Rewriting the Story
By faith Sarah herself received the power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. Hebrews 11:11 ESV
Power to conceive – The inclusion of Sarah in the heroes of the faith hall of fame has always seemed a bit strange. When we read the story of her miraculous pregnancy in Genesis, there is no indication that she actually believed God’s promise. In fact, the text seems to suggest just the opposite. Sarah laughed at God’s words, finding them ridiculous and impossible. The ancient story doesn’t match this author’s evaluation. Or so it seems.
There is another problem with this account. The Greek word translated “power to conceive” is katabole. It has two distinct meanings. The first, and most common, is “foundation,” found in numerous New Testament texts (e.g. Hebrew 9:26, 1 Peter 1:20, Matthew 13:35). But here the second meaning is clearly in mind. Katabole is a description of the male sexual function, the “casting of seed” in euphemistic parlance. And this means that the author of Hebrews really has Abraham in mind when he talks about Sarah’s pregnancy, as the following verse makes clear. In other words, it is not Sarah’s inability to conceive that is the issue. It is Abraham’s impotency. The verb katabole has virtually no application to females. So we have another discrepancy between the story in Genesis and the analysis in Hebrews. How are we to reconcile these matters?
The resolution is found in the rabbinic approach to Scripture. If we read the text as a midrash, then we can understand why the author changes Sarah’s character and applies a verb about male potency to a woman. He is simply altering the story to fit his objective. That objective is to include Sarah in the line of the faithful so that both parents of the tribe of Israel are seen in a positive light. But if we read the text as critical historical examiners, we will run right up against these two textual problems. And then we will be forced into gyration theology or Scriptural error. In other words, the only way we can understand why the author deliberately includes these unsubstantiated elements is to read the text from a first century Jewish perspective.
Why do we care about this little revision of Abraham’s sexual activity? Does it really matter? Yes, it does, but not because we are interested in the accuracy of this author’s account. It matters because if the author takes a Jewish rabbinic perspective in this small detail, wouldn’t we expect him to take the same perspective in the larger issues? If the author employs the technique of midrash here, why wouldn’t we expect him to use the same techniques in other passages? If the details are Jewish, why not the summaries? Our insight into this tiny revision should make us realize that the author employs Jewish ideas to communicate his message and that means we are not to read the rest of the text as if it were based on later Christian paradigms. If the book of Hebrews doesn’t make sense for a first century Jewish reader, then it doesn’t make sense at all.
The book of Hebrews is often used by Christian apologists to prove that the old sacrificial system has been done away with, that it was flawed and needed to be replaced. But this little investigation into Abraham’s impotency suggests that we may need to re-read Hebrews in a different light. Are you up for that challenge?
Topical Index: Abraham, Sarah, katabole, sex, midrash, Hebrews 11:11
Are you thinking about a Hebrew Bible Study? Would love to hear you insights on that.
“…may need to re-read Hebrews in a different light. Are you up for that challenge?”
Absolutely! Bring it on! (I’ve been saying this for years…) If you’re not a 1st century Jew, living in Jerusalem just prior to the destruction of the temple in 70AD, the letter wasn’t written to you. 🙂
The entire letter is about ONE specific aspect of the temple service, performed on one specific day – Yom Kippur. If we don’t understand the temple service on Yom Kippur we don’t have the context or the framework for understanding the Letter to the Hebrews. This is assumed knowledge for the target audience. Time to study.
If you’re not a 1st century Jew, living in Jerusalem just prior to the destruction of the temple in 70AD, the letter wasn’t written to you.
Agreed … I have a hard time responding to people who make everything that is written in the scriptures as applying to themselves. e.i. ” I am the apple of God’s eye” -really? I guess the question that begs asking is if it was not written for us personally, why was it put in the bible at all?
If it is all about and to another people, another time, and another culture, and with the meaning obscured because of all these things, how can we tell people to find answers in the word?
… And yes I believe that a study of Hebrews would benefit us all.
Very good points, Antoinette…I’d like to see these discussed sometime.
We tend to take statements aimed at the congregation and make them personal. That’s how we justify our wretched individualism and still claim the promises of G-d’s word. Loose cannons inherit nothing!
If we have been grafted into Israel, and are included in the congregation of the righteous, and are participating as part of the community, then every congregational declaration and promise belongs to us as an entity. If we are not then we deceive ourselves.
Personal Holiness is incomplete obedience if it doesn’t add to the community of believers. It magnifies oneself rather than YHVH.
The original audience of the text are the recipients of the message. If we are going to understand what the author meant, we have to read it as if we were part of that original audience. HOWEVER, that does not mean we cannot draw applications FROM that audience. This is what Jews did for thousands of years when they studied Moses. They weren’t at Sinai, but they APPLIED what Moses said to their lives. So, when we say the Scripture wasn’t written to us, that means we are not to take the words as we understand them NOW. We must read and understand them according to the original audience. But once we know what it would have meant to the intended audience, then we can apply those same teachings to our time and place – when it is appropriate. So, the Bible is for everyone. It just isn’t WRITTEN TO EVERYONE.
Thanks to you (and Pam). This does raise some flags for those of us in communities for whom the phrase “I have a Scripture verse/passge for you from the Lord” is not uncommon. I have said this on occasion when I sensed a ‘rhema’ word for the person – so that opens a related can of worms, especially when the ‘word’ is considered highly appropriate and joyfully received by the individual, received as a ‘word of knowledge’, no less 🙂
Yes! A study on Hebrews is much needed. It is one of the main book and scriptures used to say that the Old Testament is irrevelant. We need insight into what it is truly saying!
Are you familiar with Bereansonline .org? There is a great study on Hebrews. The wordbook can be downloaded and audio is accessible for free.
Thank you Pam!
My pleasure sister!
I’m definitely up for “that challenge” – bring it!
Yes. I would love to see more of your word studies on this book. Along with Galatians, I believe Hebrews is one of the most misunderstood books in our Bible. Daniel Lancaster at Beth Immanuel Sabbath Fellowship in Hudson, WI did a series of teachings on Hebrews a couple of years ago that I learned a lot from. He is the author of FFOZ’s (First Fruit of Zion) Torah Club series. Unfortunately I don’t think that series is available anymore on their web-site. But I think he is planning to do another series this year. For anyone who might be interested, their web-site is bethimmanuel.org. They have a lot of audio teachings on their site that are free and very informative from a Messianic Jewish perspective.
I should have noted in my previous post that Daniel Lancaster also goes by D. Thomas Lancaster in much of his writing. I got in the habit of calling him Daniel when we went to Israel on one of their study tours.
Maybe the use of “foundation” is more prevalent than the Abraham’s sexual function. You noted Hebrews 9:26 for katabole and that is using “foundation”. The writer of Hebrews speaks there of Jesus being slain from the foundation of the world. At the foundation of the world Holy Spirit brooded over the waters; that brooding is vibrating as if stirring to life (conception). The plan of redemption, according to the writer of Hebrews and John in Revelation 13 as well as other scriptures, was finished at/from the foundation of the world. Redemption stepped into a moment in time, in the fullness of time, to openly display the mystery of His grace that always was from the beginning. At the cross, redemption redeemed from the foundation, all the way past, present and future throughout eternity. Picture a breaking of the veil, like a wall that held the blood of the covenant on one side, breaking at Calvary, releasing a tide of redemption throughout history into eternity. Maybe the message is that Sarah’s unbelief suddenly became righteousness by faith just as unbelieving Abraham’s faith was counted to him as righteousness. Abraham encountered The King of Righteousness (Melchizedek) and the “seed” in his loins received from that; not the righteousness of the law but of faith…the cross rewrote Sarah’s history as it has ours…
“If the book of Hebrews doesn’t make sense for a first century Jewish reader, then it doesn’t make sense at all.”
That makes sense. 🙂
Thanks. I thought you might enjoy that. 🙂
“In other words, it is not Sarah’s inability to conceive that is the issue. It is Abraham’s impotency.”
Hmmm
The point above definitely makes sense to me
But I have a different “bone to pick” with the text of Hebrews in general
In my view, all Paul’s talk about “faith” really opens the door if not lays the foundation
For Christianity
In my view, Moses doesn’t have faith in God (if I believe in God, he will do something for me)
Rather it seems to me that Moses sees God as the all mighty Divine who tells Moses what to do
And Moses is an Obedient Servant
A very different paradigm in my view
I have attended some AA meetings recently and hope they will help; I plan to stay the course
I believe in the process and in most of the “ideology” (system of thought and practices)
But there is an emphasis put on “believing in a loving God” who will cure us
Which seems sort of counter intuitive to me
When His will is done, most of my life, the sickness has been a lot stronger than my will
For a number of years now I have been challenging Christians friends and colleagues with this:
Show me one place in the book of Hebrews that clearly and unambiguously puts Torah aside.
So far, no responses.
“Show me one place in the book of Hebrews that clearly and unambiguously puts Torah aside.”
Hi Ian,
I would agree that Paul did not intend to put Torah aside, that would have been unthinkable
But Paul’s mystical experience of Christ seems to have blown his mind (in a good sense)
And faith becomes his word for connecting his Christ experience
With his Hebrew religion and worldview
Personally, I don’t think Mark creates the same bridge to Christianity as Paul does
A wise man I know once told me that the Old Testament is the real Bible, and the New Testament is a commentary upon it. It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
“And Moses is an Obedient Servant”
Hmmm
Makes me think of an old professor of mine, Fred Jameson
From time to time he would be connecting literary texts to different contexts
And he would turn to me and say
Of course, now we’ve come back again to that old Master/slave Dialectic
Michael,
I was touched by your announcement. You are loved here and I am certain many are (and have been) praying for you, your family and your continued success! Keep walking, Michael. One foot in front of the other, one step at a time.
Shalom.
Thanks Mary, I appreciate your kind words and support!
This one really confused me; are you saying that the reference was actually to Abraham’s impotence rather than Sarah’s infertility? If so, how then did Hagar conceive so easily by Abraham?
If we are not looking at physical impotence here, what exactly are we talking about?
Sorry, but I’m a little slow…..
I’m not saying anything about the actual physical condition of Sarah, Abraham or Hagar. I am only pointing out that the text says what the writer wants it to say regardless of the history.
I was just watching Charlie Rose discuss this type of issue with the writer of the Sopranos
A really brilliant and perceptive guy, who was making the point that often a viewer
Would say something like “I could really relate to the way you made that point”
And the writer was telling Charlie that he would say to himself
I didn’t know I was making that point
But now that you mention it, maybe I was
My point being that a writer is not necessarily conscious of what he wants
It is their creative spirit at work and the “text speaks for itself”
Hey good point!
~ By faith Sarah herself received the power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered Him faithful who had promised ~ (Hebrews 11:11)
The Word of God often refers to itself as a seed. There are a total of forty-four verses in the New Testament where the Greek word “sperma” was translated “seed.” This is the same word from which we derive our English word “sperm.”
~ This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God ~ (Luke 8:11)
God (who never lies and is incapable of a lie) spoke and said : “you shall have a son”
When God speaks, life (or death) occurs, dependent upon our response.
~ Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I have grown old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?” ~ (Genesis 18.12)
~ Then the LORD said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh? Why did she say, ‘Can an old woman like me have a baby?’ ~ (Genesis 18.13)
~ Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return to you, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son ~ (Genesis 18.14)
And??- what is the “rest of the story?”- God spoke and said?- And?? – Friends.. “and it came to pass”- and it was so!
And she named the child Isaac (laughter!)
~ Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him ~ (Genesis 21.5)
Isaac, child of the covenant, -a miracle.. a shadow of Another Son of Promise (and of great joy!) yet to be..
~And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here am I, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” ~ And Abraham said, My son, God will provide Himself a Lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together ~ (Genesis 22.8,9)
~ So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.” ~ (Genesis 22.14)
~ Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. ~ (James 2:21,22)
~ But will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead/useless/unprofitable? ~ (James 2.20)
~ But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” SHOW ME your faith apart from your works, and I will SHOW YOU my faith by my works ~ (James 2.18)
~ By their fruits you will easily recognize them ~ (Matthew 7.16)
~ Even a child is known by his actions, by whether his conduct is pure and right ~ (Proverbs 20:11)
~ But the fruit of the Spirit is love.. ~ (Galatians 5.22)
Benevolence towards another at cost to myself.
~ love one another deeply, from the heart ~ (1 Peter 1.22)
So the only reason the writer of Hebrews uses a midrash here, is to make sure Sarah is also included in the line of the justice? Thus Abraham is the subject rather than Sarah ? Should we then read: “Through faith Abraham received strenght for seed in his disintegration – katabole” ? But then I don’t understand the midrash ………… Or do we have to read Abraham and Sarah ? I see some translations do use Abraham (enabled to become a father) in stead of Sarah(being barren) in Hebrews 11:11. Funny that ‘katabole’ is a feminine noun 😉
Oh, and Abraham laughed too (Gen. 17:17)…………. he probably also thought it was ridiculous ?
Could this also be tied to the concept of the unbelieving husband or wife sanctifying the other, so to speak, through being “one”, united in the “act”ion of obedience?
Interesting explanation of this(actually last weeks Torah Portion Exodus 1:1-6:1)on the difference bewtween Abraham’s faith and the faith of Moses
Torah reading Shemot Exodus 5
22. So Moses returned to the Lord and said, “O Lord! Why have You harmed this people? Why have You sent me?
כב. וַיָּשָׁב משֶׁה אֶל יְהֹוָה וַיֹּאמַר אֲדֹנָי לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתָה לָעָם הַזֶּה לָמָּה זֶּה שְׁלַחְתָּנִי:
23. Since I have come to Pharaoh to speak in Your name, he has harmed this people, and You have not saved Your people.”
http://www.aish.com/tp/i/shmuz/80525647.html
the difference bewtween Abraham’s faith and the faith of Moses
Hi Robin,
That’s an interesting link http://www.aish.com/tp/i/shmuz/80525647.html
I tend to think of Abraham’a faith as more like the Christian or priestly view, rightly or wrongly
Maybe more like a slave than a servant to God
So in answer to your last question Skip, Yes please lets do a study in Hebrews!
I’m in!