Sigurd Grindheim, «Faith in Jesus: The Historical Jesus and the Object of Faith», Vol. 97 (2016) 79-100
Did Jesus call his followers to believe in him? or did he merely call them to believe in God or in the contents of his teaching? This article examines the evidence found in the Synoptic Gospels and discusses its possible Christological implications in light of the Scriptures of Israel and the writings of Second Temple Judaism. If Jesus expected to be the object of his disciples’ faith, his expectation may be understood in light of his redefinition of messiahship. But he may also be seen to have placed himself in the role of God, who was the object of Israel’s faith in the Scriptures of Israel and in Second Temple Judaism.
Faith in Jesus:
The Historical Jesus and the Object of Faith
Did Jesus expect to be the object of his followers’ faith? and if he
did, what self-understanding could justify such an expectation? ac-
cording to the Gospel of John, Jesus repeatedly called for faith in his
person (6,35; 7,38; 11,25-26; 12,44.46; 14,1.12; cf. also 3,15.16; 5,38;
6,29.40; 8,24; 9,35; 12,36; 13,19; 16,9; 17,20), and this call may be
understood in light of the exalted claims that the Johannine Jesus also
makes for himself (cf. John 14,1). however, the corroborating evi-
dence from the synoptic tradition is quite sparse, and the majority of
scholars have concluded that the Johannine references to Jesus as the
object of faith are the result of later christological development. the
historical Jesus, it is maintained, called for faith in God and in the
gospel he proclaimed (cf. mark 1,15; 11,22), not for faith in himself 1.
in this article, i will reexamine the synoptic evidence, focusing on
the explicit references to faith in Jesus (mark 9,42//matt 18,6; matt
27,42). Following a discussion of their authenticity, the second part of
the article analyzes their possible significance in light of Jesus’ Jewish
background.
my discussion of authenticity appeals to the traditional criteria, es-
pecially the criterion of dissimilarity. Recent studies have challenged
the value of this criterion, since it is maintained that reliance on this
1 R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament 1 (trans. K. GRoBel; london
1952) 9; G. BaRth, “Glaube und Zweifel in den synoptischen evangelien”,
ZTK 72 (1975) 290-291; J. Zumstein, La condition du croyant dans l’Évangile
selon Matthieu (oBo 16; Fribourg 1977) 233; l. Goppelt, Theology of the New
Testament. the ministry of Jesus in its theological significance (trans. J. alsup)
(Grand Rapids, mi 1981) i, 150-153; R.t. FRance, “Faith”, DJG 223;
p. stuhlmacheR, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Grundlegung. Von
Jesus zu paulus (Göttingen 21997) i, 71, 90-92; c.a. eVans, Mark 8:27 – 16:20
(WBc 34B; nashville, tn 2001) 69; J.D.G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making.
Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids, mi 2003) i, 501; F. hahn, Theologie des
Neuen Testaments. Die einheit des neuen testaments. thematische Darstellung
(tübingen 22005) i, 458-459; J. nollanD, The Gospel of Matthew (niGtc;
Grand Rapids, mi 2005) 1198.
norman perrin has argued that Jesus’ teaching on faith did not specify the
object of faith, as his point was to focus on the power of faith itself, n. peRRin,
Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (new York 1967) 130-132; similarly m.l.
cooK, “the call to Faith of the historical Jesus. Questions for the christian un-
derstanding of Faith”, TS 9 (1978) 693-694.
BiBlica 97.1 (2016) 79-100
FOLLOW US