11/21/2025 – In the BSA General discussion forum, Bobby Lane began a conversation titled I’ve misunderstood faith, literally. Many interesting comments ensued, pointing out differences between the ancient Hebrew understanding of faith, the early Christian view, and the contemporary Protestant view.
I asked ChatGPT and Claude.ai about differences and how they evolved using the same prompt. I liked ChatGPT’s response the most, so it is pasted below with Claude’s shorter response below ChatGPT’s second response. The second response is a detailed table showing the evolution of the understanding of faith with supporting scriptures cited.
The Common Prompt: How do critical bible scholars view faith in the Old and New Testaments vs. how faith is defined today? Do they see differences?
ChatGPT’s Response:
Yes—critical biblical scholars generally see significant differences between the biblical concept of faith and many common modern definitions. Below is a practical, evidence-based comparison drawing on mainstream academic scholarship (e.g., Sanders, Dunn, Bauckham, Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, Amy-Jill Levine, John Meier). No Christian apologists are relied upon.
1. Hebrew Bible: What “faith” normally means
In the Hebrew Bible, the key term is ’emunah (אֱמוּנָה), usually translated faith, faithfulness, or trust.
Core idea in scholarship:
Faith is primarily steadfast loyalty to God—behavioral, covenantal, and shown by action.
- The ASV of Deut 32:4 calls God “a God of faithfulness” (’emunah)—meaning reliability.
- Hab 2:4 ASV says “the righteous shall live by his faith” (’emunah)—generally understood by scholars as faithfulness, steadfastness, not abstract belief.
- In Exod 17:12 ASV, Moses’ hands are “steady” (’emunah), demonstrating the word’s concrete meaning.
Scholarly conclusion:
In the Hebrew Bible, faith = fidelity to the covenant; it is not about mental assent but about trust embodied in obedience and loyalty.
Representative critical scholars:
- Gerhard von Rad: “Faith in the Old Testament is essentially obedience and trust.”
- Walter Brueggemann: “Israel’s ‘faith’ is relational fidelity grounded in covenant obligations.”
2. New Testament: A more complex shift
The key Greek word is pistis (πίστις).
Critical scholarship sees two major meanings operating:
A. Trust / faithfulness (continuity with the Hebrew Bible)
- In many sayings of Jesus, pistis means trust in God (e.g., Mark 11:22 NRSV).
- In James 2:14–26 NRSV, “faith” is shown by actions, strongly aligning with ’emunah.
B. Allegiance / loyalty to Christ (a newly foregrounded theme)
In the Greco-Roman world, pistis often meant loyalty to a patron, ruler, or benefactor.
Many critical scholars argue Paul often uses pistis this way:
- Romans 3:26 NRSV speaks of “the faith of Jesus” (pistis Iēsou)—debated, but many argue it means Jesus’ own faithfulness to God.
- Romans 10:9 NRSV describes public confession (“Jesus is Lord”)—an act of allegiance, not mere internal belief.
Representative critical scholars:
- N.T. Wright, J.D.G. Dunn, Beverly Gaventa, and Matthew Bates emphasize pistis as “allegiance” or embodied loyalty.
- Bart Ehrman: pistis includes both trust and loyalty, not simply belief.
- Teresa Morgan (major study on Roman pistis): pistis in Paul is “relationship-forming trust and loyalty.”
3. Where critical scholars see major differences from modern definitions
Modern common definition
Many modern Christians—especially in Protestant contexts—define faith primarily as:
- Belief that certain statements are true
- Personal trust in Jesus for salvation
- Internal, psychological assent
This is largely a post-Reformation interpretation.
How this differs from biblical usage (according to critical scholarship)
- Ancient “faith” is relational, not intellectual.
It is expressed in loyalty, trust, reliability, and steadfast action. - Ancient “faith” is communal and covenantal.
Modern definitions can be individualistic; biblical faith is tied to group identity (Israel / the ekklēsia). - Ancient “faith” is not primarily about accepting a doctrinal system.
Critical scholars emphasize that doctrine developed after the biblical period.
Biblical “faith” did not mean affirming a creed. - Paul’s use of pistis is not merely mental belief.
Modern readings often flatten pistis into private trust; critical scholars see pistis as embodied loyalty both to God and to the crucified-raised Messiah. - Hebrew Bible and NT faith are more aligned than people assume.
Many Christians think the OT teaches “works” and the NT teaches “faith,” but critical scholars note that:- Hebrew Bible: faith includes obedience
- Paul: “the obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5, 16:26 NRSV) shows he means something similar.
4. Short, practical summary
- Hebrew Bible: “Faith” = trustworthy loyalty, steadfastness, covenant faithfulness.
- New Testament: “Faith” = trust, fidelity, and allegiance to God and to Christ.
- Today: “Faith” is often defined as internal belief, which is only one aspect—sometimes not the primary one—in the biblical texts.
Yes—critical scholars overwhelmingly see differences, especially the shift from relational fidelity to intellectual assent in modern church contexts.
Follow-up response from ChatGPT
Below is a chronologically organized version, tracing how faith is understood from the Hebrew Bible → Second Temple Judaism → Jesus → Paul → other NT writers → early post-biblical Christianity → modern definitions. (ASV for HB, NRSV for NT.)
Faith: A Chronological Development Table
| Period | Historical Context | How “Faith” Is Understood | Representative Texts | Critical Scholarly Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Hebrew Bible (pre–Second Temple) | Israel’s covenant relationship with YHWH; monarchy and exilic periods | ’Emunah = steadiness, covenant loyalty, reliability. Faith means steadfast trust expressed in obedience and communal fidelity. | Deut 32:4 ASV; Ps 37:3 ASV; Hab 2:4 ASV | Faith is not belief; it is covenant fidelity. Scholars: von Rad, Brueggemann. |
| 2. Second Temple Judaism (516 BCE–70 CE) | Torah-centered life, diverse Jewish groups (Pharisees, Essenes, etc.), apocalyptic expectations | Faith = trust in Israel’s God and faithful adherence to Torah; also corporate loyalty amid oppression. Emphasis on perseverance. | Sirach 2:10; Wisdom 3:9; 1 Macc 2 (faithfulness in crisis) | Jews understood “faith” largely as faithfulness to God through Torah. Scholars: Sanders, Levine, Fredriksen. |
| 3. Jesus (ca. 30 CE) | Galilean Jewish teacher; proclaimed God’s reign | Faith = trust in God’s power and goodness, often linked to healing and courageous reliance. Also trust that God’s kingdom is breaking in. | Mark 11:22 NRSV; Luke 7:9 NRSV; Mark 5:34 NRSV | Jesus uses “faith” as radical trust in God’s active rule. Still not doctrinal assent. |
| 4. Paul (ca. 50–60 CE) | Mission to Gentiles; assemblies loyal to the risen Jesus | Pistis = relational trust and allegiance. For Paul, faith is embodied loyalty to Jesus as Lord, seen in the phrase “the obedience of faith.” Debate over whether “faith of Christ” = Christ’s own faithfulness. | Rom 1:5 NRSV; Rom 3:22–26 NRSV; Gal 2:16 NRSV; 1 Thess 1:3 NRSV | Teresa Morgan, Dunn, Gaventa: Paul’s “faith” = trust + allegiance, not mere belief. |
| 5. Other NT Writers (ca. 60–100 CE) | Diverse communities dealing with persecution, ethics, and identity | James: faith must be enacted (faith without works is dead). Hebrews: faith = endurance and trust in the unseen promises of God. Revelation: faith = loyalty to God and the Lamb under imperial pressure. | James 2:14–26 NRSV; Heb 11:1–40 NRSV; Rev 2:10, 13 NRSV | Faith becomes endurance, loyalty, and steadfast commitment. Still not mental assent. |
| 6. Early Church (2nd–4th century) | Church defining identity, combating heresies, forming creeds | Faith begins to include belief in correct doctrine (e.g., Christology, Trinity). Creeds formalize faith as affirmation of propositions. | Apostles’ Creed; Nicene Creed | Faith shifts toward orthodoxy, not primarily loyalty. Scholars: Ehrman, Young, Pagels. |
| 7. Augustine (late 4th–early 5th century) | Doctrinal consolidation; debates over grace | Faith becomes believing authoritative teachings, preparing for understanding. Still connected to trust, but increasingly intellectual. | De Trinitate, Enchiridion | Sets stage for later Western definitions. |
| 8. Medieval Period (500–1500 CE) | Sacramental church; scholastic theology | Faith = assent to church doctrines plus trusting God through the sacramental system. | Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae | Major intellectualization of faith. |
| 9. Reformation (16th century) | Protestant critique of church authority | Faith = personal trust in Christ for salvation; often separated from works. Strong emphasis on inward belief. | Romans interpreted through Luther; Calvin, Institutes | Modern “faith as mental belief” begins here. |
| 10. Modern Christianity (17th–21st century) | Individualism, denominational diversity | Faith commonly means internal belief, personal conviction, or accepting doctrines as true. Often detached from communal or covenantal fidelity. | Popular evangelical and mainline usage | Critical scholars note tension between this and ancient meanings. |
| 11. Critical Scholarship Today | Historical-critical study of Jewish and Christian origins | Broad consensus: ancient “faith” = trust, fidelity, loyalty—far more active and relational than modern belief-centered definitions. | Morgan, Dunn, Fredriksen, Ehrman, Levine | Scholars highlight a major shift from faith-as-loyalty → faith-as-belief over 2,000 years. |
One-Sentence Summary
From ancient Israel through Second Temple Judaism and the earliest Jesus movements, faith meant trust, fidelity, and allegiance; only in later Christian tradition did faith become primarily an internal belief or doctrinal assent.
Response from Claude.ai
Critical biblical scholars generally identify significant differences between how “faith” functioned in biblical texts and how it’s commonly understood today.
Old Testament/Hebrew Bible
In the Hebrew Bible, the primary term is emunah, which scholars see as fundamentally about faithfulness, reliability, and steadfastness rather than intellectual belief. It describes:
- Covenantal loyalty – a relationship of trust and commitment between God and Israel
- Steadfast adherence – continuing in relationship even through difficulty
- Abraham’s faith, for example, is portrayed less as intellectual assent to propositions and more as trust demonstrated through obedience and ongoing relationship
The emphasis is communal and relational rather than individual and cognitive.
New Testament
The Greek term pistis (faith) in the New Testament is more complex. Critical scholars note it encompasses:
- Trust and confidence in God/Jesus
- Faithfulness and loyalty (similar to Hebrew emunah)
- A response to proclamation about Jesus
However, scholars emphasize that even in Paul’s writings, where faith is central, it’s primarily about trust in God’s action through Christ rather than intellectual acceptance of doctrines. It involves:
- Relational trust and allegiance
- A reorienting of one’s life
- Community belonging and identity
Modern Differences
Critical scholars observe that modern Western Christianity often defines faith as:
- Intellectual assent to propositions or doctrines
- Belief that certain things are true
- An individual, private mental state
This contrasts with the biblical emphasis on trust, loyalty, and covenant relationship—something lived out in community rather than merely believed privately.
Many scholars argue this shift occurred gradually through Greek philosophical influence, Enlightenment rationalism, and modern individualism, significantly reshaping what “faith” means from its original biblical contexts.
