Hebrews 11:19

Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(19) That God was able.—These words are better taken as the expression of a general truth—“Accounting that God is able to raise up even from the dead.’ The faith which tests and brings conviction of the things not seen made this reasoning possible, and gave power to act upon it even when Isaac must be slain.

From whence also.—Better, from whence he did in a figure (literally, a parable) receive him. As in a figure the offering was completely carried out (Hebrews 11:17), so also in figure he received his son back from the dead.

Benson Commentary

Hebrews 11:19. Accounting — Λογισαμενος, reasoning, or concluding, after weighing all circumstances; that, notwithstanding the apparent contradiction in the divine revelations; God was able to raise him up —

Although he should be burned to ashes; and would raise him even from the dead — Though, so far as we can learn, there never had been one single instance of a resurrection from the dead in the world. From whence also he received him in a figure — That is, Figuratively speaking, or in a figure or resemblance of the resurrection from the dead, as being hindered from slaying him. For Abraham having fully purposed to sacrifice him, and his intention and action being considered by God as a real offering of him up, he might with propriety be said to receive him from the dead when he was stopped from slaying him. This is a much more natural interpretation of the clause than to understand it, as many do, of his receiving him at his birth by a kind of miracle, as it were, from the dead bodies of those who, in a course of nature, had no hope of children; for this could with no propriety be termed a resurrection, or a receiving him from the dead, as he had had no prior existence. To this may be added, that the miraculous birth of Isaac was not so proper a type of a resurrection as his deliverance from death was; being rather an image of a creation than of a resurrection. It may not be improper to observe here, that the phrase εν παραβολη, which we render in a figure, and which is literally, in, or for a parable, is understood by Warburton to signify, that this whole transaction was parabolical, or typical, of the method God would take for the salvation of mankind, namely, in giving up his only-begotten Son to be a sacrifice for the expiation of human guilt. And certainly, when all the circumstances of this extraordinary fact are considered, Abraham’s offering up Isaac will appear to be a most apt emblem of the sacrifice of the Son of God. “Isaac was Abraham’s only-begotten. This only-begotten son he voluntarily gave unto death at the commandment of God: Isaac bare the wood on which he was to be burned as a sacrifice, and consented to be offered up; for he made no resistance when his father bound him, which shows that Abraham had made known to him the divine command. Three days having passed between God’s order to sacrifice Isaac, and the revoking of that order, Isaac may be said to have been dead three days. Lastly, his deliverance, when on the point of being slain, was, as the apostle observes, equal to a resurrection. In all these respects, this transaction was a fit emblem of the death of the Son of God as a sacrifice, and of his resurrection on the third day. And it is probable that after Isaac was offered, when God confirmed his promises to Abraham by an oath, he showed him that his seed, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, was to die as a sacrifice for the sin of the world; and that he had commanded him to offer up Isaac to prefigure that great event, and to raise in mankind an expectation of it. How, otherwise, can we understand our Lord’s words to the Jews, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad? For Christ’s day denotes the things done by Christ in his day, and especially his dying as a sacrifice for sin.” — Macknight.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

11:8-19 We are often called to leave worldly connexions, interests, and comforts. If heirs of Abraham's faith, we shall obey and go forth, though not knowing what may befall us; and we shall be found in the way of duty, looking for the performance of God's promises. The trial of Abraham's faith was, that he simply and fully obeyed the call of God. Sarah received the promise as the promise of God; being convinced of that, she truly judged that he both could and would perform it. Many, who have a part in the promises, do not soon receive the things promised. Faith can lay hold of blessings at a great distance; can make them present; can love them and rejoice in them, though strangers; as saints, whose home is heaven; as pilgrims, travelling toward their home. By faith, they overcome the terrors of death, and bid a cheerful farewell to this world, and to all the comforts and crosses of it. And those once truly and savingly called out of a sinful state, have no mind to return into it. All true believers desire the heavenly inheritance; and the stronger faith is, the more fervent those desires will be. Notwithstanding their meanness by nature, their vileness by sin, and the poverty of their outward condition, God is not ashamed to be called the God of all true believers; such is his mercy, such is his love to them. Let them never be ashamed of being called his people, nor of any of those who are truly so, how much soever despised in the world. Above all, let them take care that they are not a shame and reproach to their God. The greatest trial and act of faith upon record is, Abraham's offering up Isaac, Ge 22:2. There, every word shows a trial. It is our duty to reason down our doubts and fears, by looking, as Abraham did, to the Almighty power of God. The best way to enjoy our comforts is, to give them up to God; he will then again give them as shall be the best for us. Let us look how far our faith has caused the like obedience, when we have been called to lesser acts of self-denial, or to make smaller sacrifices to our duty. Have we given up what was called for, fully believing that the Lord would make up all our losses, and even bless us by the most afflicting dispensations?

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Accounting that God was able to raise him up even from the dead - And that he would do it; for so Abraham evidently believed, and this idea is plainly implied in the whole narrative. There was no other way in which the promise could be fulfilled; and Abraham reasoned justly in the case. He had received the promise of a numerous posterity. He had been told expressly that it was to be through this favorite child. He was now commanded to put him to death as a sacrifice, and he prepared to do it. To fulfil these promises, therefore, there was no other way possible but for him to be raised up from the dead, and Abraham fully believed that it would be done. The child had been given to him at first in a supernatural manner, and he was prepared, therefore, to believe that he would be restored to him again by miracle. He did not doubt that be who had given him to him in a manner at first so contrary to all human probability, could restore him again in a method as extraordinary. He, therefore, anticipated that he would raise him up immediately from the dead. That this was the expectation of Abraham is apparent from the narrative in Genesis 22:5, "And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you;" in the plural - ונּשׁובּה אליכם wanaashuwbaah 'alēykem - "and we will return;" that is, I and Isaac will return, for no other persons went with them, Hebrews 11:6. As Abraham went with the full expectation of sacrificing Isaac, and as he expected Isaac to return with him, it follows that he believed that God would raise him up immediately from the dead.

From whence also he received him in a figure - There has been great difference of opinion as to the sense of this passage, but it seems to me to be plain. The obvious interpretation is that he then received him by his being raised up from the altar as if from the dead. He was to Abraham dead. He had given him up. He had prepared to offer him as a sacrifice. He lay there before him as one who was dead From that altar he was raised up by direct divine interposition, as if he was raised from the grave, and this was to Abraham a "figure" or a representation of the resurrection. Other interpretations may be seen in Stuart in loc. - The following circumstances will illustrate the strength of Abraham's faith in this remarkable transaction.

(1) the strong persuasion on his mind that God had commanded this. In a case of this nature - where such a sacrifice was required - how natural would it have been for a more feeble faith to have doubted whether the command came from God! It might have been suggested to such a mind that this must be a delusion, or a temptation of Satan; that God "could not" require such a thing; and that whatever might be the appearance of a divine command in the case, there must be some deception about it. Yet Abraham does not appear to have reasoned about it at all, or to have allowed the strong feelings of a father to come in to modify his conviction that God had commanded him to give up his son. What an example is this to us! And how ready should we be to yield up a son - an only son - when God comes himself and removes him from us.

(2) the strength of his faith was seen in the fact that in obedience to the simple command of God, all the strong feelings of a father were overcome. On the one hand there were his warm affections for an only son; and on the other there was the simple command of God. They came in collision - but Abraham did not hesitate a moment. The strong paternal feeling was sacrificed at once. What an example this too for us! When the command of God and our own attachments come into collision, we should not hesitate a moment. God is to be obeyed. His command and arrangements are to be yielded to, though most tender ties are rent asunder, and though the heart bleeds.

(3) the strength of his faith was seen in the fact, that, in obedience to the command of God, he resolved to do what in the eyes of the world would be regarded as a most awful crime. There is no crime of a higher grade than the murder of a son by the hand of a father. So it is now estimated by the world, and so it would have been in the time of Abraham. All the laws of God and of society appeared to be against the act which Abraham was about to commit, and he went forth not ignorant of the estimate which the world would put on this deed if it were known. How natural in such circumstances would it have been to argue that God could not possibly give such a command; that it was against all the laws of heaven and earth; that there was required in this what God and man alike must and would pronounce to be wrong and abominable! Yet Abraham did not hesitate. The command of God in the case was to his mind a sufficient proof that this was right - and it should teach us that whatever our Maker commands us should be done - no matter what may be the estimate affixed to it by human laws, and no matter how it may be regarded by the world.

(4) the strength of his faith was seen in the fact that there was a positive promise of God to himself which would seem to be frustrated by what he was about to do. God had expressly promised to him a numerous posterity, and had said that it was to be through this son. How could this be if he was put to death as a sacrifice? And how could God command such a thing when his promise was thus positive? Yet Abraham did not hesitate. It was not for him to reconcile these things; it was his to obey. He did not doubt that somehow all that God had said would prove to be true; and as he saw but one way in which it could be done - by his being immediately restored to life - he concluded that that was to be the way. So when God utters his will to us, it is ours simply to obey. It is not to inquire in what way his commands or revealed truth can be reconciled with other things. He will himself take care of that. It is ours at once to yield to what he commands, and to believe that somehow all that he has required and said will be consistent with everything else which he has uttered.

(5) the strength of the faith of Abraham was seen in his belief that God would raise his son from the dead. Of that he had no doubt. But what evidence had he of that? It had not been promised. No case of the kind had ever occurred; and the subject was attended with all the difficulties which attend it now. But Abraham believed it; for, first, there was no other way in which the promise of God could be fulfilled; and second, such a thing would be no more remarkable than what had already occurred. It was as easy for God to raise him from the dead as it was to give him at first contrary to all the probabilities of the case, and he did not, therefore, doubt that it would be so. Is it less easy for us to believe the doctrine of the resurrection than it was for Abraham? Is the subject attended with more difficulties now than it was then? The faith of Abraham in this remarkable instance shows us that the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, not withstanding the limited revelations then enjoyed, and all the obvious difficulties of the case, was early believed in the world; and as those difficulties are no greater now, and as new light has been shed upon it by subsequent revelations, and especially as in more than one instance the dead have been actually raised, those difficulties should not be allowed to make us doubt it now.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

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

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

he received him—"received him back" [Alford].

in a figure—Greek, "in a parable." Alford explains, "Received him back, risen from that death which he had undergone in, under, the figure of the ram." I prefer with Bishop Pearson, Estius, and Gregory of Nyssa, understanding the figure to be the representation which the whole scene gave to Abraham of Christ in His death (typified by Isaac's offering in intention, and the ram's actual substitution answering to Christ's vicarious death), and in His resurrection (typified by Abraham's receiving him back alive from the jaws of death, compare 2Co 1:9, 10); just as on the day of atonement the slain goat and the scapegoat together formed one joint rite representing Christ's death and resurrection. It was then that Abraham saw Christ's day (Joh 8:56): accounting God was able to raise even from the dead: from which state of the dead he received him back as a type of the resurrection in Christ.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead: faith put this into Abraham’s thoughts in his reasonings about this trial between the temptation and God’s power, and influenced him to conclude and determine under it. That since God could raise him from the dead to perform his promises, he would sacrifice him to obey God’s command. This faith grew from what God had done, in giving him Isaac from his own dead body, and Sarah’s dead womb, Romans 4:17-22. God’s almighty power to raise from the dead answered all the difficulties in the trial. If God command it, who can raise from the dead, this can be no murder; for he can either prevent or recover. Promises should not fail, though Isaac was sacrificed; for God would raise him up and accomplish them. As to arguments from natural affection: Shall a child be dearer to me than a God, who quickens me, and can raise him from the dead? Since God can do this, what difficulties can he not overcome? Hence is this principle so often revealed and repeated to be a sure prop to a Christian’s faith throughout the gospel.

From whence also he received him in a figure: his generation was a kind of resurrection from the dead, and so was his restitution to Abraham, for in Abraham’s account he was dead, his hand being lifted up to kill him, when the angel stops the execution, Genesis 22:11,12. From the altar he carrieth him back as a trophy and reward of the victory of his faith, in such a manner as one risen from the dead, and an eminent signal of his victory over this temptation. Abraham had a figure of the resurrection in his son, and an earnest of a far more glorious resurrection in Christ.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead,.... Abraham did not go about this affair without thought; and yet he did not consult with flesh and blood; his reasoning was the reasoning of faith; and the conclusion of it was, not that he believed that God would raise his son from the dead, but that he was able to do it. He knew that he had received him at first, as it were, from the dead; he sprung from his own dead body, and out of Sarah's dead womb; and though his faith did not prescribe to God, yet as he believed the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, he might believe that God would raise his son from the dead, rather than that his promise should fail; and this conclusion proceeded upon the power and faithfulness of God:

from whence also he received him in a figure; or for an "example" of faith and obedience; or for a "parable or proverb", that such a proverbial expression might be made use of, for the comfort and encouragement of saints in distressed and difficult circumstances, as is in Genesis 22:14 or as a type of the death and resurrection of Christ, whose type he was in other things, as well as in this; as in his birth, and the circumstances of it; he was long promised and expected, as Christ, was; his birth was beyond the ordinary course of nature, and attended with great joy; he was circumcised the eighth day; at his weaning a great feast was made, typical of the Gospel feast; and as he was persecuted by Ishmael, so was Christ by Herod, in his infancy: and he was a figure of him in his oblation; they were both sons of Abraham; both only begotten and beloved sons; both heirs; both carried the wood on which they were offered; both were offered on a Mount, and by their father, by whom neither of them were spared; and both by the command of God, and alone, none were with them: and Isaac prefigured him in his deliverance; Abraham stretched out his hand, but was restrained, and not a bone of Christ must be broken; not Isaac, but the ram was slain, not the divine, but the human nature suffered; both were delivered on the third day, the one as from death, the other really from death; and both returned to their father's house. Moreover, Abraham received his son in the similitude of a resurrection; it was as life from the dead; it was like the return of the prodigal, Luke 15:32. Abraham, looked upon him as dead to him, and Isaac thought himself a dead man; so that he that was accounted as one dead, was received alive. The Jews speak of this matter agreeably to the apostle; they say, a man has two breaths or souls, one in this world, and another in the world to come; and of Isaac they say (d), that

"in the time that he was offered upon the altar, his soul (or "breath"), which he had in this world, "went out"; and when it was said to Abraham (or by him) blessed be he that quickeneth the dead, his soul (or breath), which he had in the world to come, returned to him--for , "he was accounted as dead".''

They speak of him as if he was just dead; they say (e),

"when he saw the sword over his neck, his breath fled from him, and came to the place of the soul, , "as if he was at the point of giving up the ghost".''

So that a Jew cannot find fault with the apostle for expressing himself in this manner.

(d) Tosaphta in Zohar in Gen. fol. 46. 21. (e) Tzeror Hammor, fol. 58. 2. Pirke Eliezer, c. 31.

Geneva Study Bible

Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from {m} whence also he received him in {n} a figure.

(m) From which death.

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

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Hebrews 11:19 contains in its first half the motive ground of Abraham for such believing action. Abraham trusted in the omnipotence of God, by virtue of which he is able, even in presence of the actual sacrifice of Isaac, to realize the promises given to him.

λογισάμενος ὅτι κ.τ.λ.] since he judged that God is able to raise even from the dead. The proposition introduced with ὅτι contains a universal truth. It is erroneous to supplement αὐτόν to ἐγείρειν (Jac. Cappellus, Huët, Kuinoel, Stein, Bloomfield, al.), yet more erroneous to supplement σπέρμα (Schulz, Stengel).

ὅθεν κ.τ.λ.] Declaration of the divine reward for such believing action and such believing confidence. ὅθεν means, as everywhere else in our epistle (Hebrews 2:17, Hebrews 3:1, Hebrews 7:25, Hebrews 8:3, Hebrews 9:18): on which account, wherefore; παραβολή, however, denotes, conformably to the well-known use of παραβάλλεσθαι (Hom. Il. ix. 322; Thuc. ii. 44, al. See the lexicons), the imperilling, and forms with the ἐκομίσατο an oxymoron. The sense is: on which account he bore him away, even on the ground of (or: by means of) the giving up. Abraham obtained Isaac as a reward, received him back again as a possession, by the very act of setting his life at stake, giving up to the death of a sacrifice. This is the simple and only correct sense of the variously explained words.

With this exposition earlier interpretations agree in part, though by no means entirely, so far as ὅθεν and ἐκομίσατο are concerned, but all different in regard to ἐν παραβολῇ. Instead of the causal signification, “on which account,” Calvin, Castellio, Beza, Schlichting, Grotius, Lamb. Bos, Alberti, Wolf, Michaelis, Schulz, Huët, Böhme, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Kluge, Moll, Ewald, Hofmann, and others have asserted for ὅθεν the local signification “whence, sc. from the dead.” In connection with this, L. Bos, Alberti, Schulz, and Stengel [as also Whitby] understand ἐκομίσατο of the birth of Isaac; while Calvin, Bleek, and the majority rightly understand it of the deliverance of Isaac’s life in consequence of the prevention of the sacrifice. The former explain: whence he indeed had received him, inasmuch as Isaac’s parents at the time of his conception and birth were virtually dead. The latter: as he accordingly also received him from the dead. But against the first acceptation decides the fact that in such case, because an event conceived of as possible in the future is placed in definite parallel with a past event, the pluperfect must necessarily have been used in place of the aorist ἐκομίσατο; and then, even apart from this, since all the emphasis would fall upon ἐκομίσατο, the order of the words must have been otherwise, namely as follows: ὅθεν ἐν παραβολῆ καὶ ἐκομίσατο αὐτόν. But also the last-named interpretation is forbidden by the order of the words. For καί must, in connection therewith, be referred, as is also expressly required by Schlichting, Böhme, and others, to the whole clause, whereas from its position it can only form a gradation of ἐν παραβολῇ; thus ὅθεν καὶ αὐτὸν ἐν παραβολῇ ἐκομίσατο must have been written.

Finally, as regards ἐν παραβολῇ, the signification “in similitudine,” or “in a resemblance,” is attached thereto by Theodore of Mopsuestia,[108] Calvin, Castellio, Beza, Schlichting, Grotius, Jac. Cappellus (figurate), Scaliger, Er. Schmid, Wittich, Limborch, Zachariae, Dindorf, Koppe (in Heinrichs), Huët, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Maier, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M‘Caul, Hofmann, Woerner, and others. The sense is, according to Bleek: “as accordingly he received him from thence in a resemblance; so that Isaac was indeed not really delivered out of death, but yet his deliverance was a kind of restoration from the dead, since Abraham already regarded him as the prey of death.” But this “in a resemblance” is, strictly taken, nothing else than “in a manner,” with which it is also exactly identified by Stengel and others; for the expression, however, of the notion “in a manner,” the author would hardly have chosen the altogether unusual, and therefore unintelligible, formula ἐν παραβολῇ; much more natural would it have been for him to employ instead thereof, as at Hebrews 7:9, the familiar ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν. Moreover, since that addition could only be designed to exert a softening effect upon the ὅθεν, (SC. ἐκ νεκρῶν), it must also have followed immediately after this word. The author would thus have written ὅθεν, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκομίσατο.

Yet more untenable is the exposition akin to that just mentioned: as a type (Luther: zum Vorbilde), sc. in regard to the resurrection in general (Hunnius, Balduin, Michaelis, Böhme, al.), or specially in regard to the sacrificed and risen Christ (Primasius, Erasmus, Clarius, Vatablus, Zeger, Calov, Carpzov, Cramer, Ebrard, Bisping, Reuss), or in regard to both alike (Theodoret: τουτέστιν ὡς ἐν συμβόλῳ καὶ τύπῳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως.

ἐν αὐτῷ δὲ προεγράφη καὶ τοῦ σωτηρίου πάθους ὁ τύπος). For the express indication of that which was typically represented by this event could not have been wanting.

Equally far wrong, because far-fetched and unnatural, is the supplementing of ὤν to ἐν παραβολῇ on the part of Bengel (“Abraham … ipse factus est parabola.… Omnis enim posteritas celebrat fidem Abrahae, offerentis unigenitum”), and the explanation of Paulus: “against an equalization,” i.e. in return for the ram presented as a substitute (comp. already Chrysostom: τουτέστιν ἐν ὑποδείγματι· ἐν τῷ κριῷ φησιν … ὡς ἐμ αἰνίγματι· ὥσπερ γὰρ παραβολὴ ἦν ὁ κριὸς τοῦ Ἰσαάκ).

To the interpretation of ἐν παραβολῇ, above regarded as correct, several expositors approach, to the extent of likewise thinking that we must make the usage with regard to the verb παραβάλλεσθαι our guide in determining the signification of παραβολή. They deviate, however, essentially from the above interpretation, in that they take ἐν παραβολῇ adverbially, in the sense of παραβόλως; consequently refer the expression, which above was equally referred to subject and object, to the subject, and that without any advantage to the peculiarity of thought. So Camerarius, who, besides other possibilities of apprehension, suggests also this: in that he exposed himself to danger, namely, that of losing his son; Loesner, Krebs, Heinrichs: in summo discrimine, παρʼ ἐλπίδα, παραδόξως; Raphel: praeter spem praeterque opinionem; Tholuck: in bold venture.

[108] Τοῦτο λέγει, ὅτι ἀκολούθως ἔτυχεν τῇ ἑσυτοῦ πίστει· τῇ γὰρ ἀναστάσει πιστεύσας, διὰ συμβόλων τινῶν ἀποθανόντα αὐτὸν ἑκομίσατο. Τὸ γὰρ ἐν πολλῇ τοῦ θανάτου προσδοκίᾳ γενόμενον μηδὲν παθκῖν, τοῦ ἀληθῶς ἀναστησομένου σύμβολον ἦν, ὅσον τοῦ θανάτου πρὸς βραχὺ γευσάμενος, ἀνέστη μηδὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ θανάτου παθών· τὸ γοῦν ἐν χκραβολῇ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐν συμβόλοις.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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

in a figure] Lit. “in a parable.” For the use of the word see Hebrews 9:9. The exact meaning is much disputed. It has been rendered “as a type” (comp. Vulg. in parabolam), or “in a bold venture.” or “unexpectedly.” These views are hardly tenable. But how could Abraham have received Isaac back “in a figure” when he received him back “in reality”? The answer is that he received him back, figuratively, from the dead, because Isaac was typically, or figuratively, dead—potentially sacrificed—when he received him back. Josephus in narrating the event uses the same word (Antt. i. 13. § 4). But in this instance again it is possible that the key to the expression might be found in some Jewish legend. In one Jewish writer it is said (of course untruly) that Isaac really was killed, and raised again. The restoration of Isaac was undoubtedly a type of the resurrection of Christ, but it is hardly probable that the writer would have expressed so deep a truth in a passing and ambiguous expression.

Bengel's Gnomen

Hebrews 11:19. Καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγείρειν δυνατὸς, was able to raise him even from the dead) although no example had hitherto occurred of the dead being raised. In like manner Paul commends the faith of Abraham, Romans 4:17; Romans 4:21. He reckoned (was firmly assured) that, if Isaac had been sacrificed, who had not yet wife nor children, he could notwithstanding be raised from the dead, and thus the promises would be fulfilled in him.—ὅθεν, whence) [wherefore.] An illative particle [not, from which state, i.e. from the dead].—καὶ ἐν παραβολῇ ἐκομίσατο, also he in a parable [or figure] bore[70] [‘tulit’] him) ἐν παραβολῇ, namely, ὬΝ. There is an expression very like this in Numbers 26:10, ἘΓΕΝΉΘΗΣΑΝ ἘΝ ΣΗΜΕΊῼ, they became a sign. Abraham not only bore [‘received’] his son, as he had previously conducted him to the mountain, but he also himself became a parable [figure], and so obtained a good report, Hebrews 11:2. For all posterity celebrates the faith of Abraham, who offered his only-begotten son: so παραβολὴ, Habakkuk 2:6, and elsewhere often.

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

Hebrews 11:19