Perhaps the most well-known episode in the life of Abraham is his offering of Isaac as a sacrifice in accordance to God’s command. This is also perhaps one of the most controversial, if not confusing, episodes in Abraham’s walk of faith.
It is controversial in that, at face value, it seems like a cruel request from the God who is characterised as both loving and trustworthy. It is confusing because, after all, Isaac was the promised son from whom Messiah—the promise—was to descend. If Isaac was put to death, how could this promise be fulfilled?
Have you ever been in a situation in which you felt that what God was asking of you was contradictory, contradictory and/or confusing? Or perhaps all three? The only way through this is by faith. And that is precisely how Abraham responded.
The faith that pleases God is, of course, a God-centred trust in the character of God. And when our confidence rests on the revealed nature of God, then we are quite willing to lay our all on the altar of sacrifice—as did Abraham.
This is our last study that deals directly with Abraham in Hebrews 11, though of course vv. 20–22 are very much related to him. Abraham is a significant example of faith, for he is the father of all who believe (Romans 4:11; Galatians 3:26–29). And what an example he is!
Abraham exemplifies faith obeying, faith laughing and faith confessing, all in the context of faith waiting. But he also exemplifies faith sacrificing. He was commanded by God to bleed the life out of what God had promised to him. And, by all indications, he unhesitatingly obeyed. To God be the glory. What a God.
Now that might sound strange. What a great God? Some might emphasise that statement in a harsh and disbelieving and even contemptuous: “Yeah, what a God!” But I maintain that Abraham’s faith was such that his sacrificial obedience declares for all time what a great God we have. In fact, He is so great and glorious that we can trust Him in the most extreme and even in the most seemingly senseless of circumstances. He is that trustworthy. The recipients of this epistle were in great need of such an illustration of faith, for they were facing a precarious situation. In essence, the Lord was asking them to lay their Isaac down. They were being asked to nail their colours to the mast, so to speak, with reference to their profession of faith in Christ.
It is interesting that the account of Abraham offering Isaac is traditionally known among the Jews as “the binding of Isaac.” It is very possible that the writer has before him the idea that they, like Abraham and Isaac, needed to be so bound to Christ that they would lay down their lives for him.
Let’s study this under three broad headings.
Verse 17a tells us that “Abraham” was “tested.” And he passed this test “by faith.”
Abraham was tested, and, oh, how he was tested! William Lane observes, “When Abraham obeyed God’s mandate to leave Ur, he simply gave up his past. But when he was summoned to Mount Moriah to deliver his own son to God, he was asked to surrender his future as well…. The demand for the life of Isaac was a fierce challenge to the faith of Abraham.”1
Abraham’s profession of faith in the Word of God was most dramatically and radically put to the test. Abraham had a pretty good track record of believing God. After all, he had left his homeland to go to a destination of which he was not even sure—in obedience to God’s call. He then persevered for 25 years, not perfectly, but faithfully, as he waited for the conception and then the birth of the promised son. He faithfully obeyed the Lord by being circumcised at 99 years of old and faithfully changed both his and his wife’s name in obedience to the Word of God. How much more proof was necessary? Apparently much more.
The proving of Abraham’s faith in this matter highlights that the promise was not merely that Abraham and Sarah would have a son but rather that the significance of the son of promise lay in his connection to the Son of promise, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Yahweh had promised Abraham that it was through his progeny that all the nations would be blessed (Genesis 12:1–3) and we understand, in the light of the New Testament, that this was a salvific blessing. In other words, it was through Abraham that the promised Messiah (Genesis 3:15) would come to earth to save His people from their sins. And it is because of this that the commandment from God to offer Isaac as a burnt offering was the ultimate proof of Abraham’s faith.
Would Abraham believe God to do what seemed to be incomprehensibly impossible? Would he trust God for the gospel in what seemed to be the destruction of the gospel?
Thank God that he did. “By faith Abraham” passed the test. His professed confidence in the faithfulness of God was manifestly demonstrated to be real. And God, in fulfilment of who He is, rewarded him accordingly. His faith in God was vindicated, and at the same time the faithfulness of God was vindicated (see James 2:21–24).
Before proceeding let me make a point of application: Those who profess saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ will have their profession put to the test. There will be a proving of their faith. We need to know this as much as these beleaguered Jewish believers needed to know this.
As these Jewish believers were undergoing pressure, they needed to see it in terms of the biblical exhortations and examples concerning the trying of our faith. Our profession of faith is no more for the purpose of informing God of its integrity than it was for Abraham. God knows whether our profession is sincere or spurious. But there are two reasons for the proving.
First, we need to know that our profession of faith in Christ is real. Paul told the Corinthian church to “examine” (the same word translated “tested” in our text) themselves as to whether or not they were truly in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5). If we will experience the joyful and productive consequences that attend assurance of salvation, then of course we need assurance!
This is precisely why the Lord designs various trials or testings or provings once we profess Christ as our Saviour (see Matthew 13:18–23). It is only having experienced trials, tribulations and temptations that the genuineness of faith can be properly examined. Are we genuine or not? Are we approved or rejected? Andrews notes, “As a precious metal survives the fire that purges it of dross, so faith survives testing and is purified thereby. God takes pains with his believing children.”2 (See Hebrews 6:8; 2 Corinthians 13:3; James 1:3; 1 Peter 1:7.)
But there is another reason that, though not unrelated to the first, supersedes it in importance. The ultimate reason for the proving of our faith is that it brings honour and glory to God.
When the Lord commended Abraham for his faithfulness (expressed in sacrificial obedience), it is clear that God was pleased because He had been honoured. And for some four millennia, Abraham’s testimony to God’s trustworthiness lives on. We need to realise that, when our profession of faith in Jesus is put to the test, it also is put under the microscope of a watching world: a group of observers, including family, friends, co-workers, neighbours, acquaintances and even foes.
Every Christian will be tested or proved concerning three things.
First, Christians will be tested concerning their supreme devotion. For Abraham, this was related to “your only son Isaac, whom you love” (Genesis 22:2). Was Isaac or God his ultimate devotion?
Your response to this account says much about your devotion. This testing is all about our view of God’s worth. Bruce notes, “Abraham’s ready obedience attested the unreserved quality of his allegiance to God.”3 And Phillips writes, “The proof of love is always found in the willingness to sacrifice…. The test of our Christian devotion always involves this, that we love not so much the gifts—great as they are—but the Giver himself above all.”4
Second, Christians will be tested regarding their spiritual discernment. Isaac is described in Genesis 22:2 as Abraham’s “only” son. Of course, Abraham had two sons at this point, but Isaac was the one “of whom it was said, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called’” (v. 18). Abraham needed this discernment. He needed to see that Isaac, not Ishmael, was the promised son. The promise could not be fulfilled in Ishmael, it had to be fulfilled in Isaac.
We need healthy spiritual discernment. We need to “abound … in knowledge and all discernment” (Philippians 1:9). This emphasises our view of God’s ways; that is, His accomplishing what He has promised/decreed in His own wise and inscrutable way. “In times of testing we need not only the confidence which accepts what God has said, but the ability to remember what God can do.”5
Third, Christians will be tested with regard to their dependence on God, which combines all of the above. This is about our confidence in God’s Word. “Though he did not understand, Abraham knew how to obey.”6
I don’t wish to belabour the point but it is important that we settle in our hearts that the testing of our profession of faith in Christ and in the complete trustworthiness of God and His Word is a continual experience. No doubt we experience times of reprieve, but we should not be surprised when testing come. And it will come. We need times of testing, and God desires for His glorious faithfulness to be manifested through faithful lights in this darkened world. Let us learn from Abraham that the proof of our faith is our willingness to give back God everything we have.
The second broad issue to consider is faith’s paradox. Abraham “offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called,’ concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense” (vv. 17–18).
An Apparent Conflict
The trial of Abraham’s faith in this matter no doubt included the emotional trauma, but that is not the emphasis of either Genesis 22 or Hebrews 11. Instead, the major trial was, in a very real sense, intellectual as well as emotional. On the surface, what God had asked Abraham to do made absolutely no sense, at all. I think that Westcott is spot on: “The trial of Abraham was not so much in the conflict of his natural affection with his obedience to God, as in the apparent inconsistency of the revelations of the will of God which were made to him.”7
As we have seen, the promise God had made to Abraham concerned an innumerable seed (11:12) as well as the incarnate Seed. And this was humanly dependent on Abraham’s promised seed: Isaac. So when the Lord commanded Abraham to basically kill Isaac, His instruction was, on the surface of things, a major contradiction. But what is most amazing is that there is nothing in the biblical record that suggests even a moment’s hesitation on Abraham’s part. This is the faith that is being commended. The faith was not so much concerning Abraham’s ability to lay aside his paternal emotions but rather the faith commended is his ability to ignore logical contradictions.
Bruce captures this well:
The problem to which he invites his readers’ attention is this: The fulfilment of God’s promise depended on Isaac’s survival; if Isaac was to die, how could these promises be fulfilled? And yet Abraham had no doubt that the One who had given the promises required the sacrifice of Isaac. What was he to do? … How could the promises of God and the command of God be reconciled? … It was for God, and not for Abraham, to reconcile His promise and His command…. His own duty was clear, and God could safely be trusted to discharge His responsibility in the matter.8
Keep in mind that the writer has told us already in the opening of this chapter that biblical faith is not controlled by what is apparent. Rather, biblical faith is rooted in what God has revealed and therefore assured us of. Faith is not controlled by what is seen but rather it is confident in the one who is unseen. If Abraham had followed God strictly on the basis of what he could physically perceive, he would not be in this chapter. It is for this reason that Abraham could believe and therefore obey God even though, on the surface, things seemed hopeless.
Now, some might argue that this proves that faith is nothing but an existential leap in the dark. Hardly. Rather, it is clear that Abraham very much exercised his reasoning (as we will see later) and therefore his faith was empowered to do the otherwise impossible an illogical. In other words, it was precisely because Abraham reasoned that God is trustworthy, and therefore would fulfil His promise concerning Isaac, that he was able to bind his son and to draw his knife.
Let’s be quite frank about following Jesus Christ: There is plenty that we could categorise as paradoxical about the Christian life.
For instance, Jesus says that the key to saving our life is to lose it, and if we seek rather to save our life then we will lose it.
The Scriptures, as affirmed by the teaching of Jesus Christ, tell us that the way up is down and the way down is up.
He tells us that if we want to be a leader of others then we must serve them. And He teaches that if we want to do much good on earth then we need to be focused on heaven. If we would be rich then we must first be poor. If we want to inherit the earth then we must first let go of it. And if we will be healthy then we must first be sick. If we will be righteous then we must first be unrighteous.
Such are the varied paradoxes of the way of the Master. These are apparent contradictions of principles, but what about apparent contradictions of precepts and practice? Let’s explore both.
Contradictions of Precepts
Perhaps the most debated, the most oft asked question, among Christians concerns the doctrine of election. For many, the (biblical) teaching that God has chosen those whom He will save before the foundation of the world contradicts other verses in Scripture that teach that God loves the whole world. But since God is never self-contradictory, such allegations of contradiction must be rejected out of hand. Or take the matter of God’s sovereignty in salvation and His command that we go into the world and preach the gospel. If God is going to fulfil His plan then it might be labelled a contradiction to at the same time exhort Christians to be His witnesses and to make disciples. In other words, as with the doctrine of election, we might be tempted to say that God’s sovereignty and human responsibility and are self-contradictory. But such a conclusion would be wrong.
The issue here is one of incomprehensibly. Abraham doubtless viewed the promise that Isaac (who was at this point in time wifeless and childless) would be the progenitor of multitudes of people and God’s precept to slay him as apparently contradictory. But because Abraham was confident in God’s character he was willing to trust the incomprehensible God to do whatever needed to be done to fulfil His promised purpose. In other words, Abraham was content to let God be God. God’s incomprehensibility was no obstacle to Abraham’s confident obedience. All Abraham knew was that God had revealed some things that appeared contradictory; but he knew enough about God to trust Him to work it out. We need the same attitude.
We need to trust God for church growth even as we obey the seemingly contradictory command of church discipline. We need to trust Good to meet our needs even as we obey Him in faithful stewardship. We need to trust God to save those, and only those, whom He has predestined even as we plead with Him in prayer to save our lost ones. We need to trust God alone to sovereignty save our children even as we exert faithful and obedient effort to raise a godly seed.
Contradictions of Providences
This perhaps is the most painful of challenges. How do we intellectually and emotionally respond when there seems to be a contradiction between what we know of God and what we see in this world? This apparent contradiction often proves a strong challenge to our faith. Let me explain.
We know that God is love. We know that God is merciful and gracious. So why all the heartache in the world? Why all the heartache in the lives of those who love the Lord?
Or consider another scenario: We know that God is determined that His name will be hallowed on earth and His kingdom will fully come as His revealed will is done on earth as it is heaven. We know that the knowledge of God’s glory will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. So why the seeming inertia of gospel progress?
Another one: Christians are commanded that the church is to be a congregation characterised by love. In a sense, when a Christian joins a church he is “entitled” to be loved. Yet so often we are not. And our faith is tested.
These, among other anomalies, can test our faith profoundly. But, like Abraham, the way to respond is to simply take God at His Word. We don’t need to know how God will do what He says that He will do (and is doing). All we need is to be assured that He will do it!
Again, this matter of the incomprehensibility of God is the issue. Just because we cannot comprehend what God is doing or how He will do what He has revealed He will do is no reason to doubt. When you read that God loves you as His child, that He is not ashamed to be invoked by you as your God, don’t lose your confidence in Him when the medical diagnosis is alarming or when the relationship comes to an end or when your ministry is opposed and even seemingly destroyed. Don’t allow the circumstances to trump God’s revelation. The contradictions are merely interpretive ones. Stand on God’s promises and let them interpret your providences.
I suppose that this idea is what undergirds faithful responses such as Paul’s when he wrote, “I have learned in whatever state I am to be content” (Philippians 4:11). In other words, regardless of how loud circumstances may scream “contradiction!” between the declaration that God loves His children and our difficult situations, by faith we continue to listen to God’s Word and not to be confused by God’s ways.
Again, we must not miss the main point of instruction in these two verses. The writer is emphasising that indeed it was through Isaac that Abraham’s promised (Messianic) seed would come. And it was this same Isaac whom He was now commanding Abraham to put to death. What is so amazing as that, in the face of this manifest contradiction between promise and command, Abraham fully complied. The tense of the words in v. 17, (“Abraham…offered up Isaac”) emphasises that Abraham did this completely. It was not half-hearted. In other words, even though in the end the Lord kept Abraham from plunging the knife, nevertheless his response was as if he fully complied. “The sacrifice actually took place as far as Abraham’s resolve and obedience were concerned. From the divine perspective, as well as from Abraham’s perspective, Abraham did it!”9 What faith! Small wonder that he is commended by God (v. 2).
The passage comes to a close with a statement about Abraham’s faithful conclusion. It speaks of Abraham “concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense” (v. 19). I call this faith’s parable because the word translated “figurative sense” is the Greek word for “parable.”
The word translated “concluding” connotes coming to a logical deduction. It is actually an accounting term, which is sometimes translated as “reckon.” The picture is of Abraham thinking through God’s command in the light of God’s promise and responding rationally to what others might see as irrational. But Abraham’s “calculations” (this captures well the meaning of the term) factored in God. And it was for this reason that he was so spontaneous in his obedience. Lane understands this word as denoting “inward conviction, persuasion, and not simply a considered opinion; the temporal force of the aorist tense is that Abraham’s conclusion was made once and finally.”10
The Long Walk to Freedom
Abraham’s demonstration of faith as recorded in Genesis 22 is simply amazing, encouraging and instructive. “His conclusion was made at once and finally that God could raise the dead…. He was ready to surrender Isaac without giving up his faith in the fulfilment of the divine promise.”11
As he and his son walked to Moriah, Isaac asked, “Where is the lamb for the burnt offering” and Abraham faithfully responded, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” The text then reads, “The two of them went together” (Genesis 22:7–8). I would imagine they went in silence. Perhaps Isaac was beginning to do some calculating of his own. Abraham was doing some serious spiritual mathematics. Abraham, reflecting on God’s promises, and remembering God’s great character, was coming to some conclusions. If it had not dawned on him yet, surely as Isaac was bound to the altar Abraham looked at him and, knife clutched in his hand, perhaps looked into the heavens, “concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead.” And at that moment of ultimate, devoted, discerning and dependant faith, the Lord stayed Abraham’s hand. The trial was over. Abraham had diligently sought the Lord, who now rewarded him with the substitute sacrifice. What a God!
But before going forward, let us consider what Abraham must have considered that led to his faith-filled conclusion about this sacrifice. Until that time, there had been no record of a resurrection, or even of resuscitation of the dead. We would do well to ask just why Abraham was so confident.
Perhaps the word “dead” is a clue. After all, Abraham had already witnessed the miracle of God giving life to two very old people so that they might conceive and bring forth a child. We read in v. 11 that though Sarah was “past the age” of childbearing, nevertheless she was able to “conceive seed.” Paul speaks of “the deadness of Sarah’s womb” (Romans 4:19). In v. 12 the writer notes, “Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born as many as the stars.” The point is that Abraham had already witnessed God doing the otherwise impossible. He had experienced life-giving renewal of both his and Sarah’s bodies. It was therefore no great leap to believe that God could raise Isaac from the dead. As Jay Adams points out, “He began to consider how it might be that God would keep the promise and even hit on a solution: resurrection from the dead. It is that sort of faith that this chapter is commending to the reader.”12 In fact, we should interpret the scene as Abraham having every expectation that he would take the life of his son. It may not have made sense to anyone else in the crowd, but Abraham fully believed that, even after Isaac’s death, the two of them were going to come marching back (Genesis 22:5). And if ever the name “laughter” was appropriate for Isaac, it was then, for one would think that, upon their return, there would be a whole lot of it!
The conclusion that we should draw from Abraham’s faithful conclusion is that God is to be trusted—always. His promises are to be “received” (v. 17) and, as a consequence, His commands to be obeyed. If you believe Him as your Saviour then obey Him as your Lord. And if you don’t do the latter then you do not have Him as the former.
I am sure that there are many lessons here, but one that I want to emphasise is that one experience of faith should help us to be more faithful in the next experience that calls for faith. The life of faith is clearly a journey, a pilgrimage. And though at times we sputter and falter (remember Abraham and Sarah laughing in unbelief?), over time our faith grows (1 Peter 1:1–7). Hughes encourages us with this pastoral insight: “‘Faith’ that never doubts is a dead faith because it is never exercised.”13 But as our faith is exercised, it is able to reflect on previous trials, and as it remembers God’s faithfulness it draws on that to strengthen faith in the present. And so remember to reflect when you face a new trial. Read biography as well as rehearsing your own. But there is a deeper issue undergirding this matter of faith for future trials. And to appreciate it we need to examine the last phrase in v. 19: “from which he also received him in a figurative sense.” Or as the ESV translates it, “figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.” What does this mean, and what is its significance? There are few interpretive possibilities.
First, the writer may be saying that though Isaac did not actually die, it was as if he did. Dods concludes, “He received him back in a figure, not actually, because Isaac had not been dead, but virtually because he had been given up to death. He had passed through the likeness of death, and his restoration to Abraham was a likeness of the resurrection.”14
Second, this could be saying, “Figuratively, just as Abraham and Sarah’s bodies were ‘dead’ and yet God gave life, so it was with the apparent death of Isaac and the apparent death of the promises.” This is Westcott’s view: “Abraham received the gift of his son not literally from the dead but figuratively, in such a way that the gift suggested a further lesson…. The manner in which the birth took place was, so to speak, part of the divine gift. It constrained the father to see in it a type of other quickening.”15
But I hold to another interpretation. The writer rather is highlighting that this episode of faith was designed to serve as a parable of the gospel. In fact, the word “figure” is “parable” in the Greek language.
The tradition of interpreting the sacrifice of Isaac as prefiguring God’s sacrifice of His Son goes back to the early days of the church. And though not all interpreters are thus persuaded, I see every reason to so view this account.
Abraham’s “only son” resonates with the fact that God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son (John 3:16). Isaac carrying the wood for the altar of sacrifice is paralleled with Jesus carrying His cross. Isaac’s apparent willing submission (he was, after all, a young man, quite capable of fighting back) to be sacrificed out of trust for his father and for his God points to Jesus willingly laying down His life and commended it into the hands of His Father. In fact, as I have often argued, Jesus doing so was the greatest demonstration of His faith in His Father. The picture of Isaac being resurrected (as our text reveals) reminds us that Jesus actually died and actually rose from the dead.
All of this clearly points to the Lord Jesus Christ, who was provided by God as the acceptable sacrifice. It is for all of these reasons that this account of Abraham and Isaac serves as a picture, as a parable of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And it is for this reason that our writer includes it in his Hall of Faith. He wants his readers to believe the gospel. Brown points us to the point: “The saving event was an eloquent parable. Isaac was received back from the verge of death, a sign of God’s unfailing provision in the moment of man’s desperate need.”16
But note that there is a point of discontinuity between Isaac and Jesus in this “parable.” And it is this very discontinuity that gives us confidence in the gospel.
In Genesis 22:7 Isaac cried out with tenderness, “My Father!” The Hebrew word is abi, which is a form of tender address: “Daddy.” Abraham responded, “Here I am, my son.” A tender cry from a son answered was with a tender response from his father. Not so with Jesus. When Jesus was on the cross He cried out “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46). Less than 24 hours earlier Jesus called God His “Father” (Luke 22:42). Not now. And when Jesus cried out, there was no tender response. In fact, there was the terrible response of God’s silent judgement. Why? Because Abraham was correct when he tenderly told Isaac that “God will provide for Himself the Lamb.” Jesus died in a way that Isaac never could have. He died as our substitute, as our sin-bearer. Because He took our sin and its judgement on our behalf, the Father turned His face away. But because Jesus was unlike Isaac (for He was sinless), He rose from the dead. And because of this we know that the work of redemption is finished.
Jesus’ self-sacrifice (John 10:18) was the greatest act of faith ever. And it will never be eclipsed. When Jesus did again utter the word “Father,” it was to commend His spirit to Him in death (Luke 23:46). He became obedient unto death, and in doing was placing all of His confidence in the integrity of the Father to fulfil His Word and will. And He did! It was because of the faithfulness of the triune God that our sins can be forgiven.
As Peter Lewis wrote, “The faith of Abraham may inspire us but it is the faith of Jesus that saves us, the Son who ‘humbled himself and became obedient unto death—even death on a cross’ (Phil. 2:8). There is no atonement on Moriah but on Golgotha there is a once-for-all and perfect sacrifice for sin; it was what was done there that saves Abraham and Isaac and you and me.”[Phillips, Hebrews, 480.]
So, how does this help us in our day-to-day pilgrimage? Once we see and experience the power of the gospel and God’s faithfulness in it then, regardless of the trials that follow, we can rest in God’s faithfulness. We can continue to sacrificially obey God (Romans 12:1–2) knowing that if God spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, then surely with Him we are safe and securely loved regardless of whatever we face on our Moriah.
Abraham bound Isaac knowing that God was bound (and more than capable) to raise that which was bound for death from the dead. When we bind to the altar what God commands, we can rest assured that God has already bound Himself to respond accordingly. Ours is to obey, God’s is to fulfil. The faith that sacrifices rests in this.
As we bring this study to a close, let me exhort you to faithfully persevere though your climb to Moriah is difficult. And you can do so in the same way that Abraham did. In a real sense, Abraham was not focused on Mount Moriah as much as he was focused on Mount Calvary (see John 8:56). It was his focus on God’s unique Son of promise that empowered him to offer up his unique son of promise. And this is the author’s point. By “looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith,” we can “run with endurance the race that is set before us” (12:1–2). As we learn to discern the glory of our Lord, then with dependent devotion, like Him, we will faithfully and fruitfully sacrifice.
- William L. Lane, Hebrews: Word Biblical Commentary, 2 vols. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), 2:360. ↩
- Edgar Andrews, A Glorious High Throne: Hebrews Simply Explained (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2003), 378. ↩
- F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews: The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 310. ↩
- Richard D. Phillips, Hebrews: Reformed Expository Commentary (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2006), 470. ↩
- Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews: The Bible Speaks Today (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000), 214. ↩
- Leon Morris, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 12:122. ↩
- B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 365. ↩
- Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 311. ↩
- R. Kent Hughes, Hebrews: An Anchor for the Soul, 2 vols. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1993), 108. ↩
- Lane, Hebrews, 2:362. ↩
- Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 366. ↩
- Jay E. Adams, Hebrews, James, I & II Peter, Jude: The Christian Counselor’s Commentary (Woodruff: Timeless Texts, 1996), 112. ↩
- Hughes, Hebrews, 110. ↩
- Dods, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 4:359. ↩
- Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 367. ↩
- Brown, The Message of Hebrews, 212. ↩