The Translation Difficulty in Hebrews 11:19
It may be perplexing, challenging, and even uncomfortable to learn that our modern English Bible versions obscure rather than clarify the meaning of “in a parable” (en parabolē) in Hebrews 11:19. Consider these five different translations:
- “Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure” (KJV).
- “He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type” (NASB).
- “He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back” (ESV).
- “Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so, in a manner of speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death” (NIV).
- “He considered God to be able even to raise someone from the dead; therefore, he received him back, figuratively speaking” (CSB).
The NASB’s translation, “as a type” instead of “in a parable,” introduces confusion because it seems to draw on the popular concept of biblical typology. However, although the writer to the Hebrews uses “type” (Heb. 8:5) and its corresponding term, “antitypes” (Heb. 9:24), once each, he does not use either word in the same way as other New Testament writers do.[1] Hebrews’ single use of “type” refers to the heavenly reality shown to Moses on the mountain, after which he constructed the wilderness tabernacle with its holy accessories and ministration as an earthly model, “a copy and shadow of the heavenly things” (Heb. 8:5). Thus, Hebrews’ only use of “antitypes” expressly refers to the wilderness tabernacle with its holy furnishings and holy place, “which are copies of the true things” in heaven (Heb. 9:24).[2] Hence, it is readily evident that Hebrews uses “type” and “antitypes” in a distinctly different way from how some translators and exegetes conceive them, speaking of aspects of the old covenant that foreshadow realities of the new covenant.
“Parable,” “Type,” and Heavenly Reality
Thus, though translators and wordsmiths incorrectly claim that “in a parable” (en parabolē) in Hebrews 11:19 essentially means “type,” they are not entirely off the mark. Careful reading of how Hebrews uses “type” in Hebrews 8:5 and “antitype” in 9:24 is instructive for understanding the writer’s two respective uses of “parable” in Hebrews 9:9 and 11:19. He uses “parable” in 9:9 and “antitypes” in 9:24 as synonyms. Both portray the wilderness tabernacle as an earthly shadow, copy, or model of the true sanctuary that is in heaven. Thus, the CSB correctly translates “antitypes” in Hebrews 9:24 as “only a model of the true one.” Hebrews argues that the heavenly sanctuary, embodied in God’s Son, as the type (original) cast a copy and shadow upon the earth, the wilderness tabernacle and its ministrations (Heb. 8:5; 9:24). Thus, for the Israelites, the earthly tabernacle “was a parable for the time then present” concerning the heavenly sanctuary, the heavenly type which cast its antitype shadows to resemble the doing of God’s holy will on earth as done in heaven.[3]
Hebrews’ Unique Use of Parable
Of the fifty uses of the word “parable” in the New Testament, only two occur outside the Synoptic Gospels, and both are in Hebrews (Heb. 9:9 and 11:19). And, as will be demonstrated, these two passages are intimately linked in the theological argument of Hebrews. The Gospels use “parable” to refer to Jesus’s teaching with pithy, short, impromptu stories and analogies to depict God’s kingdom. Hebrews uses “parable” in a broader sense, referring first to the tabernacle with all its holy ministrations and then to the whole episode of Abraham obeying the Lord by taking his only son to slay him on a mountain in Moriah, where he received Isaac back again from the dead (Heb. 11:19).
When the writer speaks of the events narrated in Genesis 22 as a parable, he does not imply that the astonishing episode concerning Abraham and his son is fictional. Rather, Hebrews contends that the whole historical account of God’s instructing Abraham to take his “only son, Isaac,” to Moriah to offer him as a burnt offering on a mountain, whose life God spared by providing a ram as his substitute, was an earthly dramatic shadow of a corresponding heavenly reality, namely, God’s plan of redemption. This is why the writer plainly states concerning Isaac, through whom God’s promised seed would come, that Abraham “reasoned that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from whence he also received him back in a parable” (Heb. 11:19; author’s translation).
The Tabernacle as an Earthly Parable
The use of “parable” in Hebrews 9:9 overlaps with “copy” (hypodeigma) and “shadow” (skia) in Hebrews 8:5, but “parable” adds depth, dimension, and scope to these terms by referencing a remarkable episode. As used in Hebrews 9:9 and 11:19, “parable” retains the essential sense it bears in the Gospels, though its use concerns Old Testament narratives about historical events, persons, institutions, and places that represent heavenly realities, while Jesus’s use also portrays heavenly realities by drawing on events, persons, places, and institutions common among humans.
God, who is holy, ordered the construction of the tabernacle as an earthly parable of the heavenly sanctuary to instruct the Israelites that acceptance in his presence requires atonement. While the tabernacle served as a parable, teaching for as long as it endured (Heb. 9:9), its presence on earth as “the copies of the heavenly things” was continually being purified by the sprinkling of blood (Heb. 9:20–23). Thus, the earthly copy was pleading for its own termination when, “once for all time at the end of the ages,” the promised Messiah would appear “to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:24–26; 10:1–4).
Is the Parable Limited to Isaac’s Deliverance?
Some exegetes wrongly believe that Hebrews’ use of “in parable” refers only to Isaac’s deliverance from death. So, they regard that one aspect of Genesis 22 as a “type or figure of the resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.”[4] For example, William Lane does not accept that “in parable” encompasses the entire episode, including the anticipated sacrifice of Isaac and the Lord’s appointed turn of events, delivering Isaac from death by providing the substitutionary ram, which Abraham’s belief anticipated.[5]
Philip Hughes confidently adopts a more comprehensive view, explaining, “It is not surprising that from the earliest times this event has been seen by the church as parabolic or typical of the death and resurrection of Christ.”[6] The unfolding episode is interspersed with symbolic activity and dialogue, all of which is an earthly parable of the heavenly reality concerning God’s plan of redemption through his promised Seed of Abraham.
The Parabolic Drama of Genesis 22
Ponder how the episode progresses with parabolic features.
- God’s command concerning a horrendous sacrifice on a specific mountain: “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you” (Gen. 22:2).
- Abraham’s belief: “Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy will go over there and worship and come again to you” (Gen. 22:5).
- Abraham’s preparations: “And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son. And he took in hand the fire and the knife” (Gen. 22:6).
- Isaac’s question; Abraham’s believing response: “Isaac said to his father Abraham, ‘My father!’ And he said, ‘Here I am, my son.’ He said, ‘Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?’ Abraham said, ‘God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son’” (Gen. 22:7-8)
- Abraham constructs an altar: “When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son” (Gen. 22:9-10).
- The presence of the angel of the Lord: “But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, ‘Abraham, Abraham!’ He said, ‘Here I am.’ He said, ‘Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me’” (Gen. 22:11-12).
- The Lord provided a substitute for Isaac: “And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son” (Gen. 22:13). This echoes the earlier, “And on the third day, Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from afar” (Gen. 22:4).[7]
- Abraham named the mountain location: “So, Abraham called the name of that place, ‘The Lord will provide’; as it is said to this day, ‘On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided” (Gen. 22:14).
From Moriah to the Messiah
That the whole episode of Genesis 22, including the mountain, is parabolic, with each element imbued with representational symbolism, seems clear from the question Isaac asks, “Father . . . but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” (Gen. 22:7) and Abraham’s believing reply, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son” (Gen. 22:8). Though Hebrews appeals only to Abraham’s reception of Isaac as confirming his belief in the resurrection, it is evident that the whole episode is infused with representations assumed in Hebrews 11:19 while going beyond what is explicitly stated to highlight the enduring resilience of Abraham’s faith. Isaac and his father, Abraham, are historical earthly shadows engaged in a divinely authorized parable that nurtured their faith and portrayed realities far larger than either could fully grasp at the time.
Just as the tabernacle later served as a parable for the Israelites, so earlier, the parable of Abraham and Isaac, who traveled to Moriah to offer a sacrifice before the Lord, instructed them. The aged man reasoned that God, who gave him the promised son through whom his seed would be named, who now commanded him to slaughter that same son as a burnt offering, would raise him from the dead. God authorized the writing down of this parabolic episode for the instruction of all generations who would hear or read it, first for the Israelites but also for all who believe in Jesus, the Messiah, who “appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin” (Heb. 9:26). Since ancient days, Isaac’s prophetic question has echoed: “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” Thus, when John the Baptist saw Jesus and announced, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29), Abraham’s assured prophetic response to Isaac’s question concerning God’s promise of the Seed reached fulfillment: “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son” (Gen. 22:8). It is no small matter that Abraham named the place, “The Lord will provide” (YHWH yirʾeh; KJV, Jehovahjireh; Gen. 22:14). The additional statement—“as it is said to this day, ‘On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided’”—implies that the frequent retelling of the episode because it is the place where sacrifices for Israelites’ sins were made, at the temple’s altar (2 Chron. 3:1-2).[8] Thus, eventually, when Israel’s temple replaced the tabernacle, the sacrificial altar stood on the place which Abraham prophetically named, “The Lord will provide.”
The Parable Fully Revealed
By identifying Genesis 22 as a parable, Hebrews 11:19 more tightly combines the dual themes of death and resurrection than any other passage in the Old Testament. These themes were there when Abraham and Isaac experienced the drama of the parable. They have been there since Moses wrote it for posterity. It is reasonable, as Peter tells us, to acknowledge that the prophets, including Abraham and Moses, often spoke and wrote better than they understood (1 Pet. 1:10-12). Present in the experiences of Abraham and Isaac and in the text of Genesis 22, of course, as it is with a parable, its teaching emerges fully for comprehension at the end of the ages, when the promised Seed arrived, gave himself as the sacrifice, and was raised from the dead. The parable dramatized the heavenly realities of God’s designed substitution of Abraham’s Seed for others, now revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ, his own Son, who gave himself over on our behalf and who arose to life (cf. Rom. 4:13-25).[9]
Conclusion
Here is a clarifying paraphrastic translation of Hebrews 11:19—“Abraham considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, in a divinely ordered parable, he did receive Isaac back.” In calling Abraham’s reception of Isaac back from the dead “in a parable,” Hebrews invites readers to see Genesis 22 not merely as a test of faith but as a divinely staged earthly drama that shadowed God’s holy requirement of a sacrifice for sin. The parabolic earthly shadow, which nurtured the faith of Abraham and Isaac, became a prophetic foreshadowing of the time when God would put an end to all sin sacrifices by sending his “only Son,” Abraham’s Seed, who would die and conquer death on the third day in a far greater way than Isaac did on the same mountain of the Lord’s provision. The entire episode—command, journey, altar, question, substitute, and deliverance from death—forms an earthly shadow of the heavenly reality come down to earth in Jesus Christ, who accomplished once for all the putting away of sin by the sacrifice of himself. Abraham’s faith perceived resurrection; the gospel reveals its fulfillment in Christ. Thus, the narrative stands as a Spirit-ordained parable in history, proclaiming that the God who provided a ram on Moriah has finally provided the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.
First published at Christ Over All.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Notes
1. Moises Silva agrees with the NASB and the CSB’s footnote concerning Hebrews 9:9 and 11:19 by stating, “In both of these passages the sense of the term seems to be ‘type.’” (Silva, ed., “παραβολή,” NIDNTT, vol. 3, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014], 609). Likewise, Paul Ellingworth claims, “Παραβολή here clearly does not mean a narrative parable, as in the synoptic [gospel]s. It has rather the older sense of a rhetorical figure of speech involving a comparison. . . [T]he παραβολή is secondary to the reality to which it corresponds. The underlying way of thinking is typological” (Hebrews [NIGCNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 440, cf. 604). More technically correct, though confusing, is BDAG s.v. “παραβολή” (first definition, 759) “someth. that serves as a model or example pointing beyond itself for later realization, type, figure.” For clarification concerning the use of “parable” in Hebrews, see Ardel B. Caneday, “God’s Parabolic Design for Israel’s Tabernacle: A Cluster of Earthly Shadows of Heavenly Realities,” SBJT 24.1 (2020): 107-108.
2. Other than Hebrews 9:24, the only other use of “antitype” in the New Testament occurs in 1 Peter 3:21, where Peter calls Christian baptism the “antitype” of the flood waters that buoyed up the ark, safely delivering Noah’s family through the flood.
3. Caneday, “God’s Parabolic Design for Israel’s Tabernacle,” 109-110.
4. Thomas R. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews, BTCP (Nashville: B&H, 2015), 358. See the discussion above that challenges equating “in parable” with “type.”
5. William L. Lane, Hebrews 9-13, WBC 47b (Dallas: Word, 1991), 363. Lane makes two crucial and erroneous exegetical decisions: (1) He claims, “It is not necessary to believe that Abraham recognized the connection between the receiving of Isaac from the altar and resurrection from the dead,” which is the Preacher’s emphatic point. And (2) He reasons, “For the writer the sacrifice of Isaac is not a type of the sacrificial death of Christ (as it is already in the early second century, cf. Barn. 7.3). There is no evidence for this early period that the narrative of Gen 22 had been related to the cross and resurrection of Jesus.”
6. Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 321.
7. Genesis 22:4 is the first occurrence of “on the third day” in the Old Testament. The phrase in the LXX, the Greek version of the Hebrew Old Testament, is identical to the phrase used numerous times in the New Testament, such as John 2:1 and 1 Corinthians 15:4, where Paul states that Christ “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,” which means that he regarded the third-day resurrection prophesied long ago.
8. See Stephen G. Dempster, “From Slight Peg to Cornerstone to Capstone: The Resurrection of Christ on ‘The Third Day’ according to the Scriptures,” WTJ 76 (2014): 387.
9. Dempster, “From Slight Peg to Cornerstone to Capstone: The Resurrection of Christ on ‘The Third Day’ according to the Scriptures,” 371-409.