From: REXLEX@fnalf.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Pisteuw in John
Date: 21 Jul 92 07:24:22 GMT
Organization: Fermilab

Again, this is a paper presented to Western Conservative Baptist Sem in
Portland, by my good friend Steve Tracy.  Hopefully it will answer some of the
questions about the lordship salvation issue that have come up.
-Rex

>         "The Nature of Saving Faith as Revealed in the Fourth Gospel" 
>                                        by Steve Tracy
>    I.  Introduction
>   II.  An overview of John's use of pisteuw
>  III.  Negative assertions:  What saving faith is not
>   IV.  Positive assertions:  What saving faith is 

                     John's Negative Assertions

     A careful evaluation of the Johannine literature reveals a concept of
faith quite contradictory to the one espoused by Scott and Hodges.   John
clearly proclaims saving faith is not mere intellectual assent.  
     Numerous theologians have noted that John's unique use of pisteuw in his
Gospel (98 instances of the verbal form without a single use of the noun) was
theologically motivated.  Some scholars have suggested that pisti had taken on
Gnostic connotations by the time of John's writing, and hence he avoided its
use.  Recent Gnostic studies, however, have shown that this view is
anachronistic and improbable.  A much better explanation for this occurrence is
given by Lee, who suggests pisti, "had come to suggest a fixed deposit of
faith, whereas John preferred to use the verbal form in order to lay emphasis
neither upon the object, nor upon the act, but upon the fact that the object is
appropriated by the subject."  Guthrie confirms Lee's explanation, noting, 
"There seems to be little doubt that the preference for the verb was occasioned
by the need to stress the act of believing more than the content, because
throughout this gospel faith is a matter of relationships and not of creed."
     Morris agrees with the explanation that John used only the verbal form to
avoid giving faith the appearance of mere creedal assent.  He significantly
fortifies this argument by noting that John repeatedly uses the construction
pisteuw eij (37 times in the Gospel) which is a very significant New Testament
invention.  He notes that Dodd found no parallel to this use in Koine Greek or
in the Septuagint.  Morris suggests that pisteuein with the dative denoted
"simple credence in the sense of an intellectual judgment" in the Hellenistic
world.  Thus, to convey the moral aspect of personal trust or reliance,  which
was inherent to the Hebrew understanding of faith, a new grammatical
construction (pisteuw eij) was created by the writers of the New Testament.  
This new construction was utilized heavily by John.
     The standard lexical references works confirm Morris' assertions about
pisteuw eij, and strengthen the argument that saving faith is not mere
intellectual assent, but involves trust (commitment).  Arndt and Gingrich note
that when pisteuw is used in a religious sense, it refers to, 
faith in the Divinity that lays special emphasis on trust in his power and his
nearness to help, in addition to being convinced that he exists and that his
revelations or disclosures are true.  In our literature God and Christ are
objects of this faith (emphasis mine).
It should be noted that this is the umbrella definition given for pisteuw when
used in a religious sense.  While they do not comment specifically on the
uniqueness of pisteuw eij, they clearly repudiate the concept that pisteuw in a
religious context is used in the New Testament to refer to mere creedal assent.
     The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and The Dictionary of New
Testament Theology both confirm Morris' assertions about pisteuw eij.  The
latter claims that the New Testament use of pisteuw is a further development of
the Old Testament tradition which emphasizes faith as a, "living act of trust."
     If the lexicons and Johannine theologians are correct, we would expect to
find John clearly distinguishing between an inadequate faith which is, at best,
mere intellectual assent to truth, and a saving faith which involves trust.  We
would expect to find instances in which individuals are said to "believe," and
yet they are not children of God.  In fact, we do find such scenarios in John
2: 23-25; 6:15-79; 8: 30-59, and 12:11-19.

John 2:23-25

     In 2:23-25 we find that many believed on his name (ejpisteusan eij to
onoma aujtou).  Though we would normally expect this construction of pisteuw to
indicate saving faith, it does not in this passage.  These unregenerate
followers had a faith which was deficit in content as well as quality.  All but
a handful of exegetes assert that John is describing a group of followers whose
faith fell short of saving faith.  The chief arguments for the majority view
are as follows:  (1)  The verb for believe is explained by the participle
clause which is connected to it (qewrou'nte aujtou' ta shmei'a).  This is
probably a causal participle, and indicates that they believed as a result of
the signs Jesus performed.  The present tense of the participle might also
convey the idea that their faith was temporal, and was present only while the
miracles were taking place. While signs can play a legitimate role in the
generation of saving faith (20:30-31), true belief does not stop with the
miracles.  Saving faith goes beyond belief in the power of the wonder worker to
belief and reliance on the one performing the wondrous work.  This helps to
explain why Christ castigates belief which is solely based on signs (Mt. 12:39;
Jn. 4:48).  
     A second (2) argument for not seeing these as true believers is that their
belief was based not on the person but on the name.  We must not be dogmatic at
this point, for the name often did refer to the person in Jewish thought (1:12;
3:18), but John may well have wanted to indicate that these followers believed
in what the name stood for, but were unwilling to entrust themselves to Him. 
Westcott summarizes the phrase "believe on His name" by saying,
     The phrase seems to imply the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, but
such a Messiah as Him for whom they looked, without any deeper trust  (for the
most part) in His Person (v. 24).  They believed not on Him (3:18), but on His
name.
     A final (3) observation, and certainly the most significant, is that
Christ responded to their "faith" (ejpisteusan) by not entrusting Himself to
them (ejpisteuen).  Both verbal forms used in this contrast between Christ and
His followers are the same (aorist, active, indicative of pisteuw).  A more
literal translation clarifies John's meaning: "they believed in His name,  but
He did not believe in them."  "They trusted in His name, but He did not trust
them."  Christ's response indicates He realized that for all their interest in
His miraculous powers and their temporary belief, they did not have genuine
faith.  They believed in certain provocative truths about Him, but were
unwilling to commit themselves to Him.  

John 9:38-10:21

     It is very significant to contrast Christ's response to these unregenerate
believers and the response given to true believers.  John describes the
contrast between Christ's sheep who have placed saving faith in Him (as did the
blind man who was healed in 9:38, as he provides the backdrop for this parable)
and the Pharisees who are not His sheep.  The controversial blind man had
genuine faith (note his worshipful response).  Christ gives the parable of the
good shepherd in response to the Pharisees question in 9:40, "We are not blind
too are we?"  The parable is a metaphorical tool used to highlight the
relationship He has with true believers, and by inference, condemn those who
were spiritually blind and do not have a saving relationship with Him.  
     The bucolic metaphor used here reinforces the assertion that John
understood faith to involve reliance and trust.  This reveals John's agreement
with the Old Testament understanding of faith.  The shepherd metaphor has its
roots in the Old Testament, where God is described as the shepherd of His
people (Ps. 23:1; 80: 2; Is. 40: 11; Jer. 31: 9) and the Israelites are called
His sheep (Ps. 74:1; 79:13; 95: 7; 100: 3).*31*  The emphasis in this parable
is on the warm, intimate way Christ relates to true believers. Christ says He
calls them (10:3), leads them (10: 4), and knows them (10:14).  In return, they
hear His voice (10: 3), follow Him (10: 4), flee from false shepherds (10: 5),
and know Him (10:14). This is a very different response than the one given to
the "believers" in 2: 24, whom Christ would not entrust Himself to.  The sheep
not only believe truths about the shepherd, but they trust Him in an intimate
manner.  

John 12: 11-19

12: 11-19 reveals a situation similar to the one seen in 2:23-25.  While some
of the individuals in this passage probably had saving faith, it is quite
certain that the majority who were crying "Hosanna, (which was a correct
theological truth to assert--Ps. 118: 25, 26), were crying "crucify him" a week
later.  They were drawn by His power to raise Lazarus from the dead and to
fulfill the Messianic prophecies, but they were quite unwilling to entrust
their lives to Him as their savior.  

John 8:30-39 

     In 8:30-39 we find another instance of belief which falls short of
regeneration.  Christ cautioned those who had come to "believe in Him" that
they needed to abide in His word if they were going to truly be His disciples
(v. 31).  The very statements Christ made to this group indicate they were not
genuine believers.  He implies their faith had not freed them from their sins
(v. 34-35).  He says they were seeking to kill Him (v. 37), couldn't hear His
words (v. 43), had the devil as their father (v. 44), and were not of God (v.
47).  
      Verses 30 and 31 both speak of people who had faith, but John makes an
important distinction between the two types of belief.  Boice and Westcott note
that in verse 30 John speaks of belief in Christ (ejpisteusan eij aujton),
whereas in verse 31 he speaks of Jews who "believed Him" (tou pepisteukota
aujtw  Ioudaiou).  It is correctly asserted by both of these men that the first
instance of belief was genuine faith, for it was in Him as a person (note that
the construction employed is pisteuw eij, which normally indicates trust in a
personal way, as opposed to creedal assent).  The latter faith was not in
Christ, but about Him.  It was belief in some of the truths about Him or His
teachings, but it fell short of saving faith.  Boice comments, 
     In other words, the verses make a distinction between those listeners who
had believed on Jesus unto salvation and those who had merely believed certain
things that He had said...Someone will say, 'But is it really possible to
believe certain things about Christ or to believe Him and yet fail to believe
on Him?'  Yes, of course it is.  What is more, we have examples of precisely
this failure.  One example is Judas.
     One might get the impression that Christ is chastising His audience in
verse 31.  He does not in fact ridicule their incomplete faith (and doesn't 
laud it) but prods them to move on to saving faith.  The grammatical emphasis
is on the pronoun (uJmei), and not on the verb, and is a gracious statement by
Christ of the desirability as well as possibility of their acquiring saving
faith.  In verse 31 Christ tells these pseudo-believers what is deficit in
their faith, and what needs to change if they are going to experience saving
faith.  They are told they need to abide in His word (meinhte ejn tw logw tw
ejmw).  Abiding is a Johannine concept which indicates not a formula for
salvation, but rather is a description of the intimate relationship between the
believer and God which results from saving faith.  Stevens notes, 
     Faith in Christ, as commonly represented in our [Johannine] sources, is
related to abiding in Christ as the beginning is related to the continuance of
any process or relation.  They may be distinguished, but they cannot be
separated...Faith is commonly presented in John as the appropriation of
salvation, while abiding in Christ is the realization of salvation in its
development and effects.
     There are stark similarities between the Johannine concept of "abiding"
and the Pauline concept of the believer being "in Christ."  The Dictionary of
New Testament Theology asserts, "In John the secular Greek menw en gained a 
meaning parallel to the Pauline conception of Christ's dwelling in the believer
(Ro. 8: 9 ff.) and his dwelling in Christ.  It is even expanded and
strengthened." Christ admonished these followers not to stop with mere
intellectual assent to who he was, but to go on to a deeper faith which would
result in true discipleship and sonship.  The language of abiding speaks of an
intimate relationship based on a faith which was much more than belief in a set
of theological truths.

John 6:15-79

     Christ's words in John six were greatly misunderstood by his first century
audience, just as they have been commonly misunderstood by exegetes since that
time.  Many have seen the eating and drinking metaphors in verses 32-58 to be,
first and foremost, a reference to the Eucharist.  Morris, who himself is an
ordained clergyman in the Church of England, sets forth cogent arguments
against the Eucharistic view,  though he suggests there may be a secondary
reference to the Eucharist in this passage.
     Contextually, it is much more logical to see Christ as clarifying the
nature of saving faith (see "believing" in v. 29, 30, 36, 40, 64, 69) by his
use of these two arresting metaphors.  The crowd was drawn to Christ because of
the miraculous signs He had done, and had such a level of "faith" in Him that
they were ready to forcefully crown Him king (v. 14-15).  The misdirection of
their faith is seen when they were told the work of God is to believe in
Christ.  They responded by saying they needed another sign in order to have
faith (v. 28-29).  At this point Christ began using a manna motif (v. 32),
something they were quite familiar with, to correct their misunderstanding of
faith.  From here, he moved to the motifs of eating and drinking.  
     The metaphors of eating and drinking were commonly understood by first
century Jews as referring to "taking something into one's innermost being."  In
using a common metaphor in a manner highly offensive to a Jewish audience (eat
my flesh and drink my blood), Christ was seeking to communicate one primary
soteriological truth: true faith is full acceptance of and reliance on Christ
alone for salvation.  Salvation is found only in Christ, and it is found by
fully accepting Him.  Just as one takes food and drink into the innermost parts
of his or her body and consumes it completely, so one must completely accept
Christ as savior from sin.  The Jews wanted to determine the perimeters and
content of their faith, which amounted to a very partial acceptanced of Christ.
 In clarifying the nature of salvation, this discourse served to reveal the
quality of faith among the listeners.  The true believers continued with Him
(v. 67-69), while the pseudo-disciples fell away (v. 64-66; cf. I Jn. 2: 19). 

>Next:
>   IV.  Positive assertions:   What saving faith is