Believe IN vs. Believe

[Singalphile]

How is, "You must believe in Jesus," different than, "You must believe Jesus," if at all?

I wonder if the idea of "believing in" Jesus is confusing to some non-Christians. In non-religious usage, to "believe in" something or someone means "to have confidence/trust in" or just "to think that something exists".

"Believing in Jesus" is often defined in terms of a relationship of trust for salvation. It seems to me that that emphasis, without more explanation, could make it easy to forget the part about actually believing Him (i.e., that what He taught is true). It could perhaps also leave one open to a bait-and-switch accusation once you tell a person that they need to actually do certain things (e.g., obey Jesus).

In John 3:12, Jesus asks, "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" Then in verses 15 & 16, he says, "... everyone who believes in [en] Him ...," and "... everyone who believes in [eis] Him ...." It seems that other prepositions are used in other verses (1 Timothy 1:16), which are sometimes translated as "on" rather than "in". I guess that the different Greek prepositions all have more or less the same meaning, but maybe not?

Jesus also spoke about those who "believe in all that the prophets have spoken." I haven't had a chance to look at other uses of "believe in/on" in the NT.

Mattrose's John 3:16 Believes chapter is good and helpful, and I've googled these things a bit. But I'd like to read any thoughts you all have about any of this, if any. It may very well be a much too narrow and unnecessary focus.

Thanks.

[Homer]

Singalphile,

You wrote:

I guess that the different Greek prepositions all have more or less the same meaning, but maybe not?

Definitely not. See here for a simple way to understand the difference:

http://biblestudysite.com/prepositions.htm

[TK]

It would seem that if a person believes Jesus, i.e. that what He said is true, he would be kind of dumb not to believe IN Him.

I think there is a distinction between simply believing and believing "in." When I was growing up I believed my mom would feed me. But I believed this because I also believed in who she was-- my mother.

It may be more important to understand what it means to "believe." I think that is where the bait and switch lies-- people think that if they believe Jesus was the son of God and died for their sins then they are "in." But believing Jesus means doing what He commands.

If I am a fireman and I know that a house is on fire, and I believe I have all the equipment necessary to put out the fire, but do nothing to put it out, I am not really a fireman. Doing the duties of a fireman makes a fireman.

TK

[dwilkins]

There is a discussion of this dynamic in "Moral Transformation" by Wallace and Rusk. The point similar to this one in that book is that linguistically you tend to have faith in an idea but you are faithful to a person. In addition, they cite a 1st Century or so use of pistis in which the person showing pistis was actually declaring loyalty to a conquering king. So, one of the ideas in the backs of the minds of the people using the term pistis in the 1st Century might have been that they were declaring themselves to be loyal followers of Christ, but not necessarily that they were declaring that they believed minor elements of the theology surrounding his identity (which no example of evangelism in the NT seems to require).

Doug

[Homer]

Doug,

You wrote:

In addition, they cite a 1st Century or so use of pistis in which the person showing pistis was actually declaring loyalty to a conquering king. So, one of the ideas in the backs of the minds of the people using the term pistis in the 1st Century might have been that they were declaring themselves to be loyal followers of Christ, but not necessarily that they were declaring that they believed minor elements of the theology surrounding his identity (which no example of evangelism in the NT seems to require).

Interesting. The Handbook of Biblical Social Values, under Faith/Faithfulness, says much the same:

Relative to persons, faith is reliability in interpersonal relations; it thus takes on the value of enduring personal loyalty, or personal faithfulness. The nouns "faith", "belief", "fidelity", "faithfulness", as well as the verbs "to have faith" and "to believe", refer to the social glue that holds one person to another. This bond is the social, externally manifested, emotionally rooted behaviour of loyalty, commitment, and solidarity.

[Paidion]

Sometimes the Greek word often translated as "believe", namely "πιστευω", actually means "entrust oneself".

Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover feast, many believed (πιστευω) in his name when they saw the signs which he did; but Jesus did not trust (πιστευω) himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man. (John 2:23-25 RSV)

I think the idea of "entrust" is there in both cases. Many of those present at the passover feast entrusted themselves to Jesus, BUT He did not entrust Himself to them. The preposition following the first "πιστευω" is "εις". The primary meaning of this preposition is "into" not "in". So to entrust INTO someone is to entrust oneself to that person. It is my opinion that whenever "πιστευω" is followed by "εις", it means "entrust."

[Tychicus]

Re faith/faithfulness, it is the same word πίστις in Greek. For example, it shows up as one of the fruits of the Spirit in Gal 5:22, usually translated "faithfulness". The KJV, however, translates it as "faith".

I'm sure some of you realize this fact, but a friend who recently graduated from a Baptist seminary with 3 terms of Greek told me he never learned that in seminary, but discovered it afterwards. You'd figure that all Protestants, with such an emphasis on "salvation by faith", would have this down pat. Somehow it seems to have been missed.

So any time you see "faith" in the NT it can also be translated "faithfulness", as long as it makes sense in the context. Of course, that means "make sense to a first century reader", not necessarily that it would make sense according to a theological system someone may happen to hold. I suspect first century readers fused these two senses of faith/faithfulness to a much greater extent than do most Protestants today.

[Homer]

Tychicus,

I think you are exactly right. We do not speak of the faith of God, but His faithfulness, Romans 3:3, except the KJV has it wrong!