Hebrews 11:17

Πίστει προσενήνοχεν Ἀβραὰμ.… “By faith Abraham when tried offered up Isaac, yea he who had accepted the promises, to whom it had been said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called, offered his only son.” The perfect προσενήνοχεν, Blass (Gram., 200) says “can only be understood as referring to the abiding example offered to us”. Similarly Alford, Westcott, Weiss, etc. Surely it is better to have regard to Burton's statement, “The Perfect Indicative is sometimes used in the N.T. of a simple past fact where it is scarcely possible to suppose that the thought of existing result was in the writer's mind”. And in Jebb's Appendix to Vincent and Dickson's Gram. of Mod. Greek (p. 327, 8) it is demonstrated that “later Greek shows some clear traces of a tendency to use the Perfect as an Aorist”. τὸν is probably here intended not merely to indicate the case of the indeclinable Ἰσαὰκ (Vaughan), cf. Hebrews 11:18; Hebrews 11:20, but to call attention to the importance of Isaac; and this is further accomplished in the succeeding clause which brings out the full significance of the sacrifice. It was his only son whom Abraham was offering (προσέφερε imperfect in its proper sense of an unfinished transaction) and therefore the sole link between himself and the fulfilment of the promises to which he had given hospitable entertainment (ἀναδεξάμενος, 2Ma 6:19). “The sole link,” because, irrespective of any other children Abraham had had or might have, it had been said to him (πρὸς ὃν, denoting Abraham not Isaac), In Isaac shall a seed be named to thee (Genesis 21:12); that is to say, it is Isaac and his descendants who shall be known as Abraham's seed. Others are proud to count themselves the descendants of Abraham but the true “seed” (κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρμα, cf. Galatians 3:16; Galatians 3:29) to whom along with Abraham the promises were given was the race that sprang from Isaac, the heir of the promise. No trial (πειραζόμενος as in Genesis 22:1, ὁ Θεὸς ἐπείρασε τὸν Ἀβραὰμ and cf. Genesis 22:12) could have been more severe. After long waiting the heir had at last been given, and now after his hope had for several years rooted itself in this one life, he is required to sacrifice that life and so break his whole connection with the future. No greater test of his trust in God was possible. He conquered because he reckoned (λογισάμενος “expresses the formation of an opinion by calculation or reasoning, as in Romans 8:18; 2 Corinthians 10:7 ” (Vaughan).), that even from the dead God is able to raise up a belief in God's power to do this universally, see John 5:21. This belief enabled him to deliver his only son to death. “Whence (ὅθεν, i.e., ἐκ νεκρῶν, although several commentators, even Weiss, render it ‘wherefore') also he received him back (ἐκομίσατο, for this meaning see Genesis 38:20 and passages in Wetstein) in a figure (ἐν παραβολῇ, 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 resurrection. (Whoever wishes to see how a simple expression may be tortured should consult Alford's long note on this place.)