Big Healing Book - What Galatians 2:20 Really Means

What Galatians 2:20 Really Means

Galatians 2:20:
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Only one phrase is unclear at first glance – what does “the faith of the Son of God” mean in this verse? There are four choices:

Choice 1: Faith in the Son of God
Choice 2: The Son of God’s faith
Choice 3: The Son of God’s faithfulness
Choice 4: The doctrines about the Son of God

How we interpret this verse depends on which choice we make. Are we supposed to live our lives in the flesh by Jesus’ faith, by faith IN Jesus, by faith IN Jesus’ FAITHFULNESS, or by the doctrines about the Son of God?

This is one of the toughest calls in the Bible. Good people take different positions, just as good people take both positions on the Mark 11:22 issue. While this issue certainly isn’t one that will destroy your Christian experience if you end up with one of the three wrong choices (if we can even determine which they are), there could be revelation tied to the right interpretation. It is a useful example to go through the process of figuring out this verse, as you can apply a similar approach to studying other Scriptures.

Let’s see what we can find.

Did Paul Just Mean the Doctrines of Christ?

This is not as easy to dismiss as we might think at first, as “the faith” refers to what we believe instead of the ability to believe in MANY other Scriptures. Also, “the faith OF the Son of God” and “the faith IN the Son of God” would both fit this explanation, eliminating any need to split hairs about whether “of” or “in” is correct.

So the logical starting point is to check all other instances in the New Testament where “the faith” appears. And we find that it refers to doctrine more than it refers to believing!

The breakdown below is somewhat subjective, but it shows that doctrine as opposed to “faith” is what is meant by “the faith” in the majority of cases.

Believing:
Acts 3:16, Romans 4:11, Romans 4:16, Galatians 2:16 (twice), Galatians 3:23, Ephesians 3:12, Philippians 3:9, Colossians 2:12, 2 Timothy 2:18

Doctrine:
Acts 6:7, Acts 13:8, Acts 14:22, Acts 16:5, Acts 24:24, Romans 1:5, 1 Corinthians 16:13, Galatians 1:23, Ephesians 4:13, Philippians 1:27, Colossians 1:23, Colossians 2:27, 1 Timothy 1:2, 1 Timothy 4:1, 1 Timothy 5:8, 1 Timothy 6:10, 1 Timothy 6:21, 2 Timothy 3:8, 2 Timothy 4:7, Titus 3:15, Jude 3

Less Clear:
Romans 3:3, Romans 14:1, 2 Corinthians 13:5, 1 Timothy 3:13Titus 1:1, James 2;1, 1 Peter 5:9, Revelation 13:10, Revelation 14:12

If we go by the majority of cases (10 verses versus 21 verses), we must conclude that living “by the faith of the Son of God” must actually mean living according to the doctrines concerning the Son of God and have nothing to do with “faith” as we traditionally use the term.

Wow, that’s a shocker! However, it is clear we cannot use the 21 verses next to Doctrine above to prove that “the faith” is not talking about “faith” in the 10 cases listed next to Believing above. So we can’t make a definite call just based on the overall usage of “the faith” – we have to look at the context.

Just 4 verses earlier, Paul said that we are justified by the faith of Jesus Christ and justified by the faith of Christ. You cannot be justified by doctrine; you are only justified then you exercise faith to be saved. Let’s see how that fits in as we lead up to the verse in question:

Galatians 2:16-20:
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Looking at the context, Paul is talking about believing, not doctrine, when he says “the faith” in this passage. “The faith” in Galatians 2:20 can’t refer to doctrine after all.

The final deal-breaker for Choice 4 is contained right in Galatians 2:20 itself. Paul said that the life he now lived in the flesh, he lived BY “the faith of the Son of God.” Correct doctrines point you to life but do not produce life. Several Scriptures listed later in this section say that we live by faith, while no Scripture says that we live by doctrine. Paul didn’t say that he lived according to the doctrine of the Son of God; he said that he lived by the faith of the Son of God.

We now dump Choice 4 and concentrate on the three remaining ones.

What Bible Translators Thought This Verse Meant

While Bible translators don’t always get everything right – consider “griefs” and “sorrows” in Isaiah 53:4 that are really “sicknesses” and “pains” – we should assume that mainstream Bibles (and better paraphrases) are translated by Hebrew and Greek experts. If we see Bible translations stacking up around one interpretation, it is at least a sign that we need to consider why that interpretation held sway. We won’t make this our sole criterion, but we want to be careful if our choice bucks what people who have spent years studying Greek think the verse means.

As a logical starting point, we start looking at various Bibles and find our first major difficulty. The Greek experts are divided three ways! Common translations encompass all three choices!

Choice 1:
(Faith in the Son of God)
New King James Version, New Living Translation, New International Version, English
Standard Version, Christian Standard Bible, New American Standard Bible, Legacy Standard Bible, Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version

Choice 2:
(Faith of the Son of God)
King James Version, Young’s Literal Translation, Darby Translation. Reina Valera Version (Spanish)

Choice 3:
(Faithfulness of the Son of God)
New English Translation

It is interesting that two very old Bibles, the Luther Bible (in German) and the Tyndale Bible both use Choice 2. (The Tyndale Bible actually says, “For ye lyfe which I now live in ye flesshe I live by the fayth of ye sonne of God” which is the same idea in ye olde English.)

It looks like we are weighted heavily toward Choice 1 and Choice 3 seems to be an outlier. However, the particular translations that use Choice 2 are in my opinion the most faithful to the original Greek, so I would assign extra weight to them.

Two Greek Issues

Two Greek questions determine which option is right.

First, in Greek scholar terms, is “faith of the Son of God” a subjective possessive or an objective possessive? The first makes Jesus the one to whom the faith belongs (faith OF the Son of God) and the second makes Jesus the object of the faith (faith IN the Son of God).

Well at least that shouldn’t be too hard, right? Why don’t we just find out which exact Greek words are used – the subjective possessive form or the objective possessive form – and get this question out of the way?

Because there’s a problem. The subjective possessive and the objective possessive are exactly identical in the Greek! They are not separate grammatical forms; they are different ways of interpreting exactly the same words. The translators have to make a judgment call based on the context because the actual words allow for EITHER interpretation. Both types of interpretation are used in Scripture elsewhere, though the subjective possessive (faith OF the Son of God) is the rule and the objective possessive (faith IN the Son of God) is the exception. The burden of proof is on Choice 1 (IN) because the default should be Choice 2 (OF). We determined elsewhere that Mark 11:22 means faith IN God (the objective possessive), but since we have to be driven by context, we can’t just make that same assumption for Galatians 2:20. So this initial skirmish is inconclusive and we will have to resort to comparing the context to other Scriptures and maybe some other test if we can think of one.

Second, there is the issue of whether the Greek uses the word for faith or the word for faithfulness. Why don’t we at least settle this one right now and just focus on the first issue?

Because there’s another problem. The Greek word for faith is pistis. The Greek word for faithfulness is pistis. So we have a second situation where the Greek cannot answer the question at hand and we have to go by context. The two different meanings of pistis are the reason that some Bibles say that faith is a fruit of the Spirit and others say that faithfulness is a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). Both faith and faithfulness are correct translations of pistis. With no decisive context, you can’t really prove that either translation is correct. Interestingly, the KJV and Young’s Literal Translation, which are my favorite Greek-accurate Bibles, say that faith is a fruit of the Spirit while most others say that faithfulness is a fruit of the Spirit.

Now you can see why there is so much controversy over Galatians 2:20. But we won’t let the controversy stop us from pursuing a conclusion, as this is way too much fun.

Jesus, the Author and Finisher of Our Faith

Given that Jesus is the Author and the Finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:1), we might conclude at first that we live by Jesus’ faith (Choice 2). If He is the Author and the Finisher of it, wouldn’t it be HIS faith anyway? This seems reasonable, but upon further reflection, it also seems reasonable that HIS faith doesn’t need “finishing,” but ours does, which would flip us back to Choice 1. Unless you consider the meaning that it is HIS faith that He GAVE to us for our use (or disuse), which could accommodate Choice 2. So that doesn’t resolve anything.

Living by the Faithfulness of Jesus?

Something seems “off” and slightly ungrammatical about the idea of “living by the faithfulness of Jesus.” (At least we know this is a subjective possessive because it would make no sense to live by the faithfulness directed toward Jesus.) What exactly would that mean? The faithfulness of Jesus to what? Nothing is mentioned that would answer that.

Let’s appeal to other Scriptures for help. We invoke a search engine and discover that no verse talks about living by faithfulness, while Habakkuk 2:4, Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11 and Hebrews 10:38 all say that the just shall live by faith (technically “live by his faith” in Habakkuk 2:4). So living by faith makes sense, while living by faithfulness has no other witness in Scripture.

Let’s back up 4 verses where there is a similar phrase.

Galatians 2:16:
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

No one is justified by the faithfulness of Christ. Christ is faithful, but that fact does not save anyone. If it did, everyone would be saved. Faith in Christ is required for salvation, and we can leave the matter open for now whether this faith is His faith that we exercise or our faith that we exercise in Him.

I think we can safely declare Choice 3 to be a loser and we can focus on the remaining two choices. Again, this is a subjective decision on our part with no explicit Greek support (as we saw), but given the identical Greek words for faith and faithfulness, we had to make a judgment call. At least we have the overwhelming support of the Bible scholars who wrote the mainstream translations cited above as well as the support of other Scriptures, while “living by the faithfulness of the Son of God” has NO support in other Scriptures in mainline Bibles.

Habakkuk 2:4 and People Healed by THEIR Faith

At first, you might see the reference above and think, “The just shall live by faith!” But this particular verse actually says that the just shall live by HIS faith. The word HIS in this context clearly refers to the just person’s faith, not God’s faith. Furthermore, Jesus told people that it was THEIR faith that had healed them, not HIS faith. So if it’s YOUR faith, Choice 1 now seems like the only way to go. Or is it? The faith you have is a gift from God – you got it from Him (Romans 12:3, Ephesians 2:8-9). So it is really HIS faith in a certain sense, which leans back toward Choice 2. We’re still undecided, so it looks like we should look to the Greek for more insight.

More Greek

A look at the underlying Greek shows us that Young’s translation nailed it on the head. There is a subtle difference between “by faith of the Son of God” and “in faith of the Son of God,” though. Which is right? The answer is that either COULD be right because the Greek word en does appear explicitly before pistis (faith), and en can be translated in or by. However, en is translated in over 11 times more frequently than it is translated by, so it seems more likely that we should say “in the faith of the Son of God” as opposed to “by the faith of the Son of God.” Still, we can’t reach any firm conclusion between Choice 1 and Choice 2, as advocates of each could explain the result their way.

Because the Greek word en actually appears two other times in the same verse, it seems that we might assign a little extra weight to how it is used there. It is translated in both other times (Christ liveth in me, the life which I now live in the flesh). Are in and by interchangeable? Judge for yourself what the verse would sound like if Paul meant that “Christ liveth by me” and “the life which I now live by the flesh.” I think we should stick with in both times! This would seem to be a decent argument that in the third case, in faith would be preferred to by faith.

As mentioned earlier, a possessive in Scripture is usually subjective (OF – Choice 2) rather than objective (IN – Choice 1). Therefore, it seems fair that any possessive word form we encounter should be considered a “subjective possessive” unless we can prove conclusively that it isn’t. So if things remain a toss-up between the two choices, we should favor Choice 2 (OF). We’ll have to rack our brains to see if there is any such proof that Choice 1 (IN) could be correct.

Interlinear Logic

Looking at Galatians 2:20 in a Greek Interlinear text, we see that the original Greek word order was “I live in flesh in faith I live the of the Son of God.” This shows why people don’t read Interlinear Greek Bibles as daily devotionals. Choice 1 (IN) advocates could point out that “by faith” and “the of the Son of God” are not actually together in the Greek; the verb for “I live” separates them. However, “in faith I live the of the Son of God” is a marginal-at-best English statement, so it seems that reverting to the way it is translated is still OK. Greek and English word orders aren’t always the same. A Choice 2 (OF) advocate can point out that “faith of the Son of God” is the preferred reading, as the word order implies “faith…that is of the Son of God.” Only faith in this phrase can logically be tied to the Son of God. Thus, we haven’t really reached a conclusion based on the Greek word order, though it seems like Choice 2 (OF) has the advantage. We’ll have to move on for now.

Search the Scriptures

One advantage we have over the Bereans when they “searched the Scriptures” is that we can have computers search them for us! So it seems like looking for the phrase “of the Son of God” would make sense. Our search comes up with the verse in question and the ones below:

John 5:25:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Ephesians 4:13:
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

1 John 5:13:
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

In the first and third cases, things that are “of the Son of God” are clearly things that the Son of God possesses. So these would lead to a Choice 2 definition. However, the second case is clearly a Choice 1 example. In the second case, we cannot “come into” Jesus’ knowledge. If we had Jesus’ knowledge for ourselves, we wouldn’t need to “come to” it; we’d already have it. Worse yet, it would make Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 untrue – if we had Christ’s knowledge (He knows everything), we would know fully NOW, not when the perfect comes. There would be no such thing as seeing through a glass darkly. So this clearly means the knowledge OF Christ as we would usually mean it as opposed to the knowledge that Christ possesses. This would be another rare “objective possessive.”

So we were 2-1 in this round in favor of Choice 2. That certainly didn’t help Choice 1’s chances, as we need clear proof against Choice 1. We still have to lean toward “faith OF the Son of God.”

Similar Phrases Within the Context

So perhaps we should broaden the search. After all, “the faith of Jesus Christ”, “the faith of Jesus” or “the faith of Christ” would be functionally equivalent to “the faith of the Son of God.” Two of these turn out to be used in one verse, and it’s only four verses behind the verse in question:

Here we see the “faith of Jesus Christ” and the “faith of Christ” again. It would seem logical that whatever Paul meant by it here, he would also mean by it four verses later in the same chapter.

The first instance has a couple of nuances that definitely point to Choice 1. We already know that God has given EVERYONE faith (Romans 12:3), though not everyone USES it. If merely HAVING the faith of Christ saved you, EVERYONE would be saved, and we know otherwise. So only faith that is actually directed toward Jesus (that is, it is “in Jesus”) saves anyone. There is an obvious parallel between “the faith of Jesus Christ” and “we have believed in Christ” in the next phrase. Believing is what you do with faith. It’s even clearer In Greek, where we would say that pisteuo is what you do with pistis.

The second instance, “faith of Christ,” has an interesting twist – the text says that we are justified by the faith of Jesus Christ. However, it is possible to have “dead faith” that produces nothing because there are no corresponding works (James 2:14-26). One is not justified until he places his faith (regardless of where he got that faith) IN Jesus Christ. It is difficult to claim that we are literally saved by Jesus’ faith, as that would not explain why some are saved and some are not if it depends on His faith. One could argue that it is Jesus’ faith, but it still must be exercised “in Jesus” before someone can be saved.

The context is BELIEVING IN Jesus Christ, not just using His faith. So faith of the Son of God would seem to mean faith in the Son of God, which is Choice 1. However, it IS a “genitive” (possessive) construct that does not have the word in anywhere in it. While that at first seems to indicate Choice 2, the Mark 11:22 discussion shows the danger of drawing conclusions from that, as “Have faith IN God” is the preferred translation although that is also a possessive construct without the word in.

Besides, the fairly obvious context is contrasting methods of justification – the works of the Law vs. faith in Christ. We would not contrast the works of the Law against just having Jesus’ faith, given that merely having unexercised faith (even Jesus’ faith) that is not “pointed” in any direction is not enough to save anyone. So Choice 1 (faith IN the Son of God) is suddenly picking up steam.

Galatians 2:16 is a brick wall for those who teach that when you get saved, you receive “the faith of Jesus Christ.” It shows that we are justified by “the faith of Jesus Christ.” So we would have to follow up with this verse, which is NOT part of the New Testament canon:

Catch 22:2:
We are justified by the faith that comes from Jesus Christ. But you do not get the faith that comes from Jesus Christ until you are already justified. Thus, you can never get justified OR have the faith of Jesus Christ. Verily, it stinketh to be you.

So here, only four verses before the verse in question, “the faith of Jesus Christ” seem like they must mean “faith in Jesus Christ.” It would seem logical that four verses later, “the faith of the Son of God” should mean the same thing. Now we have what seems to be a strong argument for Choice 1 after all!

Other “Faith in Christ” Verses

Here is the one other place where we see “the faith of Christ:”

Philippians 3:9:
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

This has the same issue as Galatians 2:16. Merely having Christ’s faith without exercising it would not result in righteousness. (As we saw, unexercised faith is the “faith without works” that is dead according to James 2:26.) It appears that your God-given faith has to be exercised toward Christ, which is a Choice 1 statement. At the end of the verse, we see that righteousness is “of faith,” which also must refer to faith exercised in a certain direction (Christ) as opposed to simply having it. This also reinforces Choice 1.

However, we could picture a Choice 2 advocate pointing out that righteousness comes through the faith that is of Jesus Christ, so we haven’t proven anything yet. Let’s keep looking for other references.

Revelation 14:12:
Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

I suppose that a hard-core Choice 2 advocate would still claim that this refers to Jesus’ faith, but those who “keep the faith of Jesus” would certainly seem to refer to those who continue to have faith IN Jesus as opposed to those who keep Jesus’ faith.

But there is another problem here. There is a third meaning that fits the verse above even better. “The faith” can refer to our set of beliefs as opposed to saving faith.

1 Timothy 5:8:
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Jude 3:
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

There are many other examples, but those are enough to prove the point. “The faith of Jesus” in the verse in question looks like it also fits this idea of “the faith,” and therefore it doesn’t help either Choice 1 or Choice 2. It actually points to Choice 3, but we’ve already discarded that one for other reasons.

Have we exhausted the similar references? Let’s try “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.” We get one
“hit:”

James 2:1:
My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

Things look like they’re starting to crumble for the Choice 2 side. If it were Jesus’ faith, it would never play favorites. However, people who put THEIR FAITH in Jesus could still sin by playing favorites. So in this case, Choice 1 seems like the winner. But Choice 2 fans could state that while it is still Jesus’ faith, we do not want to add favoritism to it. We have to stop short of saying this is the convincing proof we need.

How about searching for “faith in the Lord Jesus?” This gives us the following verse:

Ephesians 1:15:
Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

Here there IS a Greek word for “in” (en) when the meaning is faith IN Jesus as opposed to faith OF Jesus. This evidence would support Choice 2 because we could theorize that an explicit en in Greek would be needed in Galatians 2:20 to support the English word in.

This leads to the idea of checking out “faith in Christ.”

Acts 24:24:
And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.

That verse isn’t helpful because it refers to what we believe. But there are other verses.

Galatians 3:26:
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 1:4:
Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,

Colossians 2:5:
For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.

In each of these 3 cases, there is an explicit Greek word meaning IN where faith IN Christ is the intended meaning, and there is no such word in Galatians 2:20. This is a clean 3-0 victory for the Choice 2 side. That is the last thing Choice 1 needed when we had to prove Choice 2 false. Choice 1 is fading fast.

But a search for “faith in God” turns up only Mark 11:22, which is analyzed elsewhere as a Choice 1 verse.

This hard work is bordering on frustrating because just as we seem to have one side locked up, we see evidence for the other one!

Knowledge About Knowledge

We can try seeing what the Bible says about “knowledge of” Jesus, Christ, the Lord Jesus Christ, and so on.

This yields some interesting results.

Ephesians 1:17:
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Here knowledge of him would not seem to mean the knowledge that God possesses. If you had that, you wouldn’t need any more wisdom or revelation because you’d already know everything.

There are some other fairly inexplicit verses, but these last two stand out:

2 Peter 2:20:
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

You don’t get saved by knowing what Jesus knows – you get saved by knowing Jesus! So the “knowledge of the Lord” here is talking about knowing the Lord or knowing about the Lord, not knowing what the Lord knows. The same could be said below:

2 Peter 3:18:
But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

This last verse clinches a Choice 1 interpretation of the possessive “knowledge of our Lord…” phrase. If you already had the knowledge that Jesus has, you could not grow in knowledge. So in this case where something is “of our Lord” it means that the Lord is the object of the knowledge (Choice 1), not the owner of it (Choice 2). Granted, we’re talking about knowledge instead of faith here, but it’s good to see how other things that are “of the Lord” work.

This reminds us of the possessive “fear of the Lord” that we looked at in the Mark 11:22 discussion. This is not the fear that God has, so this clearly refers to fear whose object, not owner or source is the Lord. When it comes to knowledge and fear that are “of” the Lord, it means knowledge or fear with the Lord as its object. So it would make equal sense to say that faith of the Lord would refer to faith with the Lord as its object, not its owner or source. This seems to be another VERY good case for Choice 1. Maybe we’re getting the hard proof we need to accept Choice 1 after all.

Faith of…

Let’s do a search for “faith of…” and see what else we find. Here are some highlights:

Romans 3:22:
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

This is similar to Galatians 2:16 earlier where “faith of Jesus Christ” was linked to those who believe. How could the faith “of” (the possession of) Jesus Christ get you to be righteous? If you have to become righteous before you can have the faith of Jesus Christ, and the faith of Jesus Christ is needed to become righteous, you are in the lamentable state cited in the fake verse Catch 22:2 above! This verse only “works” if Paul meant “the righteousness of God which is by faith IN Jesus Christ.” This is a good Choice 1 argument because “faith of Jesus Christ” seems to mean “faith IN Jesus Christ.” A Choice 2 advocate could claim that it is Jesus’ faith, exercised by us, makes us righteous, but that seems a little thin.

Galatians 3:22:
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Those who believe have “the faith of Jesus Christ” in that they believe in Him, so this looks like another reasonable Choice 1 verse. Interestingly, a famous commentator who favors Choice 2 for Galatians 2:20 actually interprets this verse to mean “faith in Jesus Christ,” though it is unclear why to me why. Four verses later, Paul said, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” This seems to continue a theme of receiving things through faith IN Christ. Besides, the only alternative just doesn’t work:

Catch 22:3:
The promise by Jesus Christ’s faith is given to those who believe. However, by definition you cannot be one of “those who believe” if you do not have Jesus Christ’s faith. Thus, you can never believe and you can never have Jesus Christ’s faith. Thou art paddlelessly up a creek.

The remaining verse is:

Ephesians 3:12:
In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

You could argue that one either way.

Colossians 2:12:
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

This is another “possessive” construction in the Greek that is the same as what we find in Galatians 2:20. Clearly, this indicates faith in the operation of God, not faith belonging to the operation of God. Operations do not have faith. Exactly the same Greek words translated faith of appear here that appear in Galatians 2:20. Thus, we have another argument that “faith of the Son of God” means faith IN the Son of God, which is Choice 1 again.

Types of Faith

Let’s take a step back and see if any other Scriptural elements could influence our decision.

We can see from Scripture that although we all receive the measure of faith, someone’s faith can increase (2 Corinthians 10:15), grow exceedingly (2 Thessalonians 1:3), be weak (Romans 4:19, Romans 14:1), be little (Matthew 6:30, Matthew 8:26, Matthew 14:31, Matthew 16:8, Luke 12:28), be great (Matthew 8:10, Matthew 15:28, Luke 7:9) , be strong (Romans 4:20), be vain (1 Corinthians 15:14, 1 Corinthians 15:17), be dead (James 2:17, James 2:20, James 2:26), be lacking (1 Thessalonians 3:10) or fail (Luke 22:32).

It would seem that the “faith of Jesus” would never be weak, be dead, be little or fail. His faith never fell into any of these categories during His earthly life. YOUR faith could do that, but if you are literally living by (or in) HIS faith, these faith categories would seem to be impossible. It seems that we can chalk up more points for Choice 1, though a Choice 2 advocate could try to hang on by saying that your USE of Jesus’ faith can increase, grow exceedingly, be weak, be little, be strong, be vain, be dead, be lacking, or fail.

Acts 26:18:
To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

This verse is interesting because it refers to faith IN Jesus as being what sanctifies people, as opposed to the faith OF Jesus. This would lend further credence to Choice 1.

1 Thessalonians 3:10:
Night and day praying exceedingly that we might see your face, and might perfect that which is lacking in your faith?

We never see anything lacking in Jesus’ faith, but we saw things lacking in certain other people’s faith in Scripture. Is this a “kill shot” to win the volley for Choice 1? Is there any way a Choice 2 adherent could salvage this? If they used Jesus’ faith, nothing could have been lacking in their faith, could it?

There are still a couple tries, though things are getting thinner and thinner for Choice 2.

You could assert that while the faith is yours and is a gift, the references above are about how you use (or don’t use) Jesus’ faith that you received as a gift. But Paul didn’t say explicitly, “which is lacking in the operation of your faith.”

Another perhaps weaker try would be that “lacking in your faith” is talking about their knowledge of doctrine that is legitimately referred to as “the faith” in Scripture, as we discussed earlier. This seems like an attempt to shoehorn something that isn’t there into this verse in a desperate effort to save Choice 2. Paul didn’t say “lacking in your knowledge of the faith” or even “lacking in the faith” (what would that mean anyway?), but rather “lacking in your faith.”

If you can’t defend either of the tries above, it would seem that Choice 2 is now completely shot unless we come up with something else that we haven’t considered here. Any time your interpretation varies from what appears to be the obvious meaning, you’re on the weaker side and the burden of proof is on you to prove that a verse doesn’t mean what it seems to mean quite plainly to any casual reader.

We are getting near the point where we can declare that Galatians 2:20 refers to faith IN God (Choice 1), as the translators of most current Bibles determined was correct. Can Choice 1 clear some final hurdles and take the victory platform?

Does Jesus Give Out Defective Faith?

If Paul wanted to perfect what was lacking in their faith, and faith refers to believing as opposed to doctrine or the use of faith, a hurdle does come to mind. We know that faith is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9) and that every good and perfect gift comes from God (James 1:17). If Paul wanted to perfect their faith, isn’t that tantamount to stating that Jesus is the Author of defective faith that Paul had to fix? It seems that this would contradict James 1:17.

If it is OUR faith (Choice 1), this would make more sense.

A Choice 1 advocate could then point out that Jesus is also the Finisher of your faith, and thus even the writer of Hebrews 12:2 thought your faith could improve. But to claim that the faith that God gave you is “lacking” seems like an insult to God. Jesus was perfect but said He would be “perfected,” so there should be room to allow that your faith is a perfect gift that can be perfected or finished. Actually, the word below for perfected is related to the one Jesus spoke when He said, “It is finished.”

Luke 13:32:
And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Back to Basics

Let’s take a big step back and try to see the whole picture. If we want to interpret Galatians 2:20 using Choice 2, we have to define what Jesus Christ’s faith (“the faith of the Son of God”) actually is. Choice 1 doesn’t present that problem – in that case, Paul lived by faith IN Christ, so the faith “of” Christ never comes into play.

Can Jesus Christ’s faith mean the faith that He walked in on the earth? We have to remember that He emptied Himself (Philippians 2:7) and lived according to the rules that were common to man. That means that He had to live with the “measure of faith” that the rest of us were given (Romans 12:3). That means that there was nothing special about His faith that set it apart from Paul’s faith or your faith, other than the fact that He USED it more. So in that regard, for Paul to walk by Paul’s faith or Paul to walk by Jesus’ faith would be equivalent, and there would be no problem with Choice 2.

So let’s look for another meaning. The only other one that comes to mind is that this is a special measure of faith IN ADDITION TO the faith that “is a gift of God” than everyone has received. In other words, Paul walked in normal faith that all men have, but when he got saved, he received Jesus’ faith on top of it. But we’ve already seen from the “catch” verses above that we are born again through “the faith of Jesus,” so that explanation cannot be true either. Otherwise, no one could get Jesus’ faith OR be born again.

This leaves one more possible explanation, which is that the “measure of faith” that all men have IS “Jesus Christ’s faith” (the faith of the Son of God). Thus, all men, including sinners, would have to have “Jesus Christ’s faith.” This would solve the issue with the “catch” verses – you could be unsaved, exercise Jesus Christ’s faith to be justified and become saved. At least this final explanation clears that up. This might not be totally farfetched, as Jesus created everything that there is, so that could be taken to include your faith. Thus, Paul could live by the faith OF Jesus Christ (Choice 2).

Maybe, but there’s a problem here. Ephesians 2:8-9 says that your faith is the gift of God. That brings up two difficulties. The first is that it says that your faith is the gift of God, not the gift of Jesus Christ, though that could be seen as splitting hairs. The second is that when something is given to you as a gift, it is now YOURS, not the other person’s. So the faith Paul walked in would have been Paul’s faith, not the faith of God OR the faith of the Son of God in that sense. It would be his to do with as he wanted as opposed to Jesus’ faith being a “software-as-a-service” model where He keeps it and you have to log in to use it.

Paul did not tell the Thessalonians that the faith of Jesus Christ grew exceedingly (how could that be anyway?) – he said that THEIR faith grew exceedingly (2 Thessalonians 1:3). He referred to “your faith” throughout his writings. Here are some examples – there are more but these should be enough to make my point:

Ephesians 1:15:
Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

Note that this was “your faith IN the Lord Jesus” as opposed to the senseless “Jesus’ faith in the Lord Jesus.” The same applies in the next verse.

Colossians 1:4:
Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,

Colossians 2:5:
For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.

1 Thessalonians 3:10:
Night and day praying exceedingly that we might see your face, and might perfect that which is lacking in your faith?

2 Peter 1:5:
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

I could go on, but let’s consider one more thing. We have already proved through the “catch” verses above that “Jesus’ faith” cannot be something that you get when you are born again. Thus, Jesus’ faith must BE the measure of faith that every man has. But Jesus repeatedly told people, “YOUR FAITH has made you well,” not “MY faith has made you well.”

Then consider the normal way that anyone would communicate. When you receive something from someone, it’s now yours. It no longer belongs to the person who gave it to you. Imagine if someone said, “I need to go write a check printing company’s check so that I can put my employer’s money into the department store’s envelope with the postal service’s stamp to make a payment on the car dealer’s car. But I will get a drink of the grocery store’s soda out of the appliance store’s refrigerator before I leave the previous owner’s house.” That would make no sense, but neither would saying that you are using God’s faith or Jesus’ faith that is still only their possession rather than your own faith that God gave you as a gift.

Many more Scriptures than I will list here refer to “your faith.” If Galatians 2:20 means that the faith you operate in it is still Jesus’ possession and not yours, it would be an extreme outlying case. Paul taught that faith is “the gift of God, not of works” (Ephesians 2:8). It was given to you as a gift, so now it is identified as your faith. This seems to be a very strong argument for Choice 1, where Paul would have meant his faith in Jesus as opposed to literally Jesus’ faith.

But we have to be careful because now it seems that we have split Choice 2 down the middle into Choice 2A – the faith that you have that Jesus has or originated with Him and Choice 2B – the faith that Jesus still has and you don’t.

2B or Not 2B

It seems that Choice 2B does not make any sense even to a “Choice 2” advocate. Jesus Himself told people that THEIR faith had made them well; He did not say that HIS faith did it – even if He was the Author of their faith to begin with. There are too many references to “their faith,” “your faith,” and so on, to take seriously the idea that Jesus has log-into-it faith that He has and you don’t.

So we must be clear that when we talk about Choice 2, we refer to a faith that you have that is identified as Jesus’ faith, as the alternative contradicts Scripture. Using someone else’s faith is unknown in Scripture unless you contend that Galatians 2:16 and Galatians 2:20 are somehow exceptions. It is always safer to side with the rest of Scripture than to claim a doctrinal exception for a specific verse you’re studying.

Your faith is not Jesus’ faith for Him to use – it is your faith for you to use. So a Choice 2 (2A) adherent must claim that you use “Jesus’ faith” because Jesus was the Source (Author) of your faith.

Does that match how the rest of Scripture talks?

Many verses talk about “your joy” instead of “Jesus’ joy.” To be consistent, it’s “your faith” as opposed to “Jesus’ faith.”

Shall we declare the contest over right now in Favor of Choice 1? Well, let’s just check out peace and love too, just to be sure.

2 verses talk about the peace of God (not your peace) keeping your heart and mind and ruling in your heart. Well, we’re short of the finish line after all, as we have precedent for something God has working in you, which is a Choice 2 concept.

Paul prayed that your love (not God’s love) may abound. However, we see the love of God mentioned several places and it gets muddier, especially because the same Greek possessive construction could mean either “love belonging to God” or “love for God.”

Choice 1 still looks good, but we can’t say it’s over yet.

What Abraham Did

Given that the Bible cites Abraham as an example of faith, it is useful to understand what he did. He didn’t just believe – he believed God. God was the object of his faith.

Romans 4:18-21:
Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:
He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

The last verse above doesn’t say, “And being fully persuaded that he was able to believe God…” His faith was IN God to perform what He had promised. This is useful to understand so that to you, the issue is not whether you “have enough faith to believe God,” but rather than you believe that God backs His promises that He has made to you personally through His Word. You trust Him to make something line up with His Word happen rather than trusting in your faith to make something happen.

What the Blind Men Did

Matthew 9:28-29:
And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.
Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.

These blind men did not just exercise faith that something would happen. They believed in Jesus’ ability to make something happen. It is clear that they also believed in His willingness to make it happen; otherwise, they would not have wasted their time coming to Jesus in the first place. This is the context when He said, “According to your faith be unto you.” This was clearly a Choice 1 situation.

At least as far as English arguments go, we seem to lean toward Choice 1 as the winner. But since the New Testament was written in Greek, we should do some more Greek checking to make sure that Choice 1 is still the winner.

The

Whether there is a “definite article” in the Greek in an issue that should definitely be in this article. In Galatians 2:20 where it says “I live by the faith of the Son of God,” is there really a Greek word for the? It would be different to say “I live by faith of the Son of God” as opposed to “I live by the faith of the Son of God.” After all, it would not make much sense to say, “I live by the faith in the Son of God.” If the word the is really in the Greek, it would be a strong argument for Choice 2.

It turns out that in the literal Greek manuscripts for Galatians 2:20, the word the actually does appear! While it comes after pistis (faith), it definitely refers to faith. How can that be, and how can we be sure? (Greek word orders often differ from English word orders.) In this case, faith (pistis) is a feminine noun. English does not have masculine or feminine nouns; a noun can be preceded by “the” no matter what the noun refers to. However, Greek and many other languages (Spanish, German, French, Italian, Portuguese, among them) associate a “grammatical gender” (masculine, feminine, or even neuter) with a noun. The version of “the” in such languages must match the gender of the noun. For example, in Spanish, we have el taco and el golf but la bamba and la cucuracha. El and la both mean the but refer to masculine nouns (taco, golf) and feminine nouns (bamba, cucuracha). Greek even goes beyond this, not only having a different “the” for masculine and feminine nouns but also different “the’s” depending on whether “the” refers to the “object” of a preposition (such as in or by). The particular “the” after “faith” is the “dative feminine” version, indicating that it refers to a feminine noun that is the object of a preposition. Because faith (pistis) in the Greek is a feminine noun and the subsequent nouns (huios for Son, theos for God) are masculine (and have their own “the’s” anyway), it is certain the Paul meant “by the faith of the Son of God” instead of simply “by faith of the Son of God.”

But this clearly points to Choice 2, which we thought was all but finished off!

And as we saw, there isn’t any Greek word en to mean in to force the word in into the verse to save the day for Choice 1. (The en is before faith but not before Son of God.)

This bolt from the blue has suddenly left Choice 1 lying on the mat, and it has always been the nonstandard Choice 1 that bears the burden of proof! Unless we can prove otherwise, the literal Greek points to “the faith OF the Son of God.”

(By the way, it was fun including a section heading of just the word “The” for novelty value – how often do you see that?)

Are There Any Other References to Jesus’ Faith Being Used by a Believer?

Actually, now that we think about this, there is:

Acts 3:16:
And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

One could claim that the “gift of faith” is what healed the beggar, but I beg to differ. See Was the Healing of the Crippled Man in Acts 3 Based on Peter’s Authority or on a Special Manifestation of the Spirit?.

In this case, Peter did not say, “MY FAITH hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.” He operated in Jesus’ faith when he raised up the crippled man. This provides another boost to Choice 2.

Faith Explicitly IN Christ Jesus

Galatians 3:26 says, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” This makes it clear that being born again comes by faith IN Christ Jesus. However, when Paul meant that, he used the Greek word en (in) in that verse. As we saw, “the faith OF Christ Jesus” in Galatians 2:20 does NOT use the word in when referring to the Son of God, so it does not have to be translated “faith IN the Son of God.” This adds still more credence to Choice 2. Now that we’ve uncovered that, we should really go back to the Greek in some of the other verses that we looked at earlier.

Yet Another Peek at the Greek

Choice 2 now looks like the winner! But now that we know that “the” is explicitly in Galatians 2:20, all we have to do to bring back a fighting chance for Choice 1 is to demonstrate that the other verses we looked up above also check out in the Greek as having “the” (the faith) in them as well as not having an explicit word for “in.” We thought we were being pretty clever using the English text, but it has become obvious that we will have to go back to the Greek if we really want to make those points stick. So let’s look at some of those verses again, which are by the way cited in practice by real Choice 1 (IN) advocates, and see if we have the same construction in the Greek. To be comparable to Galatians 2:20, we want “Explicit the” to be Yes and “Explicit in” to be No. Let’s see what we get for matches. We’ll use our subject verse as a sample.

Galatians 2:20: “the faith of Jesus Christ”
Explicit the: Yes
Explicit in: No

Galatians 2:16 first instance: “the faith of Jesus Christ”
Explicit the: No
Explicit in: No

Galatians 2:16 second instance: “the faith of Christ”
Explicit the: No
Explicit in: No

Galatians 3:22: “faith of Jesus Christ”
Explicit the: No
Explicit in: No

Galatians 3:26: “faith in Jesus Christ”
Explicit the: No
Explicit in: Yes

Philippians 3:9: “the faith of Christ”
Explicit the: No
Explicit in: No

Ephesians 1:15: “faith in the Lord Jesus”
Explicit the: No
Explicit in: Yes

Acts 24:24: “the faith in Christ”
Explicit the: Yes
Explicit in: Yes

Colossians 1:4: “your faith in Christ Jesus” (the word the was not translated in the KJV)
Explicit the: Yes
Explicit in: Yes

Colossians 2:5: “your faith in Christ Jesus” (the word the was not translated in the KJV)
Explicit the: Yes
Explicit in: Yes

Romans 3:22: “faith of Jesus Christ”
Explicit the: No
Explicit in: No

Acts 26:18: “faith that is in me”
Explicit the: No
Explicit in: Yes

Revelation 14:12: “the faith of Jesus”
Explicit the: Yes
Explicit in: No

So of all the verses above, Revelation 14:12 is the only other one with a definite article without a preposition meaning in. That verse talks about people who “keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” One could make a case for Choice 1, Choice 2 or Choice 3 in that verse depending on his predisposition.

Other than that, Galatians 2:20 is grammatically a special case in the Greek. Therefore, we are justified in treating it differently and going with the idea that Paul lived by the faith that belongs to, or originates from, Jesus, as opposed to faith IN Jesus. Of course, the faith that is OF Jesus will lead you to have faith IN God (Mark 11:22) and IN Jesus (Acts 26:18).

But what about the issue of someone's faith being strong, weak, and so on? This has to be understood as people's exercise of their God-given faith being strong, weak, and so on. The "size" of the person's actual faith can't be the issue given that a mustard seed amount of it could move a mountain or a tree into the ocean. It doesn't seem that Jesus' faith given as a gift could be imperfect; only our use of it could be imperfect. Jesus can be understood to be the Finisher of our faith to the extent that He helps us use it.

Faith can be understood in the Romans 12:3 sense (you have it) or the Romans 10:17 sense (faith for specific things comes from hearing what the Word says about specific things). Your faith for specific things will grow as you learn more about what the Word says about what is already yours. It can also become weak if you let your Bible collect dust. This is the area where your faith can vary, and this would be what the Bible refers to when it discusses different strengths of faith.

This issue has been debated in seminary circles for a long time and I doubt that this book will be considered the last word. The debate will probably continue until Jesus comes back! However, I think we’ve seen enough to reach a conclusion.

What Galatians 2:20 Really Means

The burden of proof was on Choice 1 (“faith IN the Son of God”) to prove that it was an exception in Greek usage (an “objective possessive”) and instead, various strong evidence indicates that “faith OF the Son of God” was what Paul meant.

Therefore, we must conclude that “By the faith of the Son of God” in Galatians 2:20 means “by the Son of God’s faith” as opposed to “by faith in the Son of God.”

At least that’s my take on it, and I’ll still gladly fellowship with you if you disagree.

Why It Matters

It might seem humbler to “live by faith IN Jesus,” but this can still leave you struggling to try harder to believe “in” Jesus and His words, especially regarding the ability to do the same things that He did and greater.

But realizing that you have JESUS’ faith gives you a big confidence boost when it’s time to believe for something. If Paul lived by Jesus’ faith, so can you. If you have Jesus’ faith, it proves that you have the same ability to believe God that Jesus had when He walked the earth. Anything HE believed for, YOU can believe for!

No longer will you despair that you can never walk as Jesus did. You already are like Him in terms of being able to believe and flow in the power of the Holy Spirit.

You will no longer think that you have defective faith while Jesus had true faith. You realize that your faith is every bit as perfect as Jesus’ faith, and the issue is to renew your mind to walk in the light of that and act on God’s Word.

Like Peter, you can expect “the faith that is by Him” (Jesus’ faith) to work through YOU to heal the sick and bless others around you by the power of the Holy Spirit.

You DO have the goods to do Jesus’ works and greater!