Thomas Aquinas Commentary Hebrews 11

Above, the Apostle showed Christ’s superiority in many ways by preferring Him to the angels, to Moses, and to Aaron, and he advised the faithful to be united to Christ. Since this union consists primarily in faith and begins with faith—That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts (Ephesians 3:17)—the Apostle proceeds to commend this faith. He does three things: first, he describes faith; second, he gives various examples of it (verse 2); and third, he exhorts them to the things that pertain to faith (chapter 12).

He gives a definition of faith that is complete but obscure. Hence, it should be noted that to define any virtue perfectly, one must mention the specific matter it deals with and its end. This is because habits are recognized by their acts, and acts by their objects. Therefore, it is necessary to mention the act and its relationship to its object and end. For example, the definition of courage must mention its specific matter, namely, fears and aggressions, and its end, which is the public good. Now, since faith is a theological virtue, its object and end are the same: God. First, the Apostle mentions faith’s relationship to its end; second, he mentions its specific matter (verse 1b).

It should be noted that the act of faith is to believe, which is an act of the intellect directed to one thing by the command of the will. Hence, as Augustine says in The Predestination of the Saints, "to believe" is to think with assent. Therefore, the object of faith and the object of the will must coincide. The object of faith is the First Truth, in which the will's end—namely, happiness—consists. But this First Truth is present in one way on earth and in another way in heaven.

On earth, the First Truth is not possessed and, consequently, not seen. For as Augustine says in his Book of 83 Questions, in regard to things that are above the soul, to possess and to see are the same. Hence, these things are only hoped for: But hope that is seen is not hope. For what a man sees, why does he hope for? (Romans 8:24). Therefore, the First Truth—not seen but hoped for—is the end of the will on earth. Consequently, it is also the object of faith, because faith's end and object are the same.

The ultimate end of faith in heaven, toward which we strive by faith, is happiness. This happiness consists in the clear vision of God: This is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent (John 17:3). This is the hope of believers: He has regenerated us unto a lively hope (1 Peter 1:3). Therefore, the end of faith on earth is the attainment of what is hoped for—namely, eternal happiness. This is why the Apostle says it is the substance of things hoped for.

A question arises: since faith comes before hope, why is it defined in terms of hope? It is customary to define the later by the former, not the other way around. The answer should be clear from what has already been said: the object and the end of faith are the same. Therefore, since the attainment of things hoped for is faith's end, it must also be its object, for a habit must be defined by the relationship of its act to its object.

The true and the good, though convertible in their substance when considered in themselves, differ in concept. Thus, they are related to each other in different ways, because the true is a good, and the good is true. Similarly, the intellect and the will—which are distinguished based on the distinction between the true and the good—have a different kind of relationship to each other. Insofar as the intellect apprehends truth, the true is considered a good; hence, the good is under the true. But insofar as the will moves, the true is under the good.

Therefore, in the order of knowing, the intellect is prior; but in the order of moving, the will is prior. Because the intellect is moved to the act of faith by the command of the will, the will is prior in the order of moving. Therefore, the prior is not being defined by the later. As stated, the definition of faith must mention the relationship of its act to its object, which is the same as its end. But the end and the good are the same, as Aristotle says in Physics II. And in the order of moving toward the good, the will—which is the subject of hope—is prior.

But why not say "of things to be loved" rather than "of things hoped for"? The reason is that charity is concerned with things whether they are present or absent. Since the unpossessed end is the object of faith, the Apostle says of things hoped for. It makes no difference that the thing hoped for is also the object of hope. This is because faith must be ordered toward an end that coincides with the object of those virtues that perfect the will, since faith itself involves the intellect being moved by the will.

Since faith is a single virtue—a single habit with a single object—why does the definition not say "of the thing hoped for" instead of things hoped for? I answer that happiness, while essentially one thing in itself (consisting in the vision of God), is the principle and root from which many good things are derived. These include, for example, the glorification of the body, companionship with the saints, and many other blessings. Therefore, to show that all these are objects of faith, the Apostle speaks in the plural.

The word "substance" in the definition can be explained in several ways. First, it can be understood causally, meaning that faith is a "substance" because it makes the things hoped for present in us. This happens in two ways. First, faith acts by meriting, as it were. By making one's intellect captive and submissive to the things of faith, a person merits to one day see the things he hopes for, since vision is the reward of faith. Second, faith acts by its very nature, bringing it about that what is believed to be in the future is somehow already possessed, provided one believes in God.

Alternatively, we can explain the word "substance" essentially, meaning that faith is the substance—that is, the essence—of things hoped for. This aligns with the Greek, where faith is defined as the hypostasis of things hoped for. The essence of happiness is nothing less than the vision of God: This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent (John 17:3). As Augustine says in On the Trinity, "This contemplation is promised to us; it is the end of all our actions." Therefore, the full vision of God is the essence of happiness.

We see an analogy for this in the sciences. If a person wishes to learn a science, he must first accept its principles, believing them as they are delivered by the teacher. As stated in Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, "a learner must believe." In those principles, the entire science is contained in some way, just as conclusions are contained in their principles and an effect is contained in its cause. Therefore, one who has the principles of a science, such as geometry, has its substance. If geometry were the substance of happiness, then a person who possessed its principles would, in a sense, have the substance of happiness.

Our faith, however, consists in believing that the blessed will see and enjoy God. Therefore, if we wish to reach that state, we must believe the principles of that divine knowledge. These principles are the articles of faith, which contain the summary of this knowledge, for the vision of the triune God is what makes us happy. This is a primary article of faith, and this is what we believe. Consequently, the Apostle says faith is the assurance (or substance) of things hoped for. It is as if to say: we shall be happy when we see face to face what we now see only obscurely, as in a mirror. As Paul writes, We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face (1 Corinthians 13:12). These words show the relationship of the act of faith to its end. Faith is ordered to things hoped for, serving as a beginning in which the whole is virtually contained, just as conclusions are contained in their principles.

Next, when the Apostle says faith is the conviction (or evidence) of things that appear not, he addresses the act of faith in regard to its specific matter. Although the act of faith relates to the will, as has been said, its proper subject is the intellect, because its object is truth, which properly pertains to the intellect.

There are different kinds of intellectual acts. Some intellectual habits, like understanding and science, involve complete certitude and a perfect grasp of what is known. For example, in the habit of understanding first principles, one who understands that "every whole is greater than its part" sees this and is certain. Both understanding and science produce certitude and a kind of vision. Other intellectual states, however, produce neither certitude nor vision, namely, doubt and opinion. Faith stands midway between these two categories.

As stated, faith produces assent in the intellect. This assent can be caused in two ways. First, the intellect can be moved to assent by the evidence of the object itself, which is either knowable in itself (as with first principles) or known through something else that is knowable in itself (as in the science of astronomy). Second, the intellect can assent to something not because of the evidence of the object. In this case, the object itself does not sufficiently move the intellect, which then either doubts (when there is no more evidence for one side than the other) or holds an opinion (when there is some reason for one side, but not enough to satisfy the intellect, leaving fear regarding the opposite side).

Faith, however, does not fit perfectly into either category. It lacks the direct evidence found in understanding and science, yet it also lacks the uncertainty found in doubt and opinion. Instead, faith fixes on one side with certainty and firm adherence through a voluntary choice. This choice rests on God's authority, by which the intellect is fixed, so that it clings firmly to the articles of faith and assents to them with the greatest certainty. Therefore, to believe is to know with assent.

Therefore, the specific matter of the habit of faith is things that appear not. For as Gregory says, seeing pertains to knowledge, not to faith. The act of faith is a certain adherence, which the Apostle calls evidence, taking the cause for the effect, because evidence is what produces belief about a doubtful matter. Alternatively, if we follow the etymology of the word for evidence (argumentum), which means "to argue the mind," then the Apostle is taking the effect for the cause, because the mind is compelled to assent by the certainty of the thing believed. Hence, faith is called the evidence of things that appear not, meaning it is a sure and certain apprehension of things it does not see.

If one were to summarize this, one could say that faith is a habit of the mind by which eternal life begins in us, and which makes the intellect assent to things it does not see. It is clear, therefore, that the Apostle has defined faith completely, though not with immediate clarity. (Where this text reads evidence, another version has conviction, because on God's authority the intellect is convinced about things it does not see.)

This definition distinguishes faith from all other habits of the intellect. By calling it evidence, it is distinguished from opinion, doubt, and suspicion, because these three do not cause the intellect to adhere to anything firmly. By the words of things hoped for, it is distinguished from ordinary, non-saving faith that is not ordered toward eternal happiness. A proper definition, as in this case, makes a thing known and distinguishes it from all else.

However, it seems incorrect to define faith by things that appear not. For John 20:26 says, Thomas saw and believed. Furthermore, we believe that there is one God, a fact that can be demonstrated by philosophers. I answer that "faith" can be understood in two senses. In its proper sense, as is clear from the above, it is concerned with things not seen and not known. Since the certainty of a conclusion cannot be greater than that of the principle from which it is drawn, it follows that because the principles of faith are not self-evident, neither are its conclusions. Hence, the intellect does not assent to the conclusions of faith as to things known or seen.

In a more general sense, however, "faith" can refer to belief in things that are seen, which is how Augustine uses the term in his Gospel Questions. But the Apostle here is speaking of faith in the first, proper sense. Regarding Thomas, it must be said, as Gregory does, that he saw one thing and believed something else: he saw the humanity of Christ and believed in His divinity.

To the objection about demonstrated truths, the answer is that nothing prevents one thing from being seen by one person and believed by another. For example, what is not seen on earth is seen by the angels; therefore, what I believe, an angel sees. Similarly, what is known by demonstration to philosophers—for example, that God is one and incorporeal—must be believed by the unlearned, just as an unlearned person believes in an eclipse that an astronomer sees and understands. In such cases, "faith" is being used in a different sense. There are, however, some truths that absolutely transcend the knowledge possible in this present life. It is in regard to these that we have faith in the strict and proper sense.

Having given a description, the Apostle now clarifies it with an example. In this regard, he does two things:

1. He reveals his thesis in general.
2. He explains it in detail (verse 2).

Regarding the first point, he says: This is how I describe and command faith, and this is nothing new. For by this—that is, by faith—the men of old, the holy fathers, obtained divine approval. They believed and were made ready by faith: Abraham believed God and it was reputed to him unto justice (Genesis 15:6); I have believed; therefore, have I spoken (Psalms 115:10). Among all the fathers of the Old Testament, two especially, David and Abraham, have the testimony of faith.

Then (verse 3) he clarifies his thesis in detail with examples from the ancients:

1. What they believed and taught.
2. What they did (verse 4).
3. What they suffered (verse 35b).

The doctrine of the Old Testament was twofold: one part was clearly given, while the other was hidden behind the veil of figures and mysteries. The first concerned the unity of God and the creation of the world; the second concerned the mystery of the incarnation and redemption. Therefore, just as they observed the Sabbath in memory of the creation, so we observe Sunday in memory of the resurrection.

Regarding the doctrine of the world’s creation, he says, by faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God. This can be read in two ways. In the first way, “by the word of God” is in the ablative case. The meaning then is that we, like the ancients, understand by faith—that is, by the doctrine of faith from the Old Testament—that the world was created, or arranged, by God’s command. As it is written, God said: Let there be light; and the light was made (Genesis 1:3), and, He spoke and they were made (Psalms 32:9).

It pertains to faith that we understand this because, since faith is concerned with things unseen, the world itself was made from invisible things. This refers to prime matter, which, when it is unformed and devoid of all form, is invisible and lacks all structure and disposition. Hence, he says, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.

In the second way, “word” is in the dative case. The meaning then is: We understand through faith, as before, that the world was framed—that is, suited and corresponded to the Word—so that from invisible things visible things might be made. Here it should be noted that the Word of God is God’s very own concept, by which He understands Himself and all other things. God is compared to the creature as an artisan is to an artifact.

We notice that an artisan produces an external work in the likeness of his internal concept; for instance, he builds a house in matter according to the likeness of the house formed in his mind. If the external house conforms to the preconceived idea, it is a properly arranged work; if not, it is not. But because all creatures are arranged in the best way, produced by an artisan in whom no error or defect can occur, they all conform fully to the divine concept in their own way. As Boethius says in his Consolations: “The most beautiful, on bringing forth in His mind a beautiful world, forms it in His likeness and image.” Therefore, the Apostle says, we understand by faith that the world—the entire universe of creatures—was framed, that is, it fittingly corresponded to the Word, God’s concept, just as artifacts correspond to their art: And he poured her out, that is, His wisdom, upon all his works .

He continues, that from invisible things visible things might be made. The common notion among the ancients was that the soul was produced from nothing (Aristotle, Physics, Book 2). When they saw a new work, they said that it was made from invisible things. They either supposed that everything was in everything else, as did Empedocles and Anaxagoras (about whom we will say nothing at present), or they thought that forms were in hiding, as did Anaxagoras. Still others supposed that they were formed from ideas, as did Plato, and others from a mind, as did Avicenna. According to all these philosophers, visible things were made from invisible ideal reasons. But we say, according to the manner stated before, that visible things were produced from invisible ideal reasons in the Word of God, by whom all things were made. These reasons, even though they are the same reality, differ in aspect because of the diverse relations they connote with respect to the creature. Thus, man was created by one reason and a horse by another, as Augustine says in his Book of 83 Questions. In this way, therefore, the world was framed by the Word of God, so that from invisible ideal reasons in the Word of God, visible things—that is, every creature—might be made.

All these words are expressly against the Manicheans, who say that what a person believes is not important, but only what he does. The Apostle, however, sets faith down as the principle of every work; he says that it is the substance, that is, the foundation. Therefore, without faith, works are performed in vain. Furthermore, they say that one should believe only those things for which a reason can be given. Against this, he says faith is of things that appear not. Again, they condemn the Old Testament, saying that it was formed by an evil principle, namely, the devil. Against this, he says that in this faith the ancients obtained a testimony.

Then (verse 4) he shows what the ancient fathers did. He demonstrates this first with the fathers who lived before the flood, second with those who lived before the Law (verse 8), and third with those who lived under the Law (verse 24). Before the flood, three were especially pleasing to God: Abel (Genesis 4:4), Enoch (Genesis 5:22), and Noah (Genesis 6:9). First, he mentions Abel’s faith; secondly, Enoch’s (verse 5); and thirdly, Noah’s (verse 7).

Regarding Abel, he shows what he did by faith and what he obtained. By faith, Abel offered a sacrifice to God. Just as a confession witnesses to the faith within, so his external sacrifice commends his faith because of his external worship. His chosen faith is shown by his offering a chosen sacrifice, for it was from the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat. The best sacrifice was a sign of his chosen and approved faith: Cursed is the deceitful man that has in his flock a male, and making a vow, offers in sacrifice what is feeble to the Lord (Malachi 1:14). No mention is made of the excellence of Cain’s sacrifice, but only that he offered it from the fruits of the earth. He says that Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, meaning he offered a better sacrifice to God than Cain did, because it was offered for the honor of God. Otherwise, it would not have been pleasing to God. A gloss says, “By an exceeding faith,” but this is not found in the Greek, unless one were to say that “by an exceeding faith” means by a better and more excellent faith than Cain’s, because, as has been said, the external sacrifice was a sign of the faith within.

Two things follow from faith. The first is on this earth: a witness to his righteousness. Hence, he says, through which he received approval as righteous, namely, by faith: From the blood of Abel, the just (Matthew 23:35). Yet it is not because of Christ’s testimony that he says Abel obtained approval as righteous, because he only intends to introduce the authority of the Old Testament. Rather, it is because of what is said in Genesis 4:4: God had respect to Abel, and to his offering. God has special respect for the just: The eyes of the Lord are upon the just (Psalms 33:16). This was shown by God bearing witness by accepting his gifts, which perhaps happened because his gifts were kindled by a heavenly fire. This was God’s respect. Yet He had respect first to the one offering them rather than to his offering, because an offering that is not sacramental is accepted because of the goodness of the one offering it. The wickedness of the minister does not alter the goodness of the sacrament, but for the one offering, goodness is required if the sacrifice is to benefit him. The other thing he obtained was after death; hence, he says, though he died, through his faith he is still speaking. As a gloss says: His faith is still commended after death because it gives us material for speaking of him. In this way, we give examples of faith and patience when we exhort others to penance. But this is not the Apostle’s aim, because he takes everything he uses here from the Scriptures. Thus, what is said in Genesis 4:10 is understood of him: The voice of your brother’s blood cries to me from the earth, which speaks better than that of Abel (Hebrews 12:24). For by the merit of faith, the blood of the dead Abel cries out and speaks to God.

Then, when he says, by faith Enoch was taken up, he commends Enoch. First, he states his point; secondly, he proves it (verse 5b).

The Apostle makes no mention of Enoch’s works, because Scripture says little about him. He merely shows what God did for him: by faith, that is, by the merit of faith, he was taken up from the present life and kept from death in another. Hence, he says, that he should not see death. He was seen no more, because God took him (Genesis 5:24). It is true that he has not died yet, but he will die sometime. The sentence which the Lord imposed on our first parents for their sin—In what day soever you shall eat of it, you shall die the death (Genesis 2:17)—will continue for all who are born of Adam, as it did even for Christ: Who is the man that shall live and not see death? (Psalms 88:49). But the death of two persons, Enoch and Elijah, has been deferred. The reason is that the doctrine of the Old Testament is ordered toward the promises of the New Testament, in which the hope of eternal life is promised to us: Do penance, for the kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17). Therefore, after the sentence of death was pronounced, the Lord willed to lead humanity to a hope for life. He did this for the fathers in all states: of nature, of the Law, and of grace. In the first state, He offered the hope of evading death in the case of Enoch; under the Law, in Elijah; and in the time of grace, in Christ, by whom the effect of this promise is given to us. Therefore, the others will die. But Christ, rising from the dead, dies no more. The first two, however, will be put to death by the Antichrist. Thus, Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death—and not only that he should not feel death—in that generation.

Then (verse 5b) he proves that Enoch obtained this by the merit of faith. First, he proves that he was taken up; secondly, that he obtained this by the merit of faith (verse 5c).

He proves the first point on the authority of Genesis 5:24, which is presented here in other words. There it says that he was seen no more, because God took him, but here, he was not found, because God had taken him. The meaning is the same: He pleased God and was beloved, and living among sinners he was taken up . For just as it was fitting for man to be expelled from paradise because of sin, so it was also fitting for the just to be brought into it. Through Seth, Enoch was the seventh and best descendant of Adam, just as Lamech, through Cain, was the seventh and worst descendant of Adam, being the first who, contrary to nature, introduced bigamy.

Then (verse 5b) he proves that Enoch was taken up on account of the merit of faith. Scripture says of him before his being taken up that he walked with God (Genesis 5:24), which is to consent to God and please Him. God took him for this reason. Since without faith it is impossible to walk with God and please Him, the conclusion follows. He gives the entire reason in its premises: first the major premise, that before he was taken up he was attested as having pleased God. Therefore, God took him up. Enoch pleased God and was translated into paradise, that he may give repentance to the nations . The fact that he pleased God is shown by the Scripture, which says that he walked with God: He walked with me in peace and in equity (Malachi 2:6); The man that walked in the perfect way, he served me (Psalms 100:6).

He states the minor premise, saying: And without faith it is impossible to please God. Faith is agreeable to him ; For we account a man to be justified by faith (Romans 3:28). He proves the minor premise when he says, Whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists. No one can please God without coming to Him: Draw near to God and he will draw near to you (James 4:8); Draw nigh to him and be enlightened (Psalms 33:5). But no one draws near to God except by faith, because faith is a light for the intellect. Therefore, no one can please God except by faith.

Anyone drawing near by faith must believe in the Lord. In every natural motion, for the motion not to be in vain, the moving object must tend toward two things: a definite destination and a certain cause for its movement. The destination is reached before the effect of the motion is reached. So too, in the movement by which one draws near to God, the destination is God Himself. Hence, he says, Whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists. He says this because of God’s eternity: He that is, sent me (Exodus 3:14). Secondly, one must know that God exercises providence over all things. Otherwise, no one would go to Him if he had no hope of a reward from Him. Hence, he says, and rewards those who seek him: Behold the Lord God shall come…. And his reward is with him (Isaiah 40:10). A reward is what a person seeks for his labor: Call the workers and give them their hire (Matthew 20:8). This reward is nothing less than God Himself, because a person should seek nothing outside of Him: I am your protector and your reward exceeding great (Genesis 15:1). For God gives nothing but Himself: The Lord is my portion, said my soul (Lamentations 3:24). He says, therefore, God rewards those who seek him, which is no different from Psalm 104:4: Seek the Lord and be strengthened: seek his face forevermore.

But are these two beliefs sufficient for salvation? I answer that after the sin of our first parents, no one can be saved from the debt of original sin except by faith in the Mediator. This faith, however, varies in its mode of belief according to different times and states. We, to whom such a great benefit has been shown, must believe more explicitly than those who lived before the time of Christ. At that time, some believed more explicitly, such as the great patriarchs and some to whom a special revelation was made. Furthermore, those under the Law believed more explicitly than those before the Law, because they were given certain sacraments by which Christ was represented figuratively. But for the Gentiles who were saved, it was enough if they believed that God is a rewarder; and this reward is received through Christ alone. Hence, they believed implicitly in a mediator.

An objection is raised against the statement that it is necessary to believe that God exists. It was stated above that what is believed is not seen or known, but God’s existence can be demonstrated. I answer that knowledge about God can be had in a number of ways. One way is through Christ, inasmuch as God is the Father of an only-begotten and consubstantial Son, along with other things which Christ specifically taught about God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit regarding the unity of essence and trinity of persons. All this was believed, but in the Old Testament it was believed only by the great patriarchs. Another way is to believe that God alone is to be worshipped; this is how the Jews believed. A third way is to know that there is one God, which was known even by the philosophers and does not fall under faith.

Then (verse 7) he shows what Noah did by faith and what he obtained as a result, being instituted heir of the justice which is by faith. He mentions five things that Noah did:

1. He believed God’s words about the judgment to come, which was not yet seen. Hence, he says, By faith, Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, believed.
2. He was moved to fear by faith, because faith is the beginning of fear: The fear of God is the beginning of his love; and the beginning of faith is to be fast joined unto it . Hence, he says, moved by fear, namely, of the promised flood, which was not yet seen. Therefore, faith is concerned with invisible things.
3. He fulfilled God’s command by building the ark. Hence, he says, he constructed an ark, that is, he did what was suitable according to God’s arrangement.
4. He hoped for salvation from God. Hence he says, for the saving of his household, that is, his family, because they alone were saved: herein a few, that is eight souls, were saved by water (1 Peter 3:20).
5. Since he did all the foregoing because of faith, he condemned the world, that is, he showed that worldly people deserve condemnation. The revelation he received about constructing the ark was an answer to his desire and to the righteousness which is by faith.

Then, when he says, and was instituted heir of the justice which is by faith, he shows what Noah obtained by faith. Just as after someone’s death another person succeeds to his inheritance, so too, because righteousness had not entirely died in the world (for the world still continued), but in the flood almost the entire world perished, Noah was made an heir, as it were, because of his faith. This can mean an heir of the righteousness which is obtained by faith. Or, just as his fathers were justified by faith, so he was made the heir of righteousness by faith, namely, an imitator of his fathers’ righteousness through faith.

Having given an example of faith from the fathers who lived before the flood—that is, those who were fathers of both the Gentiles and the Jews—the Apostle now specifically discusses the fathers who lived after the flood, namely, the fathers of the Jews. He presents the example of Abraham's faith, who was the father of believers and the first to receive the seal of faith before the Law.

The Apostle outlines what the patriarchs did by faith:

1. First, he shows what Abraham did.
2. Secondly, what Isaac did (Hebrews 11:20).
3. Thirdly, what Jacob did (Hebrews 11:21).
4. Fourthly, what Joseph did (Hebrews 11:22).

The section on Abraham is divided into two parts. First, the Apostle shows what Abraham did in regard to external and human matters; secondly, what he did in regard to God (Hebrews 11:17). The first part is further divided into three sections, showing what Abraham did concerning: first, his dwelling place; secondly, his descendants (Hebrews 11:11); and thirdly, his own devotion (Hebrews 11:13). Regarding his dwelling place, the Apostle first shows what Abraham did concerning his initial relocation, and secondly, what he did concerning his subsequent move (Hebrews 11:9).

To show the great authority of Abraham’s example, the author mentions the renown of his name, saying he was called Abraham by God: “You shall be called Abraham” (Genesis 17:5). He is also praised by men: “Abraham was the great father of a multitude of nations” . Therefore, one who was called by God and celebrated by men is a worthy example. Secondly, he gives the example, saying, by faith Abraham obeyed. For by faith we are enabled to believe God concerning invisible things: “for obedience to the faith” (Romans 1:5). He obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance: “Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you” (Genesis 12:1). The Lord was to give him that land for an inheritance: “All the land which you see, I will give to you” (Genesis 13:15).

But did he not leave his own land with his father, Terah? Does this mean he did not leave because of God’s command, but his father’s? I answer that he left with his father with the intention of returning, but in response to the Lord’s command, he went from Mesopotamia to Syria, where he intended to remain after his father’s death. Then, in response to a further command from the Lord, he went into the land of Canaan.

Was this so wonderful that he needed faith to believe God about it? Yes, because he went out, not knowing where he was going. What is unknown is invisible. By Abraham’s obedience, we are instructed to go out from all carnal affection if we would obtain our inheritance: “Forget your people and your father's house” (Psalms 45:10); “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9, referencing Isaiah 64:4). Hence, that inheritance is unknown to us.

Then, in Hebrews 11:9, he shows what Abraham did by faith regarding his dwelling place: first, what he did, and secondly, the reason why (Hebrews 11:10).

We sometimes see a person leave his native land and go elsewhere to make a permanent home. This was not the case with Abraham, for he lived as a stranger in the land of Canaan. This is clear from the fact that he did not build a house there but lived in tents, which are portable dwellings. For this reason, Scripture always mentions tents when speaking of Abraham. Therefore, he lived there as a stranger because of the Lord’s command: “And he gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot's length” (Acts 7:5); “Abraham sojourned in the land of the Philistines for many days” (Genesis 21:34). This is true regarding what the Lord was to give him freely, but not regarding what he bought.

Hence, the Apostle says, by faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as is clear from Genesis (chapters 12-21), as in a foreign land. This is evident from his living in tents. That he had no intention of returning to his native land, even if he had lived longer, is shown by the fact that he lived there successively with Isaac and Jacob. These were the children of the promise, because the promise was made to them (see Genesis 17 and 28). He says they were heirs with him of the same promise, by which we are given to understand that we should live in the world as foreigners and strangers: “And those who use the world, as though not using it to the full” (1 Corinthians 7:31); “For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the one that is to come” (Hebrews 13:14).

Then, when he says, he looked forward to the city which has foundations, he shows why Abraham lingered there as a stranger: he did not consider himself as having anything on earth but was seeking a heavenly city as his inheritance. “Our feet have been standing within your gates, O Jerusalem! Jerusalem, built as a city” (Psalms 122:2–3); “Your eyes will see Jerusalem, a quiet habitation, a tent that will not be moved” (Isaiah 33:20).

It is called a city for several reasons:

1. Because of the unity of its citizens, which is true peace: “Praise the LORD, O Jerusalem! Praise your God, O Zion! For... he makes peace in your borders” (Psalms 147:12, 14). “My people will sit in a beautiful peace, in secure dwellings, and in quiet resting places” (Isaiah 32:18); “That they may be one, even as we are one” (John 17:22).
2. Because it is ordered for justice and not for doing evil. Perpetual justice is there: “And the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there” (Ezekiel 48:35).
3. Because it is self-sufficient in all necessary things. Whatever is needed will be there most perfectly, for it is a state made perfect by the gathering of all good things: “Jerusalem, built as a city that is bound firmly together” (Psalms 122:3).

This city has foundations, which signifies stability: “a tent that will not be moved” (Isaiah 33:20). The foundations are the first part of a building; thus, the angels are the foundations of the city: “On the holy mountains stands the city he founded” (Psalms 87:1). For men will be raised to the orders of angels.

The founder of this city is God, not the wisdom of human skill: “For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” (2 Corinthians 5:1). Two things are required to build a city: first, the authority of the ruler, who establishes it and is called its founder, and from whom it takes its name, as Rome from Romulus. In this way, God is called the founder of that city: “in the city of our God... God will establish it forever” (Psalms 48:8). The second is the way it is constructed, which commends the wisdom of the architect. Thus, God is called its architect, because it was built according to the design and wisdom of God: “Great is the LORD and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, his holy mountain!” (Psalms 48:1). The proper arrangement of a work commends the workman, and divine wisdom will never be so resplendent as it is there; therefore, God is greatly to be praised.

Then, when he says, by faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, he shows what Abraham's wife obtained by faith. In this regard, he does two things: first, he shows what she obtained personally; secondly, what she obtained in her children (Hebrews 11:12).

There were two defects in his wife that made it seem almost impossible for her to conceive. One was that she was sterile: “Now Sarai was barren” (Genesis 11:30). The other was that, due to her age, she was not naturally able to bear children: “The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah” (Genesis 18:11). The Apostle touches on these two defects, first when he says, being barren, and secondly, when he says, even when she was past the age. Yet in spite of all this, she received the power to conceive by faith—either her own or Abraham’s. For even though it was naturally impossible for a ninety-year-old woman to conceive from a man of one hundred, they both believed God, for whom nothing is difficult. Hence, he says, since she considered him faithful who had promised.

On the contrary, it seems that Abraham did not believe, because in Genesis 17:17 he asked: “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” Likewise, regarding Sarah, it is stated in Genesis 18:12: “So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, ‘After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?’” I answer that Abraham’s laughing was not due to doubt, but to wonder. “He did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised” (Romans 4:20–21). Therefore, his laughter was not rebuked by God, who knows the hearts of all.

Sarah, however, did doubt at the first promise. But when the angel referred to the power of God, saying, “Is anything too hard for the LORD?” (Genesis 18:14), she then believed. This was, as it were, a second promise. Therefore, the author says God promised again, because when He promised the first time, she did not believe, but only when He promised again.

It should be noted that all the miraculous conceptions in the Old Testament were a figure of that greatest of miracles which occurred in the incarnation. It was necessary that Christ’s birth from the Virgin be prefigured by certain events to prepare souls to believe. But it could not be prefigured by something equal, because a figure necessarily falls short of what is prefigured. Therefore, Scripture foreshadows the Virgin Birth through the births from barren women, namely, Sarah, Hannah, and Elizabeth. But there is a difference: Sarah received the power to conceive from God miraculously, but from human seed. In the Blessed Virgin, however, God even prepared that most pure matter from her blood, and with that, the power of the Holy Spirit was present in place of seed. For the Word was made flesh not from human seed but by a mystical breathing.

Then, when he says, therefore from one man, he shows what she obtained in her children by God’s power: a multiplication of descendants as a reward for faith. From one man, namely, Abraham, they sprang: “I called him alone, and blessed him and made him many” (Isaiah 51:2). Secondly, his condition should be considered, because he was as good as dead, for he was already an old man, as was stated above.

But on the other hand, since Abraham, described as "as good as dead," fathered sons by another wife after Sarah died (as stated in Genesis 25:1-2), it seems incorrect to describe him this way. I answer that an old man can well produce children with a young woman, but not with an old one. Consequently, his power to procreate was dead in regard to Sarah, but not in regard to others. Or, one might say that "from one" refers to Sarah’s womb, already as good as dead: “the barrenness of Sarah's womb” (Romans 4:19); “Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you” (Isaiah 51:2).

Thirdly, the difference between those who came from Abraham should be considered. For, as it is stated in Romans 9:6-8, not all who are of the seed of Abraham are his true children, but only the children of the promise are counted as his offspring. Therefore, his descendants are divided into two branches: the good and the wicked. The good are signified by the stars, of whom he says that they have sprung forth as the stars of heaven in number: “The stars shone in their watches and were glad” . But the wicked are signified by the sand of the seashore, because the wicked Jews of Abraham’s seed conformed to the Gentiles. The sand is everywhere battered by the waves of the sea, just as the wicked are by the winds of the world: “But the wicked are like the tossing sea” (Isaiah 57:20). The Jews were not entirely sand, but as the sand, because they shared their wickedness with the Gentiles: “I have placed the sand as the bound for the sea” (Jeremiah 5:22).

Again, sand is sterile and fruitless; so, too, the wicked are sterile of all good works. Hence, he says, they sprang forth as the innumerable sand which is by the seashore. The figure is a hyperbole. Or it is described as innumerable not because it cannot be counted, but because it cannot be counted easily: “I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore” (Genesis 22:17).

After commending Abraham’s faith regarding his dwelling place and offspring, the Apostle now commends him on his way of life until death. Regarding this, he does three things: first, he shows what Abraham did by faith; second, he mentions one thing that relates to faith (verse 14); and third, he shows what he received by faith (verse 16).

He commends the faith of Abraham and his children for its perseverance, because they persevered in the faith until death: He who perseveres to the end will be saved (Matthew 24:13). Therefore, he says, These all died in faith, except for Enoch. Or, “these all” refers to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is the better interpretation because the promise was made only to them. Furthermore, he commends them for enduring the long delay of the promise; hence, he says, not having received what was promised.

On the other hand, it seems that they did receive the promise: Abraham was only one, and he inherited the land (Ezekiel 33:24). I answer that Abraham possessed it, that is, he was the first to receive the promise of possessing the land; yet he did not actually possess it, as is clear from Acts 7:5. He continues, seeing it and greeting it from afar by faith. This is as if to say: looking on with the vision of faith. Perhaps the responsory for the first Sunday of Advent is taken from this passage: “Behold from afar, I see the power of God coming, and a cloud covering the whole earth”; Behold, the name of the LORD comes from afar (Isaiah 30:27).

And greeting it, that is, venerating it. According to Chrysostom, he speaks like sailors who, when they first see their port, break out in praise and greet the city they have reached. So the holy fathers, seeing by faith the coming Christ and the glory they were to obtain through Him, greeted, that is, venerated Him: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD. He is God and has shone upon us (Psalms 117:26); Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day; he saw it and was glad (John 8:56).

He also commends their faith for its sincere confession, because, as it says in Romans 10:10: With the heart we believe unto justice; but with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation. Hence, he says, acknowledging that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those three men called themselves strangers and pilgrims, for in Genesis 23:4 Abraham says: I am a stranger and a sojourner among you. Furthermore, the Lord says to Isaac: Stay in the land that I shall tell you, and sojourn in it (Genesis 26:2), and Jacob himself says: The days of my pilgrimage (Genesis 47:9).

Now, a pilgrim is one who is on the way to a specific place, while a sojourner is one who lives in a foreign land with no intention of going elsewhere. But they confessed to being not only sojourners but also pilgrims. Likewise, a holy person does not make his home in this world but is always occupied with journeying toward heaven: I am a stranger with you, and a sojourner as all my fathers were (Psalms 38:13).

Then, in verse 14, he shows that this confession relates to hope. For a person is a guest and a stranger only when he is outside his own country and traveling toward it. Therefore, since they confess to being guests and strangers, they show that they are heading toward their homeland, that is, the heavenly Jerusalem: But that Jerusalem which is above is free (Galatians 4:26). And this is what he says: for people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland.

Now, someone might argue that while they were pilgrims in the land of the Philistines and Canaanites where they lived, they intended to return to the land they had left. But the Apostle refutes this, saying, If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return, because it was nearby. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Hence, in Genesis 24:6, Abraham said to his servant: Beware that you never bring my son back there again.

I have chosen to be an abject in the house of my God, rather than to dwell in the tabernacles of sinners (Psalms 83:11); One thing I have asked of the LORD, this I will seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life (Psalms 26:4). Therefore, they were seeking a country, but not their father’s house, which they had left. This signifies that those who leave the world’s vanity should not return to it in their minds: Forget your people and your father’s house (Psalms 44:11); No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God (Luke 9:62); forgetting the things that are behind, and stretching myself forward to the things that are before (Philippians 3:13).

It is also clear that their confessions, in both word and deed, relate to faith, because they most firmly believed until death what was promised but never shown to them. Therefore, they died in faith, that is, with faith beside them as an inseparable companion: Be faithful until death (Revelation 2:10).

Then, in verse 16, he shows what they merited to receive through their faith. This was the highest honor: when someone receives a title derived from a solemn office or from the service of a great and excellent lord or prince, such as “the Pope’s notary” or “the king’s chancellor.” But it is an even greater honor when that great lord wishes to be named after those who serve him. So it is with these three—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—whose Lord, the great King over all other gods, specifically calls Himself their God. Hence, in Exodus 3:6: I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Therefore, he says, God is not ashamed to be called their God.

Three reasons can be given for this. First, because God is known by faith. But they are recorded as the first to have separated themselves from unbelievers by a special form of worship; hence, too, Abraham was the first to receive the seal of faith to become the father of many nations (Romans 4:17). Therefore, they are presented to us as an example, as those by whom God was first known, and through whom God was named as an object of faith. Therefore, He willed to be named after them.

Second, according to Augustine in a gloss, a mystery lies hidden in them. For in them we find a likeness to the way God regenerates spiritual sons. We observe in them a fourfold way of begetting children:

1. The first way is of free children by free women, as Abraham by Sarah begot Isaac, who begot Jacob by Rebecca, and Jacob the eight patriarchs by Leah and Rachel.
2. The second way was of free children through bondwomen, as Jacob begot Dan and Naphtali by Bilhah and Zilpah.
3. The third way was of servants by free women, as Isaac begot Esau by Rebecca; of him it was said, The older shall serve the younger (Genesis 25:23).
4. The fourth was of servants by bondwomen, as Abraham begot Ishmael by Hagar.

This designates the diverse ways in which the Lord begets spiritual children: sometimes the good by the good, as Timothy by Paul; sometimes the good by the wicked, which is the generation of free men by bondwomen; sometimes the wicked by the good, as Simon Magus by Philip, which is the generation of servants by free women. But the generation of the wicked by the wicked is accounted for in the seed; hence, Cast out the bondwoman and her son (Galatians 4:30).

The third reason, which seems more in keeping with the Apostle’s intention, is that it is customary for a king to be called by his chief city or by his entire country, such as King of Jerusalem, King of the Romans, or King of France. Therefore, the Lord is properly called the King and God of those who are specifically looking toward that city, the heavenly Jerusalem, whose architect and founder is God. And because they showed by word and deed that they belong to that city, He is called their God; hence he says, for he has prepared for them a city.

Then, in verse 17, another famous example of Abraham’s faith is given, this one concerning God: namely, his supreme sacrifice when, at the Lord’s command, he was willing to immolate his only-begotten son (Genesis 22:1). Regarding this, he does three things: first, he shows what Abraham did; second, that this relates to faith (verse 17); and third, what he received for it (verse 19).

He says, therefore: By faith, Abraham, when he was tested, was ready to offer Isaac, as is clear from Genesis 22. But there are two questions here. First of all, killing an innocent person is against the law of nature and is, therefore, a sin. So, in being willing to offer him, did he sin? I answer that a person who kills at the command of a superior who is lawfully commanding, obeys lawfully and can lawfully carry out his duty. But God has power over life and death: The LORD kills and brings to life (1 Samuel 2:6). God does no injury when He takes the life even of the innocent. Hence, by God’s decree, many wicked and many innocent people die every day. Therefore, it is lawful to carry out God’s commands.

There is also a question about the statement, when he was tested. For God does not test in order to learn something, since to test implies ignorance. I answer that the devil tests in order to deceive: Lest perhaps he who tempts should have tempted you (1 Thessalonians 3:5). This is clear in the temptation of Christ (Matthew 4). But a man tests in order to learn. Thus, in 1 Kings 10:1 it is recorded that the queen of Sheba went to Solomon to test him with questions. But God does not test in that way, for He knows all things. Rather, He tests so that the person himself may learn how strong or weak he is: to afflict you and to test you, that the things that were in your heart might be made known (Deuteronomy 8:2). And 2 Chronicles 32:31 tells of Hezekiah being tested so that all things in his heart might be made known. Furthermore, God tests so that others may know the one tested and take him as an example, like Abraham and Job .

Then, when he says that Abraham was ready to offer up his only son, he subtly shows that this obedience relates to faith. For, as stated above, Abraham in his old age believed God’s promise that in Isaac his descendants would be blessed. He also believed that God could raise the dead. Therefore, when he was commanded to kill Isaac, there was no further hope of Sarah, who was now very old, having another child, since Isaac was already a young man. Therefore, since he believed that God’s commands must be obeyed, nothing remained but to believe that God would resurrect Isaac, through whom his descendants were to be named.

Hence, he says, his only son—that is, Sarah’s son—in whom, meaning in this only son, God was to fulfill His promise, as Genesis 18:19 indicates. Or, he was the only son among the free children: Take your only-begotten son, Isaac (Genesis 22:2). He who had received the promises, and of whom it was said, Through Isaac shall your descendants be called, reasoned that God was able to raise people even from the dead. This, therefore, was the greatest proof of his faith, because the article of the resurrection is one of the most important doctrines.

Then, in verse 19, he shows what Abraham merited by faith. For, since nothing remained but to sacrifice him, an angel called to Abraham, and in place of his son, he sacrificed a ram caught by its horns. But this was a parable, that is, a figure of the Christ to come. For the ram caught by its horns in the thicket represents the humanity of Christ, which suffered, fixed to the cross. And so it is clear that the figure was not at all equal to the reality it prefigured. Therefore, he received him back—that is, Isaac—as a parable, meaning as a figure of Christ to be crucified and sacrificed.

Previously, the Apostle gave an example of Abraham’s faith; here he gives the example of the faith of Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, beginning with Isaac. He says, therefore, that by faith in things to come—that is, things that extended into the future—Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau. He blessed them for things to come, or with a blessing which extended to the future, for his words had their efficacy from God’s power alone.

Through this blessing, the younger ruled the older. But this did not pertain to them personally, but to the two peoples that came from them: over Edom I will stretch out my shoe (Psalms 107:10). For the Edomites, who came from Esau, were subject to the people of Israel. This signified that the younger people—that is, the Gentiles—were to supplant the older people, namely, the Jews, by faith: Many shall come from the east and the west and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 8:11). But that blessing, which concerned the future faith of the Gentiles, was given by faith because it looked to something in the future.

Next, when he says, by faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, he continues with Jacob’s faith. He mentions what Jacob did in blessing the two sons of Joseph, as recorded in Genesis 48. There it is stated that when Joseph was informed of his father’s illness, he brought his two sons, whom Jacob then blessed by crossing his hands. With this gesture, he chose Ephraim over Manasseh in dignity, because royal dignity came from Ephraim through Jeroboam. This blessing was by faith because it was revealed to him that this is how it would be in the future. This blessing referred to the peoples who came from them and not to them personally.

Likewise, by faith he...worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff. This is recorded in Genesis 49, where it is stated that he made Joseph swear to bury him in the tomb of his fathers. After the oath, he adored the top of the coffin, as our version has it; or at the top of his staff, as the Septuagint says; or at the top, as it is in the Greek. All of these interpretations can stand. He was old and carried a staff, or perhaps he took Joseph’s scepter until he swore the oath. After returning it, he worshipped—not the staff or Joseph, as some have wickedly thought, but God Himself. He did this while leaning on the top of his staff, moved by the consideration of Christ’s power, which Joseph’s power prefigured. As the prefect in Egypt, Joseph carried a scepter as a sign of his power: You that rule them with a rod of iron (Psalms 2:9).

Alternatively, if he worshipped at the top, the meaning is the same, because he worshipped Christ, who was signified by that staff. This is just as we adore the Crucified One and the Cross because of Christ, who suffered on it. Therefore, properly speaking, we do not adore the Cross itself, but Christ crucified on it.

Then, in verse 22, he continues with the example of Joseph’s faith. He mentions two things stated in the last chapter of Genesis, where Joseph said to his brothers in verse 24, God will visit you, and commanded them to carry his bones out of that place. Thus, his faith concerned two things. First, he believed that the promise God made would be fulfilled by the return of the children of Israel to the promised land. Second, he believed that Christ would be born and would rise from the dead in that land, and many with Him. Therefore, he desired to have a part in that resurrection. The Apostle says, therefore, By faith Joseph, at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites—this relates to the first point—and gave commandment regarding his bones, which relates to the second.

But why did he not have himself carried back at once, like his father? I answer that he was not able to, because he no longer had the power he possessed at the time of his father’s death. Second, he knew that the children of Israel were to suffer many afflictions after his death. Therefore, to assure them of their deliverance and return to the promised land, he wanted his body to remain with them as a source of consolation. Consequently, Moses took it with him, just as each tribe took the body of its own patriarch, as Jerome says.

Next, when he says, By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months by his parents, he continues with the fathers who were under the Law. This period begins with Moses: Moses commanded a law in the precepts of justice ; The law was given by Moses (John 1:33). That period is divided into three parts: before the departure from Egypt, during the departure, and after the departure. Therefore, the Apostle does three things:

1. He shows what happened before the departure.
2. He shows what happened during the departure (v. 27).
3. He shows what happened in the promised land (v. 32).

Regarding the first part, he does two things: first, he shows what occurred at Moses’ birth, and second, what Moses himself did (v. 24).

Here he touches on the history given in Exodus 1, namely, that Pharaoh commanded the male children to be killed so that the Israelites would not multiply. Second, it is recorded that Moses’ parents, seeing that he was a beautiful child, hid him for three months, an act which the Apostle attributes to their faith. They believed that someone would be born to free them from their slavery. Therefore, from the child’s beauty, they believed that some power of God was in him. For they were simple country people who toiled, working with clay and bricks: A man is known by his look . From this we see that although faith is about invisible things, we can nevertheless be assured in it through certain visible signs: Confirming the word with signs that followed (Mark 16:20). The fact that they did this from faith and not from mere natural affection is evident, because they were not afraid of the king’s edict. Thus, they exposed themselves to danger, which they would not have done unless they had believed that something great was in store for the child: Do not fear them that kill the body (Matthew 10:28).

On the other hand, one might object that they later exposed him, and therefore it was not by faith that they preserved him. I answer that they exposed him not to destroy him but to keep him from being discovered and killed. They placed him in a small basket, committing him to divine providence, for they believed he would likely be killed if he were found among them.

Then, in verse 24, he shows what Moses did by faith: first, what he did, and second, that what he did pertained to faith (v. 26b).

Here he touches on the history recorded in Exodus 2, where it is stated that Pharaoh’s daughter had him nursed by his own mother and adopted him as her son. But Moses refused to be her son, not in word, but in deed, because against Pharaoh’s will he killed an Egyptian who had harmed a Hebrew. Therefore, the Apostle says, By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to be afflicted with the people of God, than to have the pleasure of sin for a time.

This indicates his marvelous virtue. For there are two things that people desire most: pleasure and delight in external things. And they flee most from their opposites: pain and affliction (which are opposed to pleasure), and poverty and humiliation (which are opposed to delight). But Moses chose the latter two. He preferred pain and affliction to the temporary pleasure of sin, which is always associated with sin. He also chose poverty for Christ’s sake: It is better to be humbled with the meek, than to divide spoils with the proud (Proverbs 16:19); I have chosen to be an abject in the house of my God, rather than to dwell in the tabernacles of sinners (Psalms 83:11).

Regarding the first choice, he says, rather choosing to be afflicted with the people of God, whom Pharaoh afflicted, than to have the pleasure of sin for a time. He would have had this pleasure if he had joined the Egyptians in afflicting the children of Israel. Regarding the second choice, that he chose poverty, he says, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches. This means he chose it for the sake of his faith in Christ, for which he endured reproach even from his own brothers, as stated in Exodus 2:14: Will you kill me, as you did yesterday kill the Egyptian? This reproach was a prefigurement of the reproaches Christ would have to endure from the Jews: My heart has expected reproach and misery (Psalms 68:21). But he considered these two things—affliction and reproach—to be greater riches than the treasures of the Egyptians: The riches of salvation, wisdom and knowledge (Isaiah 33:6).

Then, when the Apostle says, for he looked unto the reward, he shows that these actions of Moses pertained to faith in Christ. It should be noted that some things are good and delightful in themselves, while other things are sorrowful and evil. No one chooses evil things for their own sake, but only for the sake of some end. For example, a sick person chooses a bitter medicine, preferring something unpleasant to something pleasant by reason of a greater good that can be obtained through it. In the same way, the saints, by their hope for the ultimate end of eternal happiness, chose affliction and poverty over riches and pleasures, because riches and pleasures would have hindered them from attaining the end for which they hoped. Blessed are you when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you... Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven (Matthew 5:11); I am your protector and your reward exceedingly great (Genesis 15:1). Therefore, the Apostle says that Moses did this because he looked with the eyes of faith to the reward, which he hoped to receive from it. Thus, faith is the substance of things to be hoped for; the evidence of things that appear not, as was stated above.