Latest / Reformed Thinking / πίστις (Pistis): Faith

Transcript

πίστις (Pistis): Faith · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to reformed thinking and welcome to the deep dive where
0:03
we take your source material, your research, your notes, your
0:05
essential reading, and we try to distill the clearest, most
0:08
essential understanding. Today we are zeroing in on a
0:11
single but absolutely vital Greek word, pastis pisces.
0:16
Now it's typically translated as faith.
0:18
We all know that. But if you rely on just that one
0:20
English. Word.
0:21
Well, you really risk. Fundamentally misunderstanding
0:23
one of the core engines of theological thought.
0:26
So if you think Pacisi simply means, you know, believing in
0:29
something you can't see. Get ready for a bit of a
0:32
challenge today. Our source materials is massive.
0:34
Lexical study, and it reveals that this word is just so much
0:37
more involved. It spans concepts all the way
0:39
from, say, trustworthiness and objective.
0:41
Proof right through to personal conviction.
0:44
And even the entire revealed content of Christian teaching.
0:47
So our mission today is to trace this, this really comprehensive
0:49
development. We're going to start with.
0:51
Classical Greek philosophy and law then move through its Old
0:54
Testament roots, especially looking at the Hebrew concept of
0:56
Amman, and finally track its evolution into the distinct
0:59
theological concepts in the New Testament, particularly thinking
1:03
about Paul and John. Let's unpack this, the sheer
1:06
scope of meaning here. It really suggests that just
1:09
saying faith doesn't quite capture the, well, the
1:12
comprehensive nature of what's required.
1:13
It seems to demand a total orientation of existence,
1:16
doesn't it? It really does.
1:18
And what's truly fascinating here is how the term pistas,
1:21
even before it became a specialized religious term, sort
1:23
of acts as this linguistic umbrella.
1:25
It covers 3 primary, you could say, separate yet fundamentally
1:30
related aspects in the classical world.
1:32
And understanding these distinctions is really critical
1:35
because the New Testament seems to load all three meanings into
1:38
the single powerful concept. OK, so 3 aspects to start with.
1:42
What's the first one? Well, the first one is peace is
1:44
viewed as a virtue. Think faithfulness, reliability,
1:48
loyalty, fidelity. It describes the objective state
1:52
of being someone or even something in whom confidence
1:55
can, you know, rationally be placed.
1:57
It's about reliability. So it's about established
1:59
character then, not just a subjective feeling someone might
2:02
have. Exactly.
2:03
It's objective. Our sources show this popping up
2:06
quite a bit in non biblical Greek, especially in high stakes
2:08
relational contexts. Think about things like legal
2:11
contracts or treaties between cities, or even oaths.
2:15
The actual documents confirming these agreements the they were
2:19
sometimes called Pisa. Why?
2:21
Because they were reliable evidence.
2:22
They were trustworthy. OK, like the physical proof?
2:26
Right. It was about stability in
2:27
relationships, whether that was between city states or, you
2:31
know, between a friend and a friend, a servant and a master,
2:33
even a wife and husband. If a relationship or an
2:36
institution had pieces, it meant it was reliable.
2:39
You could count on it. And this idea of virtue?
2:42
Of reliability. Carries straight into the New
2:45
Testament usage, doesn't it? Particularly how it's used to
2:48
describe God himself. It absolutely does.
2:50
That's a key connection. When Paul speaks in Romans 3.3
2:54
of the Pistas of God, he's talking about God's own
2:58
absolute, unshakable reliability and steadfastness is covenant
3:01
keeping character. This divine fidelity, Paul
3:05
argues, is the grounding fact that human unfaithfulness just
3:08
cannot nullify or cancel out. So this usage really establishes
3:12
the standard God is the definition of Pistus's virtue.
3:15
He is perfectly faithful. But we also see it applied to
3:18
human virtue sometimes. For instance, when Jesus lists
3:21
Pistus alongside mercy and justice in Matthew 23.23, he's
3:25
characterizing it as a quality of, well, ethical character,
3:29
something expected. That sets the bar incredibly
3:31
high, especially grounding it in God's own character.
3:33
OK, so that's the first aspect, reliability, faithfulness.
3:36
Let's move to the second one. This sounds like the subjective
3:38
side. Yes, the second dimension is
3:40
pestis as a personal attitude. This is closer, perhaps, to our
3:44
common idea of faith, meaning active trust or confidence, the
3:47
subjective state of believing. But crucially, this act of
3:51
believing is often, though not always, born out of recognizing
3:54
the reliability the pestis as virtue of the person or thing
3:58
being trusted. The two are often linked.
4:01
So you trust because the object is trustworthy.
4:03
Ideally, yes. Now, in classical Greek
4:05
philosophy, this subjective state, this trust was often
4:08
necessary because objective knowledge, what they called
4:10
estimi sort of scientific or certain knowledge, well, it was
4:14
seen as unattainable for many subjects.
4:16
Philosophers like Sophocles and Plato, they often contrasted
4:18
this kind of trust with that kind of absolute certainty.
4:21
Trust inherently contained an element of, you know, choice and
4:24
perhaps uncertainty. From a purely empirical
4:26
standpoint, however, it wasn't just seen as a weak substitute.
4:30
The word could also represent a really firm conviction.
4:33
Plato spoke of pesti smithumas a stable, firm belief.
4:39
So while it wasn't maybe scientific proof in their eyes,
4:42
it was far from mere guesswork. It was a deeply seated
4:44
conviction. That contrast is interesting.
4:47
Conviction versus absolute, maybe demonstrable knowledge.
4:52
Especially, like you said, when faith today is often dismissed
4:56
as being merely subjective opinion, Like wishful thinking,
4:59
right? But the third definition you
5:01
mentioned seems to bring us back towards something objective
5:04
again. Precisely, it completes the
5:06
picture. The third definition is pistis,
5:09
understood as a guarantee or proof and objective basis for
5:12
belief. Now this gets very concrete.
5:15
In commercial and legal documents we have lots of pyre
5:18
showing this peistus often referred to a tangible item, a
5:22
token, A pledge, some form of security, or even the means of
5:25
persuasion itself, like the evidence presented.
5:28
Like collateral on a loan? Exactly like collateral.
5:30
If you secured a loan, the collateral itself, or perhaps
5:34
the document proving your right to it, was the peistus.
5:36
It was the concrete thing that evoked trust that gave
5:39
assurance. OK, here's where it gets really
5:41
interesting for us thinking theologically, because this
5:44
objective, almost legal definition, it gets transported
5:47
directly into theological discourse, doesn't it?
5:49
The source of material highlights Acts 17.31.
5:52
Yes, that's a perfect example, Acts 17.31 where Paul is
5:56
speaking at the Areopagus. He says God has given assurance
6:00
to all by raising Jesus from the dead, and the word used for
6:03
assurance there is pistas. Christ's resurrection is called
6:07
the Pistas, the proof, the guarantee, the objective
6:10
assurance of his fitness to judge the world.
6:12
Wow, so the resurrection isn't just something to be believed
6:15
in, it is the belief eliciting proof itself?
6:17
Exactly. It's presented as the undeniable
6:20
objective act, a historical fact presented to the world,
6:23
providing the security or guarantee that the One
6:25
proclaimed as judge is legitimate and authorized by
6:28
God. The resurrection is the pistas
6:31
in sort of the same way a notarized contract or a piece of
6:34
collateral is a pistas in a legal or commercial setting.
6:37
It's the objective ground. I think I'm seeing the structure
6:40
now. So the New Testament where we
6:42
translate faith is built on this foundation, the reality of God's
6:46
own reliable character. That's fidelity, the legal like
6:49
assurance of a historical act, the resurrection.
6:51
That's the proof of guarantee and then the necessary
6:54
subjective response from us, which is trust the attitude.
6:57
Yes, and we really have to hold all three together.
7:00
You can't isolate one. If you remove the objective
7:03
proof, the resurrection, then faith risks becoming just as the
7:06
subjective feeling ungrounded. If you remove the fidelity God's
7:10
reliable character, then faith becomes potentially unreliable,
7:14
placed in something less than God.
7:15
Even the pre Christian usage already involved high stakes.
7:19
It required character, required trust, and often it required
7:22
objective proof for documentation.
7:24
This really sets the stage for the, well, the radical
7:27
theological expansion that comes when this Greek word meets its
7:30
Hebrew counterpart. That sets us up perfectly,
7:33
because understanding how the Old Testament concept,
7:35
represented by a completely different linguistic root, shape
7:38
the theological destiny of pistas is key, it seems, to give
7:41
it this exclusive of totalizing demand.
7:43
Right when we turn to the Old Testament concepts, which
7:46
obviously the New Testament writers inherited and breezed,
7:49
we find something really significant happened with the
7:51
translation. The Septuagint translators, when
7:54
they were translating the Hebrew Bible into Greek centuries
7:57
before Christ, they often selected this Greek word pistas
8:00
to represent the Hebrew root Kabam.
8:03
And this choice, this translation decision, it holds
8:07
immense theological weight because Aman is in many ways
8:10
vastly more restrictive and demanding than the standard
8:13
Greek term pistus might have been on its own.
8:16
OK, So what specifically defines Aman?
8:18
How is it different? Well, the verb form, especially
8:21
the history fill form hegeman, which is usually translated to
8:24
believe. It means something more like to
8:26
say Amen to God right now. This isn't just casual agreement
8:29
like nodding along. It's an active, existential
8:32
cosigning. It means recognizing,
8:34
acknowledging, and fundamentally accepting the reality that God
8:38
establishes with humanity, with all the subsequent demands and
8:41
consequences that status entails.
8:43
So when we say Amen at the end of a prayer, we aren't just
8:45
saying I hope so or that sounds nice.
8:48
We are or should be. Stating it is so and I hereby
8:52
submit myself to this reality. Precisely.
8:54
That's the weight of it. Aman is described in our sources
8:57
as a formal concept. It expresses that the qualities
9:00
demanded of the subject, like God's promises, his character,
9:04
are truly present. They are reliable, they are
9:06
firm. When it's applied to God, he man
9:09
is the act of recognition and affirmation of Guy's covenant
9:11
keeping character, his absolute might, his faithfulness and the
9:15
utter reliability, the self fulfilling nature of His word.
9:20
You are affirming that God is who He claims to be and that His
9:23
word holds true. And you mentioned it's
9:25
restrictive. Yes, and crucially, Amman
9:27
demands the absolute undivided allegiance of the whole person.
9:31
That includes your knowledge, your will, your conduct,
9:33
everything. And this brings us to this
9:35
principle of exclusivity, which is arguably the key theological
9:38
contribution of the Old Testament Amman tradition to the
9:41
later understanding of Pistus. That is a critical point.
9:44
If the Greek pistus could apply to, you know, business contracts
9:47
or trusting a friend, how did this up to urgent translators
9:50
justify using it to represent Amman, which seems to demand
9:54
this total exclusive allegiance just to Yahweh?
9:57
That is the core linguistic challenge they faced, and their
10:02
solution was transformative. They likely recognize that the
10:05
Greek term pistas carried the necessary weight of fidelity and
10:07
trust, but the Hebrew context gave it this profound
10:11
qualitative limitation. Here's the key.
10:14
Amman and its verb form hegemon, is almost never used in the Old
10:19
Testament for the relationship to other gods or idols.
10:21
Our sources are quite clear on this.
10:23
It belongs uniquely and solely to the covenant relation with
10:27
Yahweh. Only for Yahweh.
10:28
Only for Yahweh its opposite isn't just disbelief, it's often
10:32
equivalent to apostasy, breaking the covenant.
10:34
This means the faithful relation described by Amman is exclusive
10:38
and total right from the outset. So by selecting Pistas to carry
10:42
this exclusive meaning, the translators essentially loaded
10:44
the Greek word with monotheistic obligations and covenantal
10:48
weight that it didn't necessarily possess in its
10:50
everyday classical usage. That context alone really
10:53
explains why the concept of faith, biblically speaking, is
10:56
so radical. It's not just one belief choice
10:58
among many, it's a radical exclusion of all other potential
11:02
sources of ultimate security or allegiance.
11:04
Exactly. And the prophet Isaiah he
11:07
deepened this radical nature even further.
11:09
The source material material points specifically to Isaiah
11:12
7.9. Remember the context.
11:15
King Ahaz is terrified of invading armies.
11:18
Right, he wants to make an alliance with Assyria.
11:19
Yes, relying on human power and Isaiah comes with that's message
11:24
culminating in if you are not firm in faith, you will not be
11:27
firm at all. Or more literally, if you do not
11:29
believe to Amanu from Aman, you will not be established to Amanu
11:33
also from Aman. Isaiah links believing directly
11:36
to existence itself, to being established, to enduring.
11:39
Faith becomes the only only possible, the only true mode of
11:42
existence for the people of God. It radically excludes reliance
11:45
on human autonomy, political maneuvering, military might, any
11:49
alternative strategy to trusting Yahweh alone.
11:51
Wow. The faith required is literally
11:53
what keeps the nation or the individual upright and existing
11:56
securely before God. That's the implication.
11:59
It sounds like we have to then draw a really clear line between
12:03
this kind of totalizing faith, this Amman, and maybe other
12:07
types of trust or security mentioned in the Old Testament.
12:10
Yes, the sources make a point of contrasting Amman with another
12:14
common Hebrew root, batash. What's the difference there?
12:17
Batash primarily denotes a subjective state of security.
12:21
It's about feeling secure, feeling safe, often on the basis
12:24
of something external, maybe riches, maybe Chariots, strong
12:29
walls, alliances, or sometimes, yes, even God.
12:32
But the key difference, the sources point out, is that
12:35
batash can be applied without inhibition to idols or worldly
12:38
sources of comfort. People are condemned for
12:40
trusting Batash in Chariots or riches.
12:43
So Batash describes the feeling of security, but it doesn't
12:46
necessarily define the legitimacy of the object
12:48
providing that security. Precisely.
12:50
Aman, by remaining exclusive to Yahweh, holds a higher
12:53
qualitative ground. It defines the object of trust
12:56
as the one true God, not just the subjective feeling of the
12:59
person trusting. It's about the reality of the
13:02
object trusted. That's a crucial distinction.
13:04
And we also see the influence of this demanding Aman concept on
13:08
some of the Hebrew hope verbs like Kava, yokka, Kaka.
13:11
These generally denote a tense waiting and eager looking
13:14
forward. But later in the Old Testament,
13:16
especially influenced by the prophets, these verbs seem to
13:19
absorb some of the weight of Amman.
13:21
They move beyond just expecting a specific concrete outcome like
13:24
a military victory or rain. They start to express the total
13:27
exclusive personal relation to God, this waiting on God
13:31
himself, even when he seems hidden or silent.
13:34
Think of Isaiah 8.17. I will wait for the Lord who is
13:37
hiding his face from the House of Jacob, and I will hope in him
13:40
that kind of waiting, that hoping.
13:42
It takes on the character of Amman, A persistent faith that
13:45
endures even when God's action isn't immediately visible or
13:48
understandable. So putting it all together,
13:49
then, when the New Testament writers inherited this
13:51
linguistic and theological landscape, they understood
13:55
pistas now infused with the meaning of Amman, not as just a
13:59
minor theological virtue or a simple choice of belief.
14:02
They saw it as a total orientation of life, a radical
14:05
yes to God's revealed character and His claim on their
14:09
existence, embracing fidelity, trust, and obedience, all rooted
14:13
in the exclusive nature of the covenant relationship demanded
14:17
by Amon. Absolutely.
14:18
The New Testament inherited a word, pestis, that now carried
14:21
the relational weight of Greek legal commitment, the
14:24
expectation of objective proof from its concrete usage, and the
14:28
profound existential exclusivity of the Hebrew Amon.
14:32
This complex synthesis, this layered meaning, forms the
14:35
essential backdrop for understanding the Christian
14:37
revelation and the specific way faith operates in the New
14:40
Testament. OK, so let's move into the New
14:41
Testament itself. How does it maintain this legacy
14:44
while also adding its own distinct focus?
14:46
Well, the New Testament definitely maintains that broad
14:48
Old Testament legacy we've just discussed, but it adds this
14:52
absolutely distinct Christological center, the
14:56
primary object of faith. So what you believe decisively
15:00
shifts to the karigma. The karigma being the.
15:03
Proclaimed message. Specifically, the message about
15:05
the saving work of God accomplished in and through
15:08
Jesus Christ, His life, death and resurrection.
15:11
OK, but we see continuity first, right?
15:13
The old meanings don't just disappear.
15:14
Not at all. There's clear continuity.
15:16
Faith continues to mean, quite simply, believing God's words
15:20
and promises. Just like in the Old Testament,
15:22
Paul affirms his belief in the Law and the prophets in Acts
15:25
24.1 for using Pasteur. Or think of Zechariah and Luke 1
15:30
who's chastised for not believing the angel's word about
15:32
John the Baptist birth. Believing the Divine Word
15:35
remains fundamental. And the idea of trust in
15:37
miraculous power also continues strongly, especially in the
15:40
Gospels. Yes, the synoptic Gospels are
15:43
full of examples, where pistus means trust or confidence in
15:46
God's miraculous help or specifically in Jesus's power,
15:50
the faith that Jesus commands in the centurion in Matthew 8, or
15:54
the faith required for healing in Mark 5, or the famous faith
15:57
like a mustard seed moving mountains in Matthew 17.
16:01
These are all direct extensions of the Old Testament's trust in
16:04
God's mighty acts, and the source material notes that this
16:07
kind of trust is often explicitly linked to or realized
16:10
through believing prayer, like in Mark 11.24.
16:14
Whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received
16:17
it and it will be yours. There's a direct connection
16:19
between trust and expecting God to act.
16:22
The connection between faith and hope also seems really strong.
16:25
Carry over from the Old Testament idea of waiting on
16:27
God. Yeah, Hebrews 11 comes to mind
16:29
immediately. Hebrews 11 is absolutely key
16:31
here. It provides perhaps the most
16:33
famous sort of formal definition of pistus in the New Testament.
16:36
It says faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the
16:38
conviction of things not seen. Now we need to unpack those two
16:41
words carefully. OK, assurance the Greek is
16:45
hypostasis. Yes, hypostasis and this word
16:49
has a fascinating range, but in context like this, it often
16:51
carries a sense of substance, reality, or even title deed.
16:56
It connects right back to that third classical definition.
16:58
We talked about pieces as guarantee or security.
17:02
So faith is presented here as the substantial concrete title
17:05
deed, you could say to the future realities that God has
17:08
promised, the things we hope for.
17:09
It makes the future hope a present reality for the
17:12
believer. Well, OK.
17:14
And the second part, conviction of things not seen.
17:16
The word is allenchos. Right Allenchos, This word means
17:20
proof, evidence, or the conviction produced by evidence.
17:23
It's often used in a legal sense, like proving a case.
17:26
So faith is the allenchos, the convincing proof regarding
17:29
realities that remain invisible to our physical eyes.
17:32
It's the faculty by which we apprehend the unseen spiritual
17:35
world and God's future promises as real and certain.
17:38
So Hebrews 11 defines faith almost paradoxically.
17:41
It's believing in the unseen, yet it acts as the absolute
17:44
guarantee and the convincing proof of those unseen things.
17:47
It locks the believer into God's promised future.
17:50
Precisely. It holds together the subjective
17:52
trust and the objective reality it grasps.
17:56
But even with this strong continuity, the specifically
17:59
Christian usage, the one that really defines the New Testament
18:02
concept and dominates in Paul and John, is the acceptance of
18:06
the krigma, the Gospel message itself.
18:08
Right, the shift to the content about Christ.
18:11
Yes, and this shift is marked linguistically by a particular
18:15
grammatical construction pistate ace meaning to believe into.
18:20
Our research confirms, and this is quite significant, that this
18:23
specific construction using the preposition ace into is
18:27
basically unique to the New Testament.
18:29
You don't really find it used this way in classical Greek or
18:31
in the Septuagint. Believe into That sounds
18:34
different from just believing that or believe in.
18:36
It is different. It suggests more than just
18:38
intellectual agreement that something is true.
18:41
It implies a movement, a commitment and entrusting of
18:44
oneself into the reality of the Christ event.
18:46
It signifies acceptance into Christ as the sphere of 1's new
18:50
existence. It sounds much more relational,
18:52
less like just ticking A doctrinal box, more like a
18:55
directional movement, a commitment I.
18:57
Think that's a good way to put it.
18:58
Think of the difference between believing that a chair will hold
19:00
you versus actually sitting down in the chair, committing your
19:03
entire weight into it. OK, the preposition is here
19:06
often denotes this transference of reliance of trust of identity
19:10
into Christ Himself and the saving events surrounding Him.
19:14
And what specific content must the believer commit into?
19:17
What's the core of the karigma that requires this pista cease?
19:21
Well, the content is stated very clearly and concisely in some of
19:25
the earliest Christian confessions, encapsulated
19:27
perfectly in Romans 10.9. Paul says if you confess with
19:31
your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that
19:34
God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
19:36
Convinced Jesus as Lord believe God raised him.
19:39
That's the core. That's the core.
19:41
And notice the resurrection is explicitly identified.
19:44
Again, it's presented as the critical soteriological fact,
19:48
the saving act of God, that objectively demonstrates and
19:51
establishes Jesus as the curious, the Lord.
19:55
Faith, then, is the acceptance of this historical reality, the
19:58
resurrection as the foundation of 1's own standing before God,
20:01
and the acceptance of Jesus's Lordship that follows from it.
20:04
And this acceptance, this believing into it, naturally
20:07
leads to action, doesn't it? It's not passive.
20:09
Absolutely not. The source material makes a
20:11
strong case that for Paul pisses is practically equivalent to
20:14
what he calls the obedience of faith, hypocoe pistache, a
20:18
phrase he uses right at the beginning and near the end of
20:20
Romans. Romans 1.516.26.
20:23
This ties right back to that total allegiance demanded by the
20:26
Old Testament Amman concept. Believing is obeying the summons
20:30
of the gospel. So faith isn't just agreeing
20:32
that the gospel message is historically accurate or
20:35
theologically sound. It's fundamentally green to live
20:38
under its terms, submitting to Christ's Lordship.
20:40
Exactly. It's an act of obedience to the
20:42
gospel's claim to the way of salvation offered in it.
20:45
When Paul talks about believers submitting to the confession of
20:47
the gospel, as he does in 2nd Corinthians 9.13, he's unifying
20:51
belief and obedience. Faith is the decisive turn, the
20:55
act that recognizes God's claim over the individual's entire
20:58
existence. And this structure, this
21:00
understanding of faith as obedient trust in the karigma,
21:03
now leads US directly into perhaps the most characteristic
21:06
Pauline doctrine, the distinction that truly shaped
21:09
the Reformation. Right.
21:10
That brings us directly to Paul's radical juxtaposition of
21:12
pistas with the works of the law ergonomo.
21:16
This is where the nature of faith as well a gift received
21:19
and as a total orientation away from self-reliance, comes into
21:22
its absolute sharpest focus. Yes, this is central to Paul's
21:26
thought. He consistently uses pistas as
21:28
the exclusive means, the soul instrument through which a
21:31
person receives righteousness to kaizenov from God.
21:35
And he sets this Pistas in snark, uncompromising opposition
21:38
to any system based on human merit or achievement, which he
21:41
summarizes as ergonomu works of the law.
21:45
When Paul is combating the notion, likely from some
21:48
opponents, that faith must be supplemented by adherence to
21:51
certain parts of the Mosaic law, like circumcision, he's arguing
21:54
fundamentally that Pistas is man's absolute committal to
21:57
God's grace in Christ. It's a committal in which the
22:00
person cannot introduce any self generated resolution, any
22:03
personal achievement that would place them back in the sphere of
22:06
human works or earning. This isn't just a technical
22:09
discussion about, say, keeping rules and regulations versus not
22:12
keeping them. It seems to be about the very
22:14
root source of human assurance before God.
22:17
Where do we ground our confidence?
22:18
It is entirely about the ground of assurance.
22:22
Paul argues that the very act of faith, properly understood,
22:25
requires the negation of the natural person's self
22:29
understanding, our inherent tendency to justify ourselves.
22:33
It demands the surrender of all kachma kachima, all boasting,
22:37
all self glory before God. Because works by their nature
22:41
invite boasting. Exactly.
22:43
If I can point to my adherence to the law, my moral efforts, my
22:47
religious performance as the reason for my standing with God,
22:51
then I retain that Kochima. I have something to be proud of
22:54
in myself. Faith, however, destroys that
22:56
potential for self glory. Paul sees it as an obedient
22:59
acceptance of God's judgement upon our previous self
23:02
understanding, our attempts at self justification.
23:05
It means receiving righteousness purely as a gift.
23:07
So it's crucial to understand Paul rejects works not
23:10
necessarily because the things the law commands are morally bad
23:13
in themselves. Right.
23:14
He upholds the law as holy, just and good elsewhere.
23:17
But he rejects them as a means of justification because of the
23:20
manner in which they are performed, if they are performed
23:22
with the intent to establish merit or earn God's favor.
23:25
That is the absolute essential distinction Paul makes.
23:28
He rejects the entire framework of attempting to earn a wage
23:32
mystery sosos from God. When Paul contrasts grace with
23:35
earning a wage in Romans 4.4 to 5, he makes it crystal clear if
23:40
salvation comes through works, it's a wage earned, it's
23:43
something owed, and therefore it's no longer grace.
23:46
And crucially, it allows for boasting faith.
23:48
Inversely, is this absolute committal to God's grace alone?
23:51
It makes Pistus the polar opposite, the very antithesis of
23:54
every human achievement or attempt at self assurance before
23:57
God. The source material summarizes
23:59
this really powerfully, saying something like faith is the act
24:02
in the supreme sense precisely because it consists in the
24:05
negation of all the work which tries to establish human
24:08
existence outside of or apart from Christ's work for us.
24:12
This makes faith sound less like a static psychological
24:14
disposition, like just being a believer, and much more like an
24:17
ongoing eschatological attitude, the start of a whole new
24:21
existence. Exactly.
24:23
Paul definitely sees it that way.
24:24
Faith marks a transition into the new age, the age of grace,
24:28
which he argues has effectively ended the age where the law held
24:31
sway as the defining covenant structure, Romans 6.14.
24:35
When Paul refers in Galatians 3.23 to the coming of Pistus,
24:38
he's talking about the arrival of this new eschatological time,
24:42
the era inaugurated by Christ and the believers Existence is
24:45
now established entirely in Christ, completely outside of
24:48
the law's domain as a system of earning righteousness.
24:51
In this new existence being in Christ through faith, it isn't
24:55
automatic pilot is it? Sounds like it must be actively
24:58
maintained by, well, continuing to stand invade.
25:00
That sounds demanding. It is demanding, yes, because it
25:03
requires constant self-conscious reliance, a continual looking
25:06
away from self. Paul talks about the need for
25:09
standing firm in the faith, Stani and Tuopiste.
25:12
Faith isn't a one time transaction that's then
25:15
finished. It requires constant
25:17
maintenance, constant nourishment, constant growth.
25:19
Paul acknowledges this when he speaks elsewhere of the weakness
25:22
of faith, Romans 14.1, compared to its fullness or super
25:26
abundance, Second Corinthians 8.710.15.
25:30
The believer must constantly actively relate themselves to
25:33
God's saving act in Christ, continually recognizing the
25:37
provisional nature of their existence.
25:39
In this already but not yet age. Our security is always being
25:43
received, not possessed inherently.
25:45
And this ongoing reliance, this life lived at Gistis out of
25:49
faith, it dictates our conduct right down to the details of
25:52
daily life. Absolutely.
25:53
Paul applies this principle of pistas directly to daily ethical
25:56
life, which gives rise to that quite severe, almost startling
25:59
principle he lays down in Romans 14.23.
26:02
Bandahu IK pistas hamachiya esteen.
26:04
Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
26:06
That is a staggering claim. It means sin isn't just, say,
26:10
breaking an explicit command in the Bible.
26:12
It's acting from any motive, any source of assurance, any self
26:16
understanding that is grounded in something other than God's
26:19
grace received through faith in Christ.
26:22
That's exactly the implication even in areas that might seem
26:25
ethically indifferent in themselves, like eating certain
26:28
foods, which is the context in Romans 14.
26:31
The decisive factor for Paul is the motive and the source of
26:34
assurance behind the action. If an action, even a seemingly
26:38
neutral 1, proceeds from a sense of self certainty or adherence
26:41
to a rule for merit or fear, or anything outside of 1's
26:45
confident standing in Christ's grace, then it becomes for Paul
26:48
an instance of relying on self work, a form of boasting, and
26:52
therefore it falls short. It is sin.
26:54
That really solidifies that Izeanic idea we discussed
26:57
earlier. Faith is synonymous with true
26:59
existence, but now Paul specifies that this existence is
27:01
entirely relocated in Christ and must inform every action.
27:04
Yes, it's a thoroughly radical reorientation of the source and
27:08
standard for all human action. OK, let's shift perspective
27:11
slightly. Now turning to the writings of
27:12
John, we find maybe a different vocabulary emphasis, but it
27:16
seems the same kind of radical demand is present.
27:19
The noun pistus itself is less common in John's Gospel.
27:22
That's right, he uses the noun very rarely.
27:24
But the verb to believe pistus is absolutely constant and
27:28
central to receiving eternal life.
27:30
Sue. Yes, the verb pistus is
27:32
everywhere in John, and the Johannin focus, while compatible
27:35
with Paul's, shifts perhaps more towards Zhu's life receiving and
27:39
participating in eternal life now.
27:42
And John frames this receiving of life through faith as
27:45
requiring A radical separation, a brait from the world's values
27:48
and standards. Our source material uses the
27:50
term de secularization to describe this.
27:53
De secularization, OK, what does that mean in John's context?
27:55
How does faith de secularize the believer?
27:58
It means the radical reversal of our natural human impulse to
28:01
find security, value, and meaning in worldly systems,
28:05
things like reputation, social standing, political power,
28:08
wealth, or even, ironically, A misplaced confidence in just
28:11
knowing or keeping the law correctly.
28:14
John argues quite pointedly, especially in his dialogues with
28:17
the Jewish authorities, that people often cannot believe in
28:20
Jesus precisely because they are seeking worldly honor doxa from
28:24
one another rather than the honor that comes from God alone.
28:27
John 5.44. So they want to secure
28:29
predictable life, maybe 1 validated by their peers or
28:32
their traditions. Exactly.
28:34
A life quantified by human effort, human approval, or legal
28:37
correctness. And they reject the disruption,
28:39
the offense, the standal that Jesus's revelation brings to
28:42
their secure world. Faith requires abandoning that
28:45
search for security and mutual human acceptance or worldly
28:48
standards. So the belief required in John
28:50
is therefore inherently offensive, a stumbling block to
28:54
those worldly sensibilities. It is presented as an utter
28:56
scandal. Yes, the source material notes
28:59
that John consistently frames the object of faith, Jesus
29:02
himself, as often appearing unworthy of credence from a
29:06
purely worldly point of view. Think about it.
29:09
The eternal Logos becoming flesh and dwelling among us.
29:12
This man Jesus claiming equality with God, His followers claiming
29:15
he gives eternal life and particularly the ultimate
29:18
offense, the shame and apparent failure of the cross.
29:21
Yohanain faith overcoming this worldly offense by accepting
29:23
God's revealed, often paradoxical structure of reality
29:26
over human self established structures and values.
29:30
This aligns perfectly with Paul's negation of self
29:32
boasting. Just frame perhaps more in terms
29:34
of rejecting worldly honor and validation.
29:36
It's the same core principle really, a total reorientation
29:39
away from self and world towards God in Christ.
29:42
John applies it forcefully in a context that was likely also
29:45
battling early forms of Gnosticism, worldviews that
29:49
sought spiritual knowledge or enlightenment separated from the
29:52
historical, humble, crucified Jesus.
29:55
John insists that true faith, the faith that receives eternal
29:57
life, is grounded in the person and work of this Jesus, and it
30:01
demands A radical reversal of worldly values, rejecting human
30:04
status or achievement as the means to that life.
30:07
OK, let's talk about how John links Faith, Pistew and
30:11
knowledge in his King. They seem closely related in his
30:15
gospel. They are very closely related in
30:17
John. Yes, he often uses them almost
30:19
in parallel, but he maintains A crucial distinction and
30:22
relationship between them. Importantly, John links them in
30:24
a way that ensures knowledge never supersedes or graduates
30:27
beyond faith. This explicitly rules out, as
30:30
our sources note, any Gnostic like distinction between simple
30:33
believers, the pistics, and some supposed higher class of
30:36
advanced knowers, the Gnostic. So how do they relate?
30:38
Is 1 the cause of the other? It's more of a dynamic
30:41
interplay. John often seems to use Pistou
30:44
believing for the initial turning to Jesus, the act of
30:47
entrusting oneself based on his word or works, whereas
30:50
Geneschkin knowing often describes the ensuing
30:53
conviction, the deeper understanding, the relational
30:55
intimacy that results from that initial trust and continue
30:58
dividing. Think of John 6.69 where Peter
31:01
says we have believed and have come to know that you are the
31:04
Holy One of God. Belief often leads to knowledge,
31:07
but equally knowledge can lead to deeper belief.
31:09
In John 16.30 the disciples say now we know by this we believe
31:14
they are mutually sustaining all true knowledge of God.
31:17
And John begins with faith, and all true faith presses on
31:20
towards deeper knowledge and intimacy.
31:22
But there's a crucial limitation placed on human knowledge.
31:25
Isn't there a place where faith remains primary for us?
31:28
Yes, absolutely. The significant exception John
31:31
makes is in describing the relationship between the son and
31:33
the father. That relationship is
31:35
consistently described using terms of knowledge.
31:38
The Father knows me and I know the Father, not faith.
31:41
This highlights the unique intimacy and equality within the
31:44
Godhead. But for humans, while our faith
31:47
must always strive for greater understanding and deeper
31:49
knowledge of God, we cannot achieve on earth that definitive
31:53
perfect state of pure gnosis that characterizes the time
31:56
relationship. Our standing before God in this
31:59
life remains fundamentally 1 of pistes of faith, a provisional
32:03
reliance sustained by God's Word, not by our own complete
32:06
comprehension. OK.
32:08
And this brings us to the Johannian understanding of the
32:10
already not yet state of the believer, which seems tied to
32:13
this ongoing nature of faith. Exactly, John emphasizes
32:16
strongly that the believer already possesses eternal life
32:19
right now. John 3.15165.24 Whoever believes
32:23
in the Son has eternal life. That sounds very definitive.
32:26
Already possesses it. It is.
32:27
Definitive, but the distinction is vital.
32:30
The believer does not possess this life as, say, a natural
32:34
attribute that's now inherent to them, nor is it like a
32:37
disposable possession they can put in the bank and forget
32:39
about. According to John, they have
32:41
this life only in and through ongoing faith in the sun, in the
32:45
Word. It's received and maintained
32:47
dynamically. This provisional character, The
32:50
fact that life is held in faith, means that faith must be
32:52
constantly sustained. This is where John's emphasis on
32:56
abiding more many comes in abiding in Christ, abiding in
32:59
his Word. If the reliance, the faith, the
33:01
abiding ceases, then the life which is held only in that
33:04
dynamic relationship to the Word made flesh also ceases.
33:07
John requires an ongoing, persistent act of believing, of
33:10
trusting, of resting in Christ. So it seems whether we're
33:13
looking at Paul's focus on justification by faith alone
33:16
negating works righteousness, or John's focus on receiving and
33:19
maintaining eternal life through faith rejecting worldly
33:22
security, the faith required is never simply A1 off intellectual
33:26
agreement. It's a total ongoing orientation
33:29
of 1's entire existence away from self in the world and
33:32
toward the saving person and work of God revealed in Jesus
33:35
Christ. It is quite literally a
33:37
fundamental reconstitution of existence itself.
33:39
That's a very good summary. If we connect all these threads
33:41
back to the bigger picture, our deep dive today shows that the
33:44
biblical meaning of pistos is this incredibly tightly
33:47
constructed synthesis. It incorporates the classical
33:51
idea of virtue, faithfulness, reliability, grounded in God's
33:55
own character. It includes the subjective
33:57
attitude of trust and confidence.
34:00
And it demands the acceptance of specific revealed content.
34:03
The karigma, which is itself grounded in the objective proof,
34:06
the guarantee, speak to us again of Christ's resurrection.
34:09
It begins with God's utterly reliable character, rooted in
34:12
the demanding, exclusive allegiance of the Old Testament
34:15
Amon, and it culminates in this radical, ongoing submission to
34:18
and reliance upon God's final eschatological act in Christ.
34:22
This really does raise an important, maybe challenging
34:24
question for you, the learner, to contemplate as we finish,
34:29
given this expansive, demanding scope of Pistas covering
34:32
objective proof, subjective assurance, and radical
34:34
obedience. If true, biblical Pistus is
34:37
indeed life's constant orientation away from self
34:41
boasting and worldly security and entirely toward God's grace
34:44
in Christ, the one aspect of your daily existence, perhaps
34:48
even unconsciously. Are you currently trusting in to
34:51
grant you security or meaning or standing instead of trusting in
34:55
Christ alone? Where in your current life
34:58
structure might you still be seeking your own Kochima, your
35:00
own grounds for boasting or self assurance?
35:03
That's a difficult, but I think a very necessary question for
35:06
reflection. It requires a careful inspection
35:08
of the real source of 1's daily security and confidence.
35:11
Indeed, thank you for joining us for this deep dive into Pistas
35:14
on reform thinking.