Faith in Jesus 99 (evpi. tw|/ ovno,mati auvtou/ e;qnh evlpiou/sin)” (nets) 40. the object of hope is no longer the servant’s teaching, but the servant himself. * * * the evidence therefore does not point clearly in only one direc- tion. the bulk of the evidence shows that God was the object of faith, but there are also examples of his agents having that function. if Jesus expected his disciples to have absolute faith in him, this expectation is capable of more than one explanation. the explanation that has the strongest support is that Jesus thereby saw himself as filling the role that was reserved for YhWh according to the scriptures of israel. as i have argued elsewhere, there are strong indications in the synoptic tradition that Jesus understood himself to be God’s son in the sense that he not only had an intimate relationship with God, but that he was equal to God. Jesus said and did things that are best understood in this way, such as identifying the kingdom of God with his own personal presence (luke 11,20 par.; 17,21), performing miracles by his own power and interpreting them as proof that the new creation had arrived (luke 7,21-22 par.), forgiving sins (mark 2,5 par.), anticipating a role as the eschatological judge (matt 25,31-46), and speaking with an au- thority that matches that of God’s word (matt 5,21; 8,22) 41. in light of this evidence, the criterion of coherence strengthens the interpretation that Jesus understood himself in God’s role when he called his follow- ers to believe in him. however, Jesus’ reference to disciples believing in him is also ca- pable of a different explanation. it is consistent with an understanding of Jesus as an exceptional divine agent. if Jesus redefined messiahship in light of isaiah’s servant songs, it would have been a natural step to see the messiah as the object of his followers’ faith. such faith in the messiah would have been an expression of the disciples’ faith in God. this explanation would also account for the recorded words of the passers-by at the cross. their mock concession that they would believe is made in the context of a messianic identification of Jesus. in the matthean version they call Jesus “king of israel” (27,42), and in the markan account he is referred to as “the messiah, the King of israel” (15,32). 40 this version is also quoted in matt 12,21. 41 s. GRinDheim, God’s Equal. What can We Know about Jesus’ self-under- standing? (lnts 446; london 2011).