Did Jesus Have Faith?

[OldRegular]

There are times in his life where he had to set aside certain of his attributes. He set aside his omnipotence and allowed himself to be taken captive, scourged, nailed to the cross, suffer and die. Why didn't he use his omnipotence and call thousands of angels from his heavenly Father. The reason: he laid aside his divine attribute of omnipotence--that he was all powerful.

He did not lay it aside. He just did not use it!

 

[DHK]

He did not lay it aside. He just did not use it!

If you took the time to read my posts, that is what I said.
If I lay aside my newspaper, I choose not to read it.

 

[percho]

Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Does this verse imply more than one entity. The word and God. When the Word became flesh and dwelt among us was there still one called God the Father in heaven?

Hbr 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Here we have one who was at one time immortal but now is subject to death and decay. Lets see what he has to say about flesh.

n 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Jhn 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

But the plan was for one to become flesh and die to pay the penalty for sin and the other to raise him from the dead. This might take faith.

Act 13:30 But God raised him from the dead:

Phl 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Phl 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: Hbr 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. Hbr 1:5 ¶ For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

When did this happen?

Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

This the reason I think that it was and is the faith of Jesus the Christ that saves us and the reason Paul wrote this as the KJV has it:

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

The faith of and not our faith in.

Just my thoughts.

 

[MB]

Hi Tom;
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

If Christ had no faith we could never be justified because we are justified by His faith and not our own.
MB

 

[Tom Butler]

Hi Tom;
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

If Christ had no faith we could never be justified because we are justified by His faith and not our own.
MB

Okay, it's dueling translation time. For every translation you can cite which renders the passage "faith OF Jesus Christ," I can cite an equal number which translate it "faith IN Jesus Christ."

Mine are NASB, ASV, English Revised Version, World English Bible, World English Bible, etc.

Yours are KJB, American KJV, Douay-Rheims, Tyndale New Testament, etc.

You Greek scholars, anybody want to chime in on the Greek word translated "in," "of" and sometimes "by?"

 

[swaimj]

It's a case form of the noun and it can be translated "in" or "of" (among other things). The context really determines how it should be translated and sometimes what the context dictates is in the eye of the beholder. The translation "faith of Jesus Christ" is pretty hard to justify, IMHO. If you translate it that way in this case, why would you not translate it that way in other places. That would change our theology drastically because we would no longer say that salvation is by faith in Christ, but rather is by the faith of Christ.

Thomas Schreiner has an excellent excursis on this topic in his commentary on Romans. If you want a thorough examination of the topic, I'd recommend that. I believe Doug Moo may address it in his Romans commentary as well, but I'm not sure about that one.

 

[Aaron]

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. Heb 2

In all things except sin, Christ was made like the elect. Abraham believed God. Christ believed God.

Christ had faith.

 

[Marcia]

Hi Tom;
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

If Christ had no faith we could never be justified because we are justified by His faith and not our own.
MB

We are not justified by his faith, but by faith in him because of his atonement. We are justified through faith in Christ.

Christ did not need faith; he was the Son of God and that never changed, even when he became man.

 

[percho]

It's a case form of the noun and it can be translated "in" or "of" (among other things). The context really determines how it should be translated and sometimes what the context dictates is in the eye of the beholder. The translation "faith of Jesus Christ" is pretty hard to justify, IMHO. If you translate it that way in this case, why would you not translate it that way in other places. That would change our theology drastically because we would no longer say that salvation is by faith in Christ, but rather is by the faith of Christ.

Thomas Schreiner has an excellent excursis on this topic in his commentary on Romans. If you want a thorough examination of the topic, I'd recommend that. I believe Doug Moo may address it in his Romans commentary as well, but I'm not sure about that one.

Well if you read my post above I guess you could say that is my theology.

Hbr 11:1 ¶ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Is this a statement of things natural or supernatural.

Hbr 11:2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

Was this good report obtained because of something they believed or was it because what they did because of the faithfulness of God. The one example I will use because it is the easiest.

Hbr 11:29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry [land]: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.

These people were just complaining that Moses had taken them out in the wilderness to die. They were trapped. Then a few weeks later they were making the golden calf. This after God delivered them through the sea. Was this their faith or the faithfulness of God.

Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

My understanding is that in the original this should end with the definite article the before faith.


That we might receive the promise of the spitit through the faith.

Also these two verses are interesting.

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

I could go on and on but I won't. That should bring a smile.

 

[Tom Butler]

It's a case form of the noun and it can be translated "in" or "of" (among other things). The context really determines how it should be translated and sometimes what the context dictates is in the eye of the beholder. The translation "faith of Jesus Christ" is pretty hard to justify, IMHO. If you translate it that way in this case, why would you not translate it that way in other places. That would change our theology drastically because we would no longer say that salvation is by faith in Christ, but rather is by the faith of Christ.

Thomas Schreiner has an excellent excursis on this topic in his commentary on Romans. If you want a thorough examination of the topic, I'd recommend that. I believe Doug Moo may address it in his Romans commentary as well, but I'm not sure about that one.

Although I agree with your exegesis, I am going to suggest a possible (but not likely) way to justify rendering the passage "faith OF Christ." I will base it on I Cor 12:9, where Paul is discussing spiritual gifts. "To another faith by the same spirit. Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. So, I guess we could maybe, possibly, conclude that the faith Paul spoke of was the faith of the Holy Spirit.

The reasoning of course is that Jesus could not give us something he did not possess. So by that same reasoning, we can conclude that the HS also has faith, since he's giving it away.

Of course, that means that God had faith, too, because Jesus said he and the Father were one, and Jesus had faith, so God had to have it, too.

Now, having said all this, I don't believe a word of what I just wrote. I just want to show the kind of stretch of reasoning which is required to come to that conclusion, when one starts with a flawed premise.

Non-Calvinists shouldn't like this kind of reasoning, because if the Godhead had faith, and gave it as a gift, then saving faith is not self-generated. It is provided to us by the Holy Spirit at regeneration, followed by salvation.

See how much fun one can have with this?

 

[Tom Butler]

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. Heb 2

In all things except sin, Christ was made like the elect. Abraham believed God. Christ believed God.

Christ had faith.

Yes, Jesus became like us. But there are ways in which he is not like us. We are not God in the flesh. We cannot die for sinners. We cannot function as a merciful and faithful high priest. We cannot make reconciliation for the sins of the people. We cannot say "all power has been given unto me." We cannot say "I Am."

In this case, your analogy doesn't quite hold up.

 

[Jim1999]

I think the mistake we make is in calling Christ fully God and fully man, as if there are two different entities. Jesus is the God-Man. He does not have faith. He is the essence of faith. There is a huge difference.

We can all talk about having faith in something, such as climbing a ladder or crossing a bridge. Perhaps this faith is better expressed as trust.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Deacon]

Galatians 2:16 – πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [NA27]

Galatians 3:22 – πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
AV 1873

But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
ESV

Romans 3:22 – πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
AV 1873

the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
ESV

Romans 3:26 – πίστεως Ἰησοῦ
to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
AV 1873

It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
ESV

Ephesians 3:12 – πίστεως αὐτοῦ
in whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
AV 1873

in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.
ESV

Philippians 3:9 – πίστεως Χριστοῦ
and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
AV 1873

and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—
ESV

If you are concerned with bible codes you might ask the question,
“Why did Paul use this expression in the third chapter of so many of his letters?”

Rob

 

[percho]

I know what Heb 13:8 says Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever.

However was there any difference in the Word in John 1:1 and lets say John 1:14 or John 3:5 or lets say John 5:19 or John 19:28? By the same token was there any difference in the Word that became flesh, Jesus in the passages John 1:14 thru John 19:28 and the person spoken of in Acts 7:56 or Acts 9:5?

If the answer is yes, please explain the following verse to me.

Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear

Did Jesus receive something in which he did not have or am I reading something here that isn't here?

I guess I am asking what do we mean fully God and fully man or as some put it God-man? I think the Word, God became flesh for the purpose of death. When I say death I mean dead. Without life of any kind. Dead forever unless God the Father does something about it. See 1 Cor. 15:15-18.

 

[Aaron]

Yes, Jesus became like us. But there are ways in which he is not like us. We are not God in the flesh. We cannot die for sinners. We cannot function as a merciful and faithful high priest. We cannot make reconciliation for the sins of the people. We cannot say "all power has been given unto me." We cannot say "I Am."

In this case, your analogy doesn't quite hold up.

There's no question that even our faith will be sight, and then it will be no more faith. The question, as I see it, is, was Christ made low enough to have to accept certain things on faith? In other words, did He believe without seeing? I think the answer is obvious.

If the question is, was Christ saved by faith, the answer would be no. What a preposterous question!

 

[Tom Butler]

There's no question that even our faith will be sight, and then it will be no more faith. The question, as I see it, is, was Christ made low enough to have to accept certain things on faith? In other words, did He believe without seeing? I think the answer is obvious.

It's obvious provided the answer is no.

Here's why I say this. The Son was present with the Father from eternity. Nothing was unknown to the Godhead, not the present and not the future. All decrees will happen exactly has decreed by God. Therefore all that will happen as a result of those decrees is known by the three persons of the Trinity.

To say that Jesus had to accept certain things on faith is to suggest that the Son, who knows all things from the beginning to the end, had to un-know certain things when he "became flesh." How does that work? This may sound silly, but let's imagine a scenario where Jesus is sitting with the Father, and they are making a list of things which the Son will have to un-know while he's on earth. Or forget them, then re-know them after his ascension.

The Father says to the Son, "hey, you know the end times which we've planned and decreed? Well, you'll have to un-know the day and hour. Just erase, erase."

Jesus replies, well, okay, I'll un-know it if you won't tell the angels. After all, it wouldn't do for them to know something I don't." "Okay," says the Father. "Deal."

Silly, you say? Yep, it is.

One reason we are conflicted about what Jesus knew or didn't know is Matthew 24:36. Here again, we have dueling translations.

NIV No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

KJV But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (The Son is not mentioned).

NASB But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

Young's Literal Translation And concerning that day and the hour no one hath known -- not even the messengers of the heavens -- except my Father only. (No Son).

If the question is, was Christ saved by faith, the answer would be no. What a preposterous question!

Exactly. That's why I didn't ask it.

 

[Aaron]

I understand what you're saying. It seems to me that by the same reasoning I would have to say that Jesus was never weak enough to die at the hands of men.

I won't argue any further. I could be wrong, but in the present it's irrelevant. We no longer know Christ by the flesh. We serve and worship Him as God. He is the object of my faith, and, as Bob Griffin's signature says, "Jesus knows me, this I love."

 

[Tom Butler]

I understand what you're saying. It seems to me that by the same reasoning I would have to say that Jesus was never weak enough to die at the hands of men.

I won't argue any further. I could be wrong, but in the present it's irrelevant. We no longer know Christ by the flesh. We serve and worship Him as God. He is the object of my faith, and, as Bob Griffin's signature says, "Jesus knows me, this I love."

And I would have to say you are exactly right about the part I highlighted. I think the expression "he gave up the ghost" means exactly what it says.


This is reinforced by Jesus's words in John 10:16-17:

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have the power to lay it down and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Now the interesting part is that Peter preached on the day of Pentecost that the Jews had killed him and he held them responsible. Maybe we can explain it by saying that the hands of wicked men were the means by which Jesus laid down his life.

 

[Aaron]

Now the interesting part is that Peter preached on the day of Pentecost that the Jews had killed him and he held them responsible. Maybe we can explain it by saying that the hands of wicked men were the means by which Jesus laid down his life.

Since we're on a different subject . . .

There's no question that Christ made Himself weak enough to die, and that at the hands of men. Joseph was warned in a dream that Herod sought the Child's life, so he and Mary took Christ into Egypt. Christ was just as dependent upon Providence for the preservation of His mortal life as we are today.

 

[Tom Butler]

Since we're on a different subject . . .

There's no question that Christ made Himself weak enough to die, and that at the hands of men. Joseph was warned in a dream that Herod sought the Child's life, so he and Mary took Christ into Egypt. Christ was just as dependent upon Providence for the preservation of His mortal life as we are today.

I can agree with that. As an infant, the baby was dependent on others for everything.

Hey, Aaron, wanna chase another rabbit? I've wondered exactly when Jesus became aware of his deity. Well, maybe that's another thread.