Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Jesus as an exemplar of faith in the New Testament

  • Article
  • Published:
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Roman Catholic theologians long denied that Jesus had faith in God, and Jesus having faith in God seems in conflict with traditional claims that Jesus is fully divine (Section II). What the New Testament means by “faith” is explored (Section III), and in light of this we consider arguments from orthodox Incarnation theory to the conclusion that Jesus did not have and could not have had faith in God (Section IV). Relevantly, the New Testament clearly asserts in five ways that Jesus had faith in God (Section V). This exposes problems for traditional Incarnation theories, some of which are addressed by recent “Kenosis” accounts. But these too are problematic (Section VI).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is currently fashionable to emphasize the differences between the various New Testament authors, but as concerns my thesis, I don’t find differences of substance, but only of interest and style, so I will treat the New Testament as a whole, though not addressing every part, fully realizing that this is not so much a book as a library, as it were put under one cover, in this form, in the fourth Christian century.

  2. See John 14:1; Luke 10:16; Matthew 10:40. Also note the contrasting cases of Zechariah and Mary in Luke 1.

  3. I’m unsure just how far back this denial is an established part of catholic tradition. A relatively early discussion of this is between Athanasius and some of the so-called “Arians.” Evidently, these latter argued that Jesus had faith in God, citing Hebrews 3:1–2 (“Jesus… was faithful to the one who appointed him…”) and so must not be “the same substance as” God. Athanasius argues that piston (“faithful”) there means only “faithfulness,” that is, loyalty to God (on which see sections III and V below), and asserts that God can’t have faith. For sources and summary see Wallis (1995, pp. 200–209). As we’ll see, the case for Jesus having faith doesn’t depend on that text. Interestingly, some authorities within Roman Catholic tradition have since at least the late 1970s quietly done an about-face, now affirming that Jesus exercised faith in God. (O’Collins and Kendall 1992, pp. 403–405)

  4. Aquinas holds that God knows all things not by somehow perceiving them but rather by perfectly beholding his own essence. On this view of divine knowledge see Borland (2016, Sect. 2.b.iii.1).

  5. Since the re-affirmation, reformulation, and expansion of the 325 creed at the 381 council at Constantinople, the claim that Father and Son are homoousios (same substance or essence or being) has been understood to imply their equal divinity, so that the Son is not divine in a lesser way than the Father, as many earlier catholic theologians had taught.

  6. Against Alston, many Christians assume that God believes (and knows) all truths. For arguments against the idea that faith entails belief see Howard-Snyder 2016.

  7. And perhaps some uses should be read as referring to both. This ambiguity may reflect the assumption that faithing and faithfulness typically or always go together. But it is easy to see that they may come apart. A wife who knows her husband is cheating on her may lack faith in him, and yet herself be perfectly faithful to him. And he may have faith in her while being unfaithful.

  8. On the Old Testament portrayal of God as faithful, see Wallis (1995, p. 14) and Morgan (2015, pp. 196–200).

  9. In some cases, it is the faith of groups which is relevant. (Matthew 9:2; Luke 5:20.).

  10. “And he [Jesus] did not do many deeds of power there [in his hometown of Nazareth], because of their unbelief.” (Matthew 13:58) Unless otherwise noted, all scriptural quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version.

  11. Mark 1:15; Acts 19:4. Presumably it is child-like trust which is required for entry into God’s kingdom. (Matthew 18:3: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven”).

  12. “…without faith it is impossible to please God. For whoever would approach him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6) The words translated “faith” and “believe” here are forms, respectively, of pistis and pisteuo.

  13. See, e.g. the teachings on providence in Matthew 6:25–34, and on prayer in 7:7–11.

  14. James’s original readers should have been familiar, e.g. with “Those who oppress the poor insult their Maker, but those who are kind to the needy honor him.” (Proverbs 14:31).

  15. Rahab, also cited as an example of a faithful person at Hebrews 11:31, was a foreign prostitute who betrayed her people by aiding the Israelite invaders’ spies, thus siding with the Israelites and their god. (Joshua 2, 6).

  16. Also, rarely in the New Testament, the Greek noun pistis refers to a body of doctrine, to a set of claims or propositions, which the Christian is supposed to in some way agree with. (e.g. Jude 3).

  17. Michael Pace has pointed out to me that many contemporary accounts of interpersonal trust make real and/or apparent risk a necessary condition for trusting. On these see McLeod (2015).

  18. While the author is discoursing on the importance of faith and some aspects of it, he is not here offering a definition of the word pistis or an analysis of the concept of faith.

  19. And yet, strong faith can be compared with seeing! In the famous discussion of Jewish heroes of faith in Hebrews 11, the author observes that “All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance…” (Hebrews 11:13) That is, they “saw” their reward by faith, as it were from afar, not up close.

  20. My thanks to an anonymous referee for this journal for pressing me on exactly which set of divine attributes jointly imply that God can’t have faith in himself.

  21. My thanks to John Rosenbaum and Trent Dougherty for pressing this sort of objection in conversation.

  22. For a careful exposition of what the “two natures” traditions based on the “ecumenical” councils demand, see Pawl (2016).

  23. On the idea of a “supposit” and a definition of “person” that entails being a supposit, see Pawl (2016, Chap. 2).

  24. “Definition of the faith” from the Council of Chalcedon [in 451], in Tanner (1990a, p. 86). A clause similar to this is a traditional way of affirming the full and genuine humanity of Jesus, and is found in many later Christian creeds.

  25. Since Chalcedon (451) most proponents have refused to positively describe what this union consists in, on the grounds that this can’t be done (at least, given our current limitations and/or the current level of divine revelation we’ve received). It is called “hypostatic” just because it is stipulated that the resulting Christ is one hypostasis (“person”).

  26. Morris (1991, p. 173). Thanks to Daniel Howard-Snyder for this reference and some helpful discussion.

  27. Others continue to develop this family of speculations in interesting ways; see Cross (2008, pp. 466–471).

  28. And so, against his being essentially omniscient. For a development of this deception argument against the claim that Jesus had two natures, see Lamson (2008).

  29. Space does not allow consideration of the rationality of such mystery-appeals. For discussion of two importantly different kinds of mystery-appeals in theology, see Tuggy (2016a, Sect. 3). For my negative assessment of one see Tuggy (2011).

  30. See the argument analyses and sources cited in Tuggy (2016b, Sect. 2.2).

  31. Many ancients believed this letter to be from Paul, but all modern commenters disagree. There is presently no consensus about its authorship.

  32. Hebrews 12:1-4. Like many translations the NRSV inserts “our,” which is not in the Greek text. Some commenters argue that this insertion is unhelpful, and that one should instead translate as “Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of faith…” One scholar claims that this latter rendering “allows Jesus to be an exemplar is well as enabler of faith, thereby respecting the apparent intent of the context.” (Hamm 1990, Sect. II.A).

  33. Romans 3:22, 26; Galatians 2:16a, 16b, 20, 3:22; Ephesians 3:12; Philippians 3:9. As some scholars hold that Ephesians was not actually written by Paul, often in this debate scholars refer to this “Pauline” usage of the phrases in question, and sometimes the Ephesians text is excluded from the list.

  34. For some of the issues that allegedly hang in the balance see the editors’ introduction in Bird and Sprinkle (2009).

  35. Other scholars forsake both the subjective and objective readings, arguing for some third way. On these alternatives, see Sprinkle (2009).

  36. 23:46. Mark’s account has him praying a portion of Psalm 22 on the cross: “At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice…‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’” (Mark 15:34; cf. Matthew 27:46) While some read this as a cry of despair (suggesting that his faith has run out), it is plausibly also (or instead) an expression of trust in God; the rest of the Psalm reflects an expectation of God’s help. For their part, unnamed bystanders take his cry not to be one of mere despair, but of asking for the aid of the prophet Elijah! (Mark 15:35–36; Matthew 27:47–49) On this see Whitters (2002).

  37. This is a common device in the gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ trial and execution; by God’s providence, even the hostile unwillingly and unknowingly bear witness to him. In this same gospel, we have statements by his betraying disciple Judas (26:49), the Jewish high priest (26:62–64), some Jewish council members (26:68), the Roman governor Pilate (27:11, 17, 22), the Roman soldiers assigned to abuse and crucify him (27:29,37), a centurion standing guard at his crucifixion (27:54), and earlier, demons being cast out by him (8:29), and Satan himself (4:3,6). This is, in the writer’s view, an impressive choir of hostile witnesses.

  38. Thanks to Michael Pace for outlining the following argument in written correspondence. For a similar suggestion, see Wallis (1995, p. 206).

  39. Hebrews 4:14–16. The word pistis (“faith”) doesn’t occur in the quoted passage; the translators supply “faith” to refer to the content of our “confession/profession” (Greek: homologias) in v. 14. A more literal translation is “let us hold fast our confession.” (English Standard Version).

  40. Jesus is portrayed as occasionally having some prophetic knowledge, not gained by normal human means. (e.g. John 1:43–49) And yet, the overall picture shown is of a human being who (mostly) knows in the normal ways, as with biblical prophets like Moses, Elijah, or John the Baptist. Notice, for example, Jesus’ question at Mark 5:30.

  41. Daniel 7:14. In Matthew the Son of Man’s mission includes even serving as judge at God’s future judgment of all humankind. (Matthew 25:31–46, 16:27).

  42. Luke 22:16, 28–30; 23:1–3. Like others, Luke uses “the Son of God” as a messianic title, but he also views it as appropriate because of Jesus’ unique origin; note the “therefore” in Luke 1:35.

  43. Obscure public hint: 19:9–18. Plain private words: 9:18–20.

  44. See the big back story filled with prophetic predictions about Jesus in chapters 1–3.

  45. For portrayals of Jesus’ prayer life in all the gospels see Wallis (1995, p. 56), note 126. For a central act of submission to the will of God, see Luke 22:42 or the more vivid portrayals in Mark 13:32–42 or Matthew 26: 36–46, as well as Hebrews 5:7–10. For Jesus doing miraculous works by God’s power, see Luke 4:14–15, 18, 11:20 (compare: John 3:34, 14:10).

  46. The other main incarnation text has been John 1:1–18.

  47. 1 Peter 2:18–25. I have added the then obvious allusions in brackets.

  48. Note the writer’s interest in persevering, saving faith in God. (1 Peter 1:3–9).

  49. 8:40. Significantly, he also puts the statement that Jesus in an anthropos or aner into the mouths of various other characters, such as John the Baptist (1:30), some of his opponents (6:52; 7:35; 9:16, 24, 29; 11:47; 18:30, 40; 19:21), some of his fans (7:12, 25, 31; 10:41), others hearing him (7:15), a man he healed (9:11), a woman who confronts Peter (18:17), and Pilate (18:29; 19:5). If that’s not clear enough, at the beginning it’s said that in Jesus God’s Word “became flesh” (i.e. this Word was expressed in the man, 1:14), and the author or an editor has tacked on an extra chapter (21) in which the risen Jesus cooks and serves breakfast to his disciples, presumably something a ghost or mere spirit could not do. For parallels in other ancient Jewish literature where something heavenly as it were comes down from heaven to dwell in the cosmos see Burnap (2007), Lecture 3.

  50. Quoted in Carey (1981, p. 116). In my view the fourth gospel is widely misread when it comes to its view of Jesus in relation to God (Tuggy 2015). In short, the book explicitly makes Jesus a man, but it does not assert Jesus to be God himself, the possessor of a divine nature, the God-man, or someone who is divine in the way that the one God is divine. To the contrary, here Jesus is one who has a god over him, the unique God (17:1-3; 20:17; 8:54). See also Tuggy (2012).

  51. Matthew 17:14–20; Mark 9:14–29; Luke 9:37–43. There are significant differences in the three versions, but my point applies to all three. For discussion of the first two in relation to Jesus’ faith, see Wallis (1995, pp. 27–36). See also Wallis’s treatment of Jesus’ miraculous stilling of the storm, walk on water, and withering of the fig tree (1995, pp. 36–46).

  52. See Strong 2016 for lexical material and an exhaustive list of occurrences of oligopistos. A memorable occasion is Peter’s semi-successful walk on water. (Matthew 14:22–33, v. 31).

  53. Hebrews 11:13, 12:2. This is viewed in several places in the New Testament as a fulfillment of a messianic prophecy in Psalm 110:1.

  54. Revelation 5:9. Here “our God” refers not to Jesus, but rather to the Father, Jesus’ god. (Revelation 1:6, 3:12).

  55. Philippians 2:9–11. This is the exaltation portrayed by a different author in Revelation 5.

  56. These are so-called because of a form of the verb kenoó (to empty) in Philippians 2:7. On the genesis and development of such theories see Hick (2005, Chap. 6), Cross (2008, pp. 463–466) and Thompson (2009).

  57. On three-self versus one-self versus mysterian interpretations of the traditional catholic Trinity language, see Tuggy (2016a).

  58. Present-day analytic philosophers are accustomed to creatively inventing what I call “rational reinterpretations” of traditional catholic dogmas [On this term see Tuggy (2011, Sect. I)]. But it’s not clear that Roman Catholic tradition allows for penetrating latter-day discoveries about her teachings. The first Vatican council declared that “If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.” [First Vatican Council, Canon 4, Sect. 3, in Tanner (1990b, p. 811)]. Compare with “Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith”, chapter 4 “On faith and reason”, in Tanner (1990b, pp. 808–809). Even Protestants who eschew or downplay council pronouncements would be reluctant believe that God allowed some important Christian doctrine to languish in a semi-revealed state until the nineteenth century (or later).

  59. Pawl (2016, p. 106). He goes on to cite statements from the councils at Trent and Ephesus, the second and third councils at Constantinople, and the Tome of Leo. (110–113) Pawl doesn’t focus on omniscience, but for the many patristic and Reformation-era, non-kenotic, omniscience-preserving interpretations of Mark 13:32 (and Matthew 24:36), see Carl (2001).

  60. By itself this is not a knock-down point. For a case in favor of adjusting Christian theology to fit the Incarnation understood kenotically, see Feenstra (2009, pp. 158–164).

References

  • Alston, W. (1989). Does God have beliefs? In W. Alston (Ed.), Divine Nature and Human Language (pp. 178–193). Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aquinas, T. (1947) [1265–1274]. Summa Theologica. Translated by fathers of the english Dominican Province. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q7_A3.html.

  • Bird, M., & Sprinkle, P. (Eds.). (2009). The faith of Jesus Christ: The Pistis Christou debate. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borland, T. (2016). Omniscience and divine foreknowledge. The internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/omnisci/.

  • Burnap, G. W. (2007) [1845]. Expository lectures on the principal passages of the scriptures which relate to the doctrine of the trinity. Boston. Reprint: Morrisville, NC: Lulu.com.

  • Carey, G. (1981). The lamb of God and atonement theories. Tyndale Bulletin, 32, 97–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carl, H. (2001). Only the father knows: Historical and evangelical responses to Jesus’ eschatological ignorance in mark 13:32. Journal of Biblical Studies 1(3). Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://mountainretreatorg.net/articles/only_the_father_knows.shtml.

  • Cross, R. (2008). Incarnation. In T. P. Flint & M. C. Rea (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophical theology (pp. 452–475). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. T. (2009). Is kenosis orthodox? In C. S. Evans (Ed.), Exploring kenotic christology: The self-emptying of God (pp. 112–138). Vancouver: Regent College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C. S. (2009). Kenotic christology and the nature of God. In C. S. Evans (Ed.), Exploring kenotic christology: The self-emptying of God (pp. 190–217). Vancouver: Regent College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feenstra, R. J. (2009). A kenotic christology of the divine attributes. In C. S. Evans (Ed.), Exploring kenotic christology: The self-emptying of God (pp. 139–164). Vancouver: Regent College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamm, D. (1990). Faith in the epistle to the Hebrews: The Jesus factor. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 52(2), 270–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hick, J. (2005). The metaphor of God incarnate, second edition: Christology in a pluralistic age. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard-Snyder, D. (2016). Does faith entail belief? Faith and Philosophy, 33(2), 142–162. doi:10.5840/faithphil201633059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamson, A. (2008) [1828]. The doctrine of two natures in Jesus Christ. Boston. Reprint: Morrisville, NC: Lulu.com.

  • McKaughan, D. (2016). Action-centered faith, doubt, and rationality. Journal of Philosophical Research, 41(Supplement), 71–90. doi:10.5840/jpr20165364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, C. (2015). Trust. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Fall 2015 edition, E. N. Zalta (Ed.). Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trust/.

  • Morgan, T. (2015). Roman faith and christian faith. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, T. (1991). Our idea of God: An introduction to philosophical theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Collins, G., & Kendall, D. (1992). The faith of Jesus. Theological Studies, 53, 403–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawl, T. (2016). In defense of conciliar christology: A philosophical essay. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salier, W. (2009). The obedient son: The “Faithfulness” of christ in the fourth gospel. In Bird & Sprinkle (Eds.), The faith of Jesus Christ: The Pistis Christou debate (pp. 223–237). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprinkle, P. (2009). Pistis Christou as a christological event. In Bird & Sprinkle (Eds.), The faith of Jesus Christ: The Pistis Christou debate (pp. 165–184). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Still, T. (2007). Christos as pistos: The faith(fulness) of Jesus in the epistle to the Hebrews. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 69, 746–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strong, J. H. (2016) [1890] 3640. oligopistos. In his Strong’s exhaustive concordance. Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://biblehub.com/greek/3640.htm.

  • Tanner, N. (Ed.). (1990a). Decrees of the ecumenical councils (Vol. I). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, N. (Ed.). (1990b). Decrees of the ecumenical councils (Vol. II). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, T. (2009). Nineteenth-century kenotic christology: The waxing, waning, and weighing of a quest for a coherent orthodoxy. In C. S. Evans (Ed.), Exploring kenotic christology: The self-emptying of God (pp. 74–111). Vancouver: Regent College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuggy, D. (2007). Three roads to open theism. Faith and Philosophy, 24(1), 28–51. doi:10.5840/faithphil200724135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuggy, D. (2011). On positive mysterianism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 69(3), 205–226. doi:10.1007/s11153-010-9237-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuggy, D. (2012). God and his son: The logic of the New Testament, June 4, 2012. Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://trinities.org/blog/god-and-his-son-the-logic-of-the-new-testament/.

  • Tuggy, D. (2015). Podcast 70: The one God and his Son according to John, January 12, 2015. Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-70-the-one-god-and-his-son-according-to-john/.

  • Tuggy, D. (2016a). Trinity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2016 edition, E. N. Zalta (Ed.). Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/.

  • Tuggy, D. (2016b). History of trinity doctrines [supplement to trinity]. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Winter 2016 edition, E. N. Zalta (Ed.). Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html.

  • Wallis, I. (1995). The faith of Jesus Christ in early Christian tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Whitters, M. (2002). Why did the bystanders think Jesus called upon Elijah before he died (Mark 15:34–36)? The Markan position (notes and observations). Harvard Theological Review, 95(1), 119–124.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A draft of this paper was presented to the The Nature and Value of Faith project in Bellingham, Washington, July 2016. Thanks to Trent Dougherty, Daniel Howard-Snyder, Frances Howard-Snyder, Shieva Kleinschmidt, Samuel Lebens, Daniel McKaughan, John Rosenbaum, William Rowley, two anonymous referees for this journal, and especially Michael Pace for their constructive critical feedback. This paper was made possible through the support of the sponsor of that project, the Templeton Religion Trust. The opinions expressed in it are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Templeton Religion Trust.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, State University of New York at Fredonia, Fenton 2102, 280 Central Avenue, Fredonia, NY, 14063, USA

    Dale Tuggy

Authors
  1. Dale Tuggy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dale Tuggy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tuggy, D. Jesus as an exemplar of faith in the New Testament. Int J Philos Relig 81, 171–191 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-016-9604-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-016-9604-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation