# Did Jesus Have Faith?



## KMK (Dec 4, 2008)

In another thread (http://www.puritanboard.com/f17/pistis-christou-subjective-objective-poll-40813/), Rev Greco posted this:



> Jesus did not have faith. He was not a sinner. He was God incarnate.



I am sure that Rev Greco is correct, but I am having trouble wrapping my mind around this line of thinking.

WCF Chapter 8



> II. The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature,[10] *with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin;*[11] being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance.[12] So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, *without conversion, composition, or confusion.[13] Which person is very God, and very man,* yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.[14]
> 
> VII. *Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures,* by each nature doing that which is proper to itself;[37] yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.[38]



WLC Q 39



> Q. 39. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man?
> 
> A. It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature,[152] perform obedience to the law,[153] *suffer and make intercession for us in our nature,[154] have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities;*[155] that we might receive the adoption of sons,[156] and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.[157]



It seems to me that the fact that Jesus was without sin does not necessarily mean that, in His human nature, did not have faith. I assume my diffiulty is borne from the fact that I do not understand the unity of His two natures well enough.

If the absense of sin precludes faith, does that mean that pre-fall Adam did not have faith? Does that mean that in eternal glory none of us will have faith any longer?

Can someond help me?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 4, 2008)

We will not have faith in glory. We will have sight.



> ESV 1 John 3:2 Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.
> 
> ESV 2 Corinthians 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 4, 2008)

Pastor Greco, I agree with where you are going with the fact Messiah was sinless, but i regard to faith....we have passages in our Testaments of Messiah Praying, does not Prayer indicate faith of some sort?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 4, 2008)

Jon Lake said:


> Pastor Greco, I agree with where you are going with the fact Messiah was sinless, but i regard to faith....we have passages in our Testaments of Messiah Praying, does not Prayer indicate faith of some sort?



No, not if you view Christ's relationship with God the Father as one of _more than_ faith. Payer is communion with God. Adam had communion with God before the Fall. For fallen man, faith is needed to communion with God, because of sin.


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 4, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Jon Lake said:
> 
> 
> > Pastor Greco, I agree with where you are going with the fact Messiah was sinless, but i regard to faith....we have passages in our Testaments of Messiah Praying, does not Prayer indicate faith of some sort?
> ...


Well stated Pastor, but were the agonizing Prayers at Gethsemane more than "mere" communication?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 4, 2008)

Jon Lake said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > Jon Lake said:
> ...



Yes. No communication with God is "mere," especially in that context. Note that I said prayer is _communion_ with God, not just _communication_ with God.


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 4, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Jon Lake said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...


Well put. Blessings.


----------



## he beholds (Dec 4, 2008)

I've never thought about this before, but what you are saying, Pastor Greco, does seem to make sense. 
Since Faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen," I couldn't see how Christ would have _anything_ not seen. I see the assurance of things, because he knew that when He went to the cross, his death would cover our sins (for example), but I doubt that this would have even been something he _hoped_ for. You don't hope for something that you are absolutely positive will happen. 
I _think_ there was something by Murray in his commentary on Romans that describes hope very well, that could help this conversation, but I might be remembering incorrectly. I will look for that. 
Either way, I doubt that X had to hope; I know that he would have had complete assurance of everything that he wanted to happen happening; and I know he had nothing not yet seen--therefore, I would think Pastor Greco is right. 

I think it just sounds bad or counterintuitive that Christ had not faith. But when you break it down, I believe that.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 4, 2008)

Yes, Jessica. That is why Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13 that love is what will not pass away, and that faith hope and love abide now (at this present time), but that the greatest of these is love - since only love abides forever.


----------



## he beholds (Dec 4, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Yes, Jessica. That is why Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13 that love is what will not pass away, and that faith hope and love abide now (at this present time), but that the greatest of these is love - since only love abides forever.



You have just revolutionized that passage for me! Really, I never grasped the whole meaning or why those would pass but love would stay! Thank you!


----------



## CharlieJ (Dec 4, 2008)

The concept of trust, at least, fits Jesus.

Psalm 22:7-10 7 All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; 8 "He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!" 9 Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. 10 On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 4, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> We will not have faith in glory. We will have sight.



But Christ was not in glory when He was clothed Himself with humanity.


----------



## KMK (Dec 4, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> The concept of trust, at least, fits Jesus.
> 
> Psalm 22:7-10 7 All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; 8 "He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!" 9 Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. 10 On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God.



This is where I am struggling. Surely it can be said that Jesus Christ trusted His Father, can it not?



> WCF 14:2 By this faith, a Christian *believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word*, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein;[5] and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; *yielding obedience to the commands,[6] trembling at the threatenings,[7] and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come*.[8] But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.[9]



Couldn't this definition of faith apply at least in part to Jesus?


----------



## larryjf (Dec 4, 2008)

Both faith and love are in Jesus Christ...
[bible]1 Tim 1:14[/bible]

[bible]Heb 12:2[/bible]
or..."author and perfecter of THE faith" to which the verses that follow verse 2 imply that it is both the faith of Jesus Christ and our faith.
This joy that was set before Christ, the motivator of going through His sufferings, was surely faith.

Notice in the following that it's the faith "of" Jesus, and not faith "in" Jesus...


> (Rev 14:12) Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith *of* Jesus.


----------



## he beholds (Dec 4, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Both faith and love are in Jesus Christ...
> [bible]1 Tim 1:14[/bible]
> 
> [bible]Heb 12:2[/bible]
> ...



RE: faith of Jesus
Can the faith of Christ be the faith that Christ has given you? As in, faith is a gift *of* God. (Eph. 2:8)
So it might not be the faith that Christ held, but the faith that he gave?

RE: Hebrews 12:2
How do we know what the joy in "who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross," was? I think the joy could have been any number of things. For instance, it could have been the knowing, instead of the hoping of what was to come. Or even something else, maybe?


----------



## larryjf (Dec 4, 2008)

Does Christ give what He doesn't have?


----------



## larryjf (Dec 4, 2008)

Joshua said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Does Christ give what He doesn't have?
> ...



I would say that Christ purchased redemption for us.


----------



## KMK (Dec 4, 2008)

For clarity's sake, then. what Rev Greco and Joshua are saying is that where sin does not exist, there is no need for faith. Faith is needed only when minds/eyes/hearts have been corrupted by sin.

Adam, Jesus and those who are glorified, although they 'trust' God, have no need of 'faith'.

Am I summarizing correctly?


----------



## larryjf (Dec 4, 2008)

Jesus was like us but without sin...not without faith.
Certainly if He learned obedience (Heb 5:8), He did so through faith.


----------



## CDM (Dec 4, 2008)

Isn't an integral part of faith the not knowing but trusting [in God] aspect? Then surely Christ as God-*man*, who did not know certain things (Mt 24:35-36), had to have faith concerning those things he did not know, right?

The hypostatic union is what is causing the confusion, I think.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 4, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Does Christ give what He doesn't have?


Christ gives repentance.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Dec 4, 2008)




----------



## larryjf (Dec 4, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Does Christ give what He doesn't have?
> ...



Scripture?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 4, 2008)

Even if Jesus had "faith" it is an equivocation of terms to say that his "faith" was as ours is. 

If Heb 11 paints a picture that faith is essentially trusting, hoping, being confident (etc) in something that we don't see - in other words, there is an element of risk. In other words, there's the element - like it or not - that we could be wrong because we don't have it right in front of us. We like to say, "I KNOW this and that." But we don't. We have faith... anyway, if Hebrews 11 paints an accurate picture of what faith is, then this element surely excludes Christ.

Jesus didn't have that. He had first-hand knowledge. He'd seen heaven. He'd heard the angelic choir. I could go on. 

This is why I'm convinced that Jesus didn't have faith in the sense that we do.


----------



## CDM (Dec 4, 2008)

larryjf said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > larryjf said:
> ...



If I may: Acts 5:31, 2 Timothy 2:25, Acts 11:18.

However, I think "gives" carries the meaning of "grants" per Acts 11:18.

-----Added 12/4/2008 at 03:31:06 EST-----



SolaScriptura said:


> Even if Jesus had "faith" it is an equivocation of terms to say that his "faith" was as ours is.
> 
> If Heb 11 paints a picture that faith is essentially trusting, hoping, being confident (etc) in something that we don't see - in other words, there is an element of risk. In other words, there's the element - like it or not - that we could be wrong because we don't have it right in front of us. We like to say, "I KNOW this and that." But we don't. We have faith... anyway, if Hebrews 11 paints an accurate picture of what faith is, then this element surely excludes Christ.
> 
> ...



Agreed. 

But, I don't think anyone is arguing that Jesus had "faith" in the same _sense_ as we do.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 4, 2008)

In this discussion, it seems that we have not really nailed down the definition of faith. In one sense Christ had faith, and in another He didn't. If all one means is the three-fold components of knowledge, trust, and assent, there really isn't any reason to deny that Christ had faith. He knew God, trusted God, and assented to the truth about God. 

However, when one comes to other aspects of faith, it is clear that we cannot assert faith of Christ. Faith looks outside of itself, and rests on another, and on the righteousness of another. It is extraspective. Jesus, according to His divine nature, had no need of extraspection. Jesus according to His human nature had no sin that needed the righteousness of another to cover for Him. Therefore, this kind of faith, which we will call "saving faith," cannot be predicated of Jesus. 

In the garden also, we cannot predicate "saving faith" of Adam, because he didn't need saving in his original state of rectitude. We may certainly assert that Adam knew God, assented to God's truth, and trusted God in the Garden before the Fall. However, one must guard against every attempt to make Adam's faith the instrument of glorification had he obeyed. This is a key element in the Federal Vision discussion, and is one of the main reasons why great care is needed, for several FV proponents (and even the Joint Federal Vision Statement) say that Adam would have received the final glorification by faith alone, and not by works. Such a construction completely undermines the reason for Christ's obedience, which is the ground of our justification.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 4, 2008)

mangum said:


> But, I don't think anyone is arguing that Jesus had "faith" in the same _sense_ as we do.



The last line of the OP simply asks about "faith." I've read the posts and none of the "yes, Jesus had faith" advocates have indicated any differentiation in definition. Thus, I have to conclude that they are operating with a singular definition.

I am a convinced believer that we can only refer to God by way of analogy.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 4, 2008)

SolaScriptura said:


> Even if Jesus had "faith" it is an equivocation of terms to say that his "faith" was as ours is.
> 
> If Heb 11 paints a picture that faith is essentially trusting, hoping, being confident (etc) in something that we don't see - in other words, there is an element of risk. In other words, there's the element - like it or not - that we could be wrong because we don't have it right in front of us. We like to say, "I KNOW this and that." But we don't. We have faith... anyway, if Hebrews 11 paints an accurate picture of what faith is, then this element surely excludes Christ.
> 
> ...



But doesn't this argument only take into account the divine nature of Christ? Surely his human nature didn't see Heaven, and His one person with both natures didn't see Heaven...right?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 4, 2008)

Thanks Lane for that post.


----------



## CDM (Dec 4, 2008)

SolaScriptura said:


> mangum said:
> 
> 
> > But, I don't think anyone is arguing that Jesus had "faith" in the same _sense_ as we do.
> ...



I did exactly this in post #23:



> Isn't an integral part of faith the not knowing but trusting [in God] aspect? Then surely Christ as God-man, who did not know certain things (Mt 24:35-36), had to have faith concerning those things he did not know, right?
> 
> The hypostatic union is what is causing the confusion, I think.



If faith, can be defined, in this one limited sense, then Jesus can be said to have faith.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 4, 2008)

Faith is a grace (WCF 14.1). Faith is an instrument (WCF 10.2). Faith is an instrument that receives justification. Do any of these things have anything to do with Christ? Or even Adam in the garden?

Faith is more than simply "not knowing things." Man (even in glory) will never be omniscient like God. Does that mean we need faith forever? Not according to the Scriptures. Faith is more than simply trusting - it is trusting in absence of sight. Just as hope is more than expecting - it is expecting in the absence of sight (Romans 8:24-25)

Does anyone notice that the Confession never speaks once of Christ's faith? What it speaks of is His obedience and death. It is His obedience (in life and death) that purchase redemption, justification, adoption, etc. for His people.

As soon as you admit Christ had (and had need of) faith, you open up Pandora's box to a bushel of heresies, not the least of which are the New Perspective and the FV view of Adam (as Lane has pointed out).

The hypostatic union does not require Christ to have faith. Even with the incontrovertible point that Christ in His humanity did not know all things, He can still say:



> Matthew 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and *no one knows the Father except the Son* and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him



-----Added 12/4/2008 at 03:50:06 EST-----



mangum said:


> > Isn't an integral part of faith the not knowing but trusting [in God] aspect? Then surely Christ as God-man, who did not know certain things (Mt 24:35-36), had to have faith concerning those things he did not know, right?
> >
> > The hypostatic union is what is causing the confusion, I think.
> 
> ...



Chris,

I think trust is a _part _of faith, not faith itself. So I think we can say *rightly* that Christ had _trust_, but not that He had _faith._


----------



## CDM (Dec 4, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Faith is a grace (WCF 14.1). Faith is an instrument (WCF 10.2). Faith is an instrument that receives justification. Do any of these things have anything to do with Christ? Or even Adam in the garden?
> 
> Faith is more than simply "not knowing things." Man (even in glory) will never be omniscient like God. Does that mean we need faith forever? Not according to the Scriptures. Faith is more than simply trusting - it is trusting in absence of sight. Just as hope is more than expecting - it is expecting in the absence of sight (Romans 8:24-25)
> 
> ...



Agreed, this is how I would define it. Like Lane said, it depends on how you define faith.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 4, 2008)

From Francis Turretin (who answers affirmatively:

"Faith, therefore, is ascribed to Christ, not inasmuch as it is a fiducial apprehension of the mercy of God. In this sense, it belongs to sinners only;...Rather is is ascribed to Christ as to the substance of knowledge and assent to a thing known (i.e., to the doctrine revealed of God) and as to trust, which rests in the goodness of God providing all things necessary for us."

I think this discussion will inevitably lead to confusion -- everyone seems to be thinking in different categories.

Faith is not strictly limited to faith which lays hold of mercy in Christ. There certainly is a type of faith which Christ had; just as Adam himself required a faith before the Fall whereby he knew that "God is and is the rewarder of them that seek him."

Regarding the 1 Corinthians passages, indeed, faith in the sense that we, as sinners, now have it, to rely upon Christ whom we do not see, will disappear; yet we shall not stop having a faith, a trust in the goodness of God. Though faith is of different kinds and possesses different objects, it is still faith.

Thoughts?

-----Added 12/4/2008 at 04:10:18 EST-----



> As soon as you admit Christ had (and had need of) faith, you open up Pandora's box to a bushel of heresies, not the least of which are the New Perspective and the FV view of Adam (as Lane has pointed out).



I'm not so sure that's true: I can think of quite a few orthodox theologians who spoke of Jesus' faith (again, it matters how we understand that term -- we have a "different" faith than his) and are yet the formalizers and systematizers of the very orthodoxy you claim such a belief will betray.

-----Added 12/4/2008 at 04:12:47 EST-----

Oops, and Lane, somehow I missed your post: so, everyone just read his. He said what I meant first. You might as well read the Turretin quote though -- I had to go find it...


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 4, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> From Francis Turretin (who answers affirmatively:
> 
> "Faith, therefore, is ascribed to Christ, not inasmuch as it is a fiducial apprehension of the mercy of God. In this sense, it belongs to sinners only;...Rather is is ascribed to Christ as to the substance of knowledge and assent to a thing known (i.e., to the doctrine revealed of God) and as to trust, which rests in the goodness of God providing all things necessary for us."
> 
> ...



It is somewhat reassuring, I must confess, that Turretin already thought of this before I did! But I had not read Turretin on this before I formulated what I wrote. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## charliejunfan (Dec 4, 2008)

He imputes faith to us.........don't kill me!!!


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 4, 2008)

Going back to the opening post, however, I would like to echo Mr. Greco's sentiments in light of the way the question was asked: if we are speaking of that by which we are justified, then let us certainly leave all discussion of "Jesus' faith," as though somehow his faith has saved us, or that his faith is that which we are supposed to imitate. This certainly does open that Pandora's box, confusing the pre-lapsarian covenant with the covenant of grace, and, it seems, will inevitably lead back to our works or our faithfulness being a part of our justification.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Dec 4, 2008)




----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 4, 2008)

charliejunfan said:


> He imputes faith to us.........don't kill me!!!



No one's going to kill you! However, God imputes righteousness to us through faith. Faith always looks towards Christ's righteousness as its goal.


----------



## charliejunfan (Dec 4, 2008)

But our ability to "keep" the faith comes from the Holy Spirit's work in us, so how is that not a kind of imputation? Maybe I am confusing terms idk


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 4, 2008)

charliejunfan said:


> But our ability to "keep" the faith comes from the Holy Spirit's work in us, so how is that not a kind of imputation? Maybe I am confusing terms idk



Indeed, but that's not imputation. Two completely different things.

Imputation is "considering" or "reckoning." We are imputed righteous: that is, we are considered, or reckoned righteous, thought we, in ourselves, are ungodly.

If we make the word "imputation" to be an actual giving or bestowing of something (which it absolutely can't mean), then when we say that righteousness is imputed to us, we are, in essence, confessing Roman Catholics.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 4, 2008)

charliejunfan said:


> But our ability to "keep" the faith comes from the Holy Spirit's work in us, so how is that not a kind of imputation? Maybe I am confusing terms idk



What Paul Korte said. I will only add that imputation relates to justification, and impartation relates to sanctification. Imputation is a declaration of being not guilty. It is a transfer term, meaning that the righteousness is Christ's bank account has been reckoned to our bank account, even though we did none of it. That transaction takes place wholly outside of us. It is therefore distinct from the Holy Spirit, who works in us, and imparts a gradually increasing righteousness on the inside that begins to match what we are by God's declaration on the outside.


----------



## charliejunfan (Dec 4, 2008)

so we are Imparted faith then?


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 4, 2008)

charliejunfan said:


> so we are Imparted faith then?



I think I would be more comfortable saying that God imparts sanctificational righteousness (which is our own) and imputes justificational righteousness (which is Christ's righteousness), both through the instrumentality of faith. Faith is not a thing in and of itself. It looks outside itself to Christ. That is why faith really cannot be imputed or imparted. Of course, faith is a gift from God, but that is not a statement about what it is, so much as a statement about how we get it.


----------



## charliejunfan (Dec 4, 2008)

So the only imputation is when by faith Christ righteousness is put into our account, and that is it as far as imputation, but then impartation happens which is sanctification?


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 4, 2008)

charliejunfan said:


> So the only imputation is when by faith Christ righteousness is put into our account, and thats it as far as imputation, but then impartation happens witch is sanctification?



Well, Adam's sin is imputed to all human beings, Christ's righteousness is imputed to us when we come to Him by faith, and our sin is imputed to Christ also in justification. Imputation can only happen where there is a representative head of a group of people. Those three imputations are the only ones of which I am aware. Impartation of righteousness only happens in sanctification, although I suppose one could speak of God's imparting to us a glorified body on the Final Day.


----------



## charliejunfan (Dec 4, 2008)

k thanks


----------



## nicnap (Dec 4, 2008)

-----Added 12/4/2008 at 10:21:26 EST-----

Sorry...seeing everyone else eat popcorn made me hungry. I added it before I had finished the thread and saw that it has wound down.


----------



## Grymir (Dec 4, 2008)

Faith is such a mis-used term. Kirkegaard's leap of faith isn't what it is. Faith is a noun, not a verb.

Also the knowing God by Analogy? Lets not go Barthian here. We know God by propositional truths.


----------



## KMK (Dec 4, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> Going back to the opening post, however, I would like to echo Mr. Greco's sentiments in light of the way the question was asked: if we are speaking of that by which we are justified, then let us certainly leave all discussion of "Jesus' faith," as though somehow his faith has saved us, or that his faith is that which we are supposed to imitate. This certainly does open that Pandora's box, confusing the pre-lapsarian covenant with the covenant of grace, and, it seems, will inevitably lead back to our works or our faithfulness being a part of our justification.



This is true as the question was born out of a debate over subjective/objective faith in Gal 2:16 which is obviously concerned with 'saving faith' rather than mere knowledge, trust and assent.

Thank you all for your input it has really helped me.


----------



## Matthew1034 (Dec 4, 2008)

1 Clement 22:1


> All these things doth the faith *which is in *Christ assure. For he himself, through the Holy Spirit, thus calleth unto us: Come, ye children, hearken unto me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord.



1 John 5:4


> For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world --- our faith.



Christ's life is the substance of our faith, so in a way He Himself is faith?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 4, 2008)

I recant my earlier post. 

According to a song I just heard on the radio, Jesus has faith in me. That kind of settles the question about whether or not Jesus has faith, doesn't it?


----------



## Grymir (Dec 4, 2008)

SolaScriptura said:


> I recant my earlier post.
> 
> According to a song I just heard on the radio, Jesus has faith in me. That kind of settles the question about whether or not Jesus has faith, doesn't it?


----------



## charliejunfan (Dec 5, 2008)

Christ had faith and it was perfect, He had faith in His own words He spoke to satan when He was tempted in the desert.


----------

