describes Noah as “righteous” (Sir 44:17; Wis 10:4; Jub. 5:19; 10:17; Philo, Worse 105; Posterity 48.173–74; Giants 5; Agriculture 2; Prelim. Studies 90; Migration 125; Abraham 46). See Rose, Die Volke, 193–94.
54. Lane, 2:327v. The aorist passive participle εὐλαβηθείς, “having been moved by godly fear,” is causal. The NRSV mistakenly weakens this participle immeasurably when it reduces it to “respected the warning.” This translation also masks the connection with the godliness of Jesus in 5:7.
55. Thus, agreeing with Rose, Die Volke, 201, that the relative clause beginning with διʼ ἧς continues through κληρονόμος.
56. In 2 Pet 2:5 Noah is called a “preacher of righteousness.” In other sources he preaches to his contemporaries, calling them to repentance (Sib. Or. 1:125–36, 150–98; 1 Clem. 7:6; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 1.2.1). For more on the use of Noah in other literature, see Johnson, 285–86 (referencing Weiss), and Rose, Die Volke, 197–99. Since the author of Hebrews focuses on Noah’s act of faith in building the ark, it is not, pace deSilva, 391, surprising that he makes nothing of this tradition about Noah’s preaching. Furthermore, the pastor usually stays close to the biblical text when describing these heroes of faith. Cf. Koester, 477.
57. Noah was often called “righteous” (δίκαιος) in Jewish tradition (cf. L.A.B. 3:4; Sib. Or. 1:280; Philo, Worse 105; Posterity 48; Rose, Die Volke, 193–94). Gen 6:9 also describes Noah as “perfect” (τέλειος). However, in the terminology of Hebrews, being made “perfect” is reserved for those who, through Christ, have been so cleansed that they can come into the presence of God. See the comments on 11:39–40. Thus, it would have been confusing for the pastor to describe any of these faithful as “perfect.” See Johnson, 284.
58. Baugh, “Cloud of Witnesses,” 127–28.
1. Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 166, makes a distinction foreign to Hebrews when she says that “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not the founding fathers of Israel,” but “the ancestors of an elite group.” Hebrews agrees with the OT that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are “the founding fathers” of the people of God. That people has always consisted of those who have faith in God’s promises, which are now fulfilled in Christ. Hebrews never makes a contrast between the people of God and ethnic Israel.
2. See also Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35),” 215–34.
3. H. B. Partin, “The Muslim Pilgrimage: Journey to the Center” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1969).
4. Johnsson, “Pilgrimage Motif,” 239–51. For an interpretation of Hebrews for people of Muslim background using this paradigm see Gareth Lee Cockerill, Guidebook for Pilgrims to the Heavenly City (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2004). Cf. Gareth Lee Cockerill, “To the Hebrews/to the Muslims: Islamic Pilgrimage as a Key to Interpretation,” Missiology 22 (1994): 347–59; and Gareth Lee Cockerill, “Building Bridges to Muslims: A Test Case,” in Contextualization and Syncretism: Navigating Cultural Currents, ed. Gailyn Van Rheenen (Evangelical Missiological Society 13; Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2006), 323–43.
5. Cf. 1 Macc 2:52; 4 Macc 16:20; Sir 44:19–21; Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6; Jas 2:21.
6. Thompson, 234. For fanciful stories about the circumstances of Abraham’s leaving Mesopotamia, see David A. deSilva and Victor Matthews, Untold Stories of the Bible (Lincolnwood, IL: Publications International Ltd., 1998), 34–48 (cited in deSilva, 393, n. 43). The brief references in Philo to Abraham’s departure from Mesopotamia are concerned with his turning from idolatry or with the return of the soul to God (see Migration 43–44; Heir 90–101; Virtues 211–19).
7. The aorist infinitive ἐξελθεῖν, “to go out,” is best understood as ingressive, “to set out.” The same thing is true for the indicative form of this verb (ἐξῆλθεν) later in the verse, “and he set out.” See the NRSV.
8. The infinitive phrase ἐξελθεῖν εἰς τόπον ὅν ἤμελλεν λαμβάνειν εἰς κληρονομίαν (“to set out for a place that he was going to receive as an inheritance”) is the object of the participle καλούμενος (“being called”)—“called to set out for a place that he was going to receive as an inheritance” (NKJV, NIV, NRSV, REB). Some interpreters would connect this infinitive phrase with ὑπήκουσεν (“he obeyed”)—“he obeyed by setting out for a place that he was going to receive as an inheritance” (NASB; Lane, 2:349). It would be awkward, however, to complete the meaning of ὑπήκουσεν (“he obeyed”) with an infinitive, even though the infinitive immediately follows. The pastor has refused to put this infinitive phrase between καλούμενος and ὑπήκουσεν because he does not want to dilute the immediacy of Abraham’s obedience—as soon as he was “called” he “obeyed” (see below).
9. καλούμενος (“being called”) is a present participle, followed by the aorist verb ὑπήκουσεν (“he obeyed). “As Abraham was called he obeyed” (Lane, 343a).
10. Compare the parallel between “those who disobeyed” (τοῖς ἀπειθήσασιν) and “unbelief” (ἀπιστίαν) in 3:18, 19.
11. Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 156, is mistaken when she says that the term “obey” is of little importance for this list because it occurs only here. First, she neglects the significance of the place it does appear—at the very beginning of the first example from Abraham’s life. Second, she fails to see that, although the term is not used, the following heroes of faith do in fact obey. Furthermore, one must not forget that the pastor has recently referred to the completion of the life of faith as “when you have done the will of God” (10:36), nor neglect the contrast with the wilderness generation noted above. On faith as obedience, see Hamm, “Jesus Factor,” 289.
12. Lane, 349. Some MSS have attempted to correct this indefiniteness by adding the article before place, τὸν τόπον, “the place” (see א2, D2, 1739, 1881, etc.). Cf. Koester, 484. While this “inheritance” is indeed “the fullest fellowship with God” (Backhaus, “Das Land der Verheissung,” 173), one must be careful not to denude it of all locality, as Backhaus seems to do.
13. Eisenbaum has emphasized the “marginalization” of God’s people in this chapter (Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 3, 142, and many places in between). It is important, however, to note that they were not mere victims. Their marginal status in relation to the world was the result of their own choice. However, her contention that the author has “denationalized” biblical history is more problematic. It assumes that he began with a list of heroes that glorified the nation of Israel (cf. Sirach 44–50), and that he intentionally rewrote that history to degrade Israel. The truth is, however, that the author never refers to ethnic Israel. Thus, Eisenbaum’s statement introducing this section on Abraham is simply mistaken: “Now the author moves into a period when the heroes are not just distinguished from generic humanity, but from the would-be nation of Israel” (Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 153). See also her “profile” of a “hero” on pp. 178–85.
14. See παροικέω (“sojourn”) in Gen 17:8; 24:37; 26:3; 35:27; 37:1. Note also Abraham’s affirmation of his status as a πάροικος καὶ παρεπίδημος (“resident alien and transient”) in the land (Gen 23:4; cf. Heb 11:13 below). In Gen 28:3–4 the land is called the “land of your sojourning “(τὴν γῆν τῆς παροικήσεώς σου). The pastor uses κατοικέω later in this verse when he speaks of Abraham’s “dwelling” in tents. Although this word usually denoted a more settled existence, it is used along with παροικέω in Gen 26:2–3. Furthermore, the addition of ἐν σκηναῖς (“in tents”) shows that Hebrews is using both terms to emphasize the patriarch’s temporary, alien status (Rose, Die Volke, 212–13). Lane’s contention (2:344c) that παρῴκησεν means “migrated to” instead of “sojourned in” is contradicted by this second phrase (Ellingworth, 583). For the use of this terminology as a self-definition of the faithful in a hostile world, see 1 Pet 1:17; 2:11, and references in Backhaus, “Das Land der Verheissung,” 174.
15. The lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob overlapped. Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born (Gen 17:17; 21:5) and he lived until he was 175 (Gen 25:7–8). Since Isaac was 60 when Jacob and Esau were born (Gen 25:26), Abraham would have been 160 at their birth, with fifteen years yet to live. Thus, commenting on Gen 25:29, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan says, “On the day when Abraham died, Jacob cooked a mess of pottage and went in order to comfort his father.” See Rose, Die Volke, 218.
16. ἐξεδέχετο is better understood as “was looking forward to” (NIV/REB) than as “was looking for” (NASB). Abraham was not searching for, but anticipating, an eternal City (Lane, 2:351).
17. Lane, 2:352. See Pss 46:4–5; 48:8; 87:1–3, 5; Isa 14:32; 33:20; 54:11; Rev 21:14, 19; cf. 4 Ezra 10:27.
18. Lane, 2:344h, rightly, takes the relative clause beginning with ἧς as causal—the City has foundations, is permanent, because its architect and builder is God.
19. for τεχνίτης (“architect”) see BDAG, 1001; for δημιουργός (“builder”) see BDAG, 223.
20. Philo uses τεχνίτης (“architect”) in reference to God as creator of the world in Creation 135; Names 29–31; cf. Wis 13:1) and δημιουργός (“builder”) with the same significance in Creation 18, 146 (cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.155). See Williamson, Philo and Hebrews, 48–51; Koester, 487; and Lane, 2:353.
21. καί before αὐτὴ Σάρρα (“Sarah herself”) is intensive—“even Sarah herself.” For Sarah as subject, see Westcott, 360–61; Moffatt, 171; Spicq, 2:348–49; Hughes, 470–71; Montefiore, 193–94; Johnson, 291–91; Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 186; and J. Harold Greenlee, “Hebrews 11:11—Sarah’s Faith or Abraham’s?” Notes on Translation 4 (1990): 37–42.
22. Thompson, 236; Koester, 488; Attridge, 324–26; Braun, 358–59; Bruce, 294–96; Lane, 2:353–54; Ellingworth, 586–88; Weiss, 586–99; Riggenbach, 357–60; Michel, 395–97; Rose, Die Volke, 228–31.
23. For this use of καταβολή σπέρματος see Philo, Creation 132; Cherubim 49; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.13; Lane, 3:253–54; and BDAG, 515, 2.
24. See Thompson, 236; Koester, 488; Lane, 2:353–54; Rose, Die Volke, 228–31.
25. Attridge, 324–26; Braun, 358–59; Bruce, 294–96; Ellingworth, 586–88; Weiss, 586–88; Riggenbach, 356–60; Michel, 395–97; O’Brien, 415. Thus αὐτὴ Σάρρα (“Sarah herself”) becomes αὐτῂ Σάρρᾳ (“with Sarah herself”). However, no known manuscript has this iota subscript. Cf. Koester, 488.
26. Abraham was one hundred when Isaac was born (Gen 18:11–12; Rom 4:19; Heb 11:12); Sarah was ninety. Abraham mentions his age in Gen 17:17; Sarah mentions it in 18:12.
27. When we observe these relationships, we can no longer agree with Rose, Die Volke, 229, who contends that Abraham must be the subject of v. 11, so that the four examples from Abraham’s life would parallel the four from Moses’.
28. Some have argued that ancient sources describe not only men but also women as having “seed” (P. W. van der Horst, “Sarah’s Seminal Emission: Hebrews 11:11 in Light of Ancient Embryology,” in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. D. L. Balch, E. Ferguson, and W. A. Meeks [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990], 287–301; cf. J. Irwin, “The Use of Hebrews 11:11 as Embryological Proof-Text,” HTR 71 [1978]: 312–16). This may well be so (Gen 3:15). Yet there is no evidence that the combined phrase καταβολὴν σπέρματος was used for women’s role in procreation (Ellingworth, 586). Some have suggested that εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος be translated as “for the establishment of a seed [i.e., posterity]” (Bénétreau, 2:145; Hughes, 473). καταβολή by itself could mean “establishment,” and σπέρμα alone could refer to a “posterity.” However, when brought together these two words form an idiom that cannot be reduced to its parts (Ellingworth, 586–87; Koester, 487).
29. Johnson, 291–92. He argues that if Abraham were the subject, an infinitive phrase, καταβολεῖν σπέρμα (“to plant seed”) “would have been a more natural complement to ‘receiving a power’” than εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος (“for the disposition of seed,” “for the planting of seed”). See also Moffatt, 171: Sarah received power from God “for Abraham the male to do the work of generation upon her.” Attridge, 325, n. 53, cites Chrysostom, PG 63:162; Ps.-Oecumenius, PG 119:408B; Theophylact, PG 125:34CD; and Augustine, Civ. 16.26, as holding this view.
30. στεῖρα (“barren”) is absent from a number of manuscripts (
13vid א A D2 33 Maj). It appears alone in 46 D* Ψ; prefaced with a definite article in D1 6 81 1241s 1739 1881; and accompanied by οὖσα (“being”) in P 104 365 1505. Those who affirm Sarah as the subject of this sentence (Spicq, 2:349; Moffatt, 171) or make Sarah dative (Attridge, 326; Bruce, 294–96) often argue that σπεῖρα was a scribal addition intended to remove the awkwardness of a woman’s receiving power “for depositing seed.” Moffatt, 171, suggests that it arose by dittography with Σάρρα (ΣΑΡΡΑΣΤΕΙΡΑ). The use of this term in Gen 11:30 to describe Sarah would, according to these interpreters, make its addition natural. On the other hand, στεῖρα occurs as early as 46 and is confirmed by the original of D. It fits most appropriately with the author’s intention in this verse. It is possible that its omission was an early scribal error. Both its omission in some manuscripts and the addition of the article and οὖσα in others may have arisen because σπεῖρα seemed awkward. See Koester, 487; TCGNT, 602.
31. In my judgment ἐγενήθησαν (“came into being,” 46 A D* K P 6 33 81 104 326 365 1175 etc.) has somewhat better external attestation than ἐγεννήθησαν (“were born” or “were begotten,” א D2 Ψ Byz), though both are well represented in the manuscript tradition (see Ellingworth, 590). However, as explained in the text above, ἐγενήθησαν has much stronger support from internal evidence. ἀφʼ ἑνός, “from one,” denotes source but not agency—“came into being [by God] from one man [Abraham].”
32. καὶ ταῦτα is an emphatic classical expression, “and indeed” (Ellingworth, 590). The perfect participle, νενεκρωμένου, “having been dead,” emphasizes the present condition of Abraham at the time he begat Isaac. Due to Sarah’s barrenness and age he had absolutely no human prospect of begetting a child with her (Hughes, 476). It is possible that the pastor also considered Abraham’s age a problem. If so, then the children he bore after Sarah’s death (Gen 25:1–6) would also have been the result of divine intervention, though none of them were “the” child of promise. The oft-suggested translation “as good as dead” unduly weakens the impact the pastor would make on his hearers (deSilva, 398).
33. τῷ πλήθει (“in multitude”) from Exod 32:13 may have been suggested by πληθύνων πληθυνῶ τὸ σπέρμα σου (“multiplying I will multiply your seed”) in Gen 22:17a. The pastor has also used the neuter word for “stars” (τὰ ἄστρα) found in Exod 32:13 rather than the masculine of Gen 22:17 (τοὺς ἀστέρας). Furthermore, the words for “stars” and “sand” are nominative in order to fit into the syntax of Heb 11:12 instead of accusative as they were in Gen 22:17b.
34. Compare “without number” (ἀναρίθμητος) with God’s command in Gen 15:5 for Abraham to “count” (ἀρίθμησον) the stars if he is able to “number” (ἐξαριθμῆσαι) them.
35. It is a mistake to import a Pauline distinction between the “literal” and “spiritual” “seed” or descendants of Abraham into Hebrews. The pastor never contrasts those who believe in Christ with ethnic Israel. Thus, he has no need for such a distinction. The people of God are—and always have been—his people because they hear the word of God and respond “by faith” (cf. 1:1–4). In the case of the birth of Isaac, God used physical descent to perpetuate the people of faith. Thus, the “seed” Sarah received in v. 11 was, pace Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac, 117–18, the physical seed of Abraham from which Isaac was born.
36. In a sense it is true, as Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 160–61, says, that these verses highlight the “marginalization” theme. However, to put the stress on marginalization is to emphasize an effect of the pastor’s main point rather than the main point itself—these people of faith are native to the heavenly home God has prepared for them.
37. The way in which the perspective of these verses is integrated with the examples of this chapter precludes its being an editorial addition to a preexisting list, as suggested by some (cf. Rissi, Theologie, 106, 109; Rose, Die Volke, 247; and Weiss, 556–57). On this integration, see pp. 514–19 above and Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35),” 215–34. Note O’Brien’s (418) comment: “… the eschatological perspective that is specially emphasized in the case of the patriarchs is ultimately the viewpoint from which the whole chapter is to be understood (so v. 39).”
38. On the relationship between vv. 39–40 and vv. 13–16, see Rose, Die Volke, 247.
39. See Rose, Die Volke, 248–49.
40. For instance, it was Abraham, Sarah, and Abraham’s “fellow heirs” who first received God’s promises and “left” (v. 14) the land of their birth. Thus, Rhee, Faith in Hebrews, 185–86, is mistaken when he would apply “all these” to the other heroes of this chapter. Nevertheless, because of the role played by Abraham and his “fellow heirs,” their faith and the perspective established by vv. 13–16 is determinative for the whole chapter, especially for those who follow. They also lived in anticipation of the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham.
41. Rissi, Theologie, 109, sees this connection with v. 39.
42. Ellingworth, 592–93. Compare κατὰ πίστιν (“according to faith”), indicating the manner of their death, with πίστει (“by faith”), describing the means by which an action was carried out. “These believers of the past did not allow the crisis of death to invalidate the principle of faith” (Hughes, 477, n. 44).
43. 1. μὴ λαβόντες τὰς ἐπαγγελίας (“not having received the promises”); 2. ἀλλὰ πόρρωθεν αὐτὰς ἰδόντες (“but having seen them from afar”); 3. καὶ ἀσπασάμενοι (“and having greeted [them]”). The fourth participial phrase, καὶ ὁμολογήσαντες ὅτι ξένοι καὶ παρεπίδημοί εἰσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (“and having confessed that they were aliens and transients on the earth”) describes their relationship to the world in light of their relationship to the “promises” of God.
44. Ellingworth, 593; Lane, 2:356, and others emphasize the temporal nature of this expression.
45. Pace Rose, Die Volke, 249–52, there is no reason to believe that Hebrews has been influenced by Jewish tradition about Abraham seeing the heavenly Jerusalem during the night vision of Genesis 15.
46. Compare the ξένοι καὶ παρεπίδημοι (“aliens and transients”) of Hebrews with the πάροικος καὶ παρεπίδημος (“resident alien and transient”) of Gen 23:4 (LXX). For the translation of παρεπίδημοι as “transients” see Koester, 489.
48. In T. Levi 6:9 Abraham is called an “alien” (ξένος). Attridge, 330, thinks ξένοι (“alien”) may be a bit stronger than πάροικος (“resident alien”). For ξένος as the opposite of πολίτης (“citizen”) see Philo, Posterity 109; Josephus, Ant. 11.159; Life 372 (cf. συμπολίτης in Eph 2:19). The close relationships between all three of these words, ξένος (“alien”), πάροικος (“resident alien”), and παρεπίδημος (“transient”), is demonstrated by the way they are often combined. Thus, with ξένοι καὶ παρεπίδημοι here (cf. Acts 17:21) compare ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι in Eph 2:19 and παροίκους καὶ παρεπιδήμους in 1 Pet 2:11 (Gen 23:4 [LXX]). See additional references for these combinations in BDAG, 684, 2a; 779, 2.
50. On the privileges of citizens over “strangers” or foreigners see Philo, Flaccus 54.
51. Spicq, 2:350; NIV, NKJV, NRSV, REB, NASB.
52. Pace Backhaus, “Das Land der Verheissung,” 175.
53. Philo spoke of human souls becoming aliens when they entered the body (Dreams 1.181; Cherubim 120; Confusion 77–79. In Hebrews, however, it is “by faith” that one becomes a stranger on earth. See Koester, 489.
54. Note the two meanings given for πατρίς, πατρίδος by BDAG, 788–89: “a relatively large geographical area associated with one’s familial connections and personal life, fatherland, homeland” (italics original); “a relatively restricted area as locale of one’s immediate family and ancestry, home town, one’s own part of the country” (italics original). It is unclear why BDAG lists Heb 11:14 under the first of these meanings when the context shows that Hebrews is talking about a “city” (Heb 11:10, 16). Compare this term with πατήρ, πατρός, “father.”
55. See Josephus, J.W. 1.434. Cf. 2 Macc 8:21; 13:14; Philo, Planting 146; Drunkenness 17; Josephus, Ant. 12.304. Cited by Koester, 490.
56. Lane, 2:358 (pace Ellingworth, 596), argues correctly that ἐπιζητοῦσιν (“they were diligently seeking”) is stronger than uncompounded ζητοῦσιν woul have been.
57. Attridge, 331; Ellingworth, 598. Cf. νῦν δὲ (“but now”) in 8:6; 9:26; 12:26.
58. See some form of κρείττονος (“better”) in 1:4; 6:9; 7:19, 22; 8:6; 9:23; 10:34; 11:35, 40; 12:24.
59. One is reminded of Mary L. Demarest’s hymn in Scots dialect entitled “My Ain Countrie”:
“I am far frae my hame, an’ I’m weary aftenwhiles,
For the langed for hame bringin’, an’ my Father’s welcome smiles;
An’ I’ll ne’er be fu’ content, until mine een do see
The gowden gates o’ Heav’n an’ my ain countrie.
60. αὐτῶν (“their”) at the end of the Greek sentence is emphatic—“God of them” (italics added; see Ellingworth, 599). The two occurrences of θεός (“God”) together in the mid framed by the two pronouns referring to the faithful (αὐτούς, “them”; αὐτῶν, “of them,” “their”), emphasize that God himself is not ashamed of them!
61. For parallels between “be ashamed” (ἐπαισχύνω) and “confess” (ὁμολογέω) see Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; Rom 1:16; 2 Tim 1:8, 12, 16; Heb 2:11.
62. Ellingworth, 598, falls into this trap when he refuses to relate the διό (“therefore”) in v. 16b to what goes before for fear of affirming works righteousness. The entire book of Hebrews teaches that God commends the life of faith. It also corrects a false notion of what that life is. True faith is never mere mental assent. It cannot be separated from and will always be expressed by obedience, just as it was in these great heroes of faith. Ellingworth’s attempt to make this διό refer to what follows in v. 16c is awkward and leaves no room for the γάρ that introduces that following statement.
63. Josephus, Ant. 1.223, 233, describes God’s command to offer Isaac as a test. Jub. 17:15–18:16 attributes the agency of this test to an evil being rather than to God (17:15–16; 28:9, 12). Both Sir 44:20 and 1 Macc 2:52 refer to Abraham as “faithful” (πιστός) “in testing” (ἐν πειρασμῷ), though neither specifically mentions the offering of Isaac. See Rose, Die Volke, 234–35.
64. Sir 44:20; Wis 10:5; 1 Macc 2:52; 4 Macc 16:20; Jub. 18:1–9; Josephus, Ant. 1.222–36; Philo, Abraham 167–207; and one tractate from the Mishnah, m. ʾAbot 5:3.
65. πίστει (“by faith”) προσενήνοχεν (“he offered”).
66. Lane, 2:361. See Grässer, 3:145; Thompson, 238. Rose’s contention that Hebrews thinks Abraham actually killed Isaac is without validity (Rose, Die Volke, 44). The fact that προσφέρω is the normal word for “sacrifice” and that κομίζω was used elsewhere for receiving resurrection life has nothing to do with whether or not the sacrifice of Isaac was literally carried through. Rose cites ancient tradition in witness that others thought Abraham actually sacrificed Isaac. However, the sources he cites are ambiguous, of questionable age, and without demonstrable relationship to Hebrews.
67. Ellingworth, 600.
68. Hebrews uses τὸν μονογενῆ (“only begotten” or “only”) in place of the τὸν ἀγαπητόν (“beloved”) found in the LXX of Gen 2 The pastor may be following an alternate Greek translation, since Aquila used μονογενής in Gen 22:2 (cf. Symmachus in Gen 22:12 and Josephus, Ant. 1.222). Elsewhere the LXX uses μονογενής for the same Hebrew word that occurs in Gen 22:2 (see μονογενής for 
in Judg 11:34; Pss 21:20; 24:16; 34:17).
69. Lane translates ὁ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας ἀναδεξάμενος as “he who had accepted the promises” (2:343) on the basis of the papyrii, which use ἀναδέχομαι of accepting responsibility (2:361).
70. Taking πρὸς ὅν (“to whom”) as referring to Abraham (Ellingworth, 601). The pastor does not direct his hearers’ eyes to Isaac but to Abraham.
71. Following the NRSV. Cf. Thompson, 238.
72. The aorist form of λογισάμενος, “reckoned,” indicates that Abraham came to a conclusion about God on the basis of these facts. See Lane, 2:362.
73. Furthermore, ἐγείρειν (“to raise”) has no specific object, indicating that it refers to more than Isaac alone. See Ellingworth, 603.
74. ἐκ νεκρῶν (“from the dead”) ἐγείρειν δυνατὸς ὁ θεός (“God”).
75. For such faith in a resurrection to eternal life, see 2 Macc 7:9–14, 28–29, and the other references to resurrection faith in contemporary Judaism cited by Weiss, 598–99.
76. The mother of the Maccabean martyrs in 2 Maccabees 7 uses faith in God’s creation of the world from nothing as motivation for confidence in his power to raise the dead (O. Hofius, “Eine altjüdische Parallele zu Röm. IV. 27b,” NTS 18 [1971–72]: 93–94).
77. The comprehensive statement “God is able to raise from the dead” could also include the resurrection of the wicked. The pastor does not deny such a resurrection; however, his concern in this chapter is with the hope of those who live “by faith.” They are the ones who will attain to the “better resurrection” of v. 35b. His business is to urge his hearers on so that they will be among the number who attain this goal.
78. For ὅθεν (11:19) as “therefore” see 2:17; 3:1; 7:25; 8:3; 9:18. Compare ἐν παραβολῇ (“in a parable,” “in a figure,” “in a type”) in 11:19 with παραβολή (“type”) in 9:8–9.
79. Lane, 2:362–63; Attridge, 335; Braun, 371; Weiss, 598; Koester, 492.
80. So O’Brien, 425.
81. Rose, Die Volke, 235–44, neglects this fact when he attempts to substantiate Isaac’s literal resurrection by arguing that he was a type of the resurrection.
82. Bénétreau, 2:148–49, Spicq, 2:353–54, and esp. Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac, 122–23, 128.
83. See μονογενής (“only begotten,” “one and only”) in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9. However, one must be cautious in deriving a Christological connotation from this combination of μονογενής (“only begotten”) and φροσφέρω (“offer”). First, as Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 162, points out, Isaac was called μονογενής by Josephus and in Aquila’s translation of the OT. Hebrews could easily be dependent on these or other sources. Second, the pastor does not develop these themes (cf. Koester, 492). There is no reason, pace Weiss, 598, to explain this lack of development by reference to a Jewish source. The pastor develops no Christology from this combination of terms either because he sees no Christological significance in them or because his purpose lies elsewhere. In either case this combination of terms provides little support for an Isaac/Christ typology.
84. In his attempt to make Isaac a type of Christ’s death and resurrection, Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac, 122–23, 128, overlooks this focus on Abraham. However, Spicq, 2:354, betrays the centrality of Abraham when he says, “It is remarkable that our author does not exploit the Messianic traits of the figure of Isaac but exalts only the merits of his father.” As noted above, this fact is not so “remarkable” in light of the pastor’s purpose in this section.
85. On the close relationship between these and the previous examples see Ellingworth, 604; Lane, 2:364.
86. Compare περὶ μελλόντων (“things to come”) with 1:4; 2:5; 6:5; 9:11; 10:1; 13:14 (Attridge, 335–36).
87. It is more likely that Esau was added to balance the two sons of Joseph in the next verse than that the two sons of Joseph were added, as Lane, 2:365, suggests, to balance Jacob and Esau. Spicq’s contention (2:355) that Isaac showed his faith by discerning God’s will that Jacob be blessed above Esau is naught but speculation.
88. Rose, Die Volke, 253–58, goes beyond the evidence when he argues that according to Hebrews Isaac passed the blessing of Abraham on to Esau as well as to Jacob. Isaac did conclude the blessing given Esau on a more positive note (Gen 27:40). Yet Isaac specifically passed on the blessing of Abraham to Jacob (Gen 28:4). Furthermore, according to Hebrews Esau’s impiety consisted in the selling of his “birthright” (12:16; Gen 25:29–34), which subsequently prevented him from receiving the desired blessing (12:17; cf. Gen 27:27–40). The pastor’s intentions are more modest. He can mention Isaac’s blessing of Esau because it is recorded in the OT. He does so simply to identify Esau with the people of faith. The pastor does not mention what Targum Pseudo-Jonathan says about Esau’s selling of his birthright. According to this source, cited by Rose, Die Volke, 253–58, Esau denied life in the world to come when he traded his birthright to Jacob. Such a denial makes him an opponent of those who believe in a “God who is able to raise from the dead” and anticipate life in the “City” that God has established.
89. Spicq, 2:355, misses the obvious when he says, “It is astonishing that the blessing of the twelve patriarchs (Gen 49) should be omitted.”
90. Cf. Koester, 500. Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 142, has suggested that Hebrews omitted reference to the other patriarchs because of their prominence in settling the land and in the institutions of Israel. This suggestion overlooks the reason demanded by the context of Hebrews in favor of Eisenbaum’s hypothesis that Hebrews is intentionally “denationalizing” the history of Israel.
91. The Hebrew text has the following four consonants 
. These consonants can be pointed 
(“bed,” MT) or 
(“staff,” LXX).
92. See Lane, 2:365. If, as Attridge, 335–36, contends, the “staff” had no significance, then there would have been no reason for the pastor to include this quotation from Gen 47:31 (LXX). Rose, Die Volke, 260–61, refers to Gen 32:11 as an indication that Jacob’s staff was the sign of his pilgrimage.
93. Note how the author of Genesis contrasts the faithfulness of Joseph in Gen 39:1–23 with the faithlessness of Judah in 38:1–26.
94. περὶ τῆς ἐξόδου τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ἐμνημόνευσεν (“concerning the exodus of the children of Israel he remembered”); περὶ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ ἐνετείλατο (“concerning his bones he gave command”).
95. τελευτῶν (“as he was coming to an end”); ἐνετείλατο (“he commanded”).
96. See Rose, Die Volke, 262–63.
97. Gen 50:24–26 uses both ἀποθνῄσκω (“die,” Gen 50:24; cf. the participle ἀποθνῄσκων describing Jacob in Heb 11:21) and τελευτάω (“come to an end”; Gen 50:26) in reference to Joseph’s death. The pastor has chosen the latter, τελευτῶν (“as he was coming to an end”), for effect.
98. Most translations render ἐμνημόνευσεν as “he made mention” (NKJV, NASB, NRSV; cf. Ellingworth, 608). Johnson, 296; deSilva, 405, n. 69; and Koester, 493, however, are correct when they suggest that Joseph “remembered” God’s promise of the exodus given his great-grandfather Abraham in Gen 15:13–16. In Gen 50:24 Joseph reminds his brothers that God “swore” to give them the land (cf. T. Jos. 20:1).
99. τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ (“the sons of Israel”) in Heb 11:22 recalls the υἱοὺς Ἰσραηλ (“sons of Israel”) in Gen. 50:25. In Genesis the reference is obviously to Joseph’s brothers whom he made swear to take his “bones” with them in the exodus. However, in Heb 11:22 the pastor is referring to the exodus of the whole nation. Thus I have chosen the translation “children of Israel.”
100. Rose, Die Volke, 264–66.
101. Thus, Jacob’s burial in Canaan (Gen 50:4–14) would not have suited the pastor’s purposes. It is not the land but the people of God with whom Joseph identifies.
102. It is likely that with the mention of Joseph’s “bones” the pastor is thinking of Joseph’s resurrection in light of the emphasis this chapter puts on God’s power over death (see esp. vv. 5, 17–19, and 35). According to Max Wilcox, “The Bones of Joseph: Hebrews 11:22,” in Scripture: Meaning and Method, ed. Barry P. Thompson (Hull: Hull University Press, 1987), 126, some Jewish interpreters believed that the “visitation” of God to which Joseph referred in Gen 50:24–26 was not only the exodus but also “the final liberation of Israel at the hand of the Second Redeemer.” Cited in Rhee, Faith in Hebrews, 193. Note Koester’s comment, “Joseph’s confidence of being taken to the promised land after his death reinforces the hope that the believer’s final rest will be in the place that God has promised (Heb. 12:22–24)” (Koester, 500; cited with approval by O’Brien, 427).
1. Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35),” 226–27.
2. It is no doubt true, as D’Angelo, Moses, 33–34, contends, that the pastor describes Moses’ courage both in light of his hearers’ situation and in anticipation of what he will say about Jesus in 12:1–3. The same, however, could be said for his description of all the heroes of faith in this chapter. The Maccabean martyrs were a natural source of language to describe the courage and suffering of God’s people (D’Angelo, Moses, 32–34). Note especially the use of καρτερέω (“endure”) in v. 27 and καρτερία (“endurance’) as the distinctive virtue of the martyrs (4 Macc 9:9, 30; 10:11; 16:14).
3. Thus, Koester, 507, entitles 11:23–27, “Faith in the Face of Adversaries.”
4. The pastor uses καρτερέω for Moses’ endurance in v. 27, reserving ὑπομονή/ὑπομένω (“endurance”/“endure”) for resuming the athletic metaphor in 12:1–13.
5. For this reason the pastor omits mention of the things most important in other lists, such things as the miracles of Moses, the details of the exodus event (Wis 10:16–17; Sir 45:1–5), and Moses’ role as lawgiver (Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 167).
6. See the discussion in Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35),” 228.
7. Rose, Die Volke, 283, notes this parallel, but fails to show how the hostility endured by Moses builds upon the alienation experienced by Abraham.
8. ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων (“by his parents”) denotes agency.
9. Cf. Philo, Moses 1.9: “His parents resolved, as far as was in their power, to disregard the command of the king” (cited in deSilva, 406).
10. Philo uses this term, ἀστεῖον, to describe the “good character” of those who are willing to reject pleasure and wealth rather than depart from God’s way (Alleg. Interp. 3.23; Posterity 101; and Good Person 72). Cf. Koester, 501.
11. Cf. deSilva’s translation (405) of ἀστεῖον as “gifted.”
12. Lane, 2:370; Spicq, 2:356–57. In Jewish Haggadah, Moses’ parents had been informed of his role in delivering Israel through a dream given to Miriam his sister (Rose, Die Volke, 270–74). According to Hebrews, however, Moses’ parents “saw” his potential for God’s plan with the eyes of faith.
13. See Lane, 2:370, on ἐφοβήθησαν (“they were not afraid”).
14. The fact that Abraham was νενεκρωμένου, “dead” (v. 12), shows that the birth of Isaac, like the deliverance of the baby Moses, was an instance of God bringing life out of death.
15. Compare μέγας γενόμενος (“when he had become big”; “when he was grown”) with γεννηθείς (“when he was born”) in v. 23. The pastor, as is his custom, sticks close to the OT text, avoiding the speculations about Moses’ upbringing so prominent in other sources (Josephus, Ant. 2.223–53; Philo, Moses 1.23–31; Jub. 47:9; L.A.B. 9:19; Artapanus, On the Jews, frag. 3, cited in Johnson, 299).
16. Both Philo (Moses 1.13) and Josephus (Ant. 2.232–33) assume that Moses was heir to the throne of Egypt. Josephus, Ant. 2.33, recounts a legend of the young Moses trampling the crown of Egypt offered him by his adopted mother’s father. However, what Hebrews says about him does not go beyond the OT text. He was raised by Pharaoh’s daughter as her own (Exod 2:1–10) and, whether or not he was the heir to Egypt’s throne, he was heir to its wealth and pleasures.
17. Ellingworth (611) translates ἠρνήσατο as “renounce.” He says that the author may have chosen this word because of its use in relation to “denying” Christ—Matt. 10:33; Acts 3:13; 1 John 2:23; 2 Pet 2:1; Jude 4.
18. υἱός (“son”) is left without an article to put emphasis on the quality or status of sonship.
19. Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 9:16–10:1) and Josephus (Ant. 2.254–56) omit Moses’ act of killing. Josephus (Ant. 2.254–56) and Philo (Moses 1.43–46) explain his flight from Egypt as escape from a royal plot on his life. Artapanus (On the Jews, frag. 3) combines the killing and the plot—Moses killed an assassin sent by the king to eliminate him. See Johnson, 299.
20. This identification of the rejection of Pharaoh by Moses and the killing of the Egyptian is confirmed by the way Heb 11:24 takes the words μέγας γενόμενος (“when he was grown”) from Exod 2:11 (Lane, 2:370 n.).
21. The pastor is concerned about the definitive nature of Moses’ act. Thus the translation of ἑλόμενος as “having chosen” is preferable to the REB’s “preferring.” According to Lane, 2:368, this word is a true middle, showing personal involvement in the choice. It is used for choosing God in Josh 24:15, and choosing to do what God wants (followed by an infinitive) in Deut 26:17–18.
22. Eisenbaum has argued that Hebrews “denationalizes” the history of Israel by omitting mention of “Israel” and her national institutions in this chapter. However, in place of this national identity she tends to overemphasize the individualism of these heroes. The pastor may not mention Israel, but he is concerned about the community of God’s people, and it is crucial that his heroes identify with that community. Eisenbaum notes that Moses identifies with the “people of God,” but overlooks the communal significance of this act (Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 167). Abraham and the patriarchs are concerned about their descendents; Moses’ establishing the Passover evokes memory of God’s people; it is God’s people who cross the Red Sea; and Rahab identifies with them by receiving the spies with “peace.” Eisenbaum goes well beyond the text when she says that “Moses is no more an Israelite than he is an Egyptian” (Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 171). While Hebrews fails to call Moses an “Israelite,” it clearly affirms that he is not an Egyptian. This overdone emphasis on individualism occurs throughout Eisenbaum’s work. See particularly her conclusion (Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 226).
23. Compare συγκακουχεῖσθαι (from συγκακουχέω), “endure ill treatment with,”and κακουχούμενοι/κακουχουμένων (11:37; 13:3 from κακουχέω), “enduring ill treatment.” The latter lacks the prefix συγ (“with”). συγκακουχέω is used only here in the NT. See the various forms of κακόω in Exod 1:11 (LXX) and Gen 15:2 (LXX). This term also means “to mistreat.”
24. See Attridge, 340, n. 34, referring to Heb 4:9; 8:10; cf. 10:30; 13:12. Ellingworth, 612, speaks from our vantage point when he says, “Nowhere does the author express more strongly his sense of the continuity between Israel and the Christian community.” The author of Hebrews simply does not conceptualize the people of God before Christ and his people after Christ as two different communities that need to be identified.
25. See Johnson, 300. For ἀπόλαυσις as “advantage” see Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.33; Plato, Timaeus 83A.
26. Michel, 409; Weiss, 605; deSilva, 408.
27. Josephus, Ant. 4.42, uses ἀπόλαυσις (“pleasure”) for Moses’ rejecting the “enjoyment” of the good things Egypt afforded. However, this term is not particularly characteristic of such descriptions in Hellenistic sources.
28. πρόσκαιρος (“for a time”) is also used of the temporal safety that the Maccabean martyrs would have received if they had denied their faith (4 Macc 15:2, 8, 23). Several other terms in this section echo the accounts of these martyrs. Thus the martyrs were asked to “deny” (ἀρνήομαι) their Jewish religion, the same word used in v. 24 for Moses’ denying his status as a son of Pharaoh’s daughter. A verb related to ἀπόλαυσις (“pleasure,” v. 25) is used when the king invites the Maccabean martyrs to deny their faith and “enjoy” his friendship (4 Macc 8:5; cf. 5:8). See Ellingworth, 612, and Lane, 2:371–72.
29. Just as Sarah “reckoned” (ἡγήσατο, v. 11), and Abraham “considered” (λογισάμενος, v. 19), so Moses “reckoned” (ἡγησάμενος). The pastor appeals to his hearers’ sense of what is reasonable. These people had compared both the costs and the rewards of living “by faith” and decided that such a life was by far the most advantageous course. Such calculations can be made only “by faith”—only by those who keep their eyes on God’s promises and power.
30. μείζονα πλοῦτον (“greater riches”) … τῶν Αἰγύπτου θησαυρῶν (“than the treasures of Egypt”) τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ (“the reproach of Christ”).
31. “If Greco-Roman writers said that virtue is its own reward, even when it entails suffering (Silius Italicus, Punica 13.663; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 3.78), Hebrews says that one’s relationship with Christ is its own reward, even when it entails suffering” (Koester, 503).
32. According to Ellingworth, 615, the imperfect of ἀπέβλεπεν (“was looking”) denotes repeated action. Cf. Thompson, 242; Grässer, 3:172.
33. It is doubtful whether “the reproach of Christ” has been influenced by Pss 68 or 88:51–52, as some have suggested (deSilva, 410, though very tentatively). D’Angelo, Moses, 48–53, does not advocate the influence of these psalms, though she suggests the possibility thereof. A review of the evidence as she presents it demonstrates the weakness of this hypothesis. Furthermore, the suggestion that Moses suffered “reproach as an anointed one” is without substantiation. The pastor gives no clue that Χριστοῦ should be taken in such a generic sense. Such an understanding robs this expression of its potency to encourage the endurance of the pastor’s hearers. Furthermore, Moses is not known in Jewish tradition as “an anointed one.”
34. As suggested by D’Angelo, Moses, 95–149; Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 169; and Attridge, 341.
35. The “reproach” Moses suffered was “the reproach of the coming Messiah with whom he was united by faith” (Hughes, 497). See John 5:46.
36. Rose, Die Volke, 283, affirms the parallel between Abraham in 11:9–10 and Moses in 11:24–26. In both, faith persists through “strangeness in expectation of the eschatological blessings of salvation.” He does not see, however, what Moses’ example adds to Abraham’s. Self-confessed “strangeness” or “alienation” has become courage in the face of persecution inflicted by an unbelieving world.
37. To be fully true, Hughes’s declaration (493) that Moses is here “a notable type of Christ in his role of deliverer” must await v. 28. Rose, Die Volke, 281–83, writes as if the author’s interest in using Moses as an example of faith excludes all Christological implications. While it is true that the pastor’s interest in vv. 23–26 is primarily the exemplary character of Moses’ behavior, neither he nor any other NT writer knows any such hard-and-fast division between the exemplary and the Christological.
38. Taking κατέλιπεν (“he abandoned”) as culminative aorist.
39. Philo (Moses 1.49–50; Alleg. Interp. 3.14), Josephus (Ant. 2.254–56), and Artapanus (On the Jews, frag. 3.19) eliminate the motive of fear from Moses’ flight to Midian. See Johnson, 302.
40. In my judgment those like Weiss, 608–9, who think Hebrews dependent on such traditions, overlook this fact.
41. Westcott, 373; Héring, 105; Riggenbach, 373; Montefiore, 204; Kistemaker, 339–40; and O’Brien, 433–34.
42. See κατελίπω (“abandon”) for the exodus in Josephus, Ant. 2.318; 4.78; and Philo, Moses 1.149.
43. Thus Spicq, 2:359, argues that Moses’ abandoning Egypt includes all his interviews and discussions with Pharaoh recorded in Exod 5:1–15:21. Cf. Rose, Die Volke, 284–87.
44. Rose, Die Volke, 284–87. Pace Attridge, 342; Moffatt, 182; Bruce, 312–13; Hughes, 497–98; Weiss, 608; and Braun, 382.
45. Rose, Die Volke, 284–87.
46. Only in this way could the pastor be giving a “summary of Moses’ departures from Egypt,” as Koester, 504, D’Angelo, Moses, 62, and Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 170, suggest. There is no reason to believe that he sees any positive value in Moses’ initial flight to Midian beyond the fact that it gave God the opportunity to call him.
47. Pace D’Angelo, Moses, 56, who thinks Hebrews is referring to the burning bush; and Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 170, who includes Moses’ repeated visual experiences.
48. See Spicq, 2:359.
49. Thus, we can agree with D’Angelo’s contention that Moses’ visual experiences set him off from the other examples (D’Angelo, Moses, 35) only in that they gave the pastor opportunity to bring out an aspect of faith that is common to all.
50. Rose, Die Volke, 284–87, argues that Moses did not actually see God at the burning bush, but from then on he lived “as one seeing the invisible.”
51. See, for instance, Sir 45:5; Philo, Moses 1.158; Alleg. Interp. 3.100; Rewards 27.
52. Attridge, 343, agrees that Hebrews is not concerned with Moses’ visionary experiences in themselves, but with Moses’ faith. Thus, the author of Hebrews has used this material about Moses to expand and bolster his teaching on this subject. Philo, on the other hand, has developed traditions about Moses’ visionary experiences in accord with philosophical speculation. See also Lane, 2:376; Weiss, 610; Koester, 504; and O’Brien, 434.
53. See also the comments on vv. 3 and 6 above.
54. Weiss, 610, also draws a connection between Moses’ vision of the “Unseen One” and the “unseen” power of God in v. 1b.
55. καρτερέω, the word used here in Heb 11:27 for “endure” or “persevere,” is the opposite of ἀποστῆναι, “to turn aside,” in Sir 2:2–3. It is synonymous with other words used for “endure”/“endurance” in Hebrews (μακροθυμέω, 6:15; μακροθυμία, 6:12; ὑπομένω, 10:32; 12:2–3; and ὑπομονή, 10:36); and the opposite of words used to describe apostasy (ὑποστέλλω, “draw back,” 10:38; ὑποστολή, “drawing back,” 10:39). Hebrews uses καρτερέω (“endure,” “persevere”) for the endurance of suffering in anticipation of God’s future reward in accord with the usage of this verb and its related noun in 4 Macc 9:8–9, 30; 10:9–11; 15:14. The pastor has little in common with the Hellenistic idea of “endurance” as self-control (D’Angelo, Moses, 32).
56. Westcott, 373–74; D’Angelo, 95–149; Attridge, 342–43. D’Angelo, especially, assumes this position because she thinks Hebrews is referring directly to Moses’ visionary experiences.
57. Moffatt, 181; Spicq, 2:359; Michel, 411; Braun, 383.
58. Williamson, Philo and Hebrews, 475–77. Williamson would argue that Moses endured “by faith” “as if he were seeing God,” while we would contend that Moses endured “by seeing God with the eyes of faith.” In the final analysis, the two amount to much the same thing. Williamson, however, is overly cautious because he is distinguishing Hebrews from Philo. We would certainly agree that Hebrews has little, if any, affinity with Philo’s descriptions of Moses as actually seeing the unseen God (Alleg. Interp. 3.100–107) or the invisible world of ideas through contemplation (Spec. Laws 4.192; Moses 1.158). Hebrews is not dealing in philosophical speculation. The author of Hebrews, however, is not concerned with distinguishing himself from Philo. He wishes to state his point in the most powerful way.
59. Lane, 2:376, calls Moses’ seeing God “a fixed habit of spiritual perception.” However, Lane, 2:375–76, is probably mistaken when he renders ὁρῶν ἐκαρτέρησεν, “he continued to see,” instead of “as seeing he endured.” This interpretation not only faces syntactical problems (Ellingworth, 616–17), but also fits less readily with the author’s driving pastoral concern that his hearers endure (cf. 10:32–39; 12:1–3, 4–11).
60. On the chiastic structure of Heb 11:8–27, see Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35),” 228–29.
61. Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35),” 231.
62. πεποίηκεν τὸ πάσχα could mean “kept the Passover.” However, the larger context and the perfect tense of ποιέω suggest that the pastor is referring to Moses’ establishing the Passover as the νόμιμος αἰώνιος, “perpetual ordinance,” of Exod 12:14, 17. See Ellingworth, 617. Weiss, 611, agrees, noting the predominance of aorist verbs in this chapter.
63. Ellingworth, 618. It is possible to take τὰ πρωτότοκα (“the firstborn”) as the object of the substantive participle ὁ ὀλεθρεύων (“the one destroying”) or of θίγῃ (“touch”): “in order that the one destroying the firstborn might not touch them” or “in order that the one destroying might not touch their firstborn.” The second assumes that the pastor has put τὰ πρωτότοκα (“the firstborn”) directly after ὁ ὀλεθρεύων (“the one destroying”) for emphasis. See Weiss, 611.
64. Exod 12:12 speaks of the destroyer not “smiting” (πατάξαι) the Israelites, but here the angel does not even “touch” (θίγῃ) them.
65. Weiss, 611.
66. Cf. Bénétreau, 2:158.
67. Thus, Bruce, 314–15, suggests, that development of a Passover typology might have detracted, at least rhetorically, from the pastor’s Day of Atonement typology.
68. The fourth example from Abraham’s life (11:17–19) and the fourth from Moses’ (11:28) are related by “faith in salvation from death” (11:17–19) and “faith in deliverance from death” (11:28).
69. Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35),” 231.
70. The blessings these people received by faith were both earthly deliverances and victories over powerful enemies.
71. See Lane, 2:377.
72. Bruce, 316; Rose, Die Volke, 267. The Israelites’ faith was not demonstrated by pious entreaty but by obedience.
73. The pastor uses an aorist form of καταπίνω, “swallow.” The prefix κατα makes it an intensive form of πίνω (“drink”). See Ellingworth, 620.
74. “It is almost as if, in the author’s estimation, the absence of faith on the part of the pursuing Egyptians was what accounted for their destruction (cf. on v. 31)” (Gordon, 165). Cf. O’Brien, 436, citing Attridge, 344, and Bruce, 316.
75. On the seven days as indicative of the people’s persistence, see Weiss, 612.
76. deSilva, 415.
77. Eisenbaum’s contention that Joshua is omitted because he was too closely tied to national Israel is too simplistic and insensitive to the contours of Hebrews’ argument (Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 171–73). Joshua was no more closely associated with ethnic or national Israel than were Abraham or Moses. It is the pastor’s conviction that God’s promise to Abraham is fulfilled through Christ in a heavenly home that makes Joshua rhetorically ineffective or at least inefficient, though not theologically problematic. For this reason Hebrews deprives Joshua of the attention he receives in such works as Josephus, Ant. 5.1–120, and Pseudo-Philo, L.A.B. 20:1–3. See Johnson, 303.
78. Rahab is prominent in Christian writings (Matt 1:5; Jas 2:25; 1 Clem. 12:1), though absent from Jewish hero lists (Thompson, 243). See Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 173. Weiss’s contention, 612, that she must already have been a remarkable example of faith in Jewish tradition because she is mentioned in 1 Clement, Hebrews, and James is puzzling, since these are Christian sources. Furthermore, 1 Clement is demonstrably dependent on Hebrews. See the references on p. 34, n. 144 in the Introduction to this commentary.
79. By calling the other citizens of Jericho “those who disobeyed,” the pastor implies that they had received the word of God just as Rahab had received it. They, too, had heard about all that God had done for his people (Josh 2:9–11). See Bénétreau, 2:160, quoting Donald Guthrie, 242. Note Attridge’s (338, n. 6) comment on the inferior textual reading, “those who did not believe” (NKJV): “The variant is probably a scribal correction to make the text more thematically consistent, but it diminishes the subtle complexity of the motif of faith.”
80. Perhaps the pastor’s hearers would have thought, “if even a prostitute acted ‘by faith’ it would be shameful for us to do less” (Koester, 505, referencing Chrysostom). Jewish sources tended to explain away Rahab’s prostitution by calling her an “innkeeper” (Josephus, Ant. 5.8; Targum on Josh 2:1) and making her a model of hospitality (see rabbinic references in Johnson, 304).
81. See the discussion in Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35),” 231.
82. Bénétreau, 2:160; citing Bruce, 315, n. 213.
83. See Koester, 505–6.
84. Thus pace Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 166, the “real body of our text” does not end “with Rahab.” The very intensity of the following section shows that the pastor has been preparing for it all along. Only when the pastor has brought his hearers to a full understanding of the nature of faith as exemplified in Rahab is he free to concentrate on the urgency of perseverance amid suffering.
1. Since Rose is attempting to analyze the traditions that the author may have used, he goes to great lengths in identifying the people involved in these triumphs and sufferings (Rose, Die Volke, 306–22). Cf. also Koester, 511–16. Such a thorough identification of these people runs the risk of giving the impression that one has definitively identified to whom the pastor is referring, and thus of skewing the impression he would make of an open-ended, innumerable host of the faithful.
2. “Clearly, the impression the rhetor wishes to leave with his audience is that there exists an inexhaustible supply of examples of faith and faithfulness to God in their spiritual heritage” (Bulley, “Death and Rhetoric,” 412).
3. By bringing chapter 11 to a climax in this way the pastor leaves “the audience with the distinct impression that they stand at the peak of salvation history: all of the lives of the faithful have been building up to this moment” (Bulley, “Death and Rhetoric,” 413).
4. Lane, 2:382–90, and Braun, 390, recognize the introductory character of v. 32 and correctly divide between vv. 33–35a and 35a–38. For an explanation of the chiastic relationship between vv. 33–35a and 35a–38, see Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35),” 220–23. Spicq, 2:362, notes the division between v. 35a and v. 35b. Attridge (347) recognizes the introductory character of v. 32, but misses the division in the middle of v. 35.
5. Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35),” 232–33.
6. Attridge, 347, and Thompson, 243–44, citing Philo, Sacrifices 27; Josephus, Ant. 20.11.1.
7. Of these six names, only David and Samuel occur in other such lists (Thompson, 244).
8. This emphasis on the representative is quite probably the purpose behind the pastor’s altered order (cf. Ellingworth, 623), though most think this reordering of little significance. See Lane, 2:382–83, and Attridge, 347–48.
9. Thus the pastor is hardly insulting David, as Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 175, suggests, especially in light of the great deeds narrated in the following verses. His reasons for saying nothing directly about David’s establishing the kingdom are much like those suggested above for his omission of Joshua’s conquest of the land.
10. Many commentators recognize this structural feature. See Lane, 2:385–87; Attridge, 347; Michel, 415. Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 192, and Bénétreau, 2:161–62, among others, have shown how these three sets of three statements in vv. 33–34 climax in v. 35a.
11. Heb 11:33a: κατηγωνίσαντο βασιλείας (“they conquered kingdoms”), ἠργάσαντο δικαιοσύνην (“they established righteousness”), ἐπέτυχον ἐπαγγελιῶν (“they obtained promises”).
12. Heb 11:33d–34a: ἔφραξαν στόματα λεόντων (“shut the mouths of lions”), ἔσβεσαν δύναμιν πυρός (“quenched the power of fire”), ἔφυγον στόματα μαχαίρης (“escaped the edge of the sword”).
13. Heb 11:34cde: ἐδυναμώθησαν ἀπὸ ἀσθενείας (“were made strong out of weakness”), ἐγενήθησαν ἰσχυροὶ ἐν πολέμῳ (“became powerful in battle”), παρεμβολὰς ἔκλιναν ἀλλωτρίων (“put to flight the armies of aliens”).
14. For this analysis of vv. 33–35a see Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35),” 220–21.
15. Thus, it is hardly appropriate to argue that the “haphazard order” of the first part of this list leads to a “chaotic reading of history,” indicating that “Israel’s history is no longer teleologically directed” (Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 175). As noted above, the pastor is not narrating the history of national Israel per se (as Eisenbaum elsewhere admits), but the history of the people of God. As we will see, the style of vv. 35b–38 is more “chaotic” in order to demonstrate the present condition of suffering often endured by God’s people.
16. Lane, 2:386, and Koester, 513. “Received promises” refers to provisional receiving of what God promised, in such things as victories over enemies (Judg 4:6–9, 14; 6:16; 7:9; 2 Sam 5:19), not to the reception of “the” promise (see on 10:36; 11:39–40).
17. Lane, 2:386.
18. Compare “of aliens” (ἀλλοτρίων) at the end of v. 34d with Abraham’s dwelling in the “land of promise” as an “alien” (ἀλλοτρίαν) land in v. 9.
19. Restoration to mortal life in v. 35a anticipates the banishment of death through the “better” resurrection to eternal life in v. 35b (Lane, 2:389). The following statement by Rhee, “Hebrews 11,” 340, needs refinement: “The chiastic structure of verses 32–38 implies that faith manifested in the outer sections (vv. 32–34, 36–38) was based on the hope of resurrection in the center section (v. 35).” It would be more accurate to say that the victories of the first part of this chiasm (vv. 33–34) build up to the “better resurrection” in v. 35, which sustains faith amid suffering in the last half (vv. 36–38).
20. ἐτυμπανίσθησαν οὐ προσδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν (“were tortured because they refused to be released,” v. 35b) naturally leads one to think of martyrdom. However, this phrase is broad enough to include all of the sufferings described in vv. 36–38. All of these people endured the type of suffering that was their lot rather than surrender their faith. Johnson, 308, refers to the aged scribe Eleazar, who was tortured on the rack rather than save his life by renouncing God’s law. The word used here for “torture” (τυμπανίζω) is related to the word used in 2 Macc 6:28 for the “rack” (τύμπανον) upon which he was stretched.
21. Weiss, 614.
22. The pastor appears to use ἕτεροι δέ (“but others”) at the beginning of v. 36 as a stylistic variant of ἄλλοι δέ (“but others”) in the middle of v. 35. See BDAG, 399, 1bδ; cf. L&N §58.36; 58.37.
23. Rose, Die Volke, 312–22, seems to miss this point when he suggests some of the same names as examples of those who suffer as he did above for those who triumphed. Of course these events might bring to mind some of the same people—but we must remember that the author is intentionally being suggestive by the omission of names.
24. For this analysis of vv. 36–38, see Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35),” 221–22.
25. The threefold parallel with vv. 33d–34ab is an additional reason for omitting ἐπειράσθησαν (“they were tried”), which many manuscripts have in various places in this verse. See TCGNT, 603–4. Even the inclusion of this word, however, would not invalidate the parallels between vv. 36–38 and 32–34. As the first (v. 36) and, especially, the third (vv. 37b–38) subsections show, the pastor intends to create a certain discord in contrast to the glorious triumphant march of vv. 33–34.
26. ἐλιθάσθησαν (“they were stoned”) and ἐπρίσθησαν (“they were sawn in two”) are passive. Although ἀπέθανον (“they died”) is intransitive, “by murder of the sword” shows that their deaths were by the agency of another and thus reinforces this sense of impotency.
27. See deSilva and Matthews, Untold Stories, 98–114.
28. While vv. 35b–38 as a whole may describe the situation of the hearers (Weiss, 614), the pastor is primarily concerned with the situation he describes in vv. 37b–38. See Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35),” 223.
29. See 1 Kgs 19:13, 19; 2 Kgs 2:8, 13–14; Liv. Pro. 22:5; cf. Zech 13:4; Matt 7:15; and 1 Clem. 17:1. See also Lane, 2:391; Thompson, 245; and Koester, 515.
30. Lane, 2:391.
31. Lane, 2:391–92.
32. ὁ κόσμος refers to unbelieving human society (see Lane 2:392), not, as has been suggested by some (e.g., Spicq, 2:36; Westcott, 381), to the physical world. Compare the world’s rejection of the faithful as unworthy and Noah’s condemnation of that same world (v. 7). Cf. Weiss, 623–24.
1. For connections between vv. 39–40 and vv. 1–2, 13–16 see Rose, Die Volke, 323.
2. The phrase διὰ τῆς πίστεως repeats the διὰ πίστεως of v. 33. The addition of the definite article, τῆς (“the”), indicates that the pastor is referring to the faith he has narrated, the acts of faith of these people. Thus, it is legitimate to translate this phrase “through their faith” instead of just “through faith.”
3. On the use of the plural “promises” see the comments above on v. 13.
4. It is true that “these all” in v. 13 refers to Abraham and those associated with him—Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob. However, as noted in commenting on that verse, the pastor uses this description of Abraham to demonstrate what is true for all who follow him.
5. Thus, we would not quite agree with Eisenbaum that the “promise” of this verse is “salvation effected [by] Christ” (Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 177). It is, however, entrance into God’s City that has been made available through the “salvation effected [by] Christ.”
6. τοῦ θεοῦ … προβλεψαμένου (“God … having provided”) is a causal genitive absolute. Rose, Die Volke, 325.
7. Attridge, 352. By identifying these “better things” with final salvation, Rose clouds the difference between those who came before Christ and contemporary believers. Rose, Die Volke, 325–26.
8. See the comments on 10:14 (cf. 2:10; 5:9; 7:19, 28; 9:9; 10:1).
9. “The clear implication of this statement is that the faithful from Abel to the Maccabean martyrs will share in this same access to God” (Johnson, 310) provided by Christ.
10. Lane, 2:393, Riggenbach, 383, and deSilva, 416, 424, who translates “in order that they might not be perfected without us” as “in order that they should not arrive at the goal apart from us.” Many Church Fathers held to this position (Heen and Krey, 206–8). This being “perfected” in 11:40 is, according to this interpretation, the final reception of what God has “promised” (Rose, Die Volke, 324, 331–32; Peterson, Perfection, 157; O’Brien, 447).
11. See Rose, Die Volke, 330–32, and Hofius, Katapausis, 161, n. 359.
12. Pace Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester, 39–49, it is not death but the work of Christ through which the faithful are “perfected” and thus authorized to enter God’s presence.
13. Thus, these verses in no way demean the OT faithful, as Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 177–78, maintains. Not only do those faithful now share the privileges of those who live after Christ, but they succeeded in enduring throughout their earthly lives without them. Note Koester’s apt statement: “Some take this to mean that previous generations of Israel are allowed to share in the salvation given to Christians (Bengel; Braun) and others understand it to mean that Christians are allowed to share in the promises given to Israel (H.-F. Weiss). Neither approach is apt, since Hebrews emphasizes the unity of God’s people over the generations, with all sharing in the realization of the promises together. At the resurrection ‘all will come equally into the inheritance of eternal glory and will be joined at the same moment to their Head’ (Erasmus, Paraphrase, 252)” (Koester, 520). In light of the argument in the text above we would maintain that they need not wait until their resurrection, but all instead begin to participate in the work of Christ from the time of his first coming.
14. Hebrews, however, gives no basis for speculation on where the OT faithful were after their deaths but before Christ. Answering this question is irrelevant to the pastor’s purpose and would contribute nothing to the edification of his hearers. Attempts to fill this gap easily lead to speculation that distorts the pastor’s thought, as evidenced by the discussion in Rose, Die Volke, 328–32.
1. We have divided the one long Greek sentence that makes up vv. 1–2 into two by placing a period at the end of v. 1 and adding a second “Let us run” at the beginning of v. 2.
2. NIV, TNIV, NASB, Nestle27 and UBS4 (revised); Weiss, 631; Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 196–98; Rhee, Faith in Hebrews, 224–32; and Rose, Die Volke, 334–35. Note also the change from present tense in v. 3 to past in v. 4, and the fact that v. 4 is joined to v. 5 by the conjunction καί (Croy, Endurance, 192–93). Some would limit this opening section to vv. 1–2 (REB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV; Guthrie, Structure, 132; Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 264, 275–76; Lane, 2:405). Others would extend it to include v. 4 (Koester, 534; Spicq, 2:382–90; Hughes, 525–27). Lane, 2:405, notes the transitional character of v. 4: ἁμαρτίαν ἀνταγωνιζόμενοι (“wrestling against sin”) is reminiscent of ἁμαρτίαν (“sin”) and ἀγῶνα (“race,” “contest”) in v. 1; yet v. 4 introduces the hearers’ suffering, which is the subject of the following verses. It is best, however, for the reasons given in the text above, to take vv. 1–3 together.
3. Croy, Endurance, 168, argues that τοιγαροῦν (“therefore”) is more emphatic than its more common synonyms used elsewhere in Hebrews—διό (3:7, 10; 6:1; 10:5; 11:12, 16; 12:12, 28; 13:12) and διότι (11:5, 23). Note also that the καί before ἡμεῖς is emphatic, “we ourselves.”
4. τοσῦτον, “such a great,” emphasizes both the size and quality of the “cloud” of witnesses. Its position, early in the sentence and separated from the word it modifies, intensifies its force. See Croy, Endurance, 169, citing BDF, §473 (2).
5. νέφος, “cloud,” is used in secular Greek, but not elsewhere in Scripture, to describe a group of people as a unity or a totality (see Lane, 2:408).
6. Attridge, 354–55, and Spicq, 2:384, recognize the pastor’s choice of μάρτυς (“witness,” “spectator”) with both meanings in mind. Cf. Westcott, 393. Croy, Endurance, 58–62, gives a number of examples where μάρτυς (“witness”) and θεατής (“spectator”) are used together. Furthermore, in Anacharsis 11 Lucian appears to use μάρτυς because it can mean both “witness” and “spectator” (Croy, Endurance, 60–61). See also the examples given by deSilva, 428; Thompson, 247; and Attridge 354, nn. 18–19.
7. “This cloud [of witnesses] has borne witness to the reality of the invisible and the actuality of the future, in order to resume the ideas of 11:1” (Bénétreau, 2:169). Cf. Spicq, 2:384.
8. For the metaphorical use of athletic imagery in moral discourse, see Epictetus, Diatr. 1.24.1–3; 3.22.51–52; 3.25.2–5; Cicero, Off. 3.10.12 (Johnson, 315).
9. See deSilva, 426–27.
10. The participle ἀποθέμενοι (“laying aside”) is hortatory, “let us lay aside,” in accord with τρέχωμεν (“let us run”), the verb it qualifies. See Lane, 2:398d. For other uses of ἀποτίθημι (“lay aside”) in the metaphorical sense of casting off burdens, see Rom 13:12; Eph 4:22–25; Jas 1:21; and 1 Pet. 2:1.
11. Lane, 2:409; Croy, Endurance, 63.
12. O’Brien’s attempt (452) to distinguish between “hindrance” or “encumbrance” as inclusive of things that may not be sin but that might hinder various runners, and “sin” as that which hinders every runner, is unconvincing. The language of “hindrance” or “encumbrance” is drawn from the race; “sin” is its application to the lives of the hearers (see Weiss, 633).
13. “The word ‘sin’ (ἁμαρτία) is singular: it is sin considered in its totality as the refusal of God and his word” (Bénétreau, 2:170).
14. Although the exact meaning of εὐπερίστατον (“clings so closely”), which appears nowhere else in Scripture, is somewhat disputed, it probably refers to something that surrounds and threatens the Christian (Attridge, 355).
15. Rose, Die Volke, 336–37, referring to “sin” in Heb 3:12–14 and 11:24–26, defines “sin” here as the “temptation to apostasy.” Cf. Weiss, 634: “‘Sin’ is that which, according to 3:12, leads Christians to fall away from faith in the end, it opposes them in unreconciled antagonism to their struggle of faith.”
16. “The sin by which we are practically encircled answers to the cloud of witnesses with which God surrounds us for our encouragement” (Westcott, 394).
17. The word ἀγῶν (“race,” “contest”) adds to the athletic language of 10:32–39. Originally this term denoted the place where an athletic contest was held. It then came to be used for the contest itself (Attridge, 355). It was often used for a race, especially when following a verb for “run” (τρέχω/δραμοῦμαι/ἔδραμον). See references in Croy, Endurance, 63, n. 72.
18. Attridge, 355, calls τὸν προκείμενον ἡμῖν ἀγῶνα (“the race set before us”) a “fixed classical expression” in which the participle is middle and descriptive but not passive, implying agency. Nevertheless, the parallel usage in v. 2 (the “joy set before” Jesus) shows that this occurrence in v. 1 is also a divine passive (Ellingworth, 639; Lane, 2:399; deSilva, 429). “God Himself has set our work and our prize before us as ἀγωνοθέτης [contestant]” (Westcott, 394).
19. Thompson, 248.
20. Note the association of ὑπομονή with athletic imagery in Philo, Good Person 26; in the context of martyrdom recorded in 4 Macc 17:10, 12, 17; and in the other references recorded in Croy, Endurance, 63–65. See also on 10:36–39 above.
21. The need to pursue the moral life with “endurance” (ὑπομονή) was an important theme of contemporary Stoic philosophy (Croy, Endurance, 63–65, 174). However, the Stoic “endurance” of hardship in order to attain self-sufficiency (αὐταρκεια) is vastly different from the God-oriented endurance advocated by Hebrews.
22. The importance of the phrase “looking unto the Pioneer and Perfecter of the faith, Jesus” is certain, even if Horning’s chiasm putting it at the center of vv. 1–2 is problematic (Estella B. Horning, “Chiasmus, Creedal Structure and Christology in Hebrews 12.1–2,” BR 23 [1978]: 40–41). See the evaluation of this chiasm in Croy, Endurance, 191–92. Gordon, 171, compares “looking unto … Jesus” and the exhortations to “look unto God” in passages such as 4 Macc 17:10. Such parallels certainly confirm the attribution of deity to the Son with which Hebrews began.
23. Rose’s insistence that this verse be interpreted only within the immediate hortatory context is completely misguided (Rose, Die Volke, 338–39). To do so would be to ignore all of the ways in which the pastor has carefully developed his sermon to impact his hearers. It would also be to act as if the hearers had been stricken with amnesia after finishing chapter 10. In light of the pastor’s larger argument “Pioneer and Perfecter of the faith” refers to the person and work of Christ as well as to his role as example (Weiss, 636–39).
24. Pace Thiessen, “Exodus,” 366–67, the pastor does not give sufficient clues for his hearers to perceive that as ἀρχηγός (“Pioneer”) Jesus is the true Joshua.
25. On the significance of the word order in τὸν τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγὸν καὶ τελειωτὴν Ἰησοῦν (“the of the faith Pioneer and Perfecter, Jesus”) see Lane, 2:412. Comparison with the twin phrase “the Apostle and High Priest of our confession” (3:1) confirms the importance of the location of “faith” in this phrase.
26. “The ‘faith’ of which the Apostle speaks is faith in its absolute type, of which he has traced the action under the Old Covenant” (Westcott, 395). In light of all that the pastor has done to affirm the continuity of the people of God and the validity of OT examples, it is unlikely that the definite article should be taken as indicating a possessive—“our” faith, in distinction from the faith of those who lived before Christ. However, see the discussion in Bénétreau, 2:172.
27. Hughes, 523, objects that Christ could not be the Pioneer and Perfecter of the faith of the ancients because their faith was “marred by sin and imperfection.” This objection cannot be sustained for several reasons. First, they are now “made perfect” by being cleansed from sin through Christ, just as contemporary believers are so perfected through cleansing (11:39–40). Second, there is no other way of faith than the one of which Christ is Pioneer and Perfecter. To exclude the faithful of old from the way pioneered and perfected by him is to exclude them from the heavenly City altogether (12:22–24).
28. Bénétreau, 2:172–73, also takes “faith” in this general or absolute sense, and affirms that it has been made possible by the work of Christ.
29. Although Rose, Die Volke, 341, insists on interpreting “Pioneer and Perfecter” primarily within the immediate hortatory context, he cannot deny their soteriological significance. If Jesus suffers as “Pioneer,” it is a suffering that anticipates the goal. If as “Perfecter” he has reached that goal, it is only as one who has suffered. The only other extant use of τελειωτής (“perfecter”) not dependent upon this passage is found in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On Dinarchus 1 (N. C. Croy, “A Note on Hebrews 12:2,” JBL 114 [1995]: 117–19). The pastor obviously intends us to understand this word in connection with the rest of his “perfection” terminology.
30. See the commentary on 2:10 above.
31. Pace Bruce, 337, there is no hint in Hebrews that in some speculative way the preincarnate Christ “led all the people of God, from earliest times, along the path of faith.” He is the “Pioneer” for those who lived before him because through his incarnate obedience he has opened the way for them to enter God’s presence as well.
32. Compare ἀρχηγὸν καὶ τελειωτήν (“pioneer and perfecter”) with ἀρχή and τέλος (“beginning” and “end”), used together in 3:14b and 7:3. See the discussion in Lane, 2:411.
33. Bénétreau, 2:173, is correct when he says, “He [Christ] is the one who establishes the objective conditions of salvation offered to faith.” He is misleading, however, when he says that “πίστις [faith] has become another term for salvation” (see Bénétreau, 2:173).
34. See Gordon, 172; Pfitzner, 177.
35. Spicq, 2:386, recognizes this fact when he says, “But, however, the Scripture does not speak of Christ as one who believes.”
36. See the discussion of faith above in the comments on Heb 11:1–7, 13–16, and 39–40. Note Weiss’s affirmation that faith in Hebrews is related to Christology and soteriology “not expressly in the sense that it is ‘faith in Jesus’ but rather in the sense of faith which is oriented in Jesus, the “Beginner/Leader and Perfecter of faith” (Weiss, 637). “Where it is a matter of the faith it is always a matter of the Christ” (Spicq, 2:386).
37. “This verse, therefore, is not merely a recital of Jesus’ passion; it uses language that enhances his honor as a benefactor and the beneficiaries’ awareness of debt” (deSilva, 433). Thus, it is very unlikely that the pastor is here quoting a creedal statement, as some have suggested (see Lane, 2:412–13).
38. Bénétreau, 2:174; cf. Westcott, 395–96. “For sake of (ἀντί) the joy that was set before him (προκειμένης)” is to be preferred over the alternate rendering, “instead of (ἀντί) the joy that was at hand (προκειμένης).” It is inconceivable that the pastor would have used “joy” (χαρά) for the “pleasure”/“advantage” (ἀπόλαυσις, 11:25) offered by the world to allure Christ from obedience. Pace Montefiore, 215, Chrysostom, and many of the Church Fathers, there is nothing in the context that suggests Jesus’ preincarnate joy. Both he and those who emulate him “endure” in anticipation of future “joy” (cf. Weiss, 640). Furthermore, it was customary to speak of a prize being “set before” the athlete (Polybius, Histories 3.62; Pausanias, Description of Greece 9.2.6), or before those competing for virtue (Philo, Rewards 13; Josephus, Ant. 8.208). See Koester, 524, and Croy, Endurance, 66–67. Thus, the primary significance of προκειμένης (“set before”) is temporal—the “joy” came after he “endured the cross.” Esau, on the other hand (v. 16), surrendered his birthright “for the sake of” (ἀντί) food (Bruce, 339, n. 45). Croy, Endurance, 177–85, gives a thorough defense of this understanding of “joy” and answers the objections raised by P. Andriessen, “Renonçant à la joie qui lui revenait,” NRTh 97 (1975): 424–38. See also the extensive discussion in O’Brien, 455–56.
39. Weiss, 638.
40. Lane, 2:414; Martin Hengel, Crucifixion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 22–63. See Deut 21:22–23. The absence of an article before σταυρόν (“cross”) emphasizes the terrible nature of this type of death (Spicq, 2:388).
41. Ellingworth, 642. “At the right hand of the throne of God” combines something of the majesty of 8:1 (“at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven”) with the specificity of 10:12 (“at the right hand of God”).
42. “The suffering has come to an end, the glory endures forever” (Spicq, 2:388).
43. According to 4 Macc 17:10 the martyrs endure “looking to God” (εἰς θεὸν ἀφορῶντες; cited in deSilva, 431, n. 123).
44. The participle ἀφορῶντες (ἀπὸ ὁράω; “looking unto”) implies that one should look away from this world to Jesus. It has the same import as ἀποβλέπω (“looking toward”), used in 11:26 of Moses’ looking from present circumstances to the promised reward. The verb in this context carries the nuance of looking on the “unseen” and not letting one’s life be determined by the “seen” (11:1, 3, 6, 27). The present tense of the participle indicates that this is to be the continuous occupation of God’s people as they run the race.
45. Koester, 523, 536, refers to ancient runners looking at the guest of honor seated with distinction on a platform at the edge of the racetrack (Virgil, Aeneid 5.290). In Hebrews, however, the faithful keep their gaze on Jesus, who has opened the way for them, and awaits them seated at the goal. Pace Johnson, 317, there is nothing that suggests the hearers are to keep their gaze on Jesus as he runs before them.
46. The position of τοιαύτην (“such”) early in the sentence is emphatic. Compare τοσοῦτον (“so great”) in v. 1 above. The pastor creates euphony and unity by putting ἀναλογίσασθε (“consider”) at the beginning of this clause, while reserving its object, the similar-sounding ἀντιλογίαν (“opposition”), until the end.
47. Cf. Luke 2:34; Acts 28:22. See Lane, 2:415–16, and Hughes, 526, n. 121.
48. Lane (2:400u) and Ellingworth (643–44) adopt the plural reading, εἰς ἑαυτούς (“against themselves”) instead of the singular, εἰς ἑαυτόν (“against himself”)—Jesus “endured the opposition of sinners against themselves.” The plural has stronger external attestation, including 13 and 46, but is difficult to construe. Other authors occasionally used such expressions to describe the self-destructive nature of wicked behavior (Moffatt, 198). However, such an interpretation seems out of place (Croy, Endurance, 189–90). This understanding of the plural reading fits poorly within the context (Bénétreau, 2:176, n. 1). It would only detract from the dominant emphasis on Jesus’ suffering and introduce a concept elsewhere unattested in Hebrews. Thus, the plural is probably the result of a primitive scribal error. It is possible that someone felt this description of Jesus too harsh. See deSilva, 426, n. 111.
49. Jesus was betrayed into the hands of “sinful men” (Matt 26:45; Mark 14:41; Luke 24:7) and crucified by “lawless men” (Acts 2:23).
50. “The opposite of the μάρτυρες [witnesses] who encourage the athlete (v. 1) are the ἁμαρτωλοί (“sinners”) who would force them to give up (cf. 2 Macc 14:41)” (Spicq, 2:388).
51. On τὸν ὑπομεμενηκότα (“the one who has endured”), see Hughes, 526, n. 120.
52. On the significance of the second person plural aorist imperative ἀναλογίσασθε, “consider,” see Lane, 2:415; Hughes, 526.
53. Although κάμνω (“become weary”) and ἐκλύω (“give up”) are not borrowed from the racetrack, they accord well with and extend the image of a race in this passage. See Croy, Endurance, 68.
54. See Attridge, 358, n. 80.
55. ἵνα μὴ κάμητε ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν ἐκλυόμενοι (“in order that you might not become weary in your souls, giving up”). For ταῖς ψυχαῖς (“in your souls”) with κάμνω (κάμητε, “become weary”), see BDAG, 506, 1; with ἐκλύω (ἐκλυόμενοι, “giving up,” “being discouraged”), see BDAG, 306.
56. Compare ἐκλυόμενοι (“being discouraged”) at the end of v. 3 with ἐκλύου (“and do not become discouraged”) in v. 5.
1. Weiss, 644–46.
2. See Croy, Endurance, 205, and references there cited.
3. In addition to the athletic connotation of ἀνταγωνίζομαι (“struggle”) in v. 4, both αἷμα (“blood”) and ἀντικαθίστημι (“oppose”) suggest a boxing match. See Croy, Endurance, 69–70. Although γυμνάζω (“train”) in v. 11 is a general word for “exercise,” its etymological association with the gymnasium is obvious (Croy, Endurance, 70).
4. Weiss’s contention (646) that this passage must be interpreted from the Jewish Wisdom tradition without reference to 2:5–18 is methodologically flawed. By thus isolating this passage from the larger context of the book, he reduces it to little more than an ad hominem argument.
5. “Discipline” in this comment and throughout the following paragraphs represents παιδεία in Heb 12:5, 7, 8, 11; likewise the verb “to discipline” translates παιδεύω in 12:6, 7, 10.
6. Thus, the translation of the CEV is particularly infelicitous: “When the Lord punishes you, don’t make light of it” (12:5b).
7. Thus, by translating παιδεία as “instruction”/“education” and παιδεύω as “instruct”/“educate,” Johnson, 313, 319–23, blurs the pastor’s specific intention.
8. “When the author declares in 12:7 that ‘God is treating you as sons,’ he means also that ‘God is treating you as God treated his own beloved Son’” (Johnson, 321).
9. Note particularly his use of ἐλεγχόμενος (“being reproved,” “being punished”) in v. 5 (Prov 3:11) and of μαστιγοῖ (“he chastises”) in v. 6 (Prov 3:12), both of which might imply punishment or correction for wrongdoing. Thompson, 254.
10. Croy, Endurance, 197–98.
11. See Seneca, De providentia 1.6; 2.6; 4.11–12, for παιδεία as nonpunitive “training” or “discipline” arising from God’s love (Croy, Endurance, 196). Croy, Endurance, 197–98, cites Philo, Josephus, and 4 Maccabees as Jewish sources influenced by this Greco-Roman perspective.
12. Weiss (649) insists that the author includes all suffering in light of the Wisdom tradition from which he draws. However, this approach decontextualizes the passage. Even if the pastor is dependent on the Wisdom tradition, the exegete must determine how he has used that tradition.
13. Thus, the pastor does not use ἐλέγχω (“reprove”) or μαστιγόω (“chastise”) because they emphasize the punitive nature of the original text. Cf. Croy, Endurance, 198–99. Pace Weiss, 648–49, who wants to interpret παιδεία as “punishment” (in accord with the Wisdom tradition), though he admits that the suffering of the hearers is not the result of sin.
14. Croy, Endurance, 205.
15. Croy, Endurance, 205–6 recognizes differences but fails to acknowledge their full extent and significance.
16. Although Croy, Endurance, is very helpful, his work is marred by giving Stoic and Greco-Roman parallels significance denied them by the context of Hebrews. Undue deference to these parallels is also behind Johnson’s (313) mistranslation (in this context) of παιδεία and παιδεύω as “instruction”/“education” and “instruct”/“educate,” respectively. Other commentaries, such as Thompson, 251–57, would have greater clarity if they recognized more fully the ways in which Hebrews differs from these proposed Greco-Roman parallels.
17. Montefiore, 217; Weiss, 646.
18. Lane, 2:417. ἀντικαθίστημι (“resist”) and ἀνταγωνίζομαι (“struggle”) occur nowhere else in the NT. ἀναγωνίζομαι is also reminiscent of ἀγῶνα, the word used for “race” in v. 1.
19. According to Bénétreau, 2.177, the boxers’ gloves were inlaid with metal, making the sport particularly bloody.
20. Compare μέχρις αἵματος (“unto blood”) and ἀνταγωνιζόμενοι (“struggling against”) with ἀγωνίζεσθαι μέχρι θανάτου (“struggling unto death”) in 2 Macc 13:1 (cf. Josephus, J.W. 2.141; Ant. 12.111; Phil 2:8, 30). The only other occurrence of ἀνταγωνίζεσθαι in the Greek Bible is in 4 Macc 7:14, where it is used of the martyrs’ antagonist Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Note also the use of ἀγών in 4 Macc 11:20; 13:5; 15:29; 16:16; 17:11. See Lane, 2:418; Thompson, Christian Philosophy, 63–64; and Ellingworth, 646.
21. Attridge, 360.
22. Spicq, 2:390, is incorrect when he says: “The second aorist ἀντικατέστητε [“resisted”] evokes the precise event of persecution in a recent past.” On the contrary, the pastor is referring to an event of resistance that has not yet occurred. However, Spicq is correct when he says: “the present participle ἀνταγωνιζόμενοι [“struggling against”] expresses a permanent spiritual disposition.”
23. The pastor is referring to more than mere personal inward struggle against tendencies to sin; see Croy, Endurance, 194.
24. Lane, 2:418–19. In this context the pastor is not speaking about struggling against the “sin” of apostasy (pace Thompson, 253) itself, but against “sinners” and all that motivates and empowers them to persecute believers in the hope of eliciting compromise.
25. The way the pastor concludes the roll call of faith in 11:36–38 suggests that he is preparing his hearers for a protracted struggle against the total social ostracism described in that passage, rather than for martyrdom. Yet the death of Jesus and the possibility of martyrdom establish the context and parameters for all such suffering.
26. Croy, Endurance, 194, notes that the implied rebuke is pastoral and not severe. He argues that Lane, 2:419, goes too far when he says that the community’s sufferings were “insignificant in comparison with those endured by Jesus.”
27. It is possible, with most translations, to take v. 5a as a statement: “You have completely forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons and daughters” (so Mitchell, 271). However, the question format is more in accord with the pastor’s hortatory style (Lane, 2:397, 420; Johnson, 320; ESV; TNIV). It is also more tactful (Spicq, 2:392).
28. παρακλῆσις (“exhortation”) can be used for a warning or, as in this case, for a word of encouragement. The pastor uses the same word in 13:12 to describe this entire sermon. Hebrews is indeed an “exhortation” that combines both warning and encouragement in order to promote perseverance.
29. “As sons,” not “as if they were sons.” “Those addressed are sons of God” (Weiss, 648, italics original; cf. O’Brien, 463).
30. Lane, 2:420, says, “The choice of διαλέγεται, ‘speaks,’ underscores the relational dimension that the writer intends to develop, since it views the utterance of the text of Scripture as the voice of God in conversation with his child” (cf. Gottlob Schrenk, “διαλέγομαι,” TDNT 2:94; G. D. Kilpatrick, “διαλέγεσθαι and διαλογίζεσθαι in the New Testament,” JTS n.s. 11 [1960]: 338–40; Michel, 438).
31. The MT includes this “my,” but most interpreters doubt that Hebrews has corrected the LXX in conformity with the Hebrew (see Ellingworth, 648). Lane, 2:420, refers to McCullough, “Old Testament Quotations,” 377–78.
32. Except for this “my son” at the beginning of the quotation from Prov 3:11–12, I have translated υἱός, “son,” as “sons and daughters” (vv. 5, 7a, 8) or “son or daughter” (v. 7b) in order to show that this encouragement is for all of God’s people. “My son or daughter,” however, would mar the intimacy intended at the beginning of this quotation. On the one hand, this more inclusive translation is helpful. On the other, however, it obscures the father/son analogy intended by both the pastor and the author of Proverbs. This use of υἱός harks back to 2:10. The words used in this passage for “discipline” (παιδεία, vv. 5, 7, 8, 11), “to discipline” (παιδεύω, vv. 6, 7, 10), and “trainer” or “discipliner” (παιδευτής, v. 9) also remind the readers of 2:5–18 because they are cognate with παιδίον, “child” (2:13, 14), though παιδίον does not occur in this passage.
33. The consonants of the first word in the Hebrew text of Prov 3:12b are 
, which the MT points as 
, “and as a father,” but which the text underlying the LXX appears to have pointed 
, “and chastises.”
34. See Lane, 2:421, for the chiastic structure of this verse: (A) ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ (Β) κύριος παιδεύει; (Β1) μαστιγοῖ δὲ (Α1) πάντα υἱὸν ὃν παραδέχεται.
35. Pace Ellingworth, 650, παραδέχεται (“he accepts”) is not primarily eschatological. The pastor is not saying that God will accept on the last day those whom he disciplines, but that such discipline is the mark of those whom he has already accepted. Compare the discussion of God’s love for and chastening of his “sons” in Wis 12:20–22.
36. The NIV/TNIV takes εἰς παιδείαν as predicate accusative: “Endure hardship as discipline” (cf. REB; Lane, 2:397). The NRSV, as expressing purpose: “Endure trials for the sake of discipline” (cf. Ellingworth, 650).
37. The NIV/TNIV supplies “hardship”; the NRSV, “trials.” These translations are correct in taking ὑπομένετε as imperative, “endure,” instead of indicative (cf. NASB: “It is for discipline that you endure”). The imperative is better suited to the hortatory context and parallels the introduction of Psalm 95 in Heb 3:12. See Attridge, 361.
38. This phrase in v. 7 ὡς υἱοῖς ὑμῖν προσφέρεται ὁ θεός (“God is treating you as sons and daughters”) is parallel to the introductory formula in v. 5, ἥτις ὑμῖν ὡς υἱοῖς διαλέγεται (“that addresses you as sons and daughters”).
39. The pastor’s discussion of the faithful of old amply demonstrated this fact (11:10–12, 23–27, 35b–38). See O’Brien, 466.
40. For a detailed description of the ways in which the νόθος (“illegitimate child”) lacked the rights of a legitimate son, see Spicq, 2:393–94. Ellingworth, 652, points out that νόθος is used in Wis 4:3, a passage that has many points of contact with Hebrews.
41. By insisting that this clause must be taken simply as a condition contrary to fact, Ellingworth, 651, dulls the force intended by the pastor.
42. For this use of εἶτα, “furthermore,” “next,” see BDAG, 295, 2. Ellingworth, 652, cites similar usage of εἶτα in Job 12:2; Wis 14:22; Barn. 13:2.
43. Although in the LXX παιδευτής is used for God as the punisher of Israel (Hos 5:2; Pss. Sol. 8:29), in Hellenistic writers it is used for “teacher,” without the connotation of punishment (4 Macc 5:34; Rom 2:20). Croy, Endurance, 202.
44. It is clear that the pastor himself has formed this expression, “the Father of the spirits,” both because of the way in which it contrasts with “our fathers of the flesh” and because of the important way it fits into his argument. Thus, Weiss’s contention (652–53) that he must have taken it from tradition because of his reticence to use “father” for God (only here and in 1:5) is without cogency.
45. Compare also the longer expressions found in Num 16:22; 27:16, “God of the spirits and of all flesh” (θεὸς τῶν πνευμάτων καὶ τῆς πάσης σαρκός); 1 Clem. 59:3, “the benefactor/finder of spirits and God of all flesh” (εὐεργέτης/εὑρέτην πνευμάτων καὶ θεὸν πάσης σαρκός); 1 Clem. 64:1, “Master of the spirits and Lord of all flesh” (δεσπότης τῶν πνευμάτων καὶ κύριος πάσης σαρκός). Weiss, 652–53, thinks these longer phrases and the shorter “God of spirits” come from different traditions. The shorter emphasizes God’s transcendence. The longer imply that he is the giver of life. It is doubtful, however, if these two ways of describing God can be as hermetically sealed as he would contend. While “the Father of the spirits” emphasizes God’s transcendence, the very word “Father” suggests that he is life-giving.
46. Bruce, 344, n. 80.
47. Montefiore, 220–21. Nor does the pastor intend to distinguish between earthly fathers from whom we get our body and the heavenly Father who gives us our spirit, as has been argued by some, such as Aquinas and Delitzsch (Hughes, 530–31).
48. The pastor has chosen to express the possessive with an article instead of a possessive pronoun in order to accomplish both of the purposes given above by this description of God.
49. Contrary to what some suggest, this contrast between God as “the Father of spirits” and “our fathers of the flesh” has nothing to do with a contrast between a heavenly noumenal world and the physical created world. It has everything to do with the common OT contrast between the eternal power of God and the weakness of mortal humanity. See Bénétreau, 2:179–80.
50. Weiss, 651, if “respect” was due “our fathers according to the flesh,” then “complete” submission is due the “Father of spirits.”
51. O’Brien, 467. Compare the contrast between “a law of fleshly ordinance” (νόμον ἐντολῆς σαρκίνης) and the “power of an indestructible life” (δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου) in 7:16.
52. Ellingworth, 654. Note the future tense of ζήσομεν (“live”).
53. Note the γάρ (“for”) in v. 10.
54. English translation, of necessity, obscures the fact that in Greek each of these phrases is a prepositional phrase: πρὸς ὀλίγας ἡμέρας (“for a few days”); κατὰ τὸ δοκοῦν αὐτοῖς (“as seemed good to them”); ἐπὶ τὸ συμφέρον (“for the benefit”); and εἰς τὸ μεταλαβεῖν τῆς ἁγιότητος αὐτοῦ (“for the sharing of his holiness”).
55. “But God is the perfect and permanent Educator” (Spicq, 2:395).
56. Thus, it is unclear why Attridge, 363, seems to identity this “holiness of God” in which they will come to share with the sanctification already provided by Christ.
57. Lane, 2:425.
58. Weiss, 655; Ellingworth, 655. Although coming “to share in his holiness” is more than moral transformation (cf. Bruce, 344), such transformation is the necessary condition for fellowship with God (Montefiore, 221). It is worth noting that the pastor uses ἁγίοτης here for God’s “holiness” but ἁγιασμός in 12:14 when speaking of the “holiness” necessary for the beatific vision.
59. Ellingworth, 655.
60. See Bénétreau, 2:181. Although Ellingworth, 656, thinks that ὕστερον (“afterward”) probably has some eschatological overtones, he admits that the faithful begin to receive “peaceful fruit of righteousness” in this life.
61. Lane, 2:425.
62. Spicq, 2:396, indicates that “peaceful fruit” signifies deliverance from outward troubles and peace with God.
63. According to Spicq, 2:396, when applied to the athletic contest εἰρηνικόν (“peaceful”) evokes the idea of the rest and security of the athlete after running the course or coming through the bloody contest. He says that δικαιοσύνης denotes virtue, moral rectitude, union with God, and especially eternal blessedness.
64. Note the διό (“therefore”) at the beginning of v. 12. See Spicq, 2:396.
65. Weiss, 658, says that the writer returns to the athletic sphere of v. 1. Montefiore, 222, refers to Philo, Prelim. Studies 164 and Sir 2:12 for similar descriptions of exhaustion.
66. παρειμένας (“drooping,” from παρίημι) and παραλελυμένα (“enfeebled,” “undone,” from παραλύω) are perfect participles, emphasizing the present condition of extreme weakness and exhaustion felt by a boxer about to fall. See Spicq, 2:396.
67. The underlined portion of the text below highlights the similarity between the Greek of Heb 12:12 and Isa 35:3–4: Διὸ τὰς παρειμένας χεῖρας καὶ τὰ παραλελυμένα γόνατα ἀνορθώσατε (Heb 12:12, “Therefore the drooping hand and the enfeebled knees make straight”). ἰσχύσατε, χεῖρες ἀνειμέναι καὶ γόνατα παραλελυμένα, παρακαλέσατε, οἱ ὀλιγόψυχοι τῇ διανοίᾳ, ἰσχύσατε, μὴ φοβεῖσθε, ἰδοὺ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κρίσιν ἀνταποδίδωσιν καὶ ἀνταποδώσει, αὐτὸς ἥξει καὶ σώσει ἡμᾶς (LXX Isa 35:3–4, “Be strong, you weak hands and feeble knees. Give comfort, you who are faint of heart and mind! Be strong, do not fear! Look, our God is repaying judgment; yes, he will repay; he himself will come and save us”). Hebrews substitutes παρειμένας (“enfeebled”) for the closely related ἀνειμέναι of the LXX. In the LXX it is the “hands” (χεῖρες) and “knees” (γόνατα) rather than their owners who are addressed with the exhortation. Thus, they are in the vocative case instead of the accusative, and come before the participles that modify them. Cf. Sir 25:23.
68. The underlined portion of the texts below highlights the similarity between the Greek of Heb 12:13 and the LXX of Prov 4:26: καὶ τροχιὰς ὀρθὰς ποιεῖτε τοῖς ποσὶν ὑμῶν, ἵνα μὴ τὸ χωλὸν ἐκτραπῇ, ἰαθῇ δὲ μᾶλλον (Heb 12:13, “and make straight paths with your feet, in order that what is lame may not turn aside but rather be healed). ὀρθὰς τροχιὰς ποίει σοῖς ποσὶν καὶ τὰς ὁδούς σου κατεύθυνε (Prov 4:26, “Make straight tracks for your feet and straighten your ways”). The second person singular imperative of Proverbs, “make” (ποίει), has become the second person plural (ποιεῖτε) in Hebrews. Thus, the singular possessive adjective σοῖς (“your”) has been replaced by the article τοῖς (“the”) and the plural possessive pronoun ὑμῶν (“your”).
69. Pace Grässer, 3:281, the path that the pastor would have hearers pursue until they reach their goal includes the moral rectitude of Prov 4:26. After all, “sin” is the impediment the runner must discard (12:1–2). See Koester, 530–31; O’Brien, 471, n. 141.
70. Lane, 2:427; pace Spicq, 2:396–97, and Westcott, 404–5. Pace Lane, the instrumental is also appropriate in the original context of Prov 4:26.
71. τροχιά is not restricted to a “path” or “road” but can be used for the course of life that one follows. See Prov 2:15 in both Brenton and the Oxford translation of the LXX. It is parallel to a person’s “steps” (πορείας) in Prov 4:27b.
72. Attridge’s claim (365) that the neuter “lame” refers to the weakness of the community as a whole rather than to individual members is, in Bénétreau’s (2:184) words, “excessive.”
73. For ἐκτραπῇ as “turn aside” see 1 Tim 1:6; 5:15; 6:20; 2 Tim 4:4. In 1 Tim 1:6 and 5:15 it refers to apostasy, as it does here in Hebrews. However, Attridge (365, n. 105) and many others (such as Bruce, 348; Ellingworth, 659–60; Lane, 2:428; and, among recent commentators, Mitchell, 274, and O’Brien, 471) contend that the medical meaning, “be put out of joint,” is more appropriate here in light of the reference to being healed. However, Hughes is correct when he contends that “turn aside” is more suited to the imagery of the race: “The objection … that healing has no connection with straying is readily answered by observing that this is beside the point since it has a perfectly appropriate connection with lameness” (Hughes, 535). See also Weiss, 659, and those cited by Attridge, 365, n. 104 (Riggenbach, Spicq, Michel, and Buchanan). The passive may imply that God will be the one who heals them, thus enabling them to overcome their difficulties.
74. Cf. 3:12; 4:1, 11; 10:24 (Weiss, 660). Fixation on the opposition can engender this discouragement of weaker members of the community and lead to the “evil heart of unbelief” against which the pastor warned in 3:12.
1. Pace Guthrie, who thinks that this transitional section is more closely related to what has gone before than to what follows. Guthrie finds a high-level cohesion shift between 12:17 and 12:18, but only a median-level shift between 12:13 and 12:14. However, the shifts he suggests in the topic, temporal, actor, subject, verb person, and verb number cohesion fields are inaccurate. First, the pastor abandons imagery that specifically refers to boxing or racing between vv. 13 and 14. Second, as noted in the text above, the shift from the promise of reward to the threat of loss occurs between vv. 13 and 14 and continues through 12:29. Third, comparison between believers under the New Covenant and God’s people under the Old begins at v. 14, not at v. 18! The dependence of Heb 12:14–17 on Deut 29:15–20 makes this comparison clear. Fourth, the new actor, Esau, is related by his actions to those who disobey before Sinai (vv. 18–21). His rejection of his “birthright” (πρωτοτόκια) may connect him with the sonship of 12:1–13 (Guthrie, Structure, 145, n. 57), but it clearly anticipates Christians as “firstborn” (πρωτοτόκων) in 12:23. Fifth, the temporal reference is essentially present from 12:1 through 12:25. Note the hortatory subjunctive in 12:1 and the present or aorist second person plural imperatives in 12:3, 7, 12, 13, 14, 25. The second person plural perfect indicatives in 12:18 and 22 (προσεληλύθατε) offer no exception because they too describe the present situation of the hearers. Reference to Esau does not make the temporal frame of vv. 14–17 past any more than reference to Sinai or Moses gives a past reference to vv. 18–21. Finally, as is obvious from the previous point, the second person plural dominates 12:1–25. The only one of Guthrie’s cohesion fields that really changes between vv. 17 and 18 is the spatial.
2. Cf. deSilva, 456.
3. Thus, the second person plural present imperative διώκετε (“pursue”) in v. 14 is qualified by the participle ἐπισκοποῦντες (“seeing to it”) at the beginning of v. 15. In turn, this participle introduces the three warning μή τις (“lest any”) clauses in vv. 15 and 16.