Albert Barnes Commentary Hebrews 11

CHAPTER XI.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

In the close of the previous chapter, the apostle had incidentally mentioned faith (Hebrews 10:38–39) and said that the just should live by faith. The object of the whole argument in this epistle was to keep those he was addressing from apostatizing from the Christian religion, and especially from relapsing again into Judaism.

They were in the midst of trials and were evidently suffering some form of persecution, the tendency of which was to expose them to the danger of relapsing. The indispensable means of securing them from apostasy was faith; and to show its efficacy in this respect, the apostle provides an extended account of its nature and effects, occupying this entire chapter.

As the persons he was addressing had been Hebrews, and as the Old Testament contained an account of numerous instances of persons in substantially the same circumstances as they were, reference is made to the illustrious examples of the efficacy of faith in Jewish history. The object is to show that faith, or confidence in the Divine promises, has been in all ages the means of perseverance in the true religion, and consequently of salvation.

In this chapter, therefore, the apostle first describes or defines the nature of faith (Hebrews 11:1) and then illustrates its efficacy and power by reference to numerous instances (Hebrews 11:2–40). In these illustrations, he refers to the steady belief we have that God made the worlds, and then to the examples of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Rahab in particular, and then to numerous other examples without mentioning their names. The object is to show that there is power in faith to keep the mind and heart in the midst of trials, and that, having these examples before them, those he was addressing should continue to adhere steadfastly to the profession of the true religion.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for. On the general nature of faith, see Barnes on Mark 16:10.

The margin here is, "ground, or confidence." There is scarcely any verse of the New Testament more important than this, for it states what is the nature of all true faith and is the only definition of it which is attempted in the Scriptures. Eternal life depends on the existence and exercise of faith (Mark 16:16), and hence the importance of an accurate understanding of its nature. The word rendered substance—hypostasis—occurs in the New Testament only in the following places: in 2 Corinthians 9:4; 11:17; Hebrews 3:14, where it is rendered confident and confidence; and in Hebrews 1:3, where it is rendered person; and in the passage before us. Compare with Barnes on Hebrews 1:3.

Professor Stuart renders it here confidence; Chrysostom, "Faith gives reality or substance to things hoped for." The word properly means that which is placed under (German: Unterstellen); then ground, basis, foundation, support. Then it means, also, reality, substance, existence, in contradistinction from that which is unreal, imaginary, or deceptive (tauschung – Passow).

It seems to me, therefore, that the word here has reference to something which imparts reality in the view of the mind to those things which are not seen, and which serves to distinguish them from those things which are unreal and illusory. It is that which enables us to feel and act as if they were real, or which causes them to exert an influence over us as if we saw them.

Faith does this on all other subjects as well as religion. A belief that there is such a place as London or Calcutta leads us to act as if this were so, if we have occasion to go to either; a belief that money may be made in a certain undertaking leads men to act as if this were so; a belief in the veracity of another leads us to act as if this were so.

As long as the faith continues, whether it be well-founded or not, it gives all the force of reality to that which is believed. We feel and act just as if it were so, or as if we saw the object before our eyes. This, I think, is the clear meaning here.

We do not see the things of eternity. We do not see God, or heaven, or the angels, or the redeemed in glory, or the crowns of victory, or the harps of praise; but we have faith in them, and this leads us to act as if we saw them. And this is, undoubtedly, the fact in regard to all who live by faith and who are fairly under its influence.

Of things hoped for. In heaven. Faith gives them reality in the view of the mind. The Christian hopes to be admitted into heaven; to be raised up in the last day from the slumbers of the tomb; to be made perfectly free from sin; to be everlastingly happy. Under the influence of faith he allows these things to control his mind as if they were a most affecting reality.

The evidence of things not seen. Of the existence of God; of heaven; of angels; of the glories of the world prepared for the redeemed. The word rendered evidence—elegchos—occurs in the New Testament only in this place and in 2 Timothy 3:16, where it is rendered reproof. It means, properly, proof, or means of proving, namely, evidence; then proof which convinces another of error or guilt; then vindication or defense; then summary or contents.

See Passow. The idea of evidence which goes to demonstrate the thing under consideration, or which is adapted to produce conviction in the mind, seems to be the elementary idea in the word. So when a proposition is demonstrated; when a man is arraigned, and evidence is furnished of his guilt, or when he establishes his innocence; or when one by argument refutes his adversaries, the idea of convincing argument enters into the use of the word in each case.

This, I think, is clearly the meaning of the word here. "Faith in the Divine declarations answers all the purposes of a convincing argument, or is itself a convincing argument to the mind, of the real existence of those things which are not seen." But is it a good argument?

Is it rational to rely on such a means of being convinced? Is mere faith a consideration which should ever convince a rational mind? The infidel says no; and we know there may be a faith which is no argument of the truth of what is believed. But when a man who has never seen it believes that there is such a place as London, his belief in the numerous testimonies respecting it which he has heard and read is, to his mind, a good and rational proof of its existence, and he would act on that belief without hesitation.

When a son credits the declaration or the promise of a father who has never deceived him, and acts as though that declaration and promise were true, his faith is to him a ground of conviction and of action, and he will act as if these things were so. In like manner the Christian believes what God says.

He has never seen heaven; he has never seen an angel; he has never seen the Redeemer; he has never seen a body raised from the grave; but he has evidence which is satisfactory to his mind that God has spoken on these subjects, and his very nature prompts him to confide in the declarations of his Creator.

Those declarations are, to his mind, more convincing proof than anything else would be. They are more conclusive evidence than would be the deductions of his own reason; far better and more rational than all the reasonings and declarations of the infidel to the contrary. He feels and acts, therefore, as if these things were so—for his faith in the declarations of God has convinced him that they are so.

The object of the apostle, in this chapter, is not to illustrate the nature of what is called saving faith, but to show the power of unwavering confidence in God in sustaining the soul, especially in times of trial; and particularly in leading us to act, in view of promises and of things not seen, as if they were so. "Saving faith" is the same kind of confidence directed to the Messiah—the Lord Jesus—as the Savior of the soul.

For by it. That is, by that faith which gives reality to things hoped for, and a certain persuasion to the mind of the existence of those things which are not seen.

The elders. The ancients; the Hebrew patriarchs and fathers.

Obtained a good report. Literally, "were witnessed of;" that is, an honourable testimony was borne to them in consequence of their faith. The idea is, that their acting under the influence of faith, in the circumstances in which they were, was the ground of the honourable testimony which was borne to them in the Old Testament.

See this use of the word in Hebrews 7:8, and Hebrews 11:4 of this chapter. Also Luke 4:22; Acts 15:8. In the cases which the apostle proceeds to enumerate in the subsequent part of the chapter, he mentions those whose piety is particularly commended in the Old Testament, and who showed, in trying circumstances, that they had unwavering confidence in God.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed. The first instance of the strength of faith, to which the apostle refers, is that by which we believe the declarations of the Scriptures about the work of creation (Genesis 1:3). This is selected first, evidently, because it is the first thing that occurs in the Bible, or is the first thing narrated there that involves the exercise of faith.

He points to no particular instance in which this faith was exercised—for none is especially mentioned—but refers to it as an illustration of the nature of faith which everyone might observe in himself. The faith exercised here is confidence in the truth of the Divine declarations regarding creation.

The meaning is that our knowledge on this subject is purely a matter of faith in the Divine testimony. It is not that we could reason this out and demonstrate that the worlds were made this way; it is not that secular history goes back to that period and informs us of it; it is simply that God has told us so in His word. The strength of the faith, in this case, is measured:

1. By the fact that it is mere faith—that there is nothing else on which to rely in the case; and
2. By the greatness of the truth believed. After all the acts of faith that have ever been exercised in this world, perhaps there is none that is really stronger, or that requires higher confidence in God, than the declaration that this vast universe has been brought into existence by a word!

We understand. We apprehend it; we receive and comprehend the idea. Our knowledge of this fact is derived only from faith, and not from our own reasoning.

That the worlds. In Genesis 1:1, it is the heaven and the earth. The phrase the apostle uses denotes a plurality of worlds and is proof that he supposed there were other worlds besides our own Earth. How far his knowledge extended on this point we have no means of ascertaining, but there is no reason to doubt that he regarded the stars as "worlds," in some respects, like our own. For the meaning of the Greek word used here, see the commentary on Hebrews 1:2.

The plural form is used there also, and in both cases, it seems to me, not without design.

Were framed. It is observable that the apostle does not use the words make or create here. The word he does use—katartizw—means to put in order, to arrange, to complete, and may be applied to that which previously existed and was to be put in order or refitted (Matthew 4:24; Mark 1:19; Matthew 21:16; Hebrews 10:5).

The meaning here is that they were set in order by the word of God. This implies the act of creation, but the specific idea is that of arranging them in the beautiful order in which they are now.

Doddridge renders it "adjusted." Kuinoel, however, supposes that the word is used here in the sense of form or make.

It probably has about the meaning we attach to the phrase "fitting up anything"—as, for example, a dwelling—and includes all the previous arrangements, though the thing particularly denoted is not the making but the arrangement. So, in the work referred to here: "We arrive at the conviction that the universe was fitted up or arranged in the present manner by the word of God."

By the word of God. This does not mean here by the Logos, or the second Person of the Trinity, for Paul does not use that term here or elsewhere. The word he employs is rhma—rema—meaning, properly, a word spoken, and in this place, a command. (Compare Genesis 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Psalms 33:6: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.") In regard to the agency of the Son of God in the work of creation, see the commentary on Hebrews 1:2 and compare the commentary on John 1:3.

So that things which are seen. The point of the remark here is that the visible creation was not molded out of pre-existing materials but was made out of nothing. In reference to the grammatical construction of the passage, see Stuart's Commentary on this passage.

The doctrine taught is that matter was not eternal; that the materials of the universe, as well as the arrangements, were formed by God, and that all this was done by a simple command.

The argument here, so far as it is adapted to the apostle's purpose, seems to be that there was nothing that appeared, or that was to be seen, that could lay the foundation for a belief that God made the worlds. In like manner, our faith now is not to be based on what "appears," by which we could infer or reason out what would be, but we must exercise strong confidence in Him who had power to create the universe out of nothing. If this vast universe has been called into existence by the mere word of God, there is nothing we may not believe He has ample power to perform.

By faith Abel offered. . In the account in Genesis of the offering made by Abel, there is no mention of faith—as is true also indeed of most of the instances referred to by the apostle.

The account in Genesis is, simply, that Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering.

Men have speculated much as to the reason why the offering of Abel was accepted, and that of Cain rejected; but such speculation rests on no certain basis. The solution of the apostle should be regarded as decisive and satisfactory: that in the one case there was faith, and in the other not.

It could not have been because an offering of the fruits of the ground was not pleasing to God, for such an offering was commanded under the Jewish law, and was not in itself improper. Both the brothers selected that which was to them most obvious, which they had reared with their own hands, and which they regarded as most valuable.

Cain had cultivated the earth, and he naturally brought what had grown under his care; Abel kept a flock, and he as naturally brought what he had raised. Had the temper of mind in both been the same, there is no reason to doubt that the offering of each would have been accepted.

To this conclusion we are led by the nature of the case, and the apostle advances substantially the same sentiment—for he says that the particular state of mind on which the whole turned was that the one had faith and the other not. How the apostle himself was informed of the fact that it was faith which made the difference, he has not informed us.

The belief that he was inspired will, however, relieve the subject of this difficulty—for, according to such a belief, all his statements here, whether recorded in the Old Testament or not, are founded in truth. It is equally impossible to tell with certainty what was the nature of the faith of Abel.

It has been commonly asserted that it was faith in Christ—looking forward to His coming, and depending on His sacrifice when offering that which was to be a type of Him. But of this there is no positive evidence, though, from Hebrews 12:24, it seems to be not improbable. Sacrifice, as a type of the Redeemer’s great offering, was instituted early in the history of the world.

There can be no reason assigned for the offering of blood as an atonement for sin, except that it had originally a reference to the great atonement which was to be made by blood. As the salvation of man depended on this entirely, it is probable that this would be one of the truths which would be first communicated to man after the fall.

The bloody offering of Abel is the first of the kind which is definitely mentioned in the Scriptures (though it is not improbable that such sacrifices were offered by Adam). Consequently, Abel may be regarded as the recorded head of the whole typical system, of which Christ was the antitype and the fulfillment. (See Barnes on Hebrews 12:24).

A more excellent sacrifice. pleiona thusian—as rendered by Tyndale, “more plenteous sacrifice;” or as Wycliffe renders it, more literally, “a much more sacrifice;” that is, a more full or complete sacrifice; a better sacrifice. The meaning is that it had in it much more to render it acceptable to God. In the estimate of its value, the views of him who offered it would be more to be regarded than the nature of the offering itself.

By which. By which sacrifice so offered. The way in which he obtained the testimony of Divine approbation was by the sacrifice offered in this manner. It was not merely by faith; it was by the offering of a sacrifice in connection with, and under the influence of, faith.

He obtained witness that he was righteous. That is, from God. His offering, made in faith, was the means of his obtaining the Divine testimonial that he was a righteous man. (See Barnes on Hebrews 11:2).

This is implied in what is said in Genesis 4:4: And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering; that is, He regarded it as the offering of a righteous man.

God testifying of his gifts. In what way this was done is not mentioned either here or in Genesis. Commentators have usually supposed that it was by fire descending from heaven to consume the sacrifice. But there is no evidence of this, for there is no intimation of it in the Bible.

It is true that this frequently occurred when an offering was made to God (Leviticus 9:24; Judges 6:21; 1 Kings 18:38), but the sacred writers give us no hint that this happened in the case of the sacrifice made by Abel. Since it is expressly mentioned in other cases and not here, the presumption rather is that no such miracle occurred on the occasion.

So remarkable a fact—the first one in all history if it were so—could hardly have failed to be noticed by the sacred writer. It seems to me, therefore, that there was some method by which God “testified” His approbation of the offering of Abel which is unknown to us, but in regard to what it was, conjecture is vain.

And by it he, being dead, yet speaketh. Margin: Is yet spoken of. This difference of translation arises from a difference of reading in the manuscripts. That from which the translation in the text is derived is lalei—he speaketh. That from which the rendering in the margin is derived is laleitai—is spoken of; that is, is praised or commended.

The latter is the common reading in the Greek text, and is found in Walton, Wetstein, Matthaei, Tittman, and Mill; the former is adopted by Griesbach, Koppe, Knapp, Grotius, Hammond, Storr, Rosenmuller, Professor Stuart, Bloomfield, and Hahn, and is found in the Syriac and Coptic, and is that which is favored by most of the Fathers. (See Wetstein).

The authority of manuscripts is in favor of the reading laleitai—is spoken of. It is impossible, in this variety of opinion, to determine which is the true reading, and this is one of the cases where the original text must probably be forever undecided. Happily, no important doctrine or duty is depending on it.

Either of the modes of reading will give a good sense. The apostle is saying that it is by faith that the elders have obtained a good report (Hebrews 11:2); he had said (Hebrews 11:4) that it was by faith that Abel obtained the testimony of God in his favor. If the reading “is spoken of” be adopted, the apostle means that, in consequence of that offering thus made, Abel continued even to his time to receive an honorable mention.

This act was commended still; and the “good report,” of which it had been the occasion, had been transmitted from age to age. A sentiment thus of great beauty and value may be derived from the passage—that true piety is the occasion of transmitting a good report, or an honorable reputation, even down to the latest generation.

It is that which will embalm the memory in the grateful recollection of mankind; that on which they will reflect with pleasure, and which they will love to transmit to future ages. But, after all, it seems to me to be probable that the true sentiment in this passage is that which is expressed in the common version, “he yet speaketh.” The reasons are briefly these:

1. The authority of manuscripts, versions, editions, and critics, is so nearly equal that it is impossible from this source to determine the true reading; and we must, therefore, form our judgment from the connection.

2. The apostle had twice in this verse expressed substantially the idea that he was honorably testified of by his faith, and it is hardly probable that he would again repeat it so soon.

3. There seems to be an allusion here to the language used respecting Abel (Genesis 4:10): The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground;—or utters a distinct voice—and the apostle seems to design to represent Abel as still speaking.

4. In Hebrews 12:24, he represents both Abel and Christ as still speaking—as if Abel continued to utter a voice of admonition. The reference there is to the fact that he continued to proclaim from age to age, even to the time of the apostle, the great truth that salvation was only by blood. He had proclaimed it at first by his faith when he offered the sacrifice of the lamb; he continued to speak from generation to generation, and to show that it was one of the earliest principles of religion that there could be redemption from sin in no other way.

5. The expression “yet speaketh” accords better with the connection. The other interpretation is cold compared with this and less fits the case before us. Of the faith of Noah, Abraham, and Moses, it might be said with equal propriety that it is still commended or celebrated as well as that of Abel, but the apostle evidently means to say that there was a voice in that of Abel which was peculiar.

   There was something in his life and character which continued to speak from age to age. His sacrifice, his faith, his death, his blood, all continued to lift up the voice, and to proclaim the excellence and value of confidence in God, and to admonish the world how to live.

6. This accords with usage in classic writers, where it is common to say of the dead that they continue to speak. (Compare Virgil, Aeneid 6.618):

   Et magna testatur voce per umbras:
   Discite justitiam moniti, et non temnere Divos.

If this is the true meaning, then the sense is that there is an influence from the piety of Abel which continues to admonish all coming ages of the value of religion, and especially of the great doctrine of the necessity of an atonement by blood. His faith and his sacrifice proclaimed from age to age that this was one of the first great truths made known to fallen man; and on this he continues to address the world as if he were still living. Thus all who are pious continue to exert an influence in favor of religion long after the soul is removed to heaven, and the body consigned to the grave. This is true in the following respects:

1. They speak by their example. The example of a pious father, mother, or neighbor will be remembered. It will often have an effect after their death in influencing those over whom it had little control while living.

2. They continue to speak by their precepts. The precepts of a father may be remembered with profit when he is in his grave, though they were heard with indifference when he lived; the counsels of a minister may be recollected with benefit, though they were heard with scorn.

3. They continue to speak from the fact that the good are remembered with increasing respect and honor as long as they are remembered at all. The character of Abel, Noah, and Abraham is brighter now than it was when they lived, and will continue to grow brighter to the end of time.

   The name of the wicked will rot, and the influence which they had when living will grow feebler and feebler, until it wholly dies away. Howard will be remembered and will proclaim from age to age the excellence of a life of benevolence. The character of Nero, Caligula, and Richard III has long since ceased to exert any influence whatever in favor of evil, but rather shows the world, by contrast, the excellence of virtue; and the same will yet be true of Paine, Voltaire, Byron, Gibbon, and Hume.

   The time will come when they will cease to exert any influence in favor of infidelity and sin; and when the world will be so satisfied of the error of their sentiments, the abuse of their talents, and the corruption of their hearts, that their names, by contrast, will be made to promote the cause of piety and virtue. If a man wishes to exert any permanent influence after he is dead, he should be a good man.

The strength of the faith of Abel, here commended, will be seen by a reference to a few circumstances:

1. It was manifested shortly after the apostasy, and not long after the fearful sentence had been pronounced in view of the sin of man. The serpent had been cursed; the earth had been cursed; woe had been denounced on the mother of mankind; and the father of the apostate race, and all his posterity, doomed to toil and death.

   The thunder of this curse had scarcely died away; man had been ejected from Paradise and sent out to enter on his career of woes, and the earth was trembling under the malediction, and yet Abel maintained his confidence in God.

2. There was then little truth revealed, and only the slightest intimation of mercy. The promise in Genesis 3:5, that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent, is so enigmatic and obscure that it is not easy even now to see its exact meaning—and it cannot be supposed that Abel could have had a full understanding of what was denoted by it.

   Yet this appears to have been all the truth respecting the salvation of man then revealed, and on this Abel maintained his faith steadfast in God.

3. Abel had an elder brother, undoubtedly an infidel, a scoffer, a mocker of religion. He was evidently endowed with a talent for sarcasm (Genesis 4:9), and there is no reason to doubt that, like other infidels and scoffers, he would be disposed to use that talent when occasion offered, to hold up religion to contempt.

   The power with which he used this, and the talent with which he did this, may be seen illustrated, probably with melancholy fidelity, in Lord Byron’s “Cain.” No man ever lived who could more forcibly express the feelings that passed through the mind of Cain—for there is too much reason to think that his extraordinary talents were employed on this occasion to give vent to the feelings of his own heart in the sentiments put into the mouth of Cain.

   Yet, notwithstanding the infidelity of his elder brother, Abel adhered to God and His cause. Whatever influence that infidel brother might have sought to use over him—and there can be no reason to doubt that such an influence would be attempted—yet he never wavered, but maintained with steadfastness his belief in religion and his faith in God.

By faith Enoch was translated. The account of Enoch is found in Genesis 5:21-24. It is very brief, and is this: Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. There is no particular mention of his faith; and the apostle attributes this to him, as in the case of Abel, either because it was involved in the very nature of piety, or because the fact was communicated to him by direct revelation.

In the account in Genesis, there is nothing inconsistent with the belief that Enoch was characterized by eminent faith, but it is rather implied in the expression, he walked with God. (Compare to 2 Corinthians 5:7). It may also be implied in what is said by the apostle Jude (Jude 1:14–15), that he prophesied, saying, Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints, etc.

From this it would appear that he was a preacher; that he predicted the coming of the Lord to judgment, and that he lived in the firm belief of what was to occur in future times. Moses does not say expressly that Enoch was translated. He says, he was not, for God took him. The expression he was not, means he was no more among men, or he was removed from the earth.

This language would be applicable to any method by which he was removed, whether by dying or by being translated. A similar expression respecting Romulus occurs in Livy (1.16): Nec deinde in terris Romulus fuit. The translation of the Septuagint on this part of the verse in Genesis is, ouc eurisketo—"was not found;" that is, he disappeared.

The authority for what the apostle says here that he was translated, is found in the other phrase in Genesis, God took him. The reasons which led to the statement that he was translated without seeing death, or that show that this is a fair conclusion from the words in Genesis, are such as these:

1. There is no mention made of his death, and in this respect the account of Enoch stands by itself. It is, except in this case, the uniform custom of Moses to mention the age and the death of the individuals whose biography he records, and in many cases this is about all that is said of them. But in regard to Enoch there is this remarkable exception, that no record is made of his death, showing that there was something unusual in the manner of his removal from the world.

2. The Hebrew word used by Moses, found in such a connection, is one which would rather suggest the idea that he had been taken in some extraordinary manner from the world. That word—[Hebrew word]—means to take—with the idea of taking to one's self. Thus, Genesis 8:20, Noah took of all beasts, and offered a burnt-offering. Thus it is often used in the sense of taking a wife—that is, to one's self (Genesis 4:19; Genesis 6:2; Genesis 12:19; Genesis 19:14); and then it is used in the sense of taking away (Genesis 14:12; Genesis 27:35; Job 1:21; Genesis 12:20; Psalms 31:13; Jeremiah 15:15). The word, therefore, would naturally suggest the idea that he had been taken by God to Himself, or had been removed in an extraordinary manner from the earth. This is confirmed by the fact that the word is not used anywhere in the Scriptures to denote a removal by death, and that in the only other instance in which it ([Hebrew word]) is used in relation to a removal from this world, it occurs in the statement respecting the translation of Elijah: And the sons of the prophets that were at Bethel, came forth to Elisha, and said to him, Knowest thou that the Lord will take away ([Hebrew word]) thy master from thy head to-day? (2 Kings 2:3, 6). This transaction, where there could be no doubt about the manner of the removal, shows in what sense the word is used in Genesis.

3. It was so understood by the translators of the Septuagint. The apostle has used the same word in this place which is employed by the Seventy in Genesis 5:24—metatiyhmi. This word means to transpose, to put in another place; and then to transport, transfer, translate (Acts 7:16; Hebrews 7:12). It properly expresses the removal to another place, and is the very word which would be used on the supposition that one was taken to heaven without dying.

4. This interpretation of the passage in Genesis by Paul is in accordance with the uniform interpretation of the Jews. In the Targum of Onkelos it is evidently supposed that Enoch was translated without dying. In that Targum the passage in Genesis 5:24 is rendered, "And Enoch walked in the fear of the Lord, and was not, for the Lord did not put him to death"—[Hebrew phrase]. So also in Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach) 49:14: "But upon the earth was no man created like Enoch; for he was taken from the earth." These opinions of the Jews and of the early translators, are of value only as showing that the interpretation which Paul has put upon Genesis 5:24 is the natural interpretation. It is such as occurs to separate writers, without collusion, and this shows that this is the meaning most naturally suggested by the passage.

That he should not see death. That is, that he should not experience death, or be made personally acquainted with it. The word taste often occurs in the same sense. Hebrews 2:9, That he should taste death for every man. (Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27).

And was not found.Genesis 5:24: And he was not. That is, he was not in the land of the living. Paul retains the word used in the Septuagint.

He had this testimony, that he pleased God. This is implied in the declaration in Genesis 5:22, that he walked with God. This denotes a state of friendship between God and him, and of course implies that his conduct was pleasing to God. The apostle appeals here to the sense of the account in Genesis, but does not retain the very words. The meaning here is not that the testimony respecting Enoch was actually given before his translation, but that the testimony relates to his having pleased God before he was removed. Stuart. In regard to this instructive fragment of history, and to the reasons why Enoch was thus removed, we may make the following remarks:

1. The age in which he lived was undoubtedly one of great wickedness. Enoch is selected as the only one of that generation signalized by eminent piety, and he appears to have spent his life in publicly reproving a sinful generation, and in warning them of the approaching judgment (Jude 1:14, 16). The wickedness which ultimately led to the universal deluge seems already to have commenced in the earth, and Enoch, like Noah, his great-grandson, was raised up as a preacher of righteousness to reprove a sinful generation.

2. It is not improbable that the great truths of religion in that age were extensively denied; and probably, among other things, the future state, the resurrection, the belief that man would exist in another world, and that it was maintained that death was the end of being—an eternal sleep. If so, nothing could be better adapted to correct the prevailing evils than the removal of an eminent man, without dying, from the world. His departure would thus confirm the instructions of his life; and his removal, like the death of saints often now, would serve to make an impression which his living instructions would not.

3. His removal is, in itself, a very important and instructive fact in history. It has occurred in no other instance except that of Elijah; nor has any other living man been translated to heaven except the Lord Jesus. That fact was instructive in a great many respects:

   • It showed that there was a future state—another world.

   • It showed that the body might exist in that future state—though doubtless so changed as to adapt it to the condition of things there.

   • It prepared the world to credit the account of the ascension of the Redeemer. If Enoch and Elijah were removed thus without dying, there was no intrinsic improbability that the Lord Jesus would be removed after having died and risen again.

   • It furnishes a demonstration of the doctrine that the saints will exist hereafter, which meets all the arguments of the sceptic and the infidel. One single fact overturns all the mere speculations of philosophy, and renders nugatory all the objections of the sceptic. The infidel argues against the truth of the resurrection, and of the future state, from the difficulties attending the doctrine. A single case of one who has been raised up from the dead, or who has been removed to heaven, annihilates all such arguments—for how can supposed difficulties destroy a well-authenticated fact?

   • It is an encouragement to piety. It shows that God regards his friends; that their fidelity and holy living please him; and that in the midst of eminent wickedness and a scoffing world, it is possible so to live as to please God. The conduct of this holy man, therefore, is an encouragement to us to do our duty, though we stand alone; and to defend the truth, though all who live with us upon the earth deny and deride it.

4. The removal of Enoch shows that the same thing would be possible in the case of every saint. God could do it in other cases, as well as in his, with equal ease. That his friends, therefore, are suffered to remain on the earth—that they linger on in enfeebled health, or are crushed by calamity, or are stricken down by the pestilence as others are—is not because God could not remove them, as Enoch was, without dying, but because there is some important reason why they should remain, and linger, and suffer, and die. Among those reasons may be such as the following:

   • The regular operation of the laws of nature, as now constituted, requires it. Vegetables die; the inhabitants of the deep die; the fowls that fly in the air, and the beasts that roam over hills and plains die; and man, by his sins, is brought under the operation of this great universal law. It would be possible, indeed, for God to save his people from this law, but it would require the interposition of continued miracles; and it is better to have the laws of nature regularly operating, than to have them constantly set aside by Divine interposition.

   • The power of religion is now better illustrated in the way in which the saints are actually removed from the earth, than it would be if they were all translated. Its power is now seen in its enabling us to overcome the dread of death, and in its supporting us in the pains and sorrows of the departing hour. It is a good thing to discipline the soul so that it will not fear to die; it shows how superior religion is to all the forms of philosophy, that it enables the believer to look calmly forward to his own certain approaching death. It is an important matter to keep this up from age to age, and to show to each generation that religion can overcome the natural apprehension of the most fearful calamity which befalls a creature—death—and can make man calm in the prospect of lying beneath the clods of the valley, cold, dark, alone, to moulder back to his native dust.

   • The death of the Christian does good. It preaches to the living. The calm resignation, the peace, the triumph of the dying believer, is a constant admonition to a thoughtless and wicked world. The deathbed of the Christian proclaims the mercy of God from generation to generation, and there is not a dying saint who may not, and who probably does not do great good in the closing hours of his earthly being.

   • It may be added, that the present arrangement falls in with the general laws of religion, that we are to be influenced by faith, not by sight. If all Christians were removed like Enoch, it would be an argument for the truth of religion addressed constantly to the senses. But this is not the way in which the evidence of the truth of religion is proposed to man. It is submitted to his understanding, his conscience, his heart; and in this there is of design a broad distinction between religion and other things. Men act, in other matters, under the influence of the senses; it is designed that in religion they shall act under the influence of higher and nobler considerations, and that they shall be influenced not solely by a reference to what is passing before their eyes, but to the things which are not seen.