|
Listen to this post:
|
Did Jesus, according to the New Testament, have faith in God? Here’s an update on this interesting exchange from several years back. I continued to think about it, eventually leading to this presentation and then to this published paper. I think I made a strong argument that the New Testament portrays Jesus as an exemplar of the virtue (positive character trait) we call “faith,” that is, faith in God.
I recently listened to a new interview of apologist Tom Gilson on the Stand to Reason podcast, about his new book Too Good to Be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality. There may be more on this topic in the book (I have bought it and plan on reading it), but this is most of what he says in the interview on this topic of Jesus’ faith or lack thereof.
Koukl: You make the observation that you never see in the Gospels Jesus talking about his own faith.
Gilson: Yeah.
Koukl: Now Paul does [talk about his own faith] and we should mimic his faith, but Jesus doesn’t do that.
Gilson: He doesn’t. Is that not weird? …It’s stunning; there is nothing in the Bible that says Jesus had faith. In Hebrews it says he was found faithful, but I’m quite sure that what that means is that he was found reliable or obedient… But does it say he had faith in the Father? Never! Which is weird, because his other virtues that we’re supposed to emulate are in there. You know, his love, his compassion, his obedience. And then faith, you know it is something Paul speaks of – we’re supposed to follow that. So why is it left out of Jesus? And the only answer I can come up with that makes sense is that it’s not that Jesus was lacking trust in the Father… it’s that it had to have been in some sense the wrong word. And you could say… “I have faith that I can fulfill this big project at work over the next three months. I have faith in myself there.” “I have faith in you that you can do this.” What you don’t say is “I have faith that I can scratch my eyebrow,” …it’s just the wrong word. Even though you trust you can do it, it’s the wrong word. I think what it’s saying here, and the implication has to be that Jesus had a trust relationship with [the] Father that was so close, so tight, so intimate, that “faith” was the wrong word for it.
A few comments: first, yes, sometimes “faith” (Greek: pistis) in the New Testament means “faithfulness” or the quality of being trustworthy. But “faith” in the sense relevant to this conversation is the same thing as trust in God. So when Gilson concedes that sure, the Jesus of the gospels trusts in the Father, he’s just conceded my point, that Jesus is portrayed there as having faith in the Father (a.k.a. “God”).
Second, if I understand him, Gilson’s point is that Jesus’ trust in God shouldn’t be called “faith” because Jesus must have been too certain about the outcome; there was not enough subjective risk, if I can put it that way. Well, at one point (Mark 14:32-42) Jesus seems to have been extremely stressed out (see Luke 22:44) about what he thought was going to happen, and he was unsure enough to ask God to be excused, if that was compatible with God’s will. That looks like “faith” to me!
Third, a gospel writer doesn’t need to relate Jesus saying “I have faith in God” to teach that Jesus had great faith in God. All he needs to do is portray it. And by his actions, the Jesus of the gospels shows his faith in God by his prayers to God, and by his active trust in God during a terrible, indeed fatal ordeal.
Fourth, sometimes a writer will use characters, be they sympathetic or unsympathetic, to make his point. So as I point out in the paper, at the cross Jesus is mercilessly heckled. Matthew writes,
Those who passed by derided him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking him, saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to; for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’” The bandits who were crucified with him also taunted him in the same way.
Matthew 27:39-44, NRSV
Notice that according to the writer, all the claims in bold, rightly understood, are true – even though spoken by the bad guys. Thus, here even Jesus’ enemies unwittingly bear witness to these truths – including the fact that Jesus trusts (Greek: pepoithen) in God.
Again, in the paper I wrote,
One aspect of [Jesus’] teaching is a clear claim that trust in God, and more than a little, is required in order to receive the power to perform miraculous works such as exorcism. Jesus’ disciples fail at one of these, and Jesus explains their failure as due to their lack of faith. Presumably this is not a total lack of faith (otherwise they wouldn’t have attempted such feats) but rather a relative lack; the amount or degree of their faith is not what it should be. But Jesus gives this explanation immediately after quickly performing the exorcism himself. The reader is to infer that Jesus’ faith is much greater than his disciples’ faith. (Matthew 17:14–20; Mark 9:14–29; Luke 9:37–43)
“Jesus as an Exemplar of Faith in the New Testament,” pp. 186-87.
What’s all this about anyway? Why would a Christian want to deny that the New Testament teaches that Jesus was mighty in faith? I think it must be a concern to block this argument:
- Jesus had faith in God.
- A fully divine being never has faith in God.
- Therefore, Jesus was not fully divine. (1,2)
It would seem that Mr. Gilson and me agree on premise 2. A fully divine being, as provident, all-powerful, and all-knowing, has no need of faith. And God himself has no need of faith. But 1 and 2 imply 3. And evangelical tradition demands the denial of 3. So, he wants to avoid committing to 3 by denying premise 1. Logically, the move makes sense for a Jesus-is-God apologist.
But in my view, denying 1 goes against apostolic teaching about the Lord Jesus. When apostolic tradition clashes with later traditions, I suggest that a Protestant ought to go with the former. It is better to accept the above argument as sound.
I’ll see if Mr. Gilson makes a better case in the book.
From an Arian perspective, why would Jesus need faith? If he were pre-existent, then whatever bodily limitations he had, he would have known his Father directly beforehand. “Faith is the evidence of things not seen” really doesn’t come into it when you’ve SEEN God. “Faith” simply wouldn’t come into it. It wouldn’t simply be a matter of love and obedience then.
This is what you get when you try to run a detailed critique of someone’s argument when you’ve only heard them summarize their argument. It’s worthless, and you should have been able to predict that of it. You’d have looked a lot better if you’d left it in the form of questions to discuss, not as conclusions to land on — especially baseless conclusions about a person’s motivation for saying something, when you don’t even know what they’ve said!
You have my email address. I won’t be watching this post for answers; you can just let me know when you’ve actually read what I wrote. Then we can talk. No need to waste time before then.
“worthless” – gee, that’s pretty bad! I guess it’s not always easy to explain one’s position in an interview… But no need to be salty about someone trying to interact with what you’re saying. As I said, will read the book, post (or podcast) again.
Comments are closed.