# Why is "faith" mentioned only twice in the OT?



## InSlaveryToChrist

Why is the word, "faith," mentioned only twice in the OT (according to KJV)? Was there any equivalent terms for faith in the OT? These seem to be the only ones:

Deu_32:20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no *faith*.

Hab_2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his *faith*.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Interestingly, I'm talking about this in my Sunday School class today. That's actually not true, the OT uses the expression "they broke faith" numerous times, but in those contexts "breaking faith" refers to an act of rebellion. In terms of faith as the subjective act of believing....

Rom 4:16-25 uses the terms "faith" and "believe" interchangeably. So too does Heb 11:6.

With that in mind, while the OT may not use the word "faith" very often, the "believe" word group is used a lot. Additionally, as I will show today in my class, the OT (and NT) reveals that rebellion, failure to obey, etc., are described as lack of belief.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Thanks, Ben. It's still a bit odd to me that the noun form of the verb believe (faith) is used only twice in regards to the promised Messiah. Don't you think there might be a reason behind that?


----------



## DMcFadden

> Why is the word, "faith," mentioned only twice in the OT (according to KJV)?



Because "The Law is Not of Faith"???

Just kidding. Look at the cognate terms that stress trusting and obeying.


----------



## TimV

Isn't the noun form of believe believer? How many times is faith used in the OT of the Finnish Bible?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

TimV said:


> Isn't the noun form of believe believer?



Yes, or belief which can also be formulated as faith.



> How many times is faith used in the OT of the Finnish Bible?



I don't know, I don't read the Finnish Bible.


----------



## Jack K

SolaScriptura said:


> Rom 4:16-25 uses the terms "faith" and "believe" interchangeably. So too does Heb 11:6.
> 
> With that in mind, while the OT may not use the word "faith" very often, the "believe" word group is used a lot. Additionally, as I will show today in my class, the OT (and NT) reveals that rebellion, failure to obey, etc., are described as lack of belief.



Exactly what I was thinking. In fact, Romans 4 tells us that Abraham was counted righteous "by *faith*," and to back up this claim quotes Genesis 15: "Abraham *believed* God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." So where the Old Testament speaks of "belief," in this case, it means the same thing as where the New Testament speaks of "faith."


----------



## CharlieJ

Samuel, try looking it up in different versions. NIV gave 15 hits and ESV more.


----------



## toddpedlar

It's instructive, Samuel, to look for believe/belief, trust, faith all together... there are many, many, many references in the OT to trusting in God and in His promises (of which the Messiah is the foremost of course). And, as just noted by CharlieJ, you should look in several different English versions because the translations vary in usage of these words.


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> Because "The Law is Not of Faith"???
> 
> Just kidding. Look at the cognate terms that stress trusting and obeying.



There is of course a sense in which this is to be taken seriously. Although there are cognate terms which will broaden the definition, the fact is that the covenant people were shut up to the faith until the fulness of the time.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

CharlieJ said:


> Samuel, try looking it up in different versions. NIV gave 15 hits and ESV more.



I already knew that. My point was that "faith" is used only twice _in regards to the promised Messiah_, regardless of the Bible version.


----------



## toddpedlar

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Samuel, try looking it up in different versions. NIV gave 15 hits and ESV more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already knew that. My point was that "faith" is used only twice _in regards to the promised Messiah_, regardless of the Bible version.
Click to expand...


Ok... though it wasn't until you clarified that later in the thread that people would have known that. The OP specified that you thought there were only two instances of "faith" in the Old Testament. 

Regarding the promised Messiah -the quotations you gave don't specify that faith as being faith in the promised Messiah.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

toddpedlar said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Samuel, try looking it up in different versions. NIV gave 15 hits and ESV more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already knew that. My point was that "faith" is used only twice _in regards to the promised Messiah_, regardless of the Bible version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok... though it wasn't until you clarified that later in the thread that people would have known that. The OP specified that you thought there were only two instances of "faith" in the Old Testament.
> 
> Regarding the promised Messiah -the quotations you gave don't specify that faith as being faith in the promised Messiah.
Click to expand...


I apologize for the confusion. You're right, it wasn't until my clarification in my second post that people would have known that I had a specific object of faith (the Messiah) in mind. Please, forgive me for this.


----------



## J. Dean

Doesn't it say in Isaiah with regard to Christ that "in His name shall the Gentiles trust"?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

J. Dean said:


> Doesn't it say in Isaiah with regard to Christ that "in His name shall the Gentiles trust"?



Oh yes. But my argument was not that the OT doesn't teach faith in Christ--just that the noun form of "believe/trust" (faith) is used only twice in regards to Christ.


----------



## toddpedlar

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it say in Isaiah with regard to Christ that "in His name shall the Gentiles trust"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes. But my argument was not that the OT doesn't teach faith in Christ--just that the noun form of "believe/trust" (faith) is used only twice in regards to Christ.
Click to expand...


So which are the verses you have in mind? As I noted earlier today your original post contains two verses using this word (well, using things translated "faith" in the AV - they're different Hebrew words, one of which could be translated "faithfulness" instead) and neither one refers to Messiah. 

Todd


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

toddpedlar said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it say in Isaiah with regard to Christ that "in His name shall the Gentiles trust"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes. But my argument was not that the OT doesn't teach faith in Christ--just that the noun form of "believe/trust" (faith) is used only twice in regards to Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which are the verses you have in mind? As I noted earlier today your original post contains two verses using this word (well, using things translated "faith" in the AV - they're different Hebrew words, one of which could be translated "faithfulness" instead) and neither one refers to Messiah.
> 
> 
> 
> Todd
Click to expand...


John Gill on Habadduk 2:4,
"But the just shall live by faith; the "just" man is the reverse of the former; *he is one that believed in the coming of Christ*, and believed in him when come; who has no overweening opinion of himself, and of his own righteousness; nor does he trust in it for his justification before God, and acceptance with him; but in the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, *from whence he is denominated a just man*:"

John Gill on Deuteronomy 32:20,
"children in whom is no faith; for though they had faith in one God, in the Scriptures of the Old Testament as the word of God, in the law of Moses, and in a future state, the resurrection of the dead, and judgment to come; especially the Pharisees, the greater part of the Jews; yet though they were the children of Abraham, and would be thought to be the children of God, *they had no faith in Jesus, the true Messiah; him they disbelieved and rejected*; and as their fathers could not enter into the land of Canaan, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness, because of unbelief; so these were cast out of the land, and from the Lord, *because of their unbelief in the rejection of the Messiah*."

Although, then he adds,
"Aben Ezra observes, that it may be interpreted there is no men of *faithfulness*, or no *faithful* men among them, as in Psalm 12:1; they were a faithless generation, covenant breakers, broke their covenant with God, and therefore he rejected them."

Would you insist solely on the latter interpretation? I believe they overlap. The people were *unfaithful* _in that_ they didn't keep God's commandments, yes, but that was _ultimately_ because of unbelief (as always), that is, because they had *no faith in their God and the Messiah*.


----------



## toddpedlar

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> John Gill on Habadduk 2:4,
> "But the just shall live by faith; the "just" man is the reverse of the former; *he is one that believed in the coming of Christ*, and believed in him when come; who has no overweening opinion of himself, and of his own righteousness; nor does he trust in it for his justification before God, and acceptance with him; but in the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, *from whence he is denominated a just man*:"
> 
> John Gill on Deuteronomy 32:20,
> "children in whom is no faith; for though they had faith in one God, in the Scriptures of the Old Testament as the word of God, in the law of Moses, and in a future state, the resurrection of the dead, and judgment to come; especially the Pharisees, the greater part of the Jews; yet though they were the children of Abraham, and would be thought to be the children of God, *they had no faith in Jesus, the true Messiah; him they disbelieved and rejected*; and as their fathers could not enter into the land of Canaan, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness, because of unbelief; so these were cast out of the land, and from the Lord, *because of their unbelief in the rejection of the Messiah*."
> 
> Although, then he adds,
> "Aben Ezra observes, that it may be interpreted there is no men of *faithfulness*, or no *faithful* men among them, as in Psalm 12:1; they were a faithless generation, covenant breakers, broke their covenant with God, and therefore he rejected them."
> 
> Would you insist solely on the latter interpretation? I believe they overlap. The people were *unfaithful* _in that_ they didn't keep God's commandments, yes, but that was _ultimately_ because of unbelief (as always), that is, because they had *no faith in their God and the Messiah*.



My point is, Samuel, that you're stating these verses speak of faith in the Messiah, where your evidence for doing so is not grounded in the verses themselves... as they stand, in context of both Deuteronomy and Habakkuk, they are statements of faith or trust in God and, perhaps by extension, His promises. 

By quoting John Gill here, and then claiming these verses mean "faith in the coming Messiah" when they don't (at least on the plain reading) you're letting John Gill determine your reading of the verses as two (and apparently only two?) verses in the OT that use faith in connection to the coming Messiah. Again, I don't think the verses themselves require that, despite what our brother Dr. Gill might have said in his commentary. 

Regarding the connection between faith and faithfulness, I do not believe of course that the two are identical. Faith begets faithful living, to be certain... but faith and faithfulness are not identical (even if they both can be legitimate translations of the same Hebrew word).


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

toddpedlar said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Gill on Habadduk 2:4,
> "But the just shall live by faith; the "just" man is the reverse of the former; *he is one that believed in the coming of Christ*, and believed in him when come; who has no overweening opinion of himself, and of his own righteousness; nor does he trust in it for his justification before God, and acceptance with him; but in the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, *from whence he is denominated a just man*:"
> 
> John Gill on Deuteronomy 32:20,
> "children in whom is no faith; for though they had faith in one God, in the Scriptures of the Old Testament as the word of God, in the law of Moses, and in a future state, the resurrection of the dead, and judgment to come; especially the Pharisees, the greater part of the Jews; yet though they were the children of Abraham, and would be thought to be the children of God, *they had no faith in Jesus, the true Messiah; him they disbelieved and rejected*; and as their fathers could not enter into the land of Canaan, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness, because of unbelief; so these were cast out of the land, and from the Lord, *because of their unbelief in the rejection of the Messiah*."
> 
> Although, then he adds,
> "Aben Ezra observes, that it may be interpreted there is no men of *faithfulness*, or no *faithful* men among them, as in Psalm 12:1; they were a faithless generation, covenant breakers, broke their covenant with God, and therefore he rejected them."
> 
> Would you insist solely on the latter interpretation? I believe they overlap. The people were *unfaithful* _in that_ they didn't keep God's commandments, yes, but that was _ultimately_ because of unbelief (as always), that is, because they had *no faith in their God and the Messiah*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is, Samuel, that you're stating these verses speak of faith in the Messiah, where your evidence for doing so is not grounded in the verses themselves... as they stand, in context of both Deuteronomy and Habakkuk, they are statements of faith or trust in God and, perhaps by extension, His promises.
> 
> By quoting John Gill here, and then claiming these verses mean "faith in the coming Messiah" when they don't (at least on the plain reading) you're letting John Gill determine your reading of the verses as two (and apparently only two?) verses in the OT that use faith in connection to the coming Messiah. Again, I don't think the verses themselves require that, despite what our brother Dr. Gill might have said in his commentary.
> 
> Regarding the connection between faith and faithfulness, I do not believe of course that the two are identical. Faith begets faithful living, to be certain... but faith and faithfulness are not identical (even if they both can be legitimate translations of the same Hebrew word).
Click to expand...


Ok, thanks, Todd. I think I got a little full of myself there, having no knowledge of the context whatsoever. I stand corrected. Please, forgive me anything I said, Brother.


----------



## J. Dean

What we need to be looking at is not the frequency of the concept, but the importance of the concept as expressed in Scripture.

For example, if you look at, say, the frequency of homosexuality mentioned in the New Testament in comparison with the exposition of the gospel, it is obvious that the NT talks a whole lot more about the latter than the former. Yet, in the few passages that do discuss homosexuality, it's VERY clear that it is condemned. That the topic is not extensively discussed throughout the Scriptures at regular intervals does not negate the fact that we have a clear position on it as stated by God.


----------

