Did Jesus have faith in God? – Part 3

In part 1 and part 2 of this series, I’ve deliberately argued from present-day evangelical assumptions, and not from the classical catholic theorizing about Jesus. Let me explain.

Evangelicals nowadays think (most of the time) that Jesus is God himself – that Jesus is a self, that God is a self, and that they’re the same one, the same self. You can see this by how they argue for “the deity of Christ.” For example, they will argue,

Only God can forgive sins – no one else can.

Jesus forgave sins.

Therefore, Jesus is God.

This is clearly a valid argument. (But I would say, not sound. If you’re unclear on validity and soundness, read this before proceeding.) And when you understand the logical form of this argument, you see that the conclusion must be an identity claim, of the form a = b. The first premise says that only God can forgive sins – no other being can. So, anyone who can do that (second premise) is none other than him (conclusion).

Mr. Gilson seems to be reasoning like this:

1. God doesn’t have faith.

2. Jesus is God.

3. Therefore, Jesus doesn’t have faith.  (1, 2)

And he urges that happily, the New Testament doesn’t contradict 3. By remaining silent on Jesus’s faith, he thinks, it confirms 2.

Or maybe his point is better captured this way:

3. Jesus doesn’t have faith in God.

4. Any thoroughly good being other than God has faith in God.

5. Jesus is thoroughly good.

2. Jesus is not other than God; Jesus is God himself. (3,4,5)

This too is a valid argument.

I agree with 1, 4, and 5. But as I argued in part 1, the New Testament teaches that Jesus did have faith. So, 3 is false. This makes the second argument unsound because it’s first premise (3) is false.

But 3 is also the conclusion of the first argument. Since that argument is valid, and its conclusion is false, one or both premises must be false. I say it is 2 that’s false; Jesus, according to the NT, isn’t God himself, but rather God’s Son, the Messiah, God’s anointed. God’s anointed is someone other than the anointer. So I argue,

1. God doesn’t have faith.

6. Jesus had faith.

7. Therefore, Jesus isn’t God (Jesus and God are not numerically identical).   (1, 6)

What will Mr. Gilson say, if he agrees that 3 is false?

• The problem for him is that evangelical tradition strongly affirms 2.
• Yet 1 seems self-evident. Being all-knowing and all-powerful, God would not need to have faith in anyone. He would never be in the grip of doubt or fear, or as it were “see through a glass darkly.” He has no need of trusting in another; he knows with full certainty that he himself is utterly reliable. But, if 3 is false, one must deny 1 and/or 2.

I suspect he may choose to go positive mysterian; here, one just commits to 1, 2, and 6. One says,

I know 1, 2 and 6 appear to be an inconsistent triad of claims. I realize that 1 and 2 seem to imply 3, which is contradictory of 6. But scripture strongly, and equally supports 1, 3, and 6. So we must affirm all of them (1, 2, 6). They must really be consistent, though we can’t show how. To us fallen, limited beings, they can only appear to be inconsistent.

I don’t think that is a rational stance. We all have overwhelming evidence that 1, 2 and 6 can’t all be true. This should move our interpretation of scripture. Our strong, firm intuitions about consistency rightly guide our interpretation of scripture; there’s nothing arrogant about this.

Another point is this: positive mysterianism is not the main, traditional catholic stance. They would employ some distinctions heretofore unseen in this series. Perhaps evangelicals neglect ancient catholic tradition to their peril…

Next time: a more catholic response.