Pistis - faith or faithfulness

[jaydam]

I just bought my first NKJV Bible. Up until now I have mostly used NASB and a little ESV, with the occasional reference to the NKJV thru my Logos software.

An interesting consideration has come up as I read through the NKJV:

Romans 1:5 in the NKJV speaks of receiving for obedience to the faith, while the NASB speak of receiving for obedience of faith.

This has led me to look at the Greek word for faith, pistis, and I have found it can really mean faith or faithfulness.

Therefore, the NKJV seems to indicate reception comes from obedience to the faithfulness - contextually - of Christ. This would seem to indicate emulation to Christ's example. He was completely faithful, and reception comes from obeying his example.

The NASB switches the meaning from obedience to faithfulness to obedience by faith. The NASB's idea then leaves open what this general "faith" is, and leaves room for today's popular ideas of faith with no action.

Translating Paul's use of pistis faithfulness instead of faith then makes sense as I continue on in chapter 1 of Romans.

In 1:17, I have heard many people try to explain this idea of faith to faith, but if we use the word faithfulness, it makes better sense. God's righteousness is revealed from his faithfulness to his faithfulness. In other words, God's continued faithfulness shows he is righteous.

Then, the close of v17 would say that the just live by faithfulness, not just faith.

Changing pistis from faith to faithfulness seems to be eye opening so far and makes more sense. It also clarifies against the popular view today of some vague concept of faith which does not require a person to anything but have "faith."

I don't know if I am making sense. I am only 10 minutes into this idea and have not tested it beyond Romans 1 to see if faithfulness instead of faith makes sense.

It is interesting that this idea will then mean that salvation does not come by some vague faith in Christ, but comes from faithfulness.

[Homer]

Hi Jaydam,

You wrote,

This has led me to look at the Greek word for faith, pistis, and I have found it can really mean faith or faithfulness.

Yes, you are correct. The King James says the following:

Romans 3:3 (KJV)

3. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith (pistis) of God without effect?

This doesn't make sense; why would God Himself be in need of faith? Recognizing this the New American Standard says:

Romans 3:3 (NASB)

3. What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

You are obviously a good student! Quite some time ago we had considerable discussion about this here at the forum; you can find some of it if you search "pistis".

[dwilkins]

I think you would get a lot from Wright's "What Paul Really Said." He expands on your idea to point out how God's faithfulness to his covenant is the theme from the beginning of scripture, and certainly from the implementation of the covenant in Deut. 11.

Doug

http://www.amazon.com/What-Saint-Paul-R ... eally+said

[Paidion]

Yes, quite a few translations render the word as "faithfulness" in Rm 3:3 and Gal 5:22. The NASB and the ESV also so render it in Matt 23:23.

We should also do a little research on a related word "pisteuō." This word is usually translated as "believe." But consider the following passage:

Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man. (John 2:223-25 ESV)

I often wonder whether some of the many passages about "believing in" Jesus, actually mean "entrusting oneself" to Him.

[steve]

Excellent observations, all.

I have generally brought out this meaning of pistis in my lectures covering Romans 3:3, Galatians 5:22 and Matthew 23:23. Also, in commenting on Paul's "The just shall live by his faith," I usually point out that, in the Masoretic Text of Habakkuk 2:4 (a verse which Paul quotes from the LXX) the Hebrew word is not "faith," but "faithfulness." Modern English barely retains this meaning of "faith"—except in the expression, "good faith."

[Paidion]

Yes, it's true that the Hebrew of the Masoretic text is a word that means "faithfulness." Indeed, the Jewish Study Bible renders it as "fidelity." Which word was used in the Hebrew text type which is the basis of the NT quotes, I think, is unknown. Or perhaps I should say the text type which is the basis of the Septuagint, since the NT writers may have obtained their quotes from the Septuagint.

In the Greek Septuagint, it is translated as "pistis", the same word that is used in the New Testament. And it does seem from context, that this word in Greek means "faithfulness" at least part in some contexts.

[dizerner]

I'd caution against go to far with always insisting pistis means faithfulness, or swapping the meaning of "of" and "in" in regards to the pistos of Christ. There are many places where from the text itself we can clearly see pistis means more than just faithfulness, and if we have a word that both means "trust" and "trustworthiness" at the same time, that leads for a careful distinction. Just take a simple example:

If Matthew 9:29:
κατὰ τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν γενηθήτω ὑμῖν. (Mat 9:29 NA28)

"According to your faith/faithfulness be it done to you" would mean two vastly different things. And since humanity's fallen nature has always desired to set up a system of works and merit with God, I think we have to be very cautious with how we interpret this word, or we find it actually beginning to mean the opposite of what the text might mean.

[steve]

I have not read enough of N.T. Wright to know if this is one of his ideas (it seems to me that it might be), but it is something that I have thought about for some years. Whenever I read or hear something from Wright, I am usually impressed that he has a lot of the same left-field ideas as I have developed. Many here have read much of Wright, and understand him well (I don't know that I do), and can let me know if he actually is saying something different...

In my understanding, faith and faithfulness are not really meant to be two things, but are a reference to buying into, and remaining in, a covenantal relationship with God, including all that it implies for both sides. It is, possibly, no different from when a marrying couple used to both say, as a part of their vows: "I pledge thee my troth." The word "troth" clearly bears a genetic relation to "truth"—which has the meaning (even in many Old Testament passages in the Olde English versions) of fidelity—specifically to a covenant.

One of the great Hebrew words in the Old Testament is chesed, which many English translations render as "mercy" or "lovingkindness," but which lexicographers usually interpret to mean something like "fidelity to covenant duties." A word study of chesed, in the Old Testament will show it to be one of, if not the, most frequent terms to describe God's character and behavior toward His people. It is also very frequently said to be the thing that God desires in man. This is so frequently so that, it would be fair to consider pistis ( "faith/faithfulness") to be a functional synonym (though not a translation) of chesed.

Our entire connection to, and claim upon, God is through the covenant. God is faithful to His covenant, and therefore inspires faith in us toward Him. By the same token, we are to be faithful to the covenant, allowing God to have confidence in us as well. Evangelicals usually shrink from suggesting that God can have confidence (faith) in us (who, allegedly, "sin many times in thought, word and deed every day"!), but there is nothing more strange about this suggestion than to think husbands and wives can expect equal covenant faithfulness from each other, and can therefore trust each other. God knows my frame, so He knows how far He can trust me, and how little to expect from me. He also knows, however, that my commitment is total. If it were not so, I do not believe that I would qualify to lay claim to a covenantal relationship with Him.

Paul said that God put him in his particular ministry role because God "counted [Paul] faithful" (1 Tim.1:12). God could trust Paul, just like Sarah trusted God because she "counted Him faithful" (Heb.11:11). In a normal (not an exceptional) covenant relationship between two parties, mutual trust is a reasonable component.

Thus, when the Bible says that someone has impressed God, or Jesus, by their display of pistis, or that we possess a saving relationship with God through pistis, we do not need to choose between the English options "faith" and "faithfulness." In terms of covenant relationships, both exist simultaneously, on the part of both parties. It seems that the Reformation lost sight of this fact, in distancing itself from Catholic legalism and ritualistic righteousness. The word "faith" was taken only to mean "belief," which is truly one of its meanings, in certain contexts. Unfortunately, this set the Gospel, as understood by the reformers, in radical contrast to what God has always required from people—namely, chesed. It changed the terms of salvation into a novel policy of God bartering eternal life for mere belief—instead of an all-in covenantal relationship. The state of the evangelical churches, who think themselves proud to hold to this reformation distinctive, bear unmistakeable and tragic testimony to the fact that the gospel, as preached today, is very different from that preached by the apostles.

[dizerner]

When Peter denied Christ did his faithfulness fail him or his faith?

31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat;
32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." (Luk 22:31-32 NAS)

Clearly Peter's faithfulness failed him. But his faith that Christ would still accept him afterwards did not. Taking the word faith and replacing it with the idea of "covenant faithfulness" often stands the very idea of the verse on its head. It is no coincedence that faith is often contrasted with doubt, which would make almost no sense contrasted against faithfulness. Here's a few verses where the words faith have been replaced instead with "faithfulness."

30 "But if God so arrays the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more do so for you, O men of little covenant faithfulness? (Mat 6:30 NAS)

26 And He said to them, "Why are you timid, you men of little covenant faithfulness?" Then He arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and it became perfectly calm. (Mat 8:26 NAS)

31 And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and said to him, "O you of little covenant faithfulness, why did you doubt?" (Mat 14:31 NAS) [doubt is often contrasted with faith]

21 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have covenant faithfulness, and do not doubt, you shall not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it shall happen. (Mat 21:21 NAS)

47 And when the woman saw that she had not escaped notice, she came trembling and fell down before Him, and declared in the presence of all the people the reason why she had touched Him, and how she had been immediately healed.
48 And He said to her, "Daughter, your covenant faithfulness has made you well; go in peace." (Luk 8:47-48 NAS)

9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by covenant faithfulness. (Act 15:9 NAS)

25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through covenant faithfulness. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; (Rom 3:25 NAS)

27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of covenant faithfulness.
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by covenant faithfulness apart from works of the Law. (Rom 3:27-28 NAS)

19 And without becoming weak in covenant faithfulness he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb;
20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief, but grew strong in covenant faithfulness, giving glory to God,
21 and being fully assured that what He had promised, He was able also to perform. (Rom 4:19-21 NAS) [what would contemplating his own body have to do with it, if not belief?]

17 So covenant faithfulness comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. (Rom 10:17 NAS)

but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of covenant faithfulness. (Rom 12:3 NAS)

2 One man has covenant faithfulness that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. (Rom 14:2 NAS) [???]

13 But having the same spirit of covenant faithfulness, according to what is written, "I believed, therefore I spoke," we also believe, therefore also we speak; (2Co 4:13 NAS)

7 for we walk by covenant faithfulness, not by sight-- (2Co 5:7 NAS)

16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through covenant faithfulness in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by covenant faithfulness in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. (Gal 2:16 NAS)

2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with covenant faithfulness? (Gal 3:2 NAS) [???]

8 For by grace you have been saved through covenant faithfulness; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; (Eph 2:8 NAS) [not of yourselves?]

Now covenant faithfulness is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
2 For by it the men of old gained approval.
3 By covenant faithfulness we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. (Heb 11:1-3 NAS)

6 But let him ask in covenant faithfulness without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. (Jam 1:6 NAS)

[steve]

I am surprised that such a random, unsorted listing of miscellaneous verses would be imagined to prove (or disprove) any theological point. Couldn't you find a few more verses that use pistis which you could throw into the mix?

The verses quoted fall into various categories, as anyone doing serious word studies would observe at the outset.

There are those (most of the ones near the top, and some near the bottom, of the list) which are not talking about the basis of a saving relationship at all. They talk about circumstances in which trusting God is called for (of which many more could be imagined than those listed). Speaking of faith concerning an outcome in a certain circumstance is almost an entirely different subject (and different application of the Greek word) from that which we (or, at any rate, which I) have been discussing.

I say "almost entirely different," because, even though those verses use the word to indicate simple trust, this does not divorce such a simple belief from the larger matrix of a covenanted relationship with God—the broader concept of pistis, of which confidence, or trust, is a subcategory or a limited manifestation. The reason we "have faith, and no doubt" is not simply that we are called to be eternal optimists, but that the one we are called not to doubt is our faithful covenant Partner, who can be counted on to keep His promises.

By substituting "covenant faithfulness" in every verse for the word pistis, you have suggested an unnuanced, one-size-fits-all approach to biblical exposition, for which I can not share your sympathy. In some verses, the substitution indeed sounds awkward, which was your intention, of course. However, it does not seem awkward in as many places as you apparently think it does. In the few passages you included that are discussing a saving relationship with God, the substitution works perfectly well.

You might find even those cases to be awkward, because pistis is being described as saving someone (like Cornelius) who has had virtually no opportunity to demonstrate his faithfulness to God (because he has just been regenerated moments earlier). Perhaps your problem is in thinking of faithfulness merely as the faithful behavior that springs from a faithful man. In such a case, no man can be said to be faithful until he has had opportunity to demonstrate himself to be so through the tests of life and through his pattern of obedience. If this is your thinking, then it is the twin error to that which says that those who insist upon works in the Christian life are teaching a salvation by works.

A person becomes a Christian when he/she determines to follow Jesus on the terms of the covenant. If the one coming to Christ is not entering into a relationship requiring mutual faithfulness, with the determination of remaining faithful in it, he/she is not really becoming what the Bible calls a Christian. Faithfulness/faith is integrity of character—and it is manifested in behavior (works).

I became a faithful husband to my wife the moment I made my vows at our wedding. In the years that have followed (and those that remain ahead) this faithfulness has been, and will continue to be, made visible through my choices. Faithfulness is a character trait, which I possessed before marriage, and without which I would never have contemplated marriage. It is, essentially, personal integrity.

When my wife married me, she married a faithful man. That is who I am, and that is demonstrated by a lifelong manifestation in action. If I have no determination to be faithful, the incidental fact that I never cheat on my wife does not make me a faithful husband. Faithfulness is in the heart and it exists on both sides of the covenant—unless the covenant is a sham. No doubt the vows made by many couples, and the "conversion" of many altar-call respondents, are little more than just such a sham. Those cases do not provide legitimate grounds for the redefinition of marriage or of conversion. It just means there are fakes who believe themselves (or wish for others to believe them) to be something they are not.