The Promise Not Received: The Meaning of Hebrews 11:39–40

The list of heroes of the faith in Heb 11 makes explicit reference to sixteen individual heroes of the faith. In Heb 11:4–31 there are ten individuals mentioned: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Rahab. These all receive a least a line or two from the author illustrating their faith. Then in Heb 11:32 another six individuals are named: Gideon, Barak, Sampson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel. However the exploits of the faith of these believers are not explored. But Heb 11 does not just list individuals: the people of Israel are implied in v. 29 and v. 30, and the prophets are mentioned in v. 32.

In real life these heroes had their ups and downs. Commended for their faith, at times this faith was not as strong as it could have been. Yet despite their weaknesses

through faith they conquered kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some, not accepting release, were tortured, in order that they might attain a better resurrection. Others experienced mocking and flogging, and even chains and prison. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in sheep skins, in goat skins, destitute, afflicted, mistreated … wandering about in deserts and mountains and caves and the crevices of the earth (Heb 11:33–38).

Through faith these heroes of faith experienced a mixture of things: victory as well as suffering. Through faith some “obtained promises” in the sense that they saw the fulfillment of some of God’s promises to them. Yet it is clear from Heb 11:39 that none of them experienced “the promise.”

But what is meant by the promise at this point? The phrase the promise (allowing for different grammatical case) also occurs in Heb 11:9, whereas the plural form the promises appears in Heb 11:13, 17. All of these have an Abrahamic connection. Abraham was promised nationhood (Gen 12:2), fame (Gen 12:2), blessing (Gen 12:2), land (Gen 12:7), and offspring (Gen 12:7). All in all, this would seem to be the promise of life in the heavenly land, the eternal city of God (Heb 11:10, 16).

The use of the phrase the promise elsewhere in Hebrews also supports the idea that the promise in Heb 11:39 is the promise of eternal life. Hebrews 4:1 speaks of the promise of entering an eschatological Sabbath rest. In Heb 6:15, 17 the promise is the promise of blessing and many offspring that God made to Abraham (and specifically the promise in Gen 22:17). The idea of the new covenant legally established on “better promises” (Heb 8:6), and talk of “the promise of eternal inheritance” in Heb 9:15, strengthens the idea of the promise in Heb 11:39 as being related to the promises of the eternal (i.e., the new) covenant. This is the promise which is the object of the Christian’s hope (Heb 10:23), which centers on entering into the presence of God in the heavenly temple (Heb 10:19–20). It is the promise that is fulfilled for believers after endurance in doing the will of God until “the coming one” comes (Heb 11:36–37). According to Heb 12:26, it is the promise of Hag 2:6 concerning the unshakeable eschatological kingdom, the heavenly Jerusalem (see Heb 12:22, 27–28).

We can conclude, therefore, that the ancient heroes of faith saw the fulfillment of some of God’s promises; but despite their faith testifying that they were people of faith, “they did not receive the promise” of eternal life realized in their lifetime (Heb 11:39). Faith is prepared to accept that there may be no reward for the faithful in this world, but that if this is the case, then the reward will definitely come in full in the heavenly country (Heb 11:6, 13–16).

In the plan of God, “God foresaw something better for us” (Heb 11:40), i.e., God had in mind that the full realization of his promise of blessing and life would be experienced by us, the new covenant believers. Hebrews 11:40 acknowledges that God’s plan of salvation is worked out in stages that lead to an eschatological climax. Believers under the old covenant by definition could not receive the fullness of blessing and salvation, because the fullness of blessing and salvation is something that was going to be achieved as part of the new covenant. It is for this reason that the ancient heroes of faith did not receive in full the promise of eternal life in their lifetime, “lest they be perfected without us” (Heb 11:40).

Through faith, and ultimately by way of resurrection, old covenant believers and new covenant believers alike will experience together the reward of faith, the fullness of the blessing of eternal life.

The Perfecting of Jesus as High Priest upon the Cross

An investigation of how the LXX deals with the Hebrew concept of filling the hand has interesting implications for the concept of the perfection of Jesus in the letter to the Hebrews. Now perhaps you are wondering: what has the Hebrew idiom of filling the hand (see “Fill the Hand: A Hebrew Idiom of Ordination and Consecration”) got to do with Jesus’ perfection? Let me explain, and then you can let me know what you think.


The LXX translates the Hebrew idiom מלא יד in four ways. Firstly it can be translated using the expression ἐμπίπλημι τὰς χεῖρας to fill the hands. This occurs in Exod 28:41; Judg 17:5, 12 [Alexandrinus]. The second option simply uses πίπλημι rather than ἐμπίπλημι. This occurs in 2 Kgs 9:24; Ezek 43:26. The third option is for the Hebrew idiom to be translated using the expression πληρόω τὰς χεῖρας to fill the hands. This occurs in Exod 32:29; Jdg 17:5, 12 [Vaticanus]; 1 Kgs 13:33; 1 Chr 29:5; 2 Chr 13:9; 29:31. The fourth and final option is to translate this Hebrew idiom using the expression τελειόω τὰς χεῖρας to complete/consecrate the hands. This is the situation in Exod 29:9, 33, 35; Lev 8:33; 16:32; Num 3:3. Leviticus 21:10 also belongs in this category. It uses the perfect passive participle of τελειόω, but without the phrase τὰς χεῖρας.

It is this final option with the verb τελειόω that is quite fascinating. It is to be noted that τελειόω τὰς χεῖρας is what is found in Leviticus, and particularly in Lev 8, the chapter that deals with the ordination of Aaron as the high priest. The מלא root actually occurs seven times in Lev 8. In Lev 8:22, 29 mention is made of the ram of ordination אֵיל הַמִּלֻּאִים, which is translated in the LXX as κριὸς τελείωσις. In Lev 8:28 the baked wave offering is described as a consecration מִלֻּאִים to God. In Lev 8:31 mention is made of a basket of consecration סַל הַמִּלֻּאִים. Then in Lev 8:33, we have three instances of the מלא root occuring in close proximity: Moses is to command Aaron and his sons not to leave the tent of meeting for seven days, literally, until the day of the filling מְלֹאת of the days of your filling/consecration מִלֻּאֵיכֶם, because for seven days he will fill יְמִלֵּא your hand יֶדְכֶם.”

The LXX translates the first four instances of the מלא root in Lev 8 using the noun τελείωσις. In Lev 8:33, it translates מְלֹאת using the verb πληρόω, but it uses τελείωσις for מִלֻּאִים, and the verb τελειόω for יְמִלֵּא. We have to say, therefore, that the τελειόω family of words is very prominent in the narrative of the ordination of Aaron as high priest in the LXX.

My suggestion is that this use of the τελειόω group of words in Lev 8 is relevant for understanding the concept of the τελείωσις of Jesus in the letter to the Hebrews. This is because Lev 8 juxtaposes the concepts of consecration/perfection and priesthood, and Hebrews does likewise in relation to the perfection and priesthood of Jesus.

The τελειόω group of words is used in Hebrews in a number of places; but, limiting our investigation to instances where Jesus is explicitly the agent or patient of the action denoted by τελειόω, the τελειόω group of words occurs five times.

● The verb τελειόω is used in Heb 2:10 where it is said that God made Jesus perfect through sufferings.

● In Heb 5:9 τελειόω is again used to speak of how Jesus was made perfect, which follows on from the idea in v. 8 of Jesus learning obedience through suffering. Once again, the idea seems to be that Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross brought him to perfection in the sense that he completed what was necessary for him to be fully qualified to live in the presence of God and to function as a high priest for God’s people.

● The verb τελειόω is also used in Heb 7:28. Here Jesus is spoken of as being appointed as God’s Son (who has a priestly function), having been perfected eternally. The perfection in view here is presumably connected with his offering up of himself as a sacrifice, which is mentioned in Heb 7:27.

● The verb τελειόω is also used of Jesus’ eternal perfecting of believers through his offering up of himself: “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (Heb 10:14). If Jesus brought believers to perfection through his sacrificial death on the cross—note also the use of τελειόω in Heb 9:9 where it is implied that Jesus’ sacrifice is the only kind of sacrifice that can perfect those who worship God—then it makes sense to say that Jesus’ own perfection was achieved in a similar way, i.e., his death on the cross was the climax of the process of his perfecting, the process of the learning of obedience through suffering so as to qualify him to live in the presence of God and to function as a high priest.

● Finally, in Heb 12:2 the noun τελειωτής perfecter is applied to Jesus: he is “the author and perfecter of faith.” This presumably means that Jesus is the one who begins and completes faith in the sense that he is the one who has gone beforehand on the journey of faith, as well as being the one who has completed the journey of faith, enduring the cross, despising the shame (Heb 12:3). His perfection of faith makes our journey of faith possible, and gives it an assured destination.

All in all, the juxtaposition of the concepts of perfection and priesthood in Lev 8 and in Hebrews suggests that, in the mind of the author of Hebrews, Jesus’ ordination as a high priest after the order of Melchizedek formally took place at the cross. The cross was where the process of Jesus’ ordination as our great high priest was completed. The cross was where Jesus was filled with high priestly power and authority. He offered up his life as the אֵיל הַמִּלֻּאִים, the ram of ordination. In this way, by the singular offering of himself, he not only perfected himself for the office of high priest, but “has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”

When Jesus Became Our Great High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek

Jesus is described in Hebrews as our great high priest, but when did this office commence?

Psalm 110 is important in relation to this question, and v. 4 in particular: “Yahweh has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’” But when did Yahweh historically make this oath?

If anything, the way in which Ps 110:4 is sandwiched by the idea of the Messiah’s enthronement in vv. 1, 5, along with the mention of “the day of your power” in v. 3, suggests that the utterance of the divine oath regarding Christ’s priesthood is linked with his ascension to and enthronement at the right hand of God. Yet I admit that this is not totally clear in the psalm in question.

But there is confirmation of this understanding in the letter to the Hebrews. The author says that Christ did not appoint himself to his priestly office (Heb 5:5). The quotation of Ps 2:7 in Heb 5:5 in juxtaposition with the quotation of Ps 110:4 in Heb 5:6 is important to consider. On the one hand, the wording you are my son is echoed in the voice of God that was heard at Christ’s baptism (e.g., Luke 3:22). On the other hand, Ps 2:7 can be understood as enthronement language. The decree of Ps 2:7 is linked with Yahweh’s establishment of the Messiah as king on Zion (Ps 2:6), which is in response to (see Ps 2:5) a rebellion directed against Yahweh and his Messiah (Ps 2:1-4). It is significant that Ps 2:7 is interpreted by Paul as being fulfilled in Christ’s resurrection (Acts 13:33).

Did the author of Hebrews also understand Ps 2:7 in this way? The language of Heb 5:9-10 suggests that effectively he did. Jesus learned obedience through suffering (Heb 5:8), “and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, having been designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.” In other words, suffering led to obedience, which in turn led to perfection. The time of the aorist passive participle translated as having been designated in v. 10 seems to match with the aorist passive participle translated as having been made perfect in v. 9. It would make sense that the height of Christ’s suffering and obedience was the time when his perfection was complete. The parallel between perfection and designation suggests, therefore, that Christ’s designation as high priest according to the order of Melchizedek took place more or less at the time when his perfection was complete, when his suffering reached its climax. His being designated as such a high priest meant that he could be the source of eternal salvation for those who obey him. This ties Jesus’ designation as high priest in with the time of his death and resurrection.

In a similar way, Heb 6:20 implies that Jesus became high priest at a certain point in time, which in turn enabled him to be a forerunner into the presence of God “within the veil” (Heb 6:19). Thus, according to the author of Hebrews, Jesus’ appointment as high priest occurred shortly before he ascended into the presence of God in the heavenly temple.

Regarding the typological relation between Jesus and Melchizedek, the lack of biblical information concerning the life and particularly the death of Melchizedek is taken as the main point of comparison with Christ: it is as if Melchizedek has not died and continues on as a priest forever, and this continuation in the office of priest is a picture of what is definitely true for Jesus. Yet it is not as if Christ is an eternal priest in a timeless way; but, having entered into that office at some point in time, he continues on in that office forever. The significance drawn from this typological relationship is that the submission of Abraham to Melchizedek proves the superiority of the priestly order of Melchizedek over against the Levitical priesthood, hence the superiority of the new covenant over the old. In the mind of the author, Melchizedek is not viewed as being an eternal priest in a timeless way, but that at some point in his life he became a priest, and that this office seemingly continues on forever. In a similar way, Heb 7:16 says that Jesus became (literally, has become) a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek. Furthermore, the authority for Jesus becoming a priest was “the power of an indestructible life” (Heb 7:16). The quotation of Ps 110:4 in the next verse, therefore, ties Jesus’ priesthood in very closely with his resurrection. Jesus was not appointed as high priest on the basis of the Mosaic regulations concerning the priesthood (Heb 7:28), but as a result of the divine oath recorded in Ps 110:4. Significantly, this oath is described as being “after the law,” i.e., it is not recorded as part of the Mosaic revelation recorded in the Pentateuch (Heb 7:28). Presumably the oath recorded in Ps 110:4 is a prophecy of the oath that was formally made by God around the time of Jesus’ resurrection.

It seems, therefore, that Jesus’ death and resurection marks the time when his office of high priest according to the order of Melchizedek formally commenced. This fits in with the idea that the climax of the ordination ceremony of the priest is the sacrifice of the ram of ordination (אֵיל הַמִּלֻּאִים–the ram of the filling with priestly power and authority) and the sprinking of the priest in its blood (Lev 8:22-30). Jesus’ death on the cross was the climax of his ordination as our great high priest.

The Eternal Nature of the Eternal Covenant in Hebrews

I have been asked about how we should understand the eternal nature of the eternal covenant in Heb 13:20. The connection between this verse and Bullinger’s language of “the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God” is intriguing. His idea seems to be that there is one covenant that is eternal in the sense that it began with Adam and continues on forever, and this is one way of understanding the idea of the eternal covenant in Heb 13:20.

It is correct to speak of one covenant relationship that God has had with his people since the time of Adam, but the purpose of the author of Hebrews is actually to distinguish the Mosaic administration of this covenant relationship from the post-cross administration of this covenant relationship. The author argues: if the revelation given to Moses and the prophets was special (Heb 1:1; 2:2), then how much more so the word given to the Son of God himself (Heb 1:2; 2:3)! There is continuity, but also discontinuity in the sense that a greater revelation has been revealed, which must take priority, to which we must be committed, and from which we must not turn back.

So, in speaking of an eternal covenant, the author of Hebrews means the new covenant, which he contrasts with the old covenant. Jesus is the guarantor and mediator of a covenant that is “better” than the Mosaic covenant (Heb 7:22; 8:6). Jesus’ ongoing life means that he exercises an eternal priesthood, and this underpins this better covenant (Heb 7:24). Jesus’ mediatorship is linked with his death, which opened the way for the called to receive an eternal inheritance (Heb 9:15). This inheritance is not eternal in the sense of being timeless, but it is eternal in the sense that it continues on for eternity from a particular point in the past. The context suggests that this point is the time of Jesus’ death, when the new covenant was inaugurated.

It is clear that the author of Hebrews views the new covenant as beginning formally at the point of Jesus’ death. A covenant is made valid, i.e., it comes into effect, through the death (usually symbolic) of the one who made it (Heb 9:17). In relation to the Mosaic covenant, the necessary death was symbolized through the shedding of sacrificial blood (Heb 9:17-21). But the new covenant was established through the literal death of the one who made it. His death was a “better” sacrifice, which has opened the way to enter into heaven itself, not just into the tabernacle/temple, which was the Mosaic copy of this awesome place (Heb 9:23-26).

It is also interesting to consider how the author of Hebrews uses the word αἰώνιος, which is usually translated as eternal. In Hebrews, it usually designates continuation into the future rather than something that is timeless. Eternal salvation in Heb 5:9 refers to the salvation that results from obeying Jesus. It is an eschatological concept that continues on forever. The timeframe of eternal judgment in Heb 6:2, eternal redemption in Heb 9:12, and the promised eternal inheritance in Heb 9:15 are similar. The eternal redemption was only secured “by means of his blood” (Heb 9:12). Even though the effects of Jesus’ sacrifice applied to the old covenant saints, the redemption obtained by this means did not really begin until Jesus secured it through his death on the cross. In a similar way, the idea of the eternal inheritance being promised means that it did not exist in consummate reality from the beginning. The called only receive the eternal inheritance promised to them through the death of Jesus which redeems them from the sins committed under the first, i.e., the Mosaic, covenant (Heb 9:15). The only time when αἰώνιος is used in Hebrews to denote the idea of a timeless existence is in Heb 9:14, where the Holy Spirit is described as the eternal Spirit.

All in all, according the manner in which the writer of Hebrews uses his language, the eternal covenant is the new covenant in Christ. It is eternal in the sense that from the point of inauguration at the cross, it endures forever. More theologically we could speak of how this “eternal” covenant has been the foundation for God’s unitary covenant relationship with his people ever since Adam was kicked out of the garden, but this is to delve into an area that is beyond the purview of this particular epistle.

As the writer puts it: Once upon a time God’s people only knew Sinai;

but [now] you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel (Heb 12:22-24)!

The sprinkled blood that is better than the blood of innocent Abel has inaugurated the better and eternal covenant, namely, the new covenant in Christ.

Similarities in the Concept of Faith between Paul and the Author of Hebrews

In my post entitled “The Concept of Faith in Hebrews,” I suggested that the concept of faith of the author of Hebrews has both similarities and differences with that of the Apostle Paul. The suggestion was that Paul thought of faith as being particularly operative in the age of Abraham and in the age of the new covenant, and that he tended to think of old covenant Israel as being under the law rather than faith. I also suggested that this common Pauline usage contrasts with the way in which the author of Hebrews views faith as being normative throughout salvation history.

I believe that the differences that I have highlighted are there in the text, although we also need to note the similarities that exist between Paul and the author of Hebrews when it comes to faith. In the new covenant age, the concept of faith for both authors focuses on confessing Jesus as the Christ: the confession in Hebrews centers on Jesus as the Son of God (Heb 4:14), and in Paul the confession is “Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9). Their description of faith in the life of Abraham is also very similar. Paul describes Abraham’s faith as being one that believed in the power of God to raise the dead, and to bring that which is not into existence (Rom 4:17). This is very similar to the language found in Heb 11:3, 19. When discussing Abraham’s faith, Paul also relates this to the divine promise given to Abraham in a manner similar to the author of Hebrews (compare Rom 4:17-22 with Heb 11:8-12, 17-18).

Furthermore, even though Paul typically reserves the operation of faith to the Abrahamic and new covenant epochs, it could be argued that following the example of the Old Testament he was also able to speak of unbelief as existing in Israel during the old covenant age (assuming that he also has Israel’s old covenant rebellion in view in Rom 3:3 and Rom 11:20, 23), which in turn implies a requirement for faith during the old covenant age.

All in all, I think that the situation is that when Paul is concerned to contrast the (holistic) old covenant idea of faith in God as mediated through Moses with the new covenant idea of faith in Christ, then he speaks of the works of the law in contrast with faith. Such a contrast is not evident in Hebrews, where the author prefers to use a series of qal vahomer (i.e., a fortiori) arguments, and a number of lesser versus greater contrasts, to encourage his readers to persevere as believers of Christ (e.g., Heb 1:1-13; 2:2-3; 3:3, 5-6; 8:1-2, 5-6; 9:11-14; 10:26-29): if the saints of old believed back then, then how much more should we believe now, given that a greater revelation has come with the coming of the Son of God? The substance is greater than its shadow. So don't revert to the shadow, but stick with the substance!

The Concept of Faith in Hebrews

One of the verses of Scripture that on the surface seems to argue against my suggestion that Abraham’s faith in Gen 12:1-4 cannot be distinguished from his obedience is Heb 11:8:

“By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance.”

But in saying that the Hebrew text of Gen 12:1-4 does not in and of itself distinguish between faith and obedience, I am not saying that it is not logically possible or illegitimate for subsequent inspired interpreters of Scripture to make such a distinction. It all depends on how faith is defined by each author of Scripture. This requires us to read Scripture carefully to pick up the particular definitions and nuances of each writer.

The Apostle Paul, for example, holds that Israel was under law during the old covenant age (Gal 3:23-25; 4:1-5). He speaks of faith coming with the coming of Christ (Gal 3:23-25), and he speaks of the law as being not of faith (Gal 3:12). In other words, in Paul's typical way of thinking, old covenant Israel was under the law, not under faith. The writer of Hebrews, however, views faith as something that was always operative throughout salvation history.

For Paul, faith is primarily a christological concept, as Gal 3:23-25 suggests. It centers on the confession “Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9). In Paul’s thought it is a response that is directed towards Jesus (e.g., Rom 3:26; Gal 2:20; 3:26; Php 3:9; 1 Thess 1:3) more so than to God per se (although note Tit 3:8). In Paul’s usage, therefore, it was not possible for faith in this christological sense to exist prior to Jesus being revealed to Israel (Gal 3:23-25), yet faith in the gospel was nevertheless preempted in the person of Abraham (Gal 3:6, 8). Paul read the Old Testament prophets as predicting that, after the age of the law, faith would once again define righteousness, namely, in the eschatological age when the precious stone of stumbling would be laid in Zion (Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17; and Isa 28:16 combined with Isa 8:14 in Rom 9:33).

But for the author of Hebrews, the term faith is used somewhat differently. Sure, faith in the new covenant age centers on Jesus; it involves the confession that Jesus is the Son of God, the great High Priest (Heb 3:1; 4:14; 13:15). But the author of Hebrews also views faith as being something that was operative (at least on the part of a remnant) throughout redemptive history (Heb 4:2; 11:2). Faith begins with the fact of the power of the word of God as revealed in the creation of the world (Heb 11:3). It was a virtue possessed by all the saints of old, from Abel until Samuel and the prophets (Heb 11:4, 32). Noah was an heir of the righteousness of faith (Heb 11:7). For the writer of Hebrews, faith is connected with the idea of patience, and has to do with inheriting (i.e., experiencing the realization of) the promises (Heb 6:12). Faith in its fullness has the boldness to follow in the footsteps of Jesus into the eschatological temple to encounter God (Heb 10:22). For the author of Hebrews, therefore, faith is not an eschatological concept per se, but it possesses a strong eschatological orientation where the faithful look to God for salvation and reward at the time of the realization of God’s promise at Christ’s second coming (Heb 10:35-39; 11:6).

For the author of Hebrews, faith believes that God has the power to bring that which is not into reality (Heb 11:3). It leads to genuine sacrifice (Heb 11:4), to pleasing God (Heb 11:5-6), and to obedience (11:8). It looks forward to the eternal city of God rather than focusing on life in this world (Heb 11:10, 13-16). It includes confidence in the faithfulness of God to keep his word (Heb 11:11). Faith believes in the power of God to raise the dead (11:19). It leads to worship and understands God’s intention to bless his people (Heb 11:21). It prepares for when God will keep his promise (Heb 11:22). It acts to protect God’s people (Heb 11:23), identifies with God’s people (Heb 11:24), and chooses to suffer persecution together with God’s people (Heb 11:25-26). Faith does not fear the godless (Heb 11:27). It results in victories won (Heb 11:28-30), and brings salvation to the Gentiles (Heb 11:31). Through faith the saints of old

conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated—of whom the world was not worthy—wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth (Heb 11:33-38).

In sum, the concept of faith in the book of Hebrews confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, but it also includes a strong assurance that the fullness of what God has promised will come true (Heb 11:1), which results in power to persevere despite opposition.

That is a rich concept of faith, and one worth celebrating. Nevertheless, it is the concept of faith of the author of Hebrews, which is similar yet different in various aspects from the concept of faith found in Paul and in the Old Testament. The distinctive voice of each part of Scripture needs to be noted and acknowledged.