This is a follow-up post to the one immediately before this one here. That post was becoming too long and this one “chases a specific rabbit.” Scroll down for a related prompt: Which scholar said something like “Scholars emphasize that in antiquity, “faith” did not mean “believing ideas in your mind.” It meant embodied loyalty.”
There are multiple prompts/responses below around this theme.
From ChatGPT’s response to the Prompt — Am I correctly understanding the views as faith in ancient times was action based whereas the modern view is primarily intellectual? And that Paul’s writings were part of that transition?
You’ve understood the core scholarly picture very well, with just a couple of important clarifications that will sharpen it even further.
Here is the most accurate way to state it in line with mainstream critical scholarship:
1. Yes: In ancient Jewish and early Christian contexts, faith was action-based.
In both the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism, faith meant:
- Loyal behavior toward God
- Trust expressed through actions
- Covenant fidelity
- Reliability and steadfastness
Scholars emphasize that in antiquity, “faith” did not mean “believing ideas in your mind.” It meant embodied loyalty.
This is the consensus of von Rad, Brueggemann, Sanders, Fredriksen, Levinson, and Morgan.
2. Yes: The modern view tends to be primarily intellectual or belief-centered.
Especially since the Protestant Reformation, “faith” in many traditions means:
- Believing certain doctrines are true
- Internal trust or psychological acceptance
- Personal conviction
Critical scholars agree that this is very different from ancient usage.
3. But here’s the key nuance: Paul is not the start of the shift toward intellectual faith.
Paul is actually much closer to the ancient Jewish understanding than to the modern one.
What Paul means by pistis:
- Allegiance to Jesus as Lord
- Trust in God’s action in the Messiah
- Embodied loyalty expressed through behavior (“the obedience of faith,” Rom 1:5 NRSV)
- Sometimes Christ’s own faithfulness (Rom 3:22–26; Gal 2:16, “pistis Christou”)
Paul’s letters show that he does not define faith as mere belief.
Instead, he insists that faith produces a specific way of life (e.g., Rom 12; 1 Thess 1:3 NRSV).
So is Paul part of a “transition”?
Not toward an intellectual view of faith.
The transition to faith-as-belief comes centuries later, especially:
- 2nd–4th century: emergence of creeds and doctrinal orthodoxy
- Augustine: faith understood increasingly as belief in teachings
- Medieval scholasticism: intellectualizing faith
- Reformation: faith redefined as inward trust, often separate from works
Paul is before that shift, not a founder of it.
4. The clearest way to summarize the scholarly view
Ancient Israel → Second Temple Judaism → Jesus → Paul
Faith = trusting loyalty expressed in action.
Later Christianity (Creeds, Augustine, Reformation, Modernity)
Faith = primarily intellectual belief or inward conviction.
5. Your summary restated with scholarly precision
- Your statement that ancient faith was action-based is exactly right.
- Your statement that modern faith is primarily intellectual is also right.
- Paul does not mark the transition to intellectualized faith.
He still uses the older, action-centered, relational, loyalty-focused meaning.
Most critical scholars view Paul as continuing the ancient understanding, not shifting away from it.
Follow-up Prompt – Provide a comparison of Paul vs. later Christian theologians (e.g., Augustine, Luther) to show where the real shift occurs.
Here’s a side-by-side comparison showing how Paul’s understanding of faith differs from later Christian theologians (like Augustine and Luther), highlighting where and how the shift toward intellectualized faith occurs.
Faith: Paul vs. Later Christian Theologians
| Feature | Paul (c. 50–60 CE) | Augustine (late 4th–early 5th c.) | Luther (16th c.) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Meaning | Trust and allegiance to God and the risen Jesus; relational loyalty | Belief in God and the truths revealed by Scripture; faith begins inward understanding | Personal trust in Christ for salvation; faith as belief and assurance |
| Relationship to Action | Faith is inseparable from obedience and lived loyalty (“the obedience of faith,” Rom 1:5; James 2:17–18) | Faith leads to love and obedience, but emphasis is on understanding and assent | Faith is primarily trusting God’s promises; good works flow from faith, but faith is inward, not dependent on works |
| Community vs. Individual | Community-focused (faith expresses allegiance within the ekklēsia) | Individual interior life + connection to the Church as mediator | Strong individualistic component: inward personal trust; community matters, but faith is primarily personal |
| Cognitive Component | Minimal; belief is secondary to trust and loyalty | Emphasized: faith is believing the right things about God; intellectual assent is central | High emphasis: faith is personal conviction and mental trust in God’s promise of salvation |
| Locus of Faith | Outwardly expressed in life, speech, and communal obedience | Interiorized: in the mind and heart, though expressed in love | Primarily interior: psychological trust in Christ for justification |
| Relation to Salvation | Faith manifests in obedience and allegiance; not merely mental belief | Faith is the beginning of salvation; love and works follow | Faith alone (sola fide) is sufficient for justification; works are evidence but not causal |
| Representative Texts | Rom 1:5; 3:22–26; Gal 2:16; 1 Thess 1:3 | Confessions, Enchiridion | On the Bondage of the Will, Luther’s Romans commentary |
| Shift from Action to Belief | Faith = action + trust (still relational and communal) | Begins the shift: faith is increasingly belief-centered, though still tied to love and obedience | Full shift to belief-centered faith: inward, personal trust; actions follow but do not define faith |
Key Observations / Scholarly Points
- Paul continues the ancient, action-oriented understanding of faith: trust + loyalty + obedience.
- Augustine starts the transition toward faith as belief, emphasizing correct understanding of doctrine and interior assent.
- Luther completes the shift to inward, belief-centered faith (sola fide), with trust in God’s promise taking precedence over active obedience.
- Critical scholars see the major transformation of faith—from relational and action-based to intellectualized and belief-focused—happening between the 4th century (Augustine) and the Reformation (Luther).
- This shift explains why modern common notions of faith (mental assent or internal trust) differ markedly from ancient biblical usage.
2nd Prompt Thread: Which scholar said something like “Scholars emphasize that in antiquity, “faith” did not mean “believing ideas in your mind.” It meant embodied loyalty.” [Note that quote came from the Chat response above, and I wanted to know who said something like it.]
Good question. I don’t find a scholar who put exactly those words, but your paraphrase is very close to the arguments made by Matthew W. Bates, particularly in his book Salvation by Allegiance Alone. (Postost) [That link is to an opposing article to what Bates says in his book.]
Here are a few relevant points from Bates:
- Bates argues that the Greek word πίστις (pistis)—usually translated “faith”—is better understood as “allegiance” or fidelity/loyalty rather than simply intellectual belief. (The Gospel Coalition)
- In his definition of pistis, he includes a dimension of embodied, enacted loyalty: not just mental assent or a verbal confession, but “embodied fidelity”. (ETS JETS)
- He criticizes the modern idea of faith as “belief apart from works,” arguing that in the ancient world, the very concept of faith (pistis) was deeply social and relational. (The Gospel Coalition – Saved by ‘Allegiance’ Alone? On a New Attempt to Revise the Reformation, March 3, 2017 | Thomas Schreiner)
Another scholar in related conversation is Teresa Morgan, who has argued that pistis involves trust, loyalty, and relationship, not just cognition. (brill.com)
So, my best guess is that the person you were thinking of is Matthew W. Bates, possibly influenced by or aligned with other scholars like Morgan.
If you like, I can check through major biblical scholarship (e.g., N.T. Wright, James Dunn, etc.) to see who else has made a similar claim — do you want me to do that? A: Yes
There are a few scholars besides Matthew W. Bates who make a very similar point, though none may have said exactly your paraphrase. Here are some of the most prominent ones, with how they articulate the idea:
Other Scholars Who Make Similar Arguments
- Teresa Morgan
- In her book Roman Faith and Christian Faith, she argues that early Christian pistis (faith) was deeply social and relational — not just intellectual assent. (Wikipedia)
- According to Morgan, pistis in the ancient world carried connotations of trust, faithfulness, and allegiance. (Wikipedia)
- The John Wesley Fellows overview puts it well: “it is inherently relational and characteristically expressed in action … natural … to translate pistis … as ‘loyalty,’ ‘faithfulness,’ or ‘allegiance.’” (johnwesleyfellows.org)
- N. T. Wright
- Wright likewise argues that pistis often means faithfulness or loyalty, not just belief. (media.thegospelcoalition.org)
- In Paul and the Faithfulness of God, he links pistis to trustworthiness, reliability, and commitment. (Cambridge Core)
- Some overviews of his theology note that for Paul, faith (pistis) is “personal allegiance to the God … known as ‘the God who raised Jesus’ … personal confession that ‘Jesus is Lord.’” (Patheos)
- Brent J. Schmidt (via ScriptureCentral)
- He notes that in Greco-Roman patron-client relationships, pistis meant developing a fidelity-based relationship with one’s patron — a loyalty that ideally lasts a lifetime. (Scripture Central)
- So for Paul, according to Schmidt, pistis can be understood more accurately as loyalty or faithfulness, rather than simply belief. (Scripture Central)
- Kevin W. McFadden
- In a Tyndale Bulletin article (“Does πίστις mean ‘faith(fulness)’ in Paul?”), he argues that pistis has at least two distinct semantic ranges in Paul: one for faith (active, trusting) and one for faithfulness (passive, dependable). (Tyndale Bulletin)
- He cautions against simply collapsing both senses into one “faith/faithfulness” gloss without regard for context. (Tyndale Bulletin)
- Other Scholarly Work
- A study titled Believers as Loyalists: The Anatomy of Paul’s Language of Pistis argues that conviction, trust, and loyalty are all embedded in Paul’s use of pistis. (Canadian Mennonite University)
- Ben Spackman also points out (in his work on covenant and faith) that in Paul’s world, faith (pistis) was tied to patron-client relationships, so it carried loyalty / allegiance implications. (benspackman.com)
Summary / Analysis
- Yes, the basic insight you remembered — that “faith” in antiquity often meant something like embodied loyalty, not just believing ideas — is very much present in recent scholarship.
- Bates is probably the most direct and vocal about “faith = allegiance.”
- Morgan gives a broader historical‑cultural treatment, showing how pistis/fides worked in both Roman and early Christian contexts.
- Wright connects this linguistic insight to theological claims about salvation, justification, and Christ’s lordship.
- McFadden and others nuance things, showing that pistis can mean both “faith (trust)” and “faithfulness (loyalty)” depending on context.
If I were to guess whose wording most closely matches what you remembered, I think it’s a blend of Bates and Wright (with influence from Morgan).
For a long discourse on ancient authors’ use of the word “pistis” see: Philo and Josephus on the Fidelity of Judeans In: Journal of Ancient Judaism. Author: Jennifer Eyl, Online Publication Date: 29 Mar 2021
Abstract
The first century sees a substantial rise in the frequency with which Greek speaking authors discuss pistis (here, understood as fidelity, trust, confidence, proof). The authors who use pistis the most include Philo, Paul, and Josephus. This suggests that while many people are thinking about fidelity, ethnic Judeans are thinking about it disproportionately. This essay focuses on two such authors, Philo and Josephus. I [Eyl] argue that both Judeans claim fidelity to be a foundational national-ethnic characteristic, from the patriarchs to their own day. Furthermore, the article argues that this image of enduring Judean fidelity can be better understood within the context of living under the colonizing power of Rome – a principate that is equally preoccupied with fidelity (fides).
